[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 81 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6081-S6120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Continued
Amendment No. 536
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire.
I rise this afternoon to express my support for the amendment offered
by my colleague from New Hampshire which would create a Federal private
school choice demonstration project. This amendment closely tracks
choice proposals that I have cosponsored myself, both with Senator
Gregg and, before him, with Senator Coats of Indiana.
This is an experimental program. It is designed to test an idea that
can help some of our children get a better education. It is focused
exclusively on
[[Page S6082]]
low-income families. It does not take any money that otherwise would go
to our public schools, and it includes a strong evaluation component to
determine what impact this program has both on academic achievement of
participating students and on the public schools they leave behind.
It constructively answers a question that in too many places has gone
unanswered for too long; namely, the question that parents have asked
me--and I am sure others in this Chamber--parents whose children are
trapped in failing public schools and yet who cannot afford to send
them to a nonpublic school that the parents are confident would be
better for their children.
How do we answer that question? How do we justify telling them to
wait for their public schools to improve when their children may well
be grown up or certainly have moved along in the school system by then,
and particularly when other parents who can afford to do so are taking
their children out of similar public schools?
Those are questions policymakers and politicians and educators around
the country have been struggling with for some time. The struggle is a
real one. It is based on conflicting values, each of them strong and
good, and conflicting loyalties, if you will. We share a common
devotion to our public schools and the ideal of equal opportunity that
they have made real for so many tens of millions of American citizens.
But we also realize, as the underlying bill we are debating now
acknowledges, that too many of our public schools, particularly in low-
income areas, have not been realizing the promise of equal opportunity,
that that promise has become effectively hollow.
On the one hand, we obviously cannot and will not abandon those
public schools and certainly not abandon public education in general
because it is the great democratizing force in American history. It is
the great ladder up in American life. The public schools will always be
the primary source of learning for most of our children.
We also don't want to abandon those disadvantaged children trapped in
schools that their parents conclude are not adequately educating them
and thereby sacrifice their hopes for a better life for their children
to our vision of an idealized world.
The answer ultimately is, of course, to make our public schools
better. That, as I will state in a moment, is the purpose of the
underlying bill. I have struggled with the question and the dilemma,
the question that parents have asked, for a long period of time. I have
talked to many parents, visited many public schools in Connecticut
where a lot of extraordinary good work and reform is going on. I have
also talked with parents of children in schools where the kids are not
receiving the education the parents believe they deserve and need. And
those parents want to take their children and put them in a nonpublic
school. I visited many of the nonpublic schools, particularly in
Connecticut--those run by the Roman Catholic diocese in our State; they
are run in some of Connecticut's poorest neighborhoods--accepting
children. In many cases, most of the kids are not Catholic. The parents
are very satisfied with the quality of education those children are
receiving.
After all that inquiry, I decided--this goes back years ago--that
school choice is a reform idea worth testing on a larger stage but not
the one answer to all of our educational challenges and shortcomings.
There is no one answer. This is an idea worth testing. That is when I
began working with Senator Coats to develop a national demonstration
project very similar--almost exactly similar--to that proposed in the
amendment Senator Gregg has introduced today.
It was my belief then, and still is my belief, that we have an
obligation to try everything we can to improve educational
opportunities for all of our children, to never refuse to open a single
door behind which there may be a constructive answer that will help us
better educate all of America's children.
The growing national demand for choice has, I believe, helped to
awaken us to the educational crisis that has been plaguing our poorest
urban and rural neighborhoods. We have watched the standards movement
take off in States around the country and listened to Governors and
reformers of both parties demand accountability for results, saying we
can no longer tolerate failure in our attempts to educate our children.
We have been heartened by the academic achievement gains made in
communities all across America. I think of Chicago and Hartford and
districts throughout America that were once declared educational
disaster areas and today are beacons of hope for the future of our
children.
Now we in this body are considering the most sweeping Federal
education reform plan in a generation. This has taken on the challenge
of ending what the President has called ``the soft bigotry of low
expectations'' and closing the achievement gap into which too many poor
minority children are falling. Part of what makes the reform plan in
the underlying bill so encouraging is that it provides a series of
strong answers to that same tough question I am sure many of my
colleagues have heard from parents of children in public schools that
they believe are not adequately answering it.
This bill provides answers to that question because it will force
districts to take bold steps to turn around failing schools, including
radically reconstituting them, converting them into charter schools or,
in the worst cases, actually closing them down and opening them as new
schools. It will significantly expand the options for poor parents
within the public school framework, guaranteeing that their children
can transfer to higher performing public schools and providing them
with transportation assistance to make that choice meaningful.
For those children who do not or cannot leave a failing school, this
bill gives their parents the right to demand outside tutorial or
supplemental services to ensure that their children are not being left
behind.
The amendment Senator Gregg has offered would offer yet another
option in the communities across America chosen to carry out this
demonstration project for parents of children in schools that are
failing. The fact is that all of the reforms I have described that are
in the underlying bill before us are going to take some time to yield
results. I am very optimistic about them. But even at the best, we have
to be restless and unsatisfied in our continuing pursuit of a better
education for our children. The truth is, the journey to a better
education for all of America's children has no final destination point;
it will go on and on and on.
That is why I support the idea embodied in Senator Gregg's amendment
which will test the school choice concept in a way that can benefit all
of us who care about our children's education and at the same time
provide a short-term educational lifeline for children involved in this
demonstration program who are trapped in a school that is found to be
failing, according to the accountability provisions of this underlying
ESEA reform.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an
additional moment to finish my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I understand there is no guarantee that
if this amendment were adopted, the projects authorized under it would
succeed. But that is the very point of the amendment. It is a test. It
is saying that we are restless and unafraid in pursuit of the best
education for each of America's children.
In fact, the research about the limited voucher programs that exist
in cities across America today, such as in Milwaukee and Cleveland, is
as controversial, in some ways, as the programs themselves. Some of the
evidence is promising, suggesting that private school choice could
improve achievement and drive change in the local public schools. And
the fact that so much research is in dispute itself is an argument for
a larger experiment, a national experiment, fully evaluated and
reported on to provide us with better facts, better information, to
make more informed judgments as we continue tirelessly, fearlessly, to
explore every avenue to a better education for each and every one of
America's children.
[[Page S6083]]
Mr. President, I will support the Gregg amendment.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut. I agree
with him that it is time for this amendment to have a test. In fact, I
think the vote on this amendment will tell the American people whether
we are really serious about reforming education, which is what this
legislation really ought to be all about.
I also think it is about which special interests are most exercised.
Until now, with only a few exceptions, the amendments to this bill
approved by the Senate have increased spending and authorized new
spending programs. These are the same measures that have produced
generations of less-educated Americans. ``After spending $125 billion .
. . over 25 years, we have virtually nothing to show for it.'' That is
a quotation from Secretary Paige. It is what he said when he saw new
data showing that 60 percent of our poor fourth graders are still
essentially unable to read.
During this debate, the Senate voted to shovel billions of dollars
more of taxpayers' money into this failed effort. At last count,
measuring spending just on this bill, from last year, $17 billion spent
to approximately $38 billion, it is well over a 100-percent increase. I
think this is the context in which we should consider the amendment of
the Senator from New Hampshire.
As pointed out by the Senator from Connecticut, this amendment simply
establishes a demonstration program which would allow only 10
localities in 3 States the opportunity to extend school choice to low-
income students in failing schools. The cost is $50 million a year.
Given the colossal spending increases added to this bill over the
last few weeks, it is ironic that some still argue that this amendment
is denying needed resources to public schools.
No, the opposition to this amendment can only illustrate the truth of
George Will's observation that ``opposition to school choice is the
most purely reactionary cause in contemporary politics.''
This is not even a liberal versus conservative issue. Many
distinguished voices of American liberalism have broken with the
reactionary special interests and embraced school choice.
The list includes--but is not limited to--former Labor Secretary
Robert Reich, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist William Raspberry former
Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, former Congressman Floyd Flake, and the
editors of the Washington Post.
Most of these thoughtful observers deviated from liberal orthodoxy
because they realize that their doctrine was hurting poor children.
President Bush has described literacy as ``the new civil right.'' And
he is right. When we allow the most disadvantaged to be cheated out of
a decent education, we render the promise of equal opportunity hollow.
School choice keeps that promise, not just for the students who are
able to exercise choice, but for all the students who attend schools in
a community where choice is widely exercised.
My home State of Arizona has been a leader in the effort to provide
parents with additional choices in education. Under the leadership of
recently departed Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham
Keegan, we have instituted open enrollment, enacted the most liberal
charter school law in the country, and restructured state education
financing so that education funds follow the student to the institution
of his or her choice.
One of the most interesting results is that because families are now
empowered to exercise all these new options, the traditional schools
are working harder to improve their performance. In response to some
new charter schools, one district changed the curricula and other
programs and took out ads in the paper to tell parents about efforts to
improve upon its already strong academic offerings.
But the competition that the new charter schools created spurred them
to do even better. Who benefited? The kids. And after all, isn't that
what this is about?
It shouldn't be surprising that improvements resulted when Arizona
began encouraging innovation by educators and providing more choice for
parents and students.
Our Nation has thrived because our leading industries and
institutions have been challenged by constant pressure to improve and
innovate. The source of that pressure is vigorous competition among
producers of a service or good for the allegiance of their potential
consumers.
The alternative is monopoly, and a system that maintains a captive
clientele by blocking all the exits, a system within which attempts to
provide such an exit--even one so modest as that contained in this
amendment--are considered a deadly threat.
We all know that any politician who crosses these reform foes can
expect to pay a price.
We all recall how our former colleague Bill Bradley was pilloried in
the Democrat primaries for the heresy of supporting proposals just like
this one.
Senator Bradley tried to reason with his critics:
Advocates of school choice say that . . . it will create
competition that will make the public schools better,
he noted, before concluding:
You don't know that unless you have a test.
The die-hard choice opponents don't want to know. Or perhaps they
already do know.
Recently, along with a number of my colleagues, I had the opportunity
to hear from Howard Fuller, who served as superintendent of schools in
Milwaukee and helped implement that city's path-breaking choice
program.
Dr. Fuller is a passionate and eloquent advocate for school choice.
He gets to the heart of the opposition when he said:
Parents must be empowered to have their aspirations for
their children's education taken seriously by educators. A
critical step in that direction is when we give them the
capacity to exercise choice. I believe that [currently] our
educational systems are . . . organized to protect the
interests of those of us who work in these systems, not the
needs and interests of the families we are supposed to serve.
. . .
When we vote on this amendment, the Senate will decide: Is our
purpose to protect the special interests or is it to protect the
interests of American students and their families?
The choice is clear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope we will consider seriously this
pending amendment and the implications.
To clarify some of the record in terms of statistics that have been
thrown about during this debate, there was mention on the floor early
today that 63 percent of the American people support vouchers. The
exact number is 63 percent support public school vouchers. The
implication that this is 63 percent supporting vouchers to private
schools is not an accurate figure at all.
The national exit polls in November showed by nearly an 80-percent
margin Americans prefer investments in public schools to vouchers.
The State of California rejected its voucher referendum 71-29.
Latinos rejected it by a higher margin, 77-23. Michigan rejected its
voucher referendum 69-31. African Americans rejected it by a higher
margin, 75-25. The notion that this is a concept that is supported by
the American public or that has gone on trial is not the case.
Normally, one might ask, what is wrong with a demonstration program,
with a budget of multibillions of dollars; why not take $50 million and
put it into a demonstration program to determine whether or not
something like this works?
First of all, I suppose, only in Washington would a person consider
$50 million an insignificant amount of money. Particularly when we are
trying to get funding for title I and special education and a variety
of other needs out there, $50 million may make a significant
difference.
Putting aside the size of the amount being asked for, this is not a
new idea. It is not an untested idea. Every place it has been tested it
has not worked. Those are the facts.
States, counties, cities, have tried vouchers. There is no research
that
[[Page S6084]]
voucher students outperform public school students or that voucher
programs improve public schools at all. Instead, vouchers take scarce
resources from public schools that desperately need them. Remember, as
we debate this issue, 55 million children went to school in America
today; 50 million went to a public school; 5 million went to a private
or parochial school.
The idea that we will take every desiring public school student and
put them into the structures that accommodate private school students
is ridiculous on its face.
Although this is a pilot program, there are those who would make this
a full-scale program if they could. This is, of course, to get $50
million in the door to demonstrate in a sense that we ought to try this
as a national scheme and underwrite people's desires to send their
children to private or parochial schools. So the 50 million kids who
are going to schools need to know whether or not we will be doing what
we can to improve the quality of public education. That is where our
primary responsibility is when it comes to elementary and secondary
education needs.
What will help public schools, in my view, is not vouchers but better
qualified teachers, smaller class size, safe and modern facilities,
programs to increase parental involvement, and more afterschool
programs. Even if every available space in private schools were filled
by a transfer student from a public school in America, only 4 percent
of the public school students would receive a voucher under the maximum
set of circumstances. Which 4 percent will it be? Who makes that
choice? It will not be a kid who can be a bit of a problem. Unlike a
public school, a private school can cherry-pick who they want to have,
who they don't want to have, who they want to reject, who they like or
don't like. That is their right. I never fault or suggest that a
private or parochial school ought to accept everyone who applies. So
when you are setting up a private school program, many of which, by the
way, cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars--the idea that somehow we
are going to have a meaningful voucher program for some desperately
poor black child growing up in a ghetto somewhere to go to the Taft
School in Connecticut or some private institution is foolish, in my
view. We are talking about a fraction, even if you had a national
program here, a fraction of the students who would qualify.
Vouchers do not even provide a choice for many of the students who
are eligible for them. Unlike public schools, private schools are not
required to accept all students, nor is there any evidence that the few
students who are able to use vouchers to attend private schools
outperform public school peers. The most comprehensive study of the
first 5 years of the Milwaukee voucher program showed no achievement
differences between voucher students and public school students, not
any after 5 years.
I ask for 2 additional minutes, if I could.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. In fact, this is why I made the statement I did at the
outset. This is not uncharted waters at all. Mr. President, 30 years of
research suggests that when background conditions and other factors are
taken into account there are no significant differences in achievement
between public and private school students. Supporters of vouchers also
suggest that competition from vouchers will improve public schools;
that competition will shake out the bad schools.
I am all for business models in a lot of areas, but education is not
widgets. The business model starts with a premise that there are
winners and losers. An educational model that starts with that premise
is not consistent with leaving no child behind. We cannot afford for
any school or any child to be a loser. We cannot guarantee there will
be winners, but we ought to be able to guarantee an equal opportunity
to win. The idea that some are just going to fail and that's the way
life is is not the way we ought to be dealing with elementary and
secondary educational needs.
I do not think we can afford for any school or child to be a loser in
America. Just as there is no reliable research suggesting that voucher
students outperform their peers, there is no reliable research that
suggests that voucher programs improve public schools either. We know
what does improve them: additional resources, better teachers, smaller
class size, curriculum, model schools. Those are the things that make a
difference. We do not need a Federal demonstration program to learn
about voucher programs or about what is necessary to improve public
schools. We already know that we do not improve public schools by
draining away desperately needed resources and undermining public
support for those schools.
Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to look at what the record has
been on this issue. It has been developed. It is not new.
I have great respect for what private and parochial schools do. They
make a significant contribution. But the idea somehow we are going to
fund two school systems in America is unrealistic. We do not do a very
good job at the one we have. The idea somehow we are going to
underwrite two is terribly naive and detracts from the resource
allocation we need in order to try to make those schools that are in
trouble receive the kind of support they ought to be getting.
For those reasons, I urge our colleagues to reject the Gregg
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am concerned by some of the major
distortions of fact that have occurred during today's debate. Some
Senators have erroneously cited polling data to buoy their claims that
a majority of Americans support school vouchers. A closer look at some
recent trends show otherwise.
I have heard some of my colleagues cite a National Education
Association poll suggesting that 63 percent of Americans favor voucher
programs. That is just plain wrong. In fact, that poll demonstrated
that 63 percent of Americans favor public school choice--not voucher
programs. There is a huge distinction there, and I am surprised that my
colleagues are not a little more cautious in discussing these two very
separate ideas. As we all know, public school choice allows students
and parents the opportunity to participate in charter schools, magnet
schools or even just another public school in the same district. Public
school choice does not involve private schools at all. I should also
point out that public school choice has been strongly endorsed in this
bill, and I congratulate the many hands who helped shape this
legislation to include a provision that support public school choice
programs.
In the 2000 election, two States overwhelmingly rejected referendums
on funding voucher programs. Californians rejected vouchers by 71-29
percent, while Michigan voters rejected vouchers by 69-31. Since some
of my colleagues raised race as an issue in this debate, I would also
add that minorities in both States rejected vouchers in numbers that
far exceed the aggregate State totals. Wolverine State African
Americans, for example, voted against the voucher referendum by a
margin of 3-1.
The much-heralded Milwaukee voucher program has also recently come
under scrutiny. Students participating in the public school's SAGE
program--which includes smaller class sizes, rigorous curriculum and
assessment, access to after school programs and increased professional
development--have tested better than kids in voucher programs.
So with those points made, I would like to address a couple of other
arguments that have been made this morning. Even as proponents tell us
that vouchers improve public schools, reality tells us otherwise. The
Milwaukee and Cleveland voucher programs--which cost $29 million and $9
million, respectively--do not cover the complete cost of private school
tuition for the relatively few students served by the programs. Private
schools can also reduce their budgets by not offering health services,
breakfast and lunch programs, counselors, or services to special needs
students. For less than the cost of either voucher program, other
programs, such as the Success for All program, could be implemented in
city public schools, thereby benefiting all children in the school
district.
Voucher programs create the potential for discrimination. Awarding a
[[Page S6085]]
voucher to a family does not guarantee that the student will be
accepted into a private school. While Milwaukee schools may not
discriminate against disabled students, there is no requirement that
they provide special education services. Likewise, private schools are
not required to provide needed services to low-English proficient
students or chronically disruptive students.
Finally, I take issue with colleagues who cry for accountability in
our public schools, then blithely support voucher programs. I believe
that our schools absolutely must be accountable for their students. But
the enduring legacies of the Cleveland voucher experiment may well be
bad budgeting and misspent funds rather than better results for
students. A 1997 independent financial audit found that $1.9 million
had been misspent, including $1.4 million paid to taxi companies
transporting students to voucher schools. Since 1997, program officials
have uncovered more than $400,000 in taxi fares were billed on days
when the students in question were absent.
Worse even than the taxi fiasco, in 1998, the program ran 41 percent
over budget, forcing the State of Ohio to take $2.9 million from public
school funds to cover the overruns. That is $3 million coming out of
the State public school coffers to fund a program that, like today's
amendment, was not supposed to ``take money out of the public
schools.''
No one wants to improve schools in the poorest parts of America more
than I do. But voucher programs are not the way to accomplish this very
worthwhile goal. We simply do not have the resources to spend millions
of dollars on a few students at the expense of the 90 percent of
American children who attend public schools. So I urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment and instead to support greater investment in our
public schools.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I warmly endorse the comments of the
senior Senator from Connecticut. As always, he is spot on with his
analysis, and his point with regard to the Gregg amendment, which I
strongly oppose, is exactly where I think we should come out.
Although I commend the author and supporters of the amendment for
their concern about low-performing schools, I believe this amendment is
misguided because it would undermine the public education system that
is the very tie that binds our society.
I encourage the authors to show their passion to improve our poor-
performing public schools by fully resourcing those proven initiatives
that will change failed schools.
Mr. President, 90 percent of our children attend public schools. As
our Nation becomes increasingly diverse--my State, in particular, is
blessed with incredible diversity--our public schools continue their
fundamental purpose of uniting Americans while providing every child
with the opportunity to succeed. That must be our mission--our passion.
The availability of quality public education for all is defining to
America's democracy.
If we adopt this vouchers measure, we would drain limited resources
from our public schools and send a signal that we are prepared to erode
the historical purpose and position of public education in America.
Much of the debate around vouchers is about choice. But the choice
inherent in any vouchers proposal is false, meaningless choice.
Contrary to the rhetoric, vouchers would not ensure parental choice,
because private schools can and do reject applicants for private
reasons--including disability or language skills.
In fact, the only real choice vouchers will create is in the hands of
the private schools.
That means that a child with limited English proficiency--let's keep
in mind that there are over 4.1 million of such children in our
schools--would not have a meaningful choice. That means that a child
with learning disabilities wouldn't really have a meaningful choice.
These children with unique educational needs--who most need the promise
of a quality education--would often be left behind in schools we deem
to be failing.
Vouchers are also a false choice because the amount being offered is
too little to be meaningful. How many families, making $32,000 or less,
actually have the additional funds to allow them to take advantage of
vouchers. What is the practical reality here?
In addition to vouchers setting up a false choice, vouchers provide
no accountability. Now, I have been listening to much of the debate on
this education bill, and one of the main themes has been about
accountability. I support accountability. As a former businessman, I
appreciate the importance of monitoring the success or failure of our
investments.
But this voucher proposal provides no accountability. Under the
proposal, we would divert critical public resources without any public
oversight. This proposal would thus undermine the progress we are
making towards increased accountability.
The incredible fact in this debate is that the evidence does not show
that vouchers work. Experiments have shown that vouchers do not help
improve student achievement. A University of Wisconsin-Madison
professor found that there were no achievement differences between
voucher student and comparable Milwaukee public school students.
Princeton University Professor Cecilia Rouse found that students in a
special Milwaukee program that used extra resources to reduce class
sizes outperformed both regular public school students as well as
voucher students in both reading and math.
The evidence also shows that vouchers do not reach the students most
in need. Finally, they do nothing to help the public schools that are
left behind to educate the vast majority of our children.
We are unfortunately operating in a time of limited resources. More
limited now that we have made the choices we've taken on the recent tax
cut.
We are underfunding title I, the critical engine of reform for our
low-income school districts. Two-thirds of the eligible kids are left
out. Similarly, we have been shirking the Federal Government's
responsibility in fully funding IDEA, education for the disabled.
Just when we should be putting increased resources in our public
schools--so that our reform efforts can be meaningful, and so that we
can ensure that the children who need our help the most, get our help--
we should not be siphoning critical funds to fund vouchers. If we want
to reform schools, we need to provide those schools with real
resources, not deprive them.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about the need to ensure that
no child is left behind, and about the need for school reform. But we
must put our money where our mouth is, because reform without resources
is a charade.
Even though supporters will argue that this proposal would not take
away funding from the title I program, any money spent on vouchers is
money that could and should be used to bolster our public schools.
We know what works. A good teacher in every class is the most
important single factor in the quality of a child's education. We can
do everything else right, but if we don't have good teachers, the
educational system just won't work. That's why it is critically
important that we provide real resources to attract and retain quality
teachers, and to help teachers develop their skills.
We also know that smaller class sizes work. It's abundantly clear
that smaller classes are better for children, and we've started to make
progress in recent years. But we have not gone far enough. In my view,
that's a serious mistake.
We also know that our children must go to school in safe modern
school buildings, and that's why I have been fighting to modernize our
schools.
In sum, there is no evidence that vouchers work. They do not provide
a meaningful choice to families who struggle to ensure that their
children receive a quality education.
And by diverting funds we undermine our other reform efforts and put
at risk those who remain in our public system.
We should not give up on our public schools. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 8
minutes.
[[Page S6086]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from New
Hampshire.
I have listened to the remarks and to the complaints of those who are
going to vote against this amendment. First, they say it is not going
to work; that the only program out there that is in fact in place right
now is Milwaukee. Yet the superintendent of the Milwaukee school
districts has come to Washington, DC, over the past few months and
pleaded for us to pass this proposal because he and the poor people of
Milwaukee whose children don't have an opportunity to get a good
quality education in the existing school system want this program. It
is the ultimate accountability.
We don't have accountability. When you have the dollars and you can
take them to this school or to that school, that is accountability.
There is no accountability in the public system because there is no
choice in the public system. Your child is trapped in the school if you
have low income. The child is trapped in the school to which they are
designated to go. Therefore, accountability is just simply a check
sheet that you have to fill out for some government bureaucracy. But
there is no accountability to the consumer of the product. Isn't that
what we are talking about? The consumer is the child.
We worry so much and talk so much. By the way, I know people are
concerned about the money. This bill under consideration, to my
understanding, increases the amount of money we are going to spend on
education by over 100 percent. To suggest somehow or another that we
have been parsimonious with the money we are throwing around here for
education is somewhat disingenuous. Hundreds of billions of dollars are
being authorized for this legislation. We are looking at $50 million
for a pilot program.
What are people afraid of? Are you afraid this program will actually
work? And if it does, it makes these hundreds of billions of dollars we
are spending look as if we didn't know what we were doing. Are you
afraid that it won't work and that there are some children right now
who are getting a poor education who will continue to get a poor
education?
There is no down side for these people. They are saying, if it
doesn't work, we are no worse off than we are today. If you as the
mother or father of a child in a poor school district want to give your
child a chance, at least you are giving them hope of improving their
situation. Hope is a powerful motivator. What are we afraid of? What
are we afraid of?
Hundreds of billions of dollars are being pumped into our educational
institutions through this bill, and we are running for the hills
because there is $50 million for pilot programs that only go into
effect if the Governor and the people in the local community want it.
Let me underline that again. There is not a Federal mandate on any
State. There is not a Federal mandate on any school. This says, if you
are a Governor and you want to work with your cities--principally there
are going to be cities that are underperforming and leaving children
behind--we are going to give you a chance, with some Federal dollars,
for you and the school district to innovate and to do something very
different that might change a child's life.
We talk about leaving children behind. The Senator from Connecticut
said we cannot afford to have any child be a loser. You make the
assumption that there are no losers in the current system. Let me
assure you that we have lots of losers when it comes to having the
opportunity to get a good education in this country. Lots of children
are losing out on the opportunity to get a good education in this
country.
For us to say we are not going to give caring Governors, caring
superintendents, school boards, and parents the choice of doing
something different for children who are right now losing out because
of fear that it might work--let me get to the bottom line--isn't that
what it is all about? Aren't we really afraid this might work? Because
if we are afraid it is going to fail, that child who is losing under
the current system right now is going to be no worse off.
Aren't we really afraid of success here? What we have been talking
about--these glorious proclamations we have made about how we are going
to improve the quality of schools and change the system and how we are
going to be the savior of education--can all come down to the fact that
we just haven't been giving the right incentives to parents and kids to
get the kind of education they want, that we haven't upgraded a system
that has ultimate accountability.
The ultimate accountability is that you can walk with your money.
Isn't that what we are afraid of? I think it is. I think it is a great
fear of giving up control.
The big problem is my life; I don't want to give up control. I want
control over every aspect of my life. One of the things I have found is
that sometimes, by giving up control, wonderful things can happen.
Whether it is the State, whether it is the local school board, or
whether it is the Federal Government, we want control of every little
aspect, all the way down to making sure we have our hands in
everything, and to make sure everything is run right. We control all of
it. We feel good because we are doing something about it.
But I think all of us know in our own lives that when we try to
micromanage control, everything gets screwed up, particularly when you
are doing it from Washington, DC, in every little city and school
district.
We are talking about a child here. We are not talking about children.
It is wonderful to talk about children. I am talking about a child,
because you know that if you are a mother sending a child to a poor
school, you are worried about that child.
What does this have to do with my child and my child's education? I
don't care whether you are controlling all of this. All I want is to
give my child a chance. That is what this bill does. This amendment
gives my child--mine--a chance--not children, my child.
We are afraid of that. We are afraid to give parents the chance to
care for my child. We want to care for children because we know best--
because, of course, we are smarter than all the people who worry about
their child. We know best. So we are going to dictate to you every step
of the way as to where the billions of dollars go; $50 million for a
little pilot project that says we are going to give you the ability to
take care of your child; we are going to give up control of your child;
they say: Oh, no, we cannot do that. It is too risky. There might be a
loser out there somewhere.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used the 8 minutes yielded to
him.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask the question finally:
What are we afraid of?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for
his strong and very effective statement in support of this amendment. I
appreciate it.
I understand Senator Kennedy is going to close on his side, and I am
going to close on my side, and we will be ready to vote. My closing
will be a little shorter than his closing because I have no more time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, I have 6 remaining
minutes. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to remind me when I have 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. President, I think we have had a good debate and discussion, and
perhaps the best presentations of differing views on this matter during
the last several hours.
I want to summarize the reasons I am strongly opposed to this
amendment. We are talking about scarce resources. The case is made that
this really isn't money that is going to be used for education. That
doesn't really stand. I think most of us who are opposed to this
amendment believe that if we have public money, we ought to invest it
in the areas where public school children can benefit.
The theme of this legislation is to try to take tried and tested
ideas and to make them available to the local communities and give
those ideas that
[[Page S6087]]
have been tried and tested some additional incentives with financial
support in order to enable the most challenged children and the
neediest children in our society to make progress.
We are committed to it. This legislation is to use tried and tested
techniques in order to enhance that possibility. I think over the
period of this debate we have demonstrated that these voucher programs
that have been tried, whether it was in Milwaukee, Cleveland, or other
communities, have not really provided effective enhancement of the
children's ability to learn.
Now, just finally, I have listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
This isn't about a child's choice. We have to understand this. The
voucher issue isn't about the choice of a child. It is the choice for
the school. That is a major difference.
To try to represent to families all over this country that if this
amendment is adopted, and their child is caught in a particular school,
that parent will be able to take that child out and go to another
school is wrong. That child's school will make a determination based
upon their own considerations whether to admit that child.
The Senator from New Hampshire is going to modify his amendment to
make sure children who have some disability or special needs will be
able to be included, and that children can be selected on the basis of
lottery. Still, it will be up to the school, but that is certainly an
improvement.
Let me read from the Department of Education's study about the
private schools and accepting students with special needs:
A policy of random assignment could mean that participating
schools would accept any student who was assigned, including
students with learning disabilities, limited English
proficiency, or low achievement. However, when the private
schools were asked specifically about a transfer program that
would require participating private schools to accept such
students, their interest in participating declined further.
Under this circumstance, only 15 percent of the schools said
they would be definitely or probably willing to participate.
. . .
There is the answer. Fifteen percent are willing to take children who
have some kind of special needs.
Secondly, in this report, in relation to participation in State
assessments, 42 percent of the schools said they would be unwilling to
participate.
Listen to this:
Permit exemptions from religious instruction or activities.
Very few religious schools would be willing to participate in
a transfer program if they were required to permit exemptions
from religious instruction or activities. Eighty-six percent
of the religious schools are unwilling to participate under
this condition.
There is no provision for that in the Gregg amendment, absolutely
none. If a child is admitted, finally, on a lottery provision and goes
to a particular school, they are going to have to attend the religious
ceremonies in that school. At least 86 percent of the schools will
require it.
Milwaukee did not do it. They had a provision that excused it. Not in
the Gregg amendment. This is not well thought through. The Senator says
that hard-pressed parent out there, that single mom, is going to have a
choice. That is baloney. That is not true.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. The school is going to make the decision. It is going to
be as true as I am standing here, that if that child has special needs,
there is no sense in applying; if that child has limited English, there
is no sense in applying; if that child is a homeless child, there is no
sense in applying. That is the record. That is why we should reject
this amendment.
Let's take scarce resources and invest them where they should be
invested; and that is in tried and tested programs that will enhance
the children's academic achievement in the public schools of this
country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GREGG. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 14\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Tried and tested programs, that is a fairly unique way to
describe a program that has left literally hundreds of thousands of
children behind. The average low-income child in this country today, in
a fourth grade class, reads at two grade levels less than their peers.
Only half of those kids even graduate from their high school. They have
been left behind. That is the whole point. That is why parents in
inner-city schools want to have the opportunity to have some options.
That is why when the Children's Scholarship Fund put up some money
and asked if there was anybody out there who wanted to go to a
different school, you had literally thousands, actually 1.3 million
children applying for those 40,000 slots which were limited to low-
income kids.
That is why the Milwaukee school system has found it to be so
successful. That is why Florida has found it to be so successful.
Because it is the low-income children--specifically, the children of
parents who in many instances are single moms--who have been locked
into schools that have failed year after year after year, who have no
options because the schools will not improve. No matter how much money
we put into the schools, they simply will not improve. That is why
those parents want another opportunity.
Let me read from a couple of statements made by some of these
parents. We have Carol Butts, from the Milwaukee schools:
When my daughter Evan finished fifth grade in the Milwaukee
public school system, she could not multiply; she couldn't
even write. Our family has limited income, so we didn't have
too many choices. When I learned about the Milwaukee Parental
Choice Program, I was ecstatic. In two years there, her
school work has really improved.
These are specific cases.
Tracy Richardson:
I first looked at three public school options. Classes were
unruly. A magnet public school was better, but there was a
waiting list. . . . I ended up using the A+ program to choose
Montessori Elementary School. It has improved my child's
learning immensely.
Tony Higgins:
The Milwaukee program let me choose schools that I think
are best for my girls. I believe both of them will have a
choice to go on to college because of the voucher program.
These are real people who were locked into inner-city schools who did
not have the option for education that those folks who have more money
have, who were seeing their kids left behind. All they wanted for their
children was a decent education. So through choice programs, in
Milwaukee, Ohio, and Florida, a few parents have had that opportunity.
This idea that choice does not work is just a lot of hokum. It is a
straw dog. A study by Kim Metcalf at Indiana University, the official
evaluation of the Cleveland program in Ohio, found statistically
significant gains in the test scores of students who were on vouchers.
A study by Jay Greene and Paul Peterson found statistically significant
math and reading score gains in the Milwaukee school voucher system. A
study by a Princeton group found quite large statistically significant
math gains for the Milwaukee Choice Program. Study after study has
proven these programs work.
The idea that the other side has promoted, which is totally elitist,
which is the problem, of course--opposition to the concept of choice is
elitist by definition--is that we know best for parents--these parents
whose children are locked in these schools and want to get out, we know
best for them.
How outrageous that we stand in this Senate Chamber and do not give
parents an option to allow their children to compete for the American
dream.
The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King had it right. This is a civil
right that we are talking about. The right to have a decent education
is a civil right. When we year after year after year put children in
schools that fail, we deny them that civil right.
This amendment is very simple. It is very small. It is very focused.
Ten school districts across the country get the opportunity to
participate, if they wish. Then the only parents who can participate
are parents of families with $32,000 of income or less who are actually
having their kids attend schools where for 3 years those schools have
been defined as ``failing.'' And then, in order to protect the system
more and assure fairness, we say the students who go to the private
schools will be chosen by lottery. So there isn't any creaming or any
attempt to skew the system.
[[Page S6088]]
In addition, we have language in this amendment that specifically
says there can be no discrimination. That has been a straw dog that has
been put up on the other side that if anybody bothered to read the
amendment they would have seen did not apply.
Then we put in very tough evaluation standards to see whether or not
the system works, to see whether or not private school choice works.
So what is there to fear from the other side? What is it that they
fear? I think the Senator from Pennsylvania had it right. They fear
that parents may actually choose to send their kids to a private school
and that that may actually produce children who are actually
competitive academically and who have a shot at the American dream, and
it may--and this is what is really feared--put pressure on the public
school system to change. It may threaten those unions which for years
have told us that mediocrity works; that if we dumb down, it is
acceptable; that we can have failed schools as long as we pay a union
wage.
They fear this may actually disrupt the public school system. Should
we not disrupt the public school system where year after year the
schools have failed? Of course, we should. We should improve it. The
way you improve it is to bring competition into the system, which is
what this amendment does.
I go back to my experience as a child when I saw that elected
official, the Governor of a State in our country, standing in the
doorway of a school in Arkansas, I believe, unfortunately. I know my
colleague from Arkansas opposed that aggressively and is glad that it
is no longer the situation there. When that Governor stood in the door
of that school and the Army had to come to allow a child to go into the
school, that was an imprint on my youth. That is one of those visual
things one remembers. I just couldn't understand how that could happen
in our country, how somebody could block a child from going to school.
What is happening today is there are people standing in the school
door of failed schools, of schools filled with drugs and violence,
schools where they do not teach, schools where children from year to
year shuffle from classroom to classroom and cannot learn and are not
allowed to learn and who, therefore, cannot participate in the American
dream. We have people in this Congress standing in the doorway,
blocking that doorway from allowing those children to leave that school
and go across the street and participate in a school where they will
learn and have the opportunity to participate in the American dream. It
is an irony which has to disappoint us all.
Choice, portability, vouchers, to use the pejorative term, what is it
all about? It is all about one thing: It is about children, giving
America's children an opportunity to learn. It is especially about low-
income children, locked in the inner city, whose only way out of their
situation is education. When we deny them this choice, we deny them the
opportunity to participate in the American dream.
That is not right and it is not fair. This minor exercise, in the
sense of funding and in the sense of scope, should not be viewed with
such antipathy from the other side. Rather, it should be viewed as an
opportunity to see whether or not the arguments they make so
aggressively are valid. If they have the courage of their position,
they should allow this demonstration program to go forward because they
will prove that it fails. In any event, they will have spent $50
million on at least improving a few children's opportunities to learn.
I can't understand why it is opposed, but I can understand this: If
we do not get on the path of correcting these failing schools, and we
do not get on the path of giving children in those schools options to
learn in an environment which is conducive to learning, then we will
lose another generation. As a nation, we can't afford that.
It is my hope that this amendment will be accepted, and I look
forward to the vote.
Amendment No. 536, As Modified
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modification of the
amendment?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 536), as modified, is as follows:
On page 628, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``Subpart 4--Low-Income School Choice Demonstration
``SEC. 5161. LOW-INCOME SCHOOL CHOICE DEMONSTRATION.
``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the `Low-
Income School Choice Demonstration Act of 2001'.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to determine
the effectiveness of school choice in improving the academic
achievement of disadvantaged students and the overall quality
of public schools and local educational agencies.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Choice school.--The term `choice school' means any
public school, including a public charter school, that is not
identified under section 1116, or any private school,
including a private sectarian school, that is involved in a
demonstration project assisted under this section.
``(2) Eligible child.--The term `eligible child' means a
child in grades kindergarten through 12--
``(A) who is eligible for free or reduced price meals under
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1964;
``(B) who attended a public elementary or secondary school,
or who was not yet of school age, in the year preceding the
year in which the child intends to participate in the project
under this section; and
``(C) who attends, or is to attend, a public school that
has been identified as failing for 3 consecutive years under
section 1116 or by the State's accountability system.
``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a
public agency, institution, or organization, such as a State,
a State or local educational agency, a county or municipal
agency, a consortium of public agencies, or a consortium of
public agencies and private nonprofit organizations, that can
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, its
ability to--
``(A) receive, disburse, and account for Federal funds; and
``(B) carry out the activities described in its application
under this section.
``(4) Evaluating entity.--The term `evaluating entity'
means an independent third party entity, including any
academic institution, or private or nonprofit organization,
with demonstrated expertise in conducting evaluations, that
is not an agency or instrumentality of the Federal
Government.
``(5) Parent.--The term `parent' includes a legal guardian
or other individual acting in loco parentis.
``(6) School.--The term `school' means a school that
provides elementary education or secondary education (through
grade 12), as determined under State law.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year
2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6
succeeding fiscal years, to carry out this section.
``(e) Program Authorized.--
``(1) Reservation.--From the amount appropriated pursuant
to the authority of subsection (d) in any fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reserve and make available to the evaluating
agency 5 percent for the evaluation of programs assisted
under this section in accordance with subsection (k).
``(2) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--From the amount appropriated pursuant to
the authority of subsection (d) and not reserved under
paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall award
grants to eligible entities to enable such entities to carry
out not more than 10 demonstration projects (which may
include 1 state) under which low-income parents receive
education certificates for the costs of enrolling their
eligible children in a choice school.
``(B) Continuing eligibility.--The Secretary shall continue
a demonstration project under this section by awarding a
grant under subparagraph (A) to an eligible entity that
received such a grant for a fiscal year preceding the fiscal
year for which the determination is made, if the Secretary
determines that such eligible entity was in compliance with
this section for such preceding fiscal year.
``(3) Use of grants.--Grants awarded under paragraph (2)
shall be used to pay the costs of--
``(A) providing education certificates to low-income
parents to enable such parents to pay the tuition, the fees,
the allowable costs of transportation, if any, and the costs
of complying with subsection (i)(1)(A), if any, for their
eligible children to attend a choice school; and
``(B) administration of the demonstration project, which
shall not exceed 15 percent of the amount received in the
first fiscal year for which the eligible entity provides
education certificates under this section or 10 percent in
any subsequent year, including--
``(i) seeking the involvement of choice schools in the
demonstration project;
``(ii) providing information about the demonstration
project, and the schools involved in the demonstration
project, to parents of eligible children;
``(iii) making determinations of eligibility for
participation in the demonstration project for eligible
children;
``(iv) selecting students to participate in the
demonstration project;
[[Page S6089]]
``(v) determining the amount of, and issuing, education
certificates;
``(vi) compiling and maintaining such financial and
programmatic records as the Secretary may prescribe; and
``(vii) collecting such information about the effects of
the demonstration project as the evaluating agency may need
to conduct the evaluation described in subsection (k).
``(4) Civil rights.--
``(A) In general.--A choice school participating in the
project under this section shall comply with title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and shall not discriminate on the
basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in carrying out
the provisions of this section.
``(B) Applicability and construction with respect to
discrimination on the basis of sex.--
``(i) Applicability.--With respect to discrimination on the
basis of sex, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a choice
school that is controlled by a religious organization if the
application of such subparagraph is inconsistent with the
religious tenets of the choice school.
``(ii) Construction.--With respect to discrimination on the
basis of sex, nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed
to require any person, or public or private entity to provide
or pay, or to prohibit any such person or entity from
providing or paying, for any benefit or service, including
the use of facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in the
preceding sentence shall be construed to permit a penalty to
be imposed on any person or individual because such person or
individual is seeking or has received any benefit or service
related to a legal abortion.
``(iii) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--With
respect to discrimination on the basis of sex, nothing in
subparagraph (A) shall be construed to prevent a parent from
choosing, or a choice school from offering, a single-sex
school, class, or activity.
``(C) Revocation.--If the eligible entity determines that a
choice school participating in the project under this section
is in violation of subparagraph (A), then the eligible entity
shall terminate the involvement of such schools in the
project.
``(f) Authorized Projects; Priority.--
``(1) Authorized projects.--The Secretary may award a grant
under this section only for a demonstration project that--
``(A) involves at least one local educational agency that
receives funds under section 1124A; and
``(B) includes the involvement of a sufficient number of
choice schools, in the judgment of the Secretary, to allow
for a valid demonstration project.
``(2) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to demonstration projects--
``(A) involve at least one local educational agency that is
among the 20 percent of local educational agencies receiving
funds under section 1124A in the State and having the highest
number of children described in section 1124(c);
``(B) that involve diverse types of choice schools; and
``(C) that will contribute to the geographic diversity of
demonstration projects assisted under this section.
``(g) Applications.--
``(1) In general.--Any eligible entity that wishes to
receive a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner
as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(2) Contents.--Each application described in paragraph
(1) shall contain--
``(A) information demonstrating the eligibility for
participation in the demonstration program of the eligible
entity;
``(B) with respect to choice schools--
``(i) a description of the standards used by the eligible
entity to determine which schools are within a reasonable
commuting distance of eligible children and present a
reasonable commuting cost for such eligible children
consistent with state law;
``(ii) a description of the types of potential choice
schools that will be involved in the demonstration project;
``(iii)(I) a description of the procedures used to
encourage public and private schools to be involved in the
demonstration project; and
``(II) a description of how the eligible entity will
annually determine the number of spaces available for
eligible children in each choice school;
``(iv) an assurance that each choice school will not impose
higher standards for admission or participation in its
programs and activities for eligible children provided
education certificates under this section than the choice
school does for other children;
(v) an assurance that each choice school will admit
children on the basis of a lottery;
``(vi) an assurance that each choice school operated, for
at least 1 year prior to accepting education certificates
under this section, an educational program similar to the
educational program for which such choice school will accept
such education certificates;
``(viii) an assurance that the eligible entity will
terminate the involvement of any choice school that fails to
comply with the conditions of its involvement in the
demonstration project; and
``(viii) an assurance that choice schools will accept the
amount of the scholarship as full payment of tuition and
fees;
``(C) with respect to the participation in the
demonstration project of eligible children--
``(i) a description of the procedures to be used to make a
determination of eligibility for participation in the
demonstration project for an eligible child, which shall
include--
``(I) the procedures for obtaining, using and safeguarding
information from applications for free or reduced price meals
under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1964; or
``(II) any other procedure, subject to the Secretary's
approval, that accurately establishes the eligibility for
such participation for an eligible child;
``(ii) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure
that, in selecting eligible children to participate in the
demonstration project, the eligible entity will give priority
to eligible children from the lowest income families;
``(iii) a description of the procedures to be used to
ensure maximum choice of schools for participating eligible
children, including procedures to be used when--
``(I) the number of parents provided education certificates
under this section who desire to enroll their eligible
children in a particular choice school exceeds the number of
eligible children that the choice school will accept; and
``(II) grant funds and funds from local sources are
insufficient to support the total cost of choices made by
parents with education certificates under this section; and
``(iv) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure
compliance with subsection (i)(1)(A), which may include--
``(I) the direct provision of services by a local
educational agency; and
``(II) arrangements made by a local educational agency with
other service providers;
``(D) with respect to the operation of the demonstration
project--
``(i) a description of the geographic area to be served;
``(ii) a timetable for carrying out the demonstration
project;
``(iii) a description of the procedures to be used for the
issuance and redemption of education certificates under this
section;
``(iv) a description of the procedures by which a choice
school will make a pro rata refund of the education
certificate under this section for any participating eligible
child who withdraws from the school for any reason, before
completing 75 percent of the school attendance period for
which the education certificate was issued;
``(v) a description of the procedures to be used to provide
the parental notification described in subsection (j);
``(vi) an assurance that the eligible entity will place all
funds received under this section into a separate account,
and that no other funds will be placed in such account;
``(vii) an assurance that the eligible entity will provide
the Secretary periodic reports on the status of such funds;
``(viii) an assurance that the eligible entity will
cooperate with the evaluating entity in carrying out the
evaluations described in subsection (k);
``(ix) an assurance that the eligible entity will--
``(I) maintain such records as the Secretary may require;
and
``(II) comply with reasonable requests from the Secretary
for information;
``(x) a description of the method by which the eligible
entity will use to assess the progress of participants in
math and reading and how such assessment is comparable to
assessments used by the local educational agency involved;
``(xi) an assurance that if the number of students applying
to participate in the project is greater than the number of
students that the project can serve, participating students
will be selected by a lottery; and
``(x) an assurance that no private school will be required
to participate in the project without the private school's
consent; and
``(E) such other assurances and information as the
Secretary may require.
``(h) Education Certificates.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Amount.--The amount of an eligible child's education
certificate under this section shall be determined by the
eligible entity, but shall be an amount that provides to the
recipient of the education certificate the maximum degree of
choice in selecting the choice school the eligible child will
attend.
``(B) Considerations.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to such regulations as the
Secretary shall prescribe, in determining the amount of an
education certificate under this section an eligible entity
shall consider--
``(I) the additional reasonable costs of transportation
directly attributable to the eligible child's participation
in the demonstration project; and
``(II) the cost of complying with subsection (i)(1)(A).
``(ii) Schools charging tuition.--If an eligible child
participating in a demonstration project under this section
was attending a public school that charged tuition for the
year preceding the first year of such participation, then in
determining the amount of an education certificate for such
eligible child under this section the eligible entity shall
consider the tuition charged by such school for such eligible
child in such preceding year.
``(C) Special rule.--An eligible entity may provide an
education certificate under this section to the parent of an
eligible child who chooses to attend a school that does not
charge tuition or fees, to pay the additional reasonable
costs of transportation directly
[[Page S6090]]
attributable to the eligible child's participation in the
demonstration project or the cost of complying with
subsection (i)(1)(A).
``(2) Adjustment.--The amount of the education certificate
for a fiscal year may be adjusted in the second and third
years of an eligible child's participation in a demonstration
project under this section to reflect any increase or
decrease in the tuition, fees, or transportation costs
directly attributable to that eligible child's continued
attendance at a choice school, but shall not be increased for
this purpose by more than 10 percent of the amount of the
education certificate for the fiscal year preceding the
fiscal year for which the determination is made. The amount
of the education certificate may also be adjusted in any
fiscal year to comply with subsection (i)(1)(A).
``(3) Maximum amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this subsection, the amount of an eligible child's
education certificate shall not exceed the per pupil
expenditure for elementary or secondary education, as
appropriate, by the local educational agency in which the
public school to which the eligible child would normally be
assigned is located for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal
year for which the determination is made.
``(4) Income.--An education certificate under this section,
and funds provided under the education certificate, shall not
be treated as income of the parents for purposes of Federal
tax laws or for determining eligibility for any other Federal
program.
``(i) Effect on Other Programs; Use of School Lunch Data.--
``(1) Effect on other programs.--
``(A) In general.--An eligible child participating in a
demonstration project under this section, who, in the absence
of such a demonstration project, would have received services
under part A of title I shall be provided such services.
``(B) Part b of the individuals with disabilities education
act.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
the requirements of part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
``(2) Counting of Eligible Children.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, any local educational agency
participating in a demonstration project under this section
may count eligible children who, in the absence of such a
demonstration project, would attend the schools of such
agency, for purposes of receiving funds under any program
administered by the Secretary.
``(3) Special rule.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
section 9(b)(2)(C)(iii) and (iv) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, information obtained from an
application for free or reduced price meals under such Act or
the Child Nutrition Act of 1964 shall, upon request, be
disclosed to an eligible entity receiving a grant under this
section and may be used by the eligible entity to determine
the eligibility of a child to participate in a demonstration
project under this section and, if needed, to rank families
by income in accordance with subsection (g)(2)(C)(ii).
``(B) Limitations.--
``(i) In general.--Information provided under this
paragraph shall be limited to the information needed to
determine eligibility or to rank families in a demonstration
project under this section and may be used only by persons
who need the information to determine eligibility or rank
families in a demonstration project under this section.
``(ii) Limitations.--A person having access to information
provided under this paragraph shall be subject to the
limitations and penalties imposed under section 9(b)(2)(C)(v)
of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
``(4) Construction.--
``(A) Sectarian institutions.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to supersede or modify any provision of a
State constitution or State law that prohibits the
expenditure of public funds in or by sectarian institutions,
except that no provision of a State constitution or State law
shall be construed to prohibit the expenditure in or by
sectarian institutions of any Federal funds provided under
this section.
``(B) Desegregation plans.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to interfere with any desegregation plans that
involve school attendance areas affected by this section.
``(j) Parental Notification.--Each eligible entity
receiving a grant under this section shall provide timely
notice of the demonstration project to parents of eligible
children residing in the area to be served by the
demonstration project. At a minimum, such notice shall--
``(1) describe the demonstration project;
``(2) describe the eligibility requirements for
participation in the demonstration project;
``(3) describe the information needed to make a
determination of eligibility for participation in the
demonstration project for an eligible child;
``(4) describe the selection procedures to be used if the
number of eligible children seeking to participate in the
demonstration project exceeds the number that can be
accommodated in the demonstration project;
``(5) provide information about each choice school,
including information about any admission requirements or
criteria for each choice school participating in the
demonstration project; and
``(6) include the schedule for parents to apply for their
eligible children to participate in the demonstration
project.
``(k) Evaluation.--
``(1) Annual evaluation.--
``(A) Contract.--The Secretary shall enter into a contract
with an evaluating agency for the conduct of an ongoing
rigorous evaluation of the demonstration program under this
section.
``(B) Annual evaluation requirement.--The contract
described in subparagraph (A) shall require the evaluating
agency to annually evaluate each demonstration project under
this section in accordance with the criteria described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) Evaluation criteria.--The Secretary shall establish
such criteria for evaluating the demonstration program under
this section. Such criteria shall include--
``(A) a description of the implementation of each
demonstration project under this section;
``(B) a comparison of the educational achievement between
students receiving education certificates under this section
and students otherwise eligible for, but not receiving
education certificates under this section;
``(C) a comparison of the level of parental satisfaction
and involvement between parents whose children receive
education certificates and parents from comparable
backgrounds whose children did not receive an education
certificate; and
``(D) a description of changes in the overall performance
and quality of public elementary and secondary schools in the
demonstration project area that can be directly or reasonably
attributable to the program under this section.
``(3) Reports.--
``(A) Report by grant recipient.--Each eligible entity
receiving a grant under this section shall submit, to the
Secretary and the evaluating agency, an annual report
regarding the demonstration project under this section. Each
such report shall be submitted at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information, as such evaluating
agency may require.
``(B) Reports by evaluating agency.--
``(i) In general.--The evaluating agency shall transmit to
the Secretary and the Congress 2 interim reports on the
findings of the annual evaluation under this subsection.
``(ii) First interim report.--The first interim report
under clause (i) shall be submitted not later than September
20, 2003, and shall, at a minimum, describe the
implementation of the demonstration projects under this
section and shall include such demographic information as is
reasonably available about--
``(I) the participating schools (both the choice schools
and the schools that have been identified as failing;
``(II) the participating and requesting students and
background of their families; and
``(III) the number of certificates requested versus the
number of certificates received.
``(iii) Second interim and final report.--The second
interim and final report under this subparagraph shall be
submitted to the Secretary and the appropriate committees in
Congress not later than September 30, 2006, and June 1, 2008,
respectfully, and shall, at a minimum, include the
information described in clause (ii), as well as any
additional information deemed necessary by the Secretary.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 536, as modified. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Carper
Cochran
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Cantwell
Carnahan
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
[[Page S6091]]
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Inouye
The amendment (No. 536), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Madam President, we thank all our Members. Now we have
agreed to consider the Carper amendment. We have a time limit, I
believe a 2-hour time limit, evenly divided, so we expect our next vote
sometime around quarter of 6. Perhaps we will be able to yield back
some time, but we are trying to move this along.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, it is my understanding after
the Carper amendment we are going to have 10 or 20 minutes equally
divided on the Dodd amendments?
Mr. REID. If the Senator from New Hampshire will yield, we cleared
with Senator Kennedy and with you, we are going to have a half hour
evenly divided and then vote on the Dodd amendment dealing with
comparability, amendment No. 459.
Senator Daschle wishes to have a number of other amendments resolved
tonight. We will do that. We will work with the two managers to move
on.
Mr. GREGG. We are now moving onto the Carper-Gregg amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Delaware, Mr. Carper, is recognized to call up amendment No. 518, on
which there shall be 2 hours of debate.
Amendment No. 518, As Modified
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No.
518 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] for himself, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Biden, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Ensign, and
Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 518, as modified.
Mr. CARPER. 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 promote parental involvement and parental empowerment in
public education through greater competition and choice)
On page 45, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
``(H) Each State plan shall provide an assurance that the
State's accountability requirements for charter schools (as
defined in section 5120), such as requirements established
under the State's charter school law and overseen by the
State's authorized chartering agencies for such schools, are
at least as rigorous as the accountability requirements
established under this Act, such as the requirements
regarding standards, assessments, adequate yearly progress,
school identification, receipt of technical assistance, and
corrective action, that are applicable to other schools in
the State under this Act.
On page 763, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
SEC. 502. EMPOWERING PARENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Empowering Parents Act of 2001''.
(b) Public School Choice.--
(1) Short title of subsection.--This subsection may be
referred to as the ``Enhancing Public Education Through
Choice Act''.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of this subsection are--
(A) to prevent children from being consigned to, or left
trapped in, failing schools;
(B) to ensure that parents of children in failing public
schools have the choice to send their children to higher
performing public schools, including public charter schools;
(C) to support and stimulate improved public school
performance through increased public school competition and
increased Federal financial assistance;
(D) to provide parents with more choices among public
school options; and
(E) to assist local educational agencies with low-
performing schools to implement districtwide public school
choice programs or enter into partnerships with other local
educational agencies to offer students interdistrict or
statewide public school choice programs.
(3) Public school choice programs.--Part A of title V, as
amended in section 501, is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Subpart 4--Voluntary Public School Choice Programs
``SEC. 5161. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subpart:
``(1) Charter school.--The term `charter school' has the
meaning given such term in section 5120.
``(2) Lowest performing school.--The term `lowest
performing school' means a public school that has failed to
make adequate yearly progress, as described in section 1111,
for 2 or more years.
``(3) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the
income official poverty line (as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget, and revised annually in accordance
with section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act
(42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size
involved, for the most recent fiscal year for which
satisfactory data are available.
``(4) Public school.--The term `public school' means a
charter school, a public elementary school, and a public
secondary school.
``(5) Student in poverty.--The term `student in poverty'
means a student from a family with an income below the
poverty line.
``SEC. 5162. GRANTS.
``The Secretary shall make grants, on a competitive basis,
to State educational agencies and local educational agencies,
to enable the agencies, including the agencies serving the
lowest performing schools, to implement programs of universal
public school choice.
``SEC. 5163. USE OF FUNDS.
``(a) In General.--An agency that receives a grant under
this subpart shall use the funds made available through the
grant to pay for the expenses of implementing a public school
choice program, including--
``(1) the expenses of providing transportation services or
the cost of transportation to eligible children;
``(2) the cost of making tuition transfer payments to
public schools to which students transfer under the program;
``(3) the cost of capacity-enhancing activities that enable
high-demand public schools to accommodate transfer requests
under the program;
``(4) the cost of carrying out public education campaigns
to inform students and parents about the program;
``(5) administrative costs; and
``(6) other costs reasonably necessary to implement the
program.
``(b) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Funds made available under
this subpart shall supplement, and not supplant, State and
local public funds expended to provide public school choice
programs for eligible individuals.
``SEC. 5164. REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Inclusion in Program.--In carrying out a public
school choice program under this subpart, a State educational
agency or local educational agency shall--
``(1) allow all students attending public schools within
the State or school district involved to attend the public
school of their choice within the State or school district,
respectively;
``(2) provide all eligible students in all grade levels
equal access to the program;
``(3) include in the program charter schools and any other
public school in the State or school district, respectively;
and
``(4) develop the program with the involvement of parents
and others in the community to be served, and individuals who
will carry out the program, including administrators,
teachers, principals, and other staff.
``(b) Notice.--In carrying out a public school choice
program under this subpart, a State educational agency or
local educational agency shall give parents of eligible
students prompt notice of the existence of the program and
the program's availability to such parents, and a clear
explanation of how the program will operate.
``(c) Transportation.--In carrying out a public school
choice program under this subpart, a State educational agency
or local educational agency shall provide eligible students
with transportation services or the cost of transportation to
and from the public schools, including charter schools, that
the students choose to attend under this program.
``(d) Nondiscrimination.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a)(3), no public school may discriminate on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual
orientation, or disability in providing programs and
activities under this subpart.
``(e) Parallel Accountability.--Each State educational
agency or local educational agency receiving a grant under
this subpart for a program through which a charter school
receives assistance shall hold the school accountable for
adequate yearly progress in improving student performance as
described in title I and as established in the school's
charter, including the use of the standards and assessments
established under title I.
``SEC. 5165. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subpart, a State educational agency or local educational
agency shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require.
[[Page S6092]]
``(b) Contents.--Each application for a grant under this
subpart shall include--
``(1) a description of the program for which the agency
seeks funds and the goals for such program;
``(2) a description of how the program will be coordinated
with, and will complement and enhance, other related Federal
and non-Federal projects;
``(3) if the program is carried out by a partnership, the
name of each partner and a description of the partner's
responsibilities;
``(4) a description of the policies and procedures the
agency will use to ensure--
``(A) accountability for results, including goals and
performance indicators; and
``(B) that the program is open and accessible to, and will
promote high academic standards for, all students; and
``(5) such other information as the Secretary may require.
``SEC. 5166. PRIORITIES.
``In making grants under this subpart, the Secretary shall
give priority to--
``(1) first, those State educational agencies and local
educational agencies serving the lowest performing schools;
``(2) second, those State educational agencies and local
educational agencies serving the highest percentage of
students in poverty; and
``(3) third, those State educational agencies or local
educational agencies forming a partnership that seeks to
implement an interdistrict approach to carrying out a public
school choice program.
``SEC. 5167. EVALUATIONS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND
DISSEMINATION.
``(a) In General.--From the amount made available to carry
out this subpart for any fiscal year, the Secretary may
reserve not more than 5 percent to carry out evaluations, to
provide technical assistance, and to disseminate information.
``(b) Evaluations.--In carrying out evaluations under
subsection (a), the Secretary may use the amount reserved
under subsection (a) to carry out 1 or more evaluations of
State and local programs assisted under this subpart, which
shall, at a minimum, address--
``(1) how, and the extent to which, the programs promote
educational equity and excellence; and
``(2) the extent to which public schools carrying out the
programs are--
``(A) held accountable to the public;
``(B) effective in improving public education; and
``(C) open and accessible to all students.
``SEC. 5168. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subpart $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent
fiscal year.''.
(c) Public Charter School Facilities Financing.--
(1) Short title of subsection.--This subsection may be
cited as the ``Charter Schools Equity Act''.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of this subsection are--
(A) to help eliminate the barriers that prevent charter
school developers from accessing the credit markets, by
encouraging lending institutions to lend funds to charter
schools on terms more similar to the terms typically extended
to traditional public schools; and
(B) to encourage the States to provide support to charter
schools for facilities financing in an amount more nearly
commensurate to the amount the States have typically provided
for traditional public schools.
(3) Charter schools.--
(A) Conforming amendment.--Section 5112(e)(1), as amended
in section 501, is further amended by inserting ``(other than
funds reserved to carry out section 5115(b))'' after
``section 5121''.
(B) Matching grants to states.--Section 5115, as amended in
section 501, is further amended--
(i) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(other than funds
reserved to carry out subsection (b))'' after ``this
subpart'';
(ii) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(iii) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Per-Pupil Facilities Aid Programs.--
``(1) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--From the amount made available to carry
out this subsection under section 5121 for any fiscal year,
the Secretary shall make grants, on a competitive basis, to
States to pay for the Federal share of the cost of
establishing or enhancing, and administering, programs in
which the States make payments, on a per-pupil basis, to
charter schools to assist the schools in financing school
facilities (referred to in this subsection as `per-pupil
facilities aid programs').
``(B) Period.--The Secretary shall award grants under this
subsection for periods of not more than 5 years.
``(C) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost
described in subparagraph (A) for a per-pupil facilities aid
program shall be not more than--
``(i) 90 percent of the cost, for the first fiscal year for
which the program receives assistance under this subsection
or its predecessor authority;
``(ii) 80 percent in the second such year;
``(iii) 60 percent in the third such year;
``(iv) 40 percent in the fourth such year; and
``(v) 20 percent in the fifth such year.
``(2) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this
subsection shall use the funds made available through the
grant to establish or enhance, and administer, a per-pupil
facilities aid program for charter schools in the State.
``(B) Evaluations; technical assistance; dissemination.--
From the amount made available to a State through a grant
under this subsection for a fiscal year, the State may
reserve not more than 5 percent of the amount to carry out
evaluations, to provide technical assistance, and to
disseminate information.
``(C) Supplement, not supplant.--Funds made available under
this subsection shall supplement, and not supplant, State and
local public funds expended to provide per-pupil facilities
aid programs, operations financing programs, or other
programs, for charter schools.
``(3) Requirements.--
``(A) Voluntary participation.--No State may be required to
participate in a program carried out under this subsection.
``(B) State law.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection, a State shall establish or enhance, and
administer, a per-pupil facilities aid program for charter
schools in the State, that--
``(i) is specified in State law;
``(ii) provides annual financing, on a per-pupil basis, for
charter school facilities; and
``(iii) provides financing that is dedicated solely for
funding the facilities.
``(4) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this subsection, a State shall submit an application to
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may require.
``(5) Priorities.--In making grants under this subsection,
the Secretary shall give priority to States that meet the
criteria described in paragraph (2), and subparagraphs (A),
(B), and (C) of paragraph (3), of section 5112(e).
``(6) Evaluations, Technical Assistance, and
Dissemination.--
``(A) In general.--From the amount made available to carry
out this subsection under section 5121 for any fiscal year,
the Secretary may carry out evaluations, provide technical
assistance, and disseminate information.
``(B) Evaluations.--In carrying out evaluations under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may carry out 1 or more
evaluations of State programs assisted under this subsection,
which shall, at a minimum, address--
``(i) how, and the extent to which, the programs promote
educational equity and excellence; and
``(ii) the extent to which charter schools supported
through the programs are--
``(I) held accountable to the public;
``(II) effective in improving public education; and
``(III) open and accessible to all students.''.
(C) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 5121, as
amended in section 501, is further amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 5121. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this subpart $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2002
and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.
``(b) Reservation.--For fiscal year 2002, the Secretary
shall reserve, from the amount appropriated under subsection
(a)--
``(1) $200,000,000 to carry out this subpart, other than
section 5115(b); and
``(2) the remainder to carry out section 5115(b).''.
(4) Credit enhancement initiatives.--Subpart 1 of part A of
title V, as amended in section 501, is further amended--
(A) by inserting after the subpart heading the following:
``CHAPTER I--CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS'';
(B) by striking ``this subpart'' each place it appears and
inserting ``this chapter''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``CHAPTER II--CREDIT ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE CHARTER SCHOOL
FACILITY ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND RENOVATION
``SEC. 5126. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this chapter is to provide grants to
eligible entities to permit the entities to establish or
improve innovative credit enhancement initiatives that assist
charter schools to address the cost of acquiring,
constructing, and renovating facilities.
``SEC. 5126A. GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.
``(a) Grants for Initiatives.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use 100 percent of
the amount available to carry out this chapter to eligible
entities having applications approved under this chapter to
carry out innovative initiatives for assisting charter
schools to address the cost of acquiring, constructing, and
renovating facilities by enhancing the availability of loans
or bond financing.
``(2) Number of grants.--The Secretary shall award not
fewer than 3 of the grants.
``(b) Grantee Selection.--
``(1) Determination.--The Secretary shall evaluate each
application submitted, and shall determine which applications
are of sufficient quality to merit approval and which are
not.
``(2) Minimum grants.--The Secretary shall award at least--
[[Page S6093]]
``(A) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section
5126I(2)(A);
``(B) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section
5126I(2)(B); and
``(C) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section
5126I(2)(C),
if applications are submitted that permit the Secretary to
award the grants without approving an application that is not
of sufficient quality to merit approval.
``(c) Grant Characteristics.--Grants under this chapter
shall be in sufficient amounts, and for initiatives of
sufficient scope and quality, so as to effectively enhance
credit for the financing of charter school acquisition,
construction, or renovation.
``(d) Special Rule.--In the event the Secretary determines
that the funds available to carry out this chapter are
insufficient to permit the Secretary to award not fewer than
3 grants in accordance with subsections (a) through (c)--
``(1) subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) shall not apply; and
``(2) the Secretary may determine the appropriate number of
grants to be awarded in accordance with subsections (a)(1),
(b)(1), and (c).
``SEC. 5126B. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--To receive a grant under this chapter,
an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an
application in such form as the Secretary may reasonably
require.
``(b) Contents.--An application submitted under subsection
(a) shall contain--
``(1) a statement identifying the activities proposed to be
undertaken with funds received under this chapter, including
how the applicant will determine which charter schools will
receive assistance, and how much and what types of assistance
the charter schools will receive;
``(2) a description of the involvement of charter schools
in the application's development and the design of the
proposed activities;
``(3) a description of the applicant's expertise in capital
market financing;
``(4) a description of how the proposed activities will--
``(A) leverage private sector financing capital, to obtain
the maximum amount of private sector financing capital,
relative to the amount of government funding used, to assist
charter schools; and
``(B) otherwise enhance credit available to charter
schools;
``(5) a description of how the applicant possesses
sufficient expertise in education to evaluate the likelihood
of success of a charter school program for which facilities
financing is sought;
``(6) in the case of an application submitted by a State
governmental entity, a description of the actions that the
entity has taken, or will take, to ensure that charter
schools within the State receive the funding the schools need
to have adequate facilities; and
``(7) such other information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
``SEC. 5126C. CHARTER SCHOOL OBJECTIVES.
``An eligible entity receiving a grant under this chapter
shall use the funds received through the grant, and deposited
in the reserve account established under section 5126D(a), to
assist 1 or more charter schools to access private sector
capital to accomplish 1 or more of the following objectives:
``(1) The acquisition (by purchase, lease, donation, or
otherwise) of an interest (including an interest held by a
third party for the benefit of a charter school) in improved
or unimproved real property that is necessary to commence or
continue the operation of a charter school.
``(2) The construction of new facilities, or the
renovation, repair, or alteration of existing facilities,
necessary to commence or continue the operation of a charter
school.
``(3) The payment of start-up costs, including the costs of
training teachers and purchasing materials and equipment,
including instructional materials and computers, for a
charter school.
``SEC. 5126D. RESERVE ACCOUNT.
``(a) In General.--For the purpose of assisting charter
schools to accomplish the objectives described in section
5126C, an eligible entity receiving a grant under this
chapter shall deposit the funds received through the grant
(other than funds used for administrative costs in accordance
with section 5126E) in a reserve account established and
maintained by the entity for that purpose. The entity shall
make the deposit in accordance with State and local law and
may make the deposit directly or indirectly, and alone or in
collaboration with others.
``(b) Use of Funds.--Amounts deposited in such account
shall be used by the entity for 1 or more of the following
purposes:
``(1) Guaranteeing, insuring, and reinsuring bonds, notes,
evidences of debt, loans, and interests therein, the proceeds
of which are used for an objective described in section
5126C.
``(2) Guaranteeing and insuring leases of personal and real
property for such an objective.
``(3) Facilitating financing for such an objective by
identifying potential lending sources, encouraging private
lending, and carrying out other similar activities that
directly promote lending to, or for the benefit of, charter
schools.
``(4) Facilitating the issuance of bonds by charter
schools, or by other public entities for the benefit of
charter schools, for such an objective, by providing
technical, administrative, and other appropriate assistance
(including the recruitment of bond counsel, underwriters, and
potential investors and the consolidation of multiple charter
school projects within a single bond issue).
``(c) Investment.--Funds received under this chapter and
deposited in the reserve account shall be invested in
obligations issued or guaranteed by the United States or a
State, or in other similarly low-risk securities.
``(d) Reinvestment of Earnings.--Any earnings on funds
received under this chapter shall be deposited in the reserve
account established under subsection (a) and used in
accordance with subsection (b).
``SEC. 5126E. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
``An eligible entity that receives a grant under this
chapter may use not more than 0.25 percent of the funds
received through the grant for the administrative costs of
carrying out the entity's responsibilities under this
chapter.
``SEC. 5126F. AUDITS AND REPORTS.
``(a) Financial Record Maintenance and Audit.--The
financial records of each eligible entity receiving a grant
under this chapter shall be maintained in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and shall be subject
to an annual audit by an independent public accountant.
``(b) Reports.--
``(1) Grantee annual reports.--Each eligible entity
receiving a grant under this chapter annually shall submit to
the Secretary a report of the entity's operations and
activities under this chapter.
``(2) Contents.--Each such annual report shall include--
``(A) a copy of the most recent financial statements, and
any accompanying opinion on such statements, prepared by the
independent public accountant auditing the financial records
of the eligible entity;
``(B) a copy of any report made on an audit of the
financial records of the eligible entity that was conducted
under subsection (a) during the reporting period;
``(C) an evaluation by the eligible entity of the
effectiveness of the entity's use of the Federal funds
provided under this chapter in leveraging private funds;
``(D) a listing and description of the charter schools
served by the entity with such Federal funds during the
reporting period;
``(E) a description of the activities carried out by the
eligible entity to assist charter schools in meeting the
objectives set forth in section 5126C; and
``(F) a description of the characteristics of lenders and
other financial institutions participating in the activities
undertaken by the eligible entity under this chapter during
the reporting period.
``(3) Secretarial report.--The Secretary shall review the
reports submitted under paragraph (1) and shall provide a
comprehensive annual report to Congress on the activities
conducted under this chapter.
``SEC. 5126G. NO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR GRANTEE
OBLIGATIONS.
``No financial obligation of an eligible entity entered
into pursuant to this chapter (such as an obligation under a
guarantee, bond, note, evidence of debt, or loan) shall be an
obligation of, or guaranteed in any respect by, the United
States. The full faith and credit of the United States is not
pledged to the payment of funds that may be required to be
paid under any obligation made by an eligible entity pursuant
to any provision of this chapter.
``SEC. 5126H. RECOVERY OF FUNDS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in accordance with
chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code, shall collect--
``(1) all of the funds in a reserve account established by
an eligible entity under section 5126D(a) if the Secretary
determines, not earlier than 2 years after the date on which
the entity first received funds under this chapter, that the
entity has failed to make substantial progress in carrying
out the purposes described in section 5126D(b); or
``(2) all or a portion of the funds in a reserve account
established by an eligible entity under section 5126D(a) if
the Secretary determines that the eligible entity has
permanently ceased to use all or a portion of the funds in
such account to accomplish any purpose described in section
5126D(b).
``(b) Exercise of Authority.--The Secretary shall not
exercise the authority provided in subsection (a) to collect
from any eligible entity any funds that are being properly
used to achieve 1 or more of the purposes described in
section 5126D(b).
``(c) Procedures.--The provisions of sections 451, 452, and
458 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234
et seq.) shall apply to the recovery of funds under
subsection (a).
``(d) Construction.--This section shall not be construed to
impair or affect the authority of the Secretary to recover
funds under part D of the General Education Provisions Act
(20 U.S.C. 1234 et seq.).
``SEC. 5126I. DEFINITIONS.
``In this chapter:
``(1) Charter school.--The term `charter school' has the
meaning given such term in section 5120.
``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) a public entity, such as a State or local
governmental entity;
``(B) a private nonprofit entity; or
``(C) a consortium of entities described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B).
[[Page S6094]]
``SEC. 5126J. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
chapter $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent
fiscal year.''.
(5) Income exclusion for interest paid on loans by charter
schools.--
(A) In general.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items
specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by
redesignating section 139 and section 140 and by inserting
after section 138 the following new section:
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me begin by extending my appreciation to Senator Gregg and a
number of our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for joining
me in offering this amendment today.
Over the course of the last several weeks, we have found considerable
common ground as we seek to redefine the role of the Federal Government
in education. We believe we need to invest, at the Federal level, more
resources, but in programs that work. We agree on the need to give that
money to schools and school districts from the Federal Government more
flexibly. We agree if we are going to provide more resources, and if we
are going to provide those dollars more flexibly, we should demand
results there should be accountability. Finally, we all agree on the
need to impart to parents the ability to make choices about the schools
their children attend.
In the 50 States, all but one have adopted rigorous standards about
what they expect their students to know and do. In more than half the
States of our country this past school year, tests were given to
measure student progress toward their State standards in subjects such
as math and science and English and social studies. States throughout
America have wrestled with consequences, with accountability systems.
How do we hold schools accountable, school districts accountable,
parents accountable, and politicians as well? We have wrestled with
those questions in Delaware. I know we are wrestling with them in all
50 States.
The bill we are working on, as it has been modified to date, has some
important elements I want us to address with this amendment. I hope in
offering this amendment we will make this bill better. I think there is
a need for the changes we are offering in this amendment.
Under the legislation that has been modified to date and that stands
before us today, we call on States to set their academic standards. For
the most part they have done that. We call on States to prepare tests--
some have prepared tests to measure student progress, but in this case
we are calling on States to prepare tests to measure student progress
on an annual basis from the third to eighth grade. We are calling on
States to decide at what level they expect all of their students to
perform roughly 10 years out.
In each of the next 10 years, we are asking them to spell out the
benchmarks, the performance levels at which they expect their students
to be able to perform, in year 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, out to the 10th
year.
There are consequences for schools where students do not meet the
benchmarks, the improvement that the States themselves agreed on for
their own schools. For failing schools--schools that fail to meet their
annual progress improvement goals--the consequence is not great in the
first year. They will receive technical assistance--more help. I think
that is appropriate.
The second year a school fails to meet the annual improvement goals
for their students, more technical assistance is provided, but there
are some additional consequences as well.
By the time we get to year 4, for a school that has continued failing
4 years in a row, meaning their students have not met the benchmarks
set by their school, set by their State, the consequences become more
severe. Let me mention a few of them.
First of all, the school district in which that school has failed 4
years in a row must offer public school choice, must provide the
transportation for students to go from a failing school to a school
that is not failing. In addition, the school district is faced with one
of a limited number of options for addressing what to do with that
failing school. One of those options is to turn the school over to the
State to run. Another option is to disband the school with respect to
existing faculty and administration and start all over. A third option
will be to turn the school over to a private sector enterprise, a
private entity, to run the school. And a fourth option is to mandate
that the school be transformed and turned into a charter school.
Personally, I hope by the end of year 4 there are not any schools
that are failing in this country. But I think that may be the triumph
of man's hope over experience. We have tens of thousands of schools. We
have thousands of school districts across America. There are going to
be schools that do not meet the standards, the benchmarks set by their
own States--in some cases, 4 years in a row. What do we do within the
Federal Government to help nurture, to foster, to ease that transition
to public school choice in those schools that have failed 4 years in a
row?
I think Delaware was the first State to implement public school
choice statewide. We did so to inject market forces into our public
schools by saying to parents that if your child's school is failing to
meet your expectations for your child, you have the option to go to a
variety of other schools, and the State will pay for the
transportation. It makes for wonderful change, for good change, and for
a positive change as we introduce elements of competition into public
education.
Unfortunately, if you look at what we are offering within the Federal
Government to assist, to nurture, to encourage, and to help ease that
transition from traditional public schools to maybe statewide public
school choice, we do precious little.
The amendment I offer today with Senator Gregg and others says that
we ought to do a good deal more. In this amendment, we do.
The second question I want to ask rhetorically is, If we say in this
legislation before us today that after 4 years of failure we have to do
something with that failing school-- one of the options is to turn it
into a charter school--what do we do to help make sure that folks who
want a charter school might have some ability to succeed in starting a
charter school? How do we help them?
Under current law, we do a couple of things. Under current law, there
is a basic charter school planning and development grant. It does not
address brick and mortar, but it helps people who have an idea they
would like to start a charter school and are not sure how to do it. It
supports technical resource centers and clearinghouses that help point
to what is working in other places to start charter schools; but with
respect to brick and mortar, to help with the biggest challenge
involved in starting up a charter school: Where are we going to have
the school? How are we going to pay for building the school? How are
going to take over an existing building and refurbish it for our
school? It is a huge challenge in my State and every other State. There
are 36 States that now have charter schools. But current law doesn't
help much in that regard. We help very little in terms of the money
that we appropriate. In the current fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS
appropriations bill, there is a $25 million grant to public entities
and private entities that are engaged in providing credit enhancement
to help provide space for charter schools. That help might come in the
form of loan guarantees. It might come in the form of subsidized loans.
It is $25 million.
The amendment before us today says that we ought to grow both of
these approaches. In the first case, instead of providing $25 million--
the program is currently authorized at $100 million--why don't we
increase the authorization to $200 million to provide the assistance
that charter schools really need to get started?
In the second case, we propose with our amendment to provide short-
term matching grants to States that will help these charter schools on
the brick and mortar side on the capital side.
Currently, in my State folks running a charter school and kids going
to that charter school may receive operating money per student at that
school equal to the operating funds that go to students in other public
schools. However, in those other public schools, if they want to
rebuild the school, build a new school, or refurbish a school, the
State of Delaware will sell tax-exempt bonds
[[Page S6095]]
for those public schools. The State of Delaware will pay anywhere from
60 to 80 percent of the cost of the principal and interest on those
bonds. If a charter school is trying to get started in my State on the
brick and mortar side, we don't do anything for them. We don't issue
tax-exempt bonds, or even pay for 1 percent of their capital costs,
much less 60 to 80 percent. If you look at the other 36 States, for the
most part, those States provide just about the same help to charter
schools on the capital side as Delaware--does.
I don't think it is the role of the Federal Government to come in and
make up all of that difference. We can, as a Federal government,
through loan guarantees and subsidized loans, encourage other public
and nonpublic entities to assist in starting up charter schools and
paying for the brick and mortar costs.
We can also provide incentives from my State and other States to
provide some capital costs and capital assistance for charter schools.
We will provide matching grants at the Federal level. We will not pay
for all of it, but we will provide matching grants to help States get
those charter schools started.
At the beginning of the debate I asked to modify the amendment. I did
so because there are some tax consequences that are not appropriate to
be debated in the context of this bill because they are within the
purview of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means
Committee. I will mention them anyway. I will use my State as an
example because that is what I know best.
If the State of Delaware wants to help build public schools, we issue
tax-exempt bonds. If a charter school wants to build a school for
themselves, they borrow money. The interest is not tax-free. A charter
school may be right alongside a traditional public school. The public
school gets tax-exempt bonds. Whoever loans the money to the charter
school has to pay taxes on the interest.
I don't think that is right or fair. I would like to change that.
Unfortunately, we cannot do that today. We will try to come back and
address it in another venue with another vehicle.
For people who voted against the Gregg amendment on a demonstration
for vouchers, I understand it was a tough vote. But for people who
weren't willing to experiment in that way with choice, I urge you to
consider this approach.
If you think public school choice can really help introduce market
forces and competition into our public schools--other States are trying
it--I urge you to vote for this amendment. If you think that we may be
able to replicate the success of schools across America as we have done
in Delaware--I urge you to vote for this amendment. The Presiding
Officer, in another role as First Lady, actually came to the very first
charter school we started in Delaware about 5 years ago. We were
pleased to welcome her there. We were trying to start a charter high
school. I say to the Presiding Officer that last year when the results
were counted for tests in reading, math, science, and so forth, the
high school that did the best of all the public high schools in
Delaware was the Wilmington charter school that she visited.
In my State, the only school out of almost 200 schools where every
student who took the Delaware math test last year actually met or
exceeded the State's math standards, believe it or not, is the school
that has the highest incidence of poverty in the State. Eighty-three
percent of the kids at the East Side charter school receive free or
reduced-price lunches. No other school in our State has an incidence of
poverty such as that.
Those are only two examples of charter schools: one is a high school
and another is K through 3. Charter schools are working well.
I hope we will say that the Federal Government should have an
obligation. Under the accountability provisions of this legislation, I
think there is a real obligation to assist in pushing forward public
school choice and in making the transition from traditional public
schools to charter schools. Maybe it is not easy, but it is something
that is doable.
I retain the balance of my time. I turn it over to my colleague, and
again say to Senator Gregg, thanks for joining in support of this
legislation and, in fact, for amending this legislation to help to make
it better.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator from New Hampshire
is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 45 minutes, 42
seconds. The opposition still has 1 hour.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, it is not clear to me who controls the
time in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to
opposition time.
Mr. GREGG. I am not claiming opposition time. I am in support of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to
time on the opposition side.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, would the Chair restate the request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no request of the Chair.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Senator Carper asked who was in opposition to this
amendment. Senator Kennedy was predisposed, working with his staff.
Senator Kennedy is opposed to the amendment and would control the time.
I ask Senator Kennedy, is that right?
Mr. KENNEDY. Just for the purposes of this moment now.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New
Hampshire whatever time he needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Delaware.
Madam President, I support the Senator from Delaware in his
amendment. I thank him for bringing it forward. The Senator, of course,
served as Governor of Delaware prior to coming to the Senate. He
understands intimately the issues that are involved in education, as
all Governors do, because it is the No. 1 issue with which most
Governors deal. Therefore, I think his amendment, which I am
supporting, is a reflection of a comprehensive understanding of the
question of how we try to address the improvement of our school
systems.
I believe that those who have been exposed to the charter school
movement see in it the embryo of a way to move our school systems into
a phase of significant improvement.
Charter schools are being tried in a lot of States. In fact, they
have expanded dramatically across the country. I think we are now up to
some multiple thousand charter schools. They have caught on because
they make sense.
Essentially, what a charter school does is give a community which is
unhappy with the way the public school system is working an
opportunity, within the public school structure, to set up an
independent school, which is a public school but which is not subject
to the restrictions that the public school system may put on the
traditional school in the community, thus creativity can and does occur
within that charter school.
In fact, there are many instances of charter schools being cited as
schools that have radically improved the educational services delivered
to the communities, and to students in those communities.
I know, for example, that President Bush is fond of citing his
experience with a charter school in Houston. I have forgotten the name
of the school, but I do recall vividly his discussion of it on the
campaign trail, especially when he was in New Hampshire, and his
enthusiasm about the way this charter school had taken a low-income
urban school district population, which basically did not have a very
good experience in the educational system, and turned it around so that
it was now the leading school in the State in that age group.
That happens because charter schools are vibrant and exciting places.
To begin with, the people who start them are enthusiastic about
education. They want to make sure that children have an opportunity to
learn in a different climate. Therefore, they start these schools with
the energy that comes from a new expedience and desire to change and
improve the community, and especially the educational system.
[[Page S6096]]
They have a great track record. But they have run into some problems.
What the Carper amendment does is essentially try to address, to the
extent the Federal Government can participate in addressing this issue,
some of the concerns of these school systems. One of the biggest I
think--and one of the reasons I am excited about the amendment--is it
addresses the capital needs of actually starting these schools. Even
though he has had to modify the amendment in order to avoid a technical
problem with the Ways and Means Committee on the House side--those who
are familiar with the Ways and Means committee understand it is
extremely territorial. I served on it and, I assure you, that is part
of the character of the Ways and Means Committee--even with that
adjustment, the amendment has in it initiatives which will allow
charter school construction costs to be alleviated, or participated in
to some degree, through these new funds which will be available.
That is very important because one of the biggest problems you run
into with a charter school is not getting the talent, the people who
want to run it out getting the building into shape where it actually
can handle kids coming into the school system. So that, in my opinion,
will be a very positive impact of this amendment.
Also, I think it should be pointed out that this amendment assists in
the transportation activity, which is a critical part of the charter
school problem. A lot of parents want to send their kids to a charter
school, but they are low-income parents, and they do not have the
capacity to physically move their kids from their home to the school.
The school their child may be attending might be around the block, but
it might be a school that simply isn't working and they may want their
child to go to a charter school. But that charter school may require a
significant amount of transportation costs on a daily basis, which may
simply exceed the ability of a low-income parent to maintain. So this
amendment assists in that area.
It is also important for us to understand--at least I believe it is
important for us to understand--the way you improve education is not by
a top-down approach. We in Washington do not have the answers. It is
that simple. The way you improve education is by allowing the creative
minds of the educational community, and the parents, to step on to the
playing field of education and do what they think is best, do it with
aggressiveness and do it with imagination.
Charter schools are an example of that opportunity. We should not say
a charter school must be set up this way or must have this amount of
procedure. It is just the opposite. We should simply say: You have the
option to take that charter school route, if you want. And if you
decide to go that way, we are going to help you by assisting you with
the dollar support which will work for your benefit, and allow the
school to be creative.
Some might argue: This is a new program or a significant increase in
a program. And with all the other new programs that have been put into
this bill, is it appropriate to create another program or add another
significant amount of money into this bill. Obviously, I have
reservations about that. I am concerned about the fact that this bill
has exploded in costs. The 10-year cost of this bill presently exceeds
the original cost of this bill by almost $200 billion.
But I think what we have to remember is that what this bill should be
doing is creating incentives for creative ideas and approaches. And
charter schools, as much as anything else that can occur in the
educational community, will accomplish that goal.
In this bill money is being spent to promote programmatic activity
that is already in place and that maybe isn't working all that well or,
if it is working all that well, maybe is tangential to dramatically
increasing the learning capacity of children.
Charter schools, on the other hand, are working and we know they will
significantly impact the capacity of children to improve their
education, not only because the child who is in the charter school gets
a better education but because charter schools, by definition, put
pressure on the rest of the public school community within that city or
town or State to improve. So it is bringing competition into the public
school system using the public school system itself.
We just had an amendment to try to bring competition into the public
school system using the private school system. That was rejected. This
amendment stays within the context of the public school system and
brings competition into the system. As a result, in my opinion, it puts
significant positive pressure on the other public schools to improve
their product. And as a result, I think that is very positive.
Mr. REID. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if he will yield?
Mr. GREGG. I certainly will yield.
Mr. REID. I have spoken to Senator Kennedy, and Senator Kennedy is
not in opposition to this amendment. I want to make sure the Senator
knows that prior to completing his remarks. So I do not know who is in
opposition to the amendment. I guess the Senator from Delaware will
find out later. At this time we know of no one who is in opposition.
Mr. GREGG. I am sure the Senator from Delaware will be relieved to
hear no one is in opposition to the amendment. I certainly am. That is
good news.
Mr. REID. The Senator wishes to speak on the amendment after you
finish.
Mr. GREGG. With that good news, I will curtail my statement and yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I might use
on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the pending amendment addresses two
important growing policy areas: Public school choice and public charter
schools. First, the amendment provides grant support to States seeking
intra- and inter-district public school choice plans. That is very
important, given where we are in other provisions of the bill. Second,
the pending amendment provides specific assistance to charter schools
struggling with capital school construction needs. That is going to be
very important, given the provisions of the bill that will require
schools to restructure and reorganize if they fail to meet certain
goals.
I support public school choice. Our legislation already provides
parents of children in low-performing schools the option to transfer to
other public schools or charter schools. But public school choice
programs bring added costs that come with, most significantly, added
transportation needs. If we are truly to support public school choice,
we should provide the districts aid for their increased transportation
costs.
I also support charter schools. Like public school choice which can
encourage districtwide improvement, charter schools can provide more
options to parents within the public school system. I think we should
do more to support the charter schools in the area in which they have
the greatest need--school construction.
Charter schools do not have the same capital resources that regular
public schools do. Charter schools cannot float tax-exempt bonds as
public school districts can. Charter schools primarily have new
building construction needs. Noncharter, public schools and public
school districts, on the other hand, primarily have building repair
needs. Just as there are charter schools with unique and urgent school
repair and construction needs, there are also regular public schools
with unique and urgent school repair and construction needs. We should
also provide school construction assistance to both charter schools and
regular public schools.
That is the difficulty I find in the logic of my friends who opposed
the Harkin proposal in terms of providing help to meet the construction
needs in our public school system, a best estimate of over $130 billion
in needs. We recognize the importance of having a facility that is
going to be safe for children and that is also going to be responsive
to the children's needs in terms of a modern classroom. I know Senator
Harkin has made the case, and Senator Feinstein and others, of the
importance of giving assistance to local communities. They are not
required to take that help, but when you
[[Page S6097]]
realize the age of many of our school facilities, particularly in many
of the older cities of the country, as well as in many of the rural
areas, you know there is an extraordinary need.
What is so apparent is that children attending schools which are in
dilapidated condition sends a very powerful message to the students. On
the one hand, they go to modern supermarkets and modern malls and they
see what investments in these kinds of facilities would mean. They are
valued by their parents or their grownups. Then on the other hand,
parents are sending children off to schools which are dilapidated,
which are in need of repair, where in many instances the electrical
systems aren't working or their air-conditioning is not working, the
windows are not repaired.
I am supporting this proposal, but it is important to wonder why we
in the Senate, if we are going to provide this kind of help for the
construction of charter schools, are not providing assistance to the
public schools. I find it difficult to understand the response in this
area by many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle, their
traditional argument that this is a local responsibility. The fact is,
we are trying to find ways of creating a climate where children can
learn. If we are not going to provide the classroom situation for that
learning process, we are not really meeting our responsibilities.
I am supporting this program, but I do think the need for school
renovation and modernization across the board is extraordinary. The
National Center on Education Statistics reports that nationwide more
than $127 billion is needed for public school construction, repair, and
modernization. The American Society of Engineers reports that average
school repair costs per child are $3,800.
All of the reforms included in the BEST Act will be dramatically
undermined if we continue to send children to dilapidated, overcrowded,
out-of-date schools. When we send children to inadequate, crumbling
schools, we send them the message that they don't matter. What does it
say to a child when their classroom is a school bathroom, when windows
are broken and roofs are leaking?
We should support public school and public charter school
construction needs. We need to keep in mind that 97 percent of all
public school children go to noncharter schools. I continue to hold out
hope that we will provide badly needed school construction assistance
to regular public schools and public charter schools. Construction and
modernization needs are great across the board.
I urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment and hope we can
continue to work in the future to support construction and
modernization needs nationwide.
There may be those who say we are not going to support it because we
are not meeting our responsibility to public schools. There may be some
of our colleagues who fall in that category. I would rather see us do
what is right for children in meeting our responsibility on the public
school choice provisions which are included and also with regard to
charter schools.
My great regret about this amendment is that it is leaving out 97
percent of the public schools that ought to get help. This amendment is
a very modest amendment. It is a useful amendment. But for me it sort
of fails to hit the mark in providing the assistance which is needed in
the area of construction.
I know we have to do the best we can. There was a broader kind of
amendment that was not accepted in the Senate. The Senator from
Delaware has come up with a proposal to at least provide some
construction funding in areas where there is need. Hopefully, as this
whole process moves ahead, we will find some opportunity to find a way
of helping the other public schools in this country with their
construction needs as well.
This amendment is useful. I hope it reminds us of the fact that we
are not meeting our responsibilities in construction and assistance to
other public schools and that we will continue to work in that area to
help the children of this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, let me express my thanks to the
chairman, the Senator from Massachusetts, for his support and for his
words.
I have said on the floor before and I say it again today: We all
acknowledge, the role of the Federal Government is not to run our
schools, the role of the Federal Government is to try to level the
playing field at least a little bit for kids who come, in some cases,
from hopelessly disadvantaged backgrounds. The appropriate role of the
Federal Government is to help identify what is working to raise student
achievement across the country.
An appropriate role for the Federal Government is, when we do
identify those things that are working, to encourage them. We nurture
those ideas. We try to share those ideas with others around the
country.
I remember when I was Governor of Delaware, about 5 years ago we were
debating public school choice. I had just signed, as Governor, public
school choice into law. I remember overhearing a conversation between a
couple of school administrators. They didn't know I was listening, but
I was.
I heard one administrator say to the other: If we don't offer parents
what they want for their children in our public schools, their children
will go to another school where they are offering what they want for
their children. I said to myself at the time: He's got it. Because in
Delaware and other places where we have public school choice,
particularly when you provide help on the transportation side so that
it is really meaningful, if a student in school A isn't getting what
they want or their parents want for them, they can go to school B. The
transportation is provided for, and the money follows the students.
That is a really important concept. The money follows the student. In
our State, the State provides anywhere from $6,000 to $7,000 per
student for their education. When one child goes from school A to
school B, the $6,000 or $7,000 follows that student. If one student
moves from school A to school B, not many people are going to take
notice of that. If 10 students move from school A to school B, that is
10 times $6,000 or $7,000, which is $60,000 or $70,000. Maybe somebody
will notice that. If 100 students move from school A to school B
because they are offering something school A is not offering, somebody
is going to notice that certainly; they are certainly going to notice
it in school A. The question they began to ask in my State was: What
are they offering there that we are not offering? Maybe we ought to
offer it as well.
It is the very best thing to come out of competition and out of the
market forces we have introduced. Let me also add that I have always
believed that the role of government, and particularly the Federal
Government, in education is not to row the boat. The role of the
Federal Government is maybe to help steer the boat. The Federal
Government provides less than 10 percent of the resources for the
education of our children. States provide much more. In Delaware, it is
70 percent. Nationally, I think it is about 50 percent. The rest comes
from local property taxes.
But if we in this body, in this Capitol, in our role as the Federal
Government--certainly the legislative side of it--if we can help
identify those things that work and if we can nurture them and help
steer and not row the boat, our kids, in a lot of places, with
relatively modest investments, are going to end up with a better
education and be better prepared to go on and face the world with the
skills they will need to be successful in college and in work and in
life.
Senator Kennedy said this is a modest but useful amendment. I think
it is going to prove even more useful than we dare to hope today. If it
is adopted and ends up in the final bill that goes to the President, we
will have a chance to test that premise. I sincerely hope we do.
Again, to Senator Gregg, and to others who joined us in cosponsoring
the original bill which underlies the amendment, and this amendment
itself, I express my thanks.
Madam President, I yield back whatever time remains and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S6098]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have to determine if there is a sufficient
second.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. REID. Madam 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator
from Delaware has yielded back his time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. All time is yielded
back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 518), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam 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. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. This
amendment is related to other very important provisions in the
legislation to ensure there is going to be sufficient funds available.
Also in the legislation, there was going to be, with the reconstruction
of these schools, the possibility of the development of these charter
schools, and this will give additional flexibility to local communities
to move in that direction.
So I thank him for offering the amendment. I believe it reaches sort
of the central core of what we are attempting to do. I think it is
valuable and helpful. I wish it had been a little broader, but I thank
the Senator very much for offering it and for working closely with us
to move the process along. I am grateful to him.
I am also grateful to my friend from New Hampshire, as always.
Mr. GREGG. I thank my friend.
Amendments Nos. 505, 545 as modified, 520 as modified, 583, 561 as
modified, and 461 as modified, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 358
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today we are again in a position to
clear amendments by consent. I ask, therefore, unanimous consent that
it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc and that
any modifications, where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be
agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
(The text of amendment No. 505 is printed in the Record of May 9,
2001, under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
AMENDMENT NO. 545 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To create a set-aside for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools)
On page 365, strike lines 7 through 11, and insert the
following:
``(a) Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--From funds appropriated under this part,
the Secretary shall reserve such sums as may be necessary for
grants awarded under section 3136 prior to the date of
enactment of the Better Education for Students and Teacher
Act.
``(2) Bureau of Indian Affairs funded schools.--From funds
appropriated under this part, the Secretary shall reserve
0.75 percent of such funds for Bureau of Indian Affairs
funded schools. Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of the Better Education for Students and Teacher
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall establish rules for
distributing such funds in accordance with a formula
developed by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation
with school baords of BIA-funded schools, taking into
consideration whether a minimum amount is needed to ensure
small schools can utilize funding effectively.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 520 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To modify the formula for calculating impact aid payments
relating to federal acquisition of real property)
At the end of title IX, add the following:
SEC. 902. IMPACT AID PAYMENTS RELATING TO FEDERAL ACQUISITION
OF REAL PROPERTY.
Section 8002 (20 U.S.C. 7702), as amended by section 1803
of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398),
is amended--
(1) in subsection (h)(4), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) the Secretary shall make a payment to each local
educational agency that is eligible to receive a payment
under this section for the fiscal year involved in an amount
that bears the same relation to 75 percent of the remainder
as a percentage share determined for the local educational
agency (as determined by dividing the maximum amount that
such agency is eligible to receive under subsection (b) by
the total maximum amounts that all such local educational
agencies are eligible to receive under such subsection) bears
to the percentage share determined (in the same manner) for
all local educational agencies eligible to receive a payment
under this section for the fiscal year involved, except that
for purposes of calculating a local educational agency's
maximum payment under subsection (b), data from the most
current fiscal year shall be used.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Loss of Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the Secretary shall make a minimum payment to a
local educational agency described in paragraph (2), for the
first fiscal year that the agency loses eligibility for
assistance under this section as a result of property located
within the school district served by the agency failing to
meet the definition of Federal property under section
8013(5)(C)(iii), in an amount equal to 90 percent of the
amount received by the agency under this section in the
preceding year.
``(2) Eligible local educational agencies.--A local
educational agency described in this paragraph is an agency
that--
``(A) was eligible for, and received, a payment under this
section for fiscal year 2002; and
``(B) beginning in fiscal year 2003 or a subsequent fiscal
year, is no longer eligible for payments under this section
as provided for in subsection (a)(1)(C) as a result of the
transfer of the Federal property involved to a non-Federal
entity.''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 583
(Purpose: To make certain technical amendments with respect to impact
aid)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. IMPACT AID TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Federal Property Payments.--Section 8002(h) (20 U.S.C.
7702(h)) (as amended by section 1803(c) of the Impact Aid
Reauthorization Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1
of Public Law 106-398)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and was eligible to
receive a payment under section 2 of the Act of September 30,
1950'' and inserting ``and that filed, or has been determined
pursuant to law to have filed, a timely application and met,
or has been determined pursuant to law to meet, the
eligibility requirements of section 2(a)(1)(C) of the Act of
September 30, 1950''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(or if the local
educational agency was not eligible to receive a payment
under such section 2 for fiscal year 1994,'' and inserting
``(or if the local educational agency did not meet, or has
not been determined pursuant to law to meet, the eligibility
requirements under section 2(a)(1)(C) of the Act Of September
20, 1950, for fiscal year 1994,''.
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the period the
following: ``, or whose application for fiscal year 1995 was
deemed by law to be timely filed for the purpose of payments
for later years''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``for each local
educational agency that received a payment under this section
for fiscal year 1995'' and inserting ``for each local
educational agency described in subparagraph (A)''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(B)--
(A) by striking ``(in the same manner as percentage shares
are determined for local educational agencies under paragraph
(2)(B)(ii)'' and inserting ``(by dividing the maximum amount
that the agency is eligible to receive under subsection (b)
by the total of the maximum amounts for all such agencies'';
and
(B) by striking ``, except that for the purpose of
calculating a local educational agency's assessed value of
the Federal property,'' and inserting ``, except that, for
the purpose of calculating a local educational agency's
maximum amount under subsection (b),''.
(b) Calculation of Payment Under Section 8003 for Small
Local Educational Agencies.--Section 8003(b)(3)(B)(iv) (20
U.S.C. 7703(b)(3)(B)(iv)) (as amended by section
1806(b)(2)(C) of the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000
(as enacted into law by section 1 of Public Law 106-398)) is
amended by inserting after ``of the State in which the agency
is located'' the following: ``or less than the average per
pupil expenditure of all the States''.
(c) State Consideration of Payments in Providing State
Aid.--Section 8009(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 7709 (b)(1)) (as amended
by section 1812(b)(1) of the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act
of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1 of Public Law 106-
398)) is amended by inserting after ``section
8003(a)(2)(B))'' the following: ``and, with respect to a
local educational agency that receives a payment under
section 8003(b)(2), the amount in excess of the amount that
the agency would receive if the agency were deemed to be an
agency eligible to receive a payment under paragraph (1) of
section 8003(b)''.
[[Page S6099]]
(d) Extension of Authorization of Appropriations.--Section
8014 (20 U.S.C. 7714) (as amended by section 1817(b)(1) of
the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000 (as enacted into
law by section 1 of Public Law 106-398)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``three succeeding'' and
inserting ``six succeeding''';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``three succeeding'' and
inserting ``"six succeeding'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``three succeeding'' and
inserting ``six succeeding'';
(4) in subsection (e), by striking ``three succeeding'' and
inserting ``six succeeding'';
(5) in subsection (f), by striking ``three succeeding'' and
inserting ``six succeeding''; and
(6) in subsection (g), by striking ``three succeeding'' and
inserting ``six succeeding''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 561 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To encourage projects carried out with community-based
organizations such as the Police Athletic and Activity Leagues)
On page 256, line 21, strike ``; and'' and insert a
semicolon.
On page 256, line 24, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 256, after line 24, add the following:
``(I) an assurance that the eligible organization will, to
the maximum extent practicable, carry out the proposed
program with community-based organizations that have
experience in providing before and after school programs,
such as the YMCA, the Police Athletic and Activities Leagues,
Boys and Girls Clubs and Big Brothers/Big Sisters of
America.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 461 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To provide for the expansion of education technology for
rural areas)
On page 367, line 5, insert after the period the following:
``The Secretary shall give priority when awarding grants
under this paragraph to State educational agencies whose
applications submitted under section 2305 outline a strategy
to carry out part E.''.
On page 383, after line 12, insert the following:
SEC. 203. RURAL TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION ACADEMIES.
Title II (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), as amended by section
202, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART E--RURAL TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION ACADEMIES
``SEC. 2501. SHORT TITLE.
This part may be cited as the `Rural Technology Education
Academies Act'.
``SEC. 2502. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Rural areas offer technology programs in existing
public schools, such as those in career and technical
education programs, but they are limited in numbers and are
not adequately funded. Further, rural areas often cannot
support specialized schools, such as magnet or charter
schools.
``(2) Technology can offer rural students educational and
employment opportunities that they otherwise would not have.
``(3) Schools in rural and small towns receive
disproportionately less funding than their urban
counterparts, necessitating that such schools receive
additional assistance to implement technology curriculum.
``(4) In the future, workers without technology skills run
the risk of being excluded from the new global, technological
economy.
``(5) Teaching technology in rural schools is vitally
important because it creates an employee pool for employers
sorely in need of information technology specialists.
``(6) A qualified workforce can attract information
technology employers to rural areas and help bridge the
digital divide between rural and urban American that is
evidenced by the out-migration and economic decline typical
of many rural areas.
``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this part to give
rural schools comprehensive assistance to train the
technology literate workforce needed to bridge the rural-
urban digital divide.
``SEC. 2503. GRANTS TO STATES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use amounts made
available under section 2310(a) to carry out this part to
make grants to eligible States for the development and
implementation of technology curriculum.
``(b) State Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible for a grant under
subsection (a), a State shall--
``(A) have in place a statewide educational technology plan
developed in consultation with the State agency responsible
for administering programs under the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C.
2301 et seq.); and
``(B) include eligible local educational agencies (as
defined in paragraph (2)) under the plan.
``(2) Definition.--In this part, the term `eligible local
educational agency' means a local educational agency--
``(A) with less than 600 total students in average daily
attendance at the schools served by such agency; and
``(B) with respect to which all of the schools served by
the agency have a School Locale Code of 7 or 8, as determined
by the Secretary.
``(c) Amount of Grant.--Of the amount made available under
section 2310(a) to carry out this part for a fiscal year and
reduced by amounts used under section 2504, the Secretary
shall provide to each State under a grant under subsection
(a) an amount the bears that same ratio to such appropriated
amount as the number of students in average daily attendance
at the schools served by eligible local educational agencies
in the State bears to the number of all such students at the
schools served by eligible local educational agencies in all
States in such fiscal year.
``(d) Use of Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under
subsection (a) shall use--
``(A) not less than 85 percent of the amounts received
under the grant to provide funds to eligible local
educational agencies in the State for use as provided for in
paragraph (2); and
``(B) not to exceed 15 percent of the amounts received
under the grant to carry out activities to develop or enhance
and further the implementation of technology curriculum,
including--
``(i) the development or enhancement of technology courses
in areas including computer network technology, computer
engineering technology, computer design and repair, software
engineering, and programming;
``(ii) the development or enhancement of high quality
technology standards;
``(iii) the examination of the utility of web-based
technology courses, including college-level courses and
instruction for both students and teachers;
``(iv) the development or enhancement of State advisory
councils on technology teacher training;
``(v) the addition of high-quality technology courses to
teacher certification programs;
``(vi) the provision of financial resources and incentives
to eligible local educational agencies to enable such
agencies to implement a technology curriculum;
``(vii) the implementation of a centralized web-site for
educators to exchange computer-related curriculum and lesson
plans; and
``(viii) the provision of technical assistance to local
educational agencies.
``(2) Local use of funds.--Amounts received by an eligible
local educational agency under paragraph (1)(A) shall be used
for--
``(A) the implementation of a technology curriculum that is
based on standards developed by the State, if applicable;
``(B) professional development in the area of technology,
including for the certification of teachers in information
technology;
``(C) teacher-to-teacher technology mentoring programs;
``(D) the provision of incentives to teachers teaching in
technology-related fields to persuade such teachers to remain
in rural areas;
``(E) the purchase of equipment needed to implement a
technology curriculum;
``(F) the provision of technology courses through distance
learning;
``(G) the development of, or entering into a, consortium
with other local educational agencies, institutions of higher
education, or for-profit businesses, nonprofit organizations,
community-based organizations or other entities with the
capacity to contribute to technology training for the
purposes of subparagraphs (A) through (F); or
``(H) other activities consistent with the purposes of this
part.
``(3) Amount of assistance.--In providing assistance to
eligible local educational agencies under this section, a
State shall ensure that the amount provided to any eligible
agency reflects the size and financial need of the agency as
evidenced by the number or percentage of children served by
the agency who are from families with incomes below the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2)
of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))
applicable to a family of the size involved.
``SEC. 2504. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
``From amounts made available for a fiscal year under
section 2310(a) to carry out this part, the Secretary may use
not to exceed 5 percent of such amounts to--
``(1) establish a position within the Office of Educational
Technology of the Department of Education for a specialist in
rural schools;
``(2) identify and disseminate throughout the United States
information on best practices concerning technology
curricula; and
``(3) conduct seminars in rural areas on technology
education.''.
Mr. KENNEDY. We expect that momentarily Senator Cantwell will be
here. We have worked out a rough program and schedule for the latter
part of the afternoon and through the evening. We will be able to move
along on that program, and we want to thank all of our colleagues for
their cooperation.
We have some of the important remaining amendments with which we have
to deal, but we have been able to work out a process and a procedure to
get time agreements on most of these. So Members will know when these
amendments are going to come up. The leader had indicated that we would
be voting through the afternoon and into the evening, and there is
every expectation that we will continue to do so.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S6100]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 459 as further modified
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 459,
the Dodd amendment, be before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
pending amendment is laid aside.
Mr. DODD. I understand we have half an hour of time to debate this
amendment. Is there a time agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement.
Mr. REID. If the Senator from Connecticut will yield, we ask that the
Senator from Connecticut, the Republican leader, and Senator Kennedy
agree to a half hour evenly divided.
Mr. DODD. I may use less than that. We have talked a lot about it
already. The Senator from New Hampshire has spoken eloquently and at
length in opposition. I presume we could get done prior to that. We say
``half an hour.'' Then we think we have to use it. If not, we could get
done before. With the admonition of the Senator from Nevada, we will
try to move this along.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I yield.
Mr. REID. As part of the proposed unanimous consent agreement, I ask
unanimous consent there be no second-degree amendments prior to the
vote, which should be shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I raised this amendment a week or so ago.
We spoke on it on several different occasions. It was interrupted at
various times, other amendments were offered, and this amendment was
laid aside.
I say to my colleagues, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Biden, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. This is an amendment
that was first offered in the other body by the distinguished Member of
the House, Congressman Chaka Fattah of Philadelphia.
This amendment is strongly endorsed by the Council of Great City
Schools, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Education
Association, the National PTA, a coalition of 180 national
organizations including AARP, AFL-CIO, American Veterans Committee,
Catholic Charities, Children's Defense Fund, the Congress of National
Black Churches, the League of Women Voters, the National Council of
Jewish Women, the National Council of La Rasa, the YWCA and YMCA, just
to name some.
Chaka Fattah made an eloquent argument in the other body about the
value of this amendment. Basically what it does is the following:
Since 1965, for 36 years, we have written into the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act language that says that in each school district
in America there must be a comparable educational opportunity for every
child. For 36 years that has worked rather well. We improved
education--but there are still gaps in it. Nonetheless, 36 years ago we
said for those school districts we believe that all children,
regardless of their circumstances of birth, ought to have a comparable
education.
Some school districts have student populations vastly in excess of
what some States have. The school districts of Los Angeles and New York
individually have school populations in excess of the student
populations in 27 States. Those school districts are highly diverse, in
terms of the number of children from various economic backgrounds
within those school districts.
My amendment says we ought to apply that same standard to the States.
Why do I say that? This bill asks that children do a better job, be
more accountable, be more responsive. To do that, we are going to
require a test in this bill. The underlying bill says that every third,
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grader is now going to have
to take a test.
Prior to the adoption of this bill, we had mandates from the Federal
Government that said there would be three tests in that age group. So
we have mandated that there be accountability already. We are not
breaking new ground. We are extending it.
Also in this bill we say the teachers need to be more accountable and
more responsive. We say school districts need to be accountable and
more responsive. We say parents do, school boards do. We say we, at the
Federal level, need to be more responsible and demand greater
accountability. The one missing element in this entire chain, from the
infant child in school to the Federal Government, where I have named
virtually everybody from the child to Uncle Sam--one element is missing
in that litany. The one element is the States. There is nothing in this
bill that requires that the States be accountable or that the States be
responsible.
Remember, title I was written 36 years ago because we thought, at the
national level, not enough was being done to serve the most needy
children in America. That was the rationale behind the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act--to provide Federal moneys to the States, to
help them serve the most needy children.
Over the years we provided a lot of money, about 6 cents on every
dollar. Madam President, 94 cents for educating children comes from
States and localities.
If we are going to demand greater accountability, and that students
do better in school, that there be higher standards that are to be met,
how do we exclude one of the elements here responsible for at least a
part of that 94 cents? It is certainly more than the 6 cents the
Federal Government supplies. Is it really that radical to say: Mr.
Governor or State education board, will you see to it, or work towards
achieving comparability of educational opportunity within your State?
I am not mandating success. I don't think you ought to do that. We
cannot do that. But to say to a child in Connecticut or a child in the
State of Washington or New Hampshire or wherever else they may be, that
because of the accident of where you are born, being born in that State
should not mean you can end up with an entirely different educational
opportunity.
My bill says over the next 6 years--not right away--within 6 years,
you will write to the Secretary of Education, under this amendment, if
it is adopted, providing assurance that you have such a plan and that
you have begun to implement it. And by the way, if 6 years is not long
enough, I will give you 2 more under this amendment. That is 8 years.
If you do not do it, what happens? It is left to the discretion of
the Secretary to withhold some of the administrative funds under title
I--not title I funds. The idea is to urge the States to join with us.
Many States, Madam President, as you know and I know, are working hard
at this already, just as most school districts are working hard, just
as most parents are working hard, and most school boards are working
hard. We are not demanding greater accountability in this bill of every
school district, parent, child, and teacher because we think they are
all failing. We do not believe that. We believe some are.
I believe some States are not doing enough. If I can demand
accountability and responsibility of a child, a parent, a teacher, a
school board, a school district, and the Federal Government, is it too
much to ask that we seek at least an effort on the part of our States
to improve the quality of educational opportunity?
I do not think I need to go back and lay out all the arguments. We
all know the days of saying this ought to be exclusively, totally a
local effort are gone. That may have had great value in the 19th or
most of the 20th century when our economic future and success depended
upon a child from Connecticut competing with a child from New Hampshire
or Massachusetts, or one from Illinois competing with someone in the
State of Washington.
But we have entered a global economy. We better have a national
vision when it comes to education and national standards. Leaving no
child behind means just that. That is why the President has raised this
subject matter with the priority he has.
The American public wants to see our public schools do better. The
President said leave no child behind and he is enforcing this bill
because he believes that by testing children, testing
[[Page S6101]]
teachers, putting real stringent requirements on school districts, on
parents and on ourselves, we are going to raise those standards. I did
not hear the word ``States'' there. That 94 cents that goes to the
education of a child, a substantial part of it comes from the States.
I know my State is working hard at this. We have had court cases
pending. I know the Governor and the State legislature work at this. I
have no problems whatsoever with States that are trying to get this job
done. But unfortunately, as I said a moment ago, there are
jurisdictions in this country which have not been as responsive or have
not been as accountable to the desire to see to it that all children
will be given an equal opportunity to succeed.
It has been 47 years since the Supreme Court of the United States,
just across the street here, passed Brown v. Board of Education, almost
a half century ago. When they said separate and unequal schools can no
longer be permissible, it was almost a half century ago. There is not
one of us in this Chamber who does not know as a matter of fact, even
in the States that are trying harder, that Brown v. Board of Education,
that 9-0 decision, has yet to provide the kind of relief of the
problems that too many of our children are facing. They are separate
and they are in unequal educational opportunities. I do not care what
State you go to, that is the case. Some States are working at it and
some are not.
Madam President, almost 50 years later I do not think it is too much
to ask that State education authorities or our Governors should also be
asked to join in this effort. We cannot do it without them. This is not
some peripheral organization here. This is about as critical as it
gets. If we are going to be looking for better results and excluding
the States from stepping up to the plate and becoming a part of this
assessment, then we are missing a major part of the equation necessary
to achieve that success.
I do not point an accusing finger at any Governor, State agency, or
board.
We don't tell them how to do it. We don't lay out in some
excruciating detail of micromanaging how each State ought to try to
achieve it. We don't say identical at all. We say comparable.
I know I will hear from my friend from New Hampshire suggesting that
I am using a cookie cutter--that every jurisdiction within a given
State is going to have to develop an identical plan. Nothing could be
further from the truth. We are talking about comparability. The word
was chosen because it is in existing law. It has been there for almost
four decades--comparable educational opportunity at a district level. I
am expanding the concept to include the States. We are expanding and
doing a lot of things new. The Federal Government is not new to having
mandates. We shut off all Federal funds if States don't do a better job
on school violence. We mandate that there be testing done at the
elementary level in America. We have done that for years. We are
mandating that districts offer comparable education. These are all
mandates. We are not breaking new ground by insisting that States join
in this effort.
My colleague from New Hampshire said this is a deal breaker. What
deal breaker? We deal with this bill once every 6 years. How do you
exclude the States? How do you go home and say to people we have done a
great job here? We are going to see much better results.
By the way, a substantial portion of that 94 cents that goes to the
education of a child is going to be excluded from any accountability or
any assessment, in effect.
It seems to me that if you are asking some impoverished school
district to do better, or some kid growing up in a ghetto or in a rural
part of America to do better, you ought to try to provide the resources
to achieve those goals. And you ought to have some measurement by which
you can judge whether or not everybody is pulling their fair share to
see to it that we get the best results possible.
That is all this amendment is designed to do--to just add one other
word to district student, district teacher, school board, Federal
Government: add the word ``State.'' However, you want to make it
accountable, whether it is the educational authority, or the Governor,
or whoever it is, whatever means you choose to try to achieve
comparability, that is up to each State. I don't believe the Federal
Government ought to be telling States how to do that. It is not
identical. It is comparable.
As I have said, there are many school districts that embrace a great
diversity within their boundaries. They have lived with this law for 36
years. Certainly, for school districts that have student populations in
excess of the populations in 27 States--more than half of the States in
this country--asking the States to step up and provide some assurance
and at least making themselves open to the assessments that we ought to
be requiring, I don't think is too much.
I thank Chaka Fattah, the Congressional Black Caucus. La Rasa, the
Latino/Hispanic group, places this at a very high priority. Chaka
Fattah said the other day that this is the No. 1 priority for the
Congressional Black Caucus in their consideration of this bill. Again,
groups like the YMCA, YWCA, the Children's Defense Fund, American
Veterans Committee, AARP--I give great credit to retirees for
supporting this effort--the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the
National PTA, and the National Education Association are supporting
this amendment. I thank them for their support.
Again, it is 6 years down the road. This doesn't go into effect next
month, or next year, or the year after, if this bill is passed. We are
providing more than half a decade for States to try it and at least get
themselves in a position to offer these assurances, and then a 2-year
waiver beyond that and penalties to be imposed by the Secretary only to
administrative funds and not to the title I funds that go to the needy
children in this country.
Again, I hope our colleagues will see fit to support this amendment.
I will be happy to yield the floor at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from
Connecticut, after I speak, does the Senator want to go to a vote at
that time on his amendment?
Mr. DODD. I am prepared to at that point.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will not try to say anything that is
identical to what I said yesterday or the day before or last week on
this issue.
Let me simply point out that this amendment, in my humble opinion, is
one of the most significant ones we are going to take up in that it
reflects and makes one of the most significant attempts to have the
Federal Government become intrusive in the school systems of our
country.
The practical implications of this amendment are that the Federal
Government will now require that every State and all its communities
have comparable educational systems. We went through in some length
debate on this amendment over a couple of days last week. But,
essentially, that is a role that is inappropriate for the Federal
Government. The Federal Government should not be telling the State,
whatever State it happens to be--Montana, Indiana, West Virginia, New
Hampshire, or Ohio--you must have a school system structured so that
all your school systems are comparable; so that every school system in
the entire State must do essentially the same thing from school
district to school district in order to meet that comparability
standard.
There are States in this country that, either through court actions
dealing with funding, such as New Hampshire, or through court actions
maybe dealing with something beyond funding. I am not familiar with any
that have gone beyond the funding issue that have determined there
should be comparability within the State. There are States which may
have--I don't know this--State legislators that have decided it is part
of their State organizational structure for education that they want
comparability.
But I also know that there are a lot of States in this country that
have decided they do not necessarily want comparability because there
are significant differences within that State between what one school
district needs to do in order to be a good school educational system
and what another school needs to do in order to be a good educational
system.
[[Page S6102]]
Those differences are reflected in the collective bargaining
agreements between where you might have one part of the State with
collective bargaining agreements where teachers have introduced
agreements where the teacher has a different workweek than another part
of the State; or where the number of students for a classroom is
different in another part of the State; or the responsibility of
teachers in extracurricular activities is different in another part of
the State; or you might have a school district where States have
decided that in one part of the State kids will be educated in a
certain technical skill area that is unique to that part of the State--
say forestry or farming--and in another part of the State that
technical skill is not relevant because it is an urban part of the
State; or you might have a school district in one part of the State
that believes it wants to focus on foreign languages; whereas, another
part of the State wants to focus on technology skills versus foreign
languages, so they restructured their structure, or you might even have
different schooldays. One may have a longer schoolday or a shorter
schoolday.
Obviously, in the end, they probably have a State law requiring so
many schooldays or the way buildings are configured may be
significantly different.
States have legitimate reasons because of the weather requirements in
a State. They may not want to have a comparable school system across
the State and still believe that they can deliver quality education.
But other States may decide they want comparability.
But it is truly the responsibility of the State to make that decision
and not the Federal Government.
With the Federal Government to come in with 6 to 7 percent of the
dollars spent on local elementary and secondary school education and
say we have the right to demand statewide comparability is incredibly
intrusive. It opens the door to all sorts of issues that I think
significantly expand the role of the Federal Government in an
inappropriate way.
The logic of this amendment would be that the next step is entire
school systems across the country have to be comparable. Why stop at
the State border?
If you are going to say that every State has to have comparable
districts why would you stop there? Wouldn't the next logical step be
the true nationalization of the school systems, saying that every State
has to have comparable educational systems? That would be an excessive
reach of the Federal Government.
I believe this amendment, as has been characterized, clearly
undermines fundamentally the agreement that was reached in negotiations
as to the core elements of this bill. It is a dramatic departure from
the traditional role of the Federal Government, with an excessive
amount of intrusion by the Federal Government. For that reason, I
strongly oppose this amendment and hope it will be defeated.
I understand my colleague is going to ask for the yeas and nays and
we can go to a vote.
Mr. DODD. If I could take 1 minute, I have some remarks.
Mr. GREGG. Certainly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will just respond a little bit. Then we
will go to the vote. I have a statement from Chaka Fattah. I will not
read all of this, but I think the Congressman from Philadelphia makes a
very strong point. He says:
If students do not have comparable opportunities, they will
not have comparable results.
. . . There is no one anywhere who would say that rural and
urban school districts receive comparable resources with our
wealthier suburban districts; yet, we want to have the same
standards. This is not logical. I am perfectly prepared to
support testing where we measure the aptitude of young people
who have the same opportunities to see if they have the same
results.
. . . The goal should be excellence for not just some, but
all, of our nation's children. My hope is that some of [our]
colleagues will understand the importance of educational
comparability as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement by Congressman Chaka Fattah on the Dodd Amendment
``For two days this week, the most powerful lawmaking body
in the world has debated whether poor children have the right
to learn in situations comparable to our wealthier students.
The Dodd Amendment, No. 459, stresses the need for schools to
have comparable resources. However, some are attempting to
block this important vote.
Right now, the Republicans are pushing to test every child
in math and reading. But if poor kids do not have certified
teachers, if they don't have updated textbooks, if their
class sizes are twice as large and their school districts are
underfunded, then why ask for test results that are clearly
skewed? If students do not have comparable opportunities,
they will not have comparable results.
I wonder why some Republicans are unwilling to urge states
to provide comparable educational opportunities for poor
children as the Dodd Amendment asserts. There is no one
anywhere who would say that rural and urban school districts
receive comparable resources with our wealthier suburban
districts; yet, we want to have the same standards. This is
not logical. I am perfectly prepared to support testing where
we measure the aptitude of young people who have the same
opportunities to see if they have the same results. However,
if we want these children to take national tests, we should
also strive to provide them with comparable resources. With
so many state courts ruling for more equitable funding, why
would some Republicans threaten to filibuster an amendment
that would provide this very goal?
I have had many conversations with Senators Dodd, Biden and
others on why we need all our public schools to perform at
comparable levels. They understand this and should be
commended for offering this amendment. The goal should be
excellence for not just some, but all, of our nation's
children. My hope is that some of their Republican colleagues
will understannd the importance of educational comparability
as well.''
Mr. DODD. To add to my colleague's point, this is not telling the
States how the State system should be structured. It is not saying that
if one district offers Japanese as a language, because there is an
interest, they have to offer it to everybody in the State. That is not
common sense.
Comparability of educational services is about comparability of
educational opportunity. I cannot see why this is a controversial
issue. I hope, again, our colleagues can support the amendment.
I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his patience and yield
the floor.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 459, as further
modified. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--58
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 459), as further modified, was rejected.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. 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 Nevada is recognized.
[[Page S6103]]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
370 offered by the Senator from California be next in order; that there
be a 30-minute time agreement, with no second-degree amendments, and
that we have, as we have been doing on this bill, a side-by-side
amendment offered by Senator Hagel. His amendment would be debated for
30 minutes evenly divided, with no second-degree amendments to the
Hagel amendment. We would vote after both amendments were offered and
argued.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it looks as if we will vote at 6:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 370 to Amendment No. 358
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to proceed under the
unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an
amendment numbered 370.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To award grants for school construction)
On page 302, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
Part __--School Construction
SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.
This part may be cited as the ``Excellence in Education Act
of 2001''.
SEC. __02. DEFINITIONS.
In this part:
(1) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary
school; secretary.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``local
educational agency'', ``secondary school'', and ``Secretary''
have the meanings given the terms in section 3 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(2) Construction.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
``construction'' means--
(i) preparation of drawings and specifications for school
facilities;
(ii) building new school facilities, or acquiring,
remodeling, demolishing, renovating, improving, or repairing
facilities to establish new school facilities; and
(iii) inspection and supervision of the construction of new
school facilities.
(B) Rule.--An activity described in subparagraph (A) shall
be considered to be construction only if the labor standards
described in section 439 of the General Education Provisions
Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b) are applied with respect to such
activity.
(3) School facility.--The term ``school facility'' means a
public structure suitable for use as a classroom, laboratory,
library, media center, or related facility the primary
purpose of which is the instruction of public elementary
school or secondary school students. The term does not
include an athletic stadium or any other structure or
facility intended primarily for athletic exhibitions,
contests, or games for which admission is charged to the
general public.
SEC. __03. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $1,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 through
2006.
SEC. __04. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
The Secretary is authorized to award grants to local
educational agencies to enable the local educational agencies
to carry out the construction of new public elementary school
and secondary school facilities.
SEC. __05. CONDITIONS FOR RECEIVING FUNDS.
In order to receive funds under this part a local
educational agency shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Reduce class and school sizes for public schools served
by the local educational agency as follows:
(A) Limit class size to an average student-to-teacher ratio
of 20 to 1, in classes serving kindergarten through grade 6
students, in the schools served by the agency.
(B) Limit class size to an average student-to-teacher ratio
of 28 to 1, in classes serving grade 7 through grade 12
students, in the schools served by the agency.
(C) Limit the size of public elementary schools and
secondary schools served by the agency to--
(i) not more than 500 students in the case of a school
serving kindergarten through grade 5 students;
(ii) not more than 750 students in the case of a school
serving grade 6 through grade 8 students; and
(iii) not more than 1,500 students in the case of a school
serving grade 9 through grade 12 students.
(2) Provide matching funds, with respect to the cost to be
incurred in carrying out the activities for which the grant
is awarded, from non-Federal sources in an amount equal to
the Federal funds provided under the grant.
SEC. __06. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Each local educational agency desiring to
receive a grant under this part shall submit an application
to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the
Secretary may require.
(b) Contents.--Each application shall contain--
(1) an assurance that the grant funds will be used in
accordance with this part;
(2) a brief description of the construction to be
conducted;
(3) a cost estimate of the activities to be conducted; and
(4) a description of available non-Federal matching funds.
Amendment No. 370 as Modified
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified
with the changes I now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, we have not seen the
modification.
I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment as modified, is as follows:
On page 696, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
``CHAPTER 5--SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
``SEC. 5351. DEFINITIONS.
``In this chapter:
``(1) Construction.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
`construction' means--
``(i) preparation of drawings and specifications for school
facilities;
``(ii) building new school facilities, or acquiring,
remodeling, demolishing, renovating, improving, or repairing
facilities to establish new school facilities; and
``(iii) inspection and supervision of the construction of
new school facilities.
``(B) Rule.--An activity described in subparagraph (A)
shall be considered to be construction only if the labor
standards described in section 439 of the General Education
Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b) are applied with respect to
such activity.
``(2) School facility.--The term `school facility' means a
public structure suitable for use as a classroom, laboratory,
library, media center, or related facility the primary
purpose of which is the instruction of public elementary
school or secondary school students. The term does not
include an athletic stadium or any other structure or
facility intended primarily for athletic exhibitions,
contests, or games for which admission is charged to the
general public.
``SEC. 5352. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) In General.--Funds made available to local
educational agencies under section 5312 may, notwithstanding
section 5331(a), be used to enable the local educational
agencies to carry out the construction of new public
elementary school and secondary school facilities.
``(b) Nonapplication of Provisions.--The provisions of
chapter 4 shall not apply to this chapter.
``SEC. 5353. CONDITIONS FOR USE OF FUNDS.
``In order to use funds for construction under this chapter
a local educational agency shall meet the following
requirements:
``(1) Reduce school sizes for public elementary schools and
secondary schools served by the local educational agency to--
``(A) not more than 500 students in the case of a school
serving kindergarten through grade 5 students;
``(B) not more than 750 students in the case of a school
serving grade 6 through grade 8 students; and
``(C) not more than 1,500 students in the case of a school
serving grade 9 through grade 12 students.
``(2) Provide matching funds, with respect to the cost to
be incurred in carrying out the activities for which the
grant is awarded, from non-Federal sources in an amount equal
to the Federal funds provided under the grant.
``SEC. 5354. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency desiring
to use funds under this chapter shall submit an application
to the State educational agency at such time and in such
manner as the State educational agency may require.
``(b) Contents.--Each application shall contain--
``(1) an assurance that the grant funds will be used in
accordance with this chapter;
``(2) a brief description of the construction to be
conducted;
``(3) a cost estimate of the activities to be conducted;
and
``(4) a description of available non-Federal matching
funds.''
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think virtually every Member of this
body has been to an overcrowded school. I personally have been in
schools where I have seen children learning in closets because the
population of the school was so large, for example, elementary schools
with over 1,000 students, many schools with many different languages.
Yet it is very difficult for local jurisdictions to build
[[Page S6104]]
smaller schools because of the pressures of growing population.
The amendment I have sent to the desk allows funds under title V,
part B, subpart 4, the Innovative Education Program Strategies, to be
used to reduce the size of schools. The amendment authorizes the U.S.
Department of Education to award grants as a permissible use of these
funds to reduce the size of schools, in other words, to build small
schools. The grants would be equally matched by the State, the local
jurisdiction, or the school district. This amendment does not add
additional dollars but permits use of funds under Title V that may be
available.
I am introducing the amendment because I strongly believe children
learn better and teachers teach better in smaller schools. Many of our
schools are just too big. In fact, half of all American high school
students go to schools with 1,500 or more students. Half of all
American high school students are in huge high schools. Studies have
shown again and again and again that student achievement improves when
school and class size are reduced.
The U.S. Department of Education indicates these are some of the
benefits of small schools: Students have a greater sense of belonging;
fewer discipline problems occur; crime, violence, and gang activity go
down; alcohol and tobacco use declines; dropout rates fall; graduation
rates rise; and student attendance increases.
The ideal high school, according to education experts, is between 600
and 900 students. The National Association of Elementary School
Principals recommends an elementary school size of no more than 400 for
grades kindergarten to grade 5. That is the way it was when I went to
public school, and that is one of the reasons I was able to learn.
Studies show that students in small schools have higher academic
achievement, fewer discipline problems, lower dropout rates, higher
levels of student participation, and higher graduation rates. A
Tennessee study called project STAR placed 6,500 kindergartners in 330
classes of different sizes. The test scores and the behavior of
students in smaller classes were better than those in larger classes.
We know that small class size benefits. We also know that in a
society as diverse as ours, when some schools have as many as 40
different languages, smaller schools benefit students and teachers as
well.
Under this amendment, schools receiving grants that would be equally
matched would have to meet the following size requirements: For
kindergarten through fifth grade, not more than 500 students; for
grades 6 through 8, not more than 750 students; for grades 9 through
12, not more than 1,500 students.
This amendment will provide a new funding source for school districts
or States to build new schools with the explicit goal of reducing
school size. We need to build 6,000 new schools in this Nation just to
meet enrollment growth projections. That is not going to happen if
there isn't some Federal help. By amending title V and making this a
permitted use--grants for small schools--I hope school districts will
have an incentive to build small.
Let me give examples of large schools. In Mapleton, UT, 832 students
in an elementary school; Narragansett Elementary School, in Rhode
Island, 710 students; Coral Gables Elementary School, FL, 748 students;
Munford, AL, Ophelia Hill Elementary, 730 students; Gosnell Elementary,
in Arkansas, 788 students. It isn't only the big States, it is the
small States, too.
Right nearby in Herndon, Virginia, we have a middle school of 1,285
students and Rocky Run Middle School, also in Virginia, 1,350 students.
A combination middle school and high school in Florida, in River Ridge
Middle and High School, 3,260 students in one school.
Here are some examples of large high schools. Olympic Heights
Community High School, Palm Beach, FL, 2,405 students; Camelback High
School, Phoenix, AZ, 2,557 students; Georgia, in South Gwinnett High
School, 2,550 students; in Lyons, IL, 3,087 students; and Waipahu High
School, in Hawaii, 2,434 students.
California, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, has some of
the largest schools in the country. Los Angeles has some of the largest
classes and schools in the world. Let me give an example. In Los
Angeles, Hawaiian Elementary--elementary--1,365 students; South Gate
Middle School--middle school--4,442 students; Belmont High School,
4,874 students.
I have been in some of these schools.
If we can provide an incentive for local jurisdictions to build
smaller schools, educational experts now say that beginning schools,
elementary schools, do not have to be in a special campus. We can have
a campus within a campus or have a small school as part of a commercial
setting, for example.
The important thing is ``small.'' Small is better when it comes to
education, particularly in the lower grades, and particularly when one
has a varied socioeconomic structure, one has many different languages.
Schools I have been in--and I will tell you this--have been a cacophony
of sound, so many students, so much noise, everything in shifts; a
shift for the lunch, everything in track; track 1, track 2; and, again,
40 different languages spoken.
I hope the Senate sees fit to pass this amendment. As I said, the
amendment does not add new funds. It would simply amend title V to make
as a permissible use of title V funds, grants that would be equally
matched, Federal dollars with state or local dollars, to build small
schools in the United States of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 797 to Amendment No. 358
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hagel], for himself, Mr.
Campbell, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 797.
Mr. HAGEL. 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 require that certain schools be given priority in the
allocation of school construction assistance)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``5--FEDERAL PRIORITIES FOR SCHOOL REPAIR AND RENOVATION.
``SEC. 5351. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(7) Over several decades, Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Impact Aid schools have suffered from neglect and disrepair,
which has had a direct impact on student learning and safety.
``(8) As of January 2001, the repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation backlog for Bureau of Indian Affairs and heavily
impacted Impact Aid education facilities and quarters was
over $2,000,000,000.
``(b) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law (including the provisions of this Act), in administering
any Federal program to provide assistance for school
construction or renovation, the Secretary of Education shall
ensure that assistance under such program is provided to meet
the construction or renovation needs of schools receiving
Impact Aid, schools under the jurisdiction of the Department
of Defense, and Indian and Bureau of Indian Affairs funded
schools prior to making any such assistance available under
such program to other schools.
``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to apply to--
``(1) school construction bond programs or school
renovation bond programs; or
``(2) amounts provided for school construction or
renovation under--''.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Campbell and
Kyl, in offering this amendment which reconfirms the Federal obligation
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, Department of Defense schools,
and Impact Aid schools. While we all agree that steps need to be taken
to modernize and improve the conditions of our schools nationwide, one
question continually permeates this debate and makes consensus
difficult. This question revolves around what should be the appropriate
role of the Federal Government with respect to school construction.
Senator Feinstein would like to reduce class size by constructing
more classrooms. That is an admirable goal, one to which I think we all
are committed. However, before the Senate authorizes funding for
general school construction, we have an existing obligation that we
should meet first. The
[[Page S6105]]
Federal Government has a responsibility to educate Native American
children and the children of men and women who serve the Federal
Government. This obligation includes building and repairing the schools
these children attend.
The need for school repair is great. There is no dispute about this
need. The General Accounting Office estimated in March 2000 that it
will cost $112 billion to repair and modernize U.S. schools. The
National Education Association estimates that it will cost more than
$300 billion to repair and modernize U.S. schools.
However, before we can allow Federal funds to flow to locally
supported schools for these purposes, as noble and worthy as these
purposes are, we, the Federal Government, have our first obligation to
ensure the facility needs of BIA, DOD, and Impact Aid-supported schools
are met.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs operates 185 schools across the country.
Impact Aid reaches more than 1,600 schools serving 1.2 million
federally connected children. The Department of Defense operates 70
schools nationwide. The repair needs of these schools reach well over
$2 billion.
Due to military base realignments, the Fort Hood public school
district in Texas is now using over 200 trailers to serve students.
The Waynesville School District in Missouri needs to replace a high
school that was built in the late 19th century.
In my home State of Nebraska, your home State, Mr. President, the
Bellevue public school district needs a new middle school, and the
Winnebago School District has over $3 million in needed immediate
repairs and construction.
The amendment I offer today along with my colleagues from Arizona and
Colorado will assure we meet our commitment to the children attending
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Impact Aid, and Department of Defense
schools, schools we clearly have a Federal obligation to support.
We must meet these clear Federal obligations first.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 370 As Modified
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I first thank Senator Feinstein for her
amendment and urge the Senate adopt it. We have in the legislation what
is called title V. That provides flexibility in the States and local
communities--20 percent is retained to the State; 80 percent goes to
the local communities. Half is distributed under a somewhat different
formula from title I, but half goes into the title I formula, the other
based on population. So there are funds that will be available.
What this amendment is saying, as described by the Senator, is the
resources can be used for the development of new schools.
One of the things most of us think about when we think about new
schools is a brand new school appearing on a bluff or on a hill or in a
field. But what we are finding out now is that many new schools are
being built inside of old schools. We have had good hearings on the
results of this kind of experimentation, where they are taking schools
that have large student populations and breaking them down and
literally having two or three or four new schools in a very large
school context.
They are finding out the changing of the organization and changing of
the structure and the administration and running of these institutions
have had a very positive impact on the students themselves.
So this amendment will provide some flexibility in this area of new
schools. It will not only try to meet some of the needs for additional
construction, which we have talked about earlier in the debate on the
Carper amendment and earlier than that on the Harkin amendment, but it
will also permit the use of these funds which otherwise would not have
been permitted for the development of new schools in older school
buildings.
I think it is a useful addition. I know the initial amendment was a
good deal more ambitious. I was prepared to support that
enthusiastically. But I think this is an important addition, and I
thank the Senator for bringing this matter to our attention.
From my own judgment, this will be a very worthwhile utilization of
the title I funding that I think should be supported.
I notice the Senator from Nebraska asked for the yeas and nays. I
believe, with my colleague, we are prepared to accept the Feinstein
amendment, if we could voice vote that amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I think we will have to reserve our rights. We cannot do
that right now.
Mr. KENNEDY. All right. Then I think the Senator reserves the
remainder of her time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts
for his comments. I reserve the remainder of my time.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 797
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to claim the time in
opposition to the amendment of the Senator from California, but right
now I rise in support of the Hagel amendment and yield myself such time
as I consume.
I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska.
Senator Hagel has proposed an amendment which is very appropriate. He
essentially said in his amendment, before we start doing construction
activities--renovation, repair--on public schools in jurisdictions
where States have responsibilities or communities have
responsibilities, we ought to first do our job in our own areas where
we have responsibilities, specifically in the Indian reservation areas
and especially at our military facilities. Many of our military
personnel have young children and those children are, first, under the
pressure of being children of military personnel, which is a difficult
position and it puts a lot of pressure on the family. And, second, a
lot of them are in school buildings which are dilapidated and simply
not up to snuff as far as being a physical facility in which education
should be performed.
We, the Federal Government, have a first line of responsibility to
take care of those school buildings and those school construction needs
and renovation needs on our military installations. The same can be
said for our Indian reservations where we have the primary
responsibility through treaty agreements. There are numerous instances
where the Federal Government has the responsibility of maintaining the
physical facilities of the schools on those reservations. We have an
obligation to do that.
I think the Senator from Nebraska has really pointed out a very
appropriate obligation of the Federal Government and has prioritized
this process of using funds, to the extent they are going to be used,
in the renovation area out of title VI, and the use of those funds in a
manner which is consistent with our obligations as the Federal
Government. The Federal Government's first responsibility should be the
Federal facilities, and especially to children on our military bases.
I strongly support the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska and
hope it will be accepted. I look forward to voting on it.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have.
Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I did not comment earlier on the Hagel
amendment. I join in recommending support for the amendment. As one who
was the chairman of the Committee on Indian Education just about 30
years ago and was mindful of the particular needs of Native Americans,
as well as those in the densely populated military districts, I think
the Senator has given us a good amendment to be able to express our
priority by giving focus and attention to the heavily impacted Native
Americans and military districts.
I welcome the chance to support the amendment. I thank him for
bringing it to our attention.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S6106]]
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I understand the Senator from
California has 4 minutes remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this amendment, offered as a perfecting
amendment, was never part of the printed list of amendments. As a
matter of good faith, I was under the impression that it was the
perfection of another amendment.
This amendment is effectively the Enzi amendment. The effect of this
amendment, if it goes into effect, is not the $10 million of impact aid
for Native Americans; it effectively, under the language of the
amendment on page 3 says, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the secretary shall ensure that assistance under such program is
provided to meet the construction and renovation needs of schools
receiving impacted aid.''
That takes all of the previously appropriated money and effectively
ends that kind of support for the schools that are expecting for this
to be distributed in this month. So this is a revote on the Enzi
amendment. The Enzi amendment was defeated and this amendment should be
defeated.
Quite frankly, I really question--I hate to say this--the good will
of our colleagues. We have been attempting to working in good-faith
efforts here. I didn't object to the modification of the amendment.
This is a restatement of the Enzi amendment which effectively takes all
of the construction funds previously appropriated and earmarked for
States--already now the States would have that--and says that money
will go to a handful of impact aid areas. I hope this amendment will be
defeated. It is the Enzi amendment. I ask our colleagues to review
their votes at that particular time.
This effectively vitiates the action that was taken in the last
Congress to help school construction across this country. With this
amendment, it effectively eliminates that kind of proposal. I think it
is grossly both an unfair and unwise policy.
I have the list of the allocations now from the Department of
Education for each of the 50 States. I say to every one of our Members,
you can be assured you will not get this money that is going to go out
to your States within the next 4 weeks. It will not go out if this
amendment is accepted and becomes law. That is the effect of it.
I regret that we didn't have more time to debate it. I regret that
the proponent of the amendment is not here. I have been asking whether
the floor manager of the bill understood this to be a repeat of the
Enzi amendment. I ask him now if he knows that.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I can't yield on my time, since I have very little time
left. I will say it is the exact language of the Enzi amendment. They
are identical. That is really a misrepresentation of what this
amendment is all about.
I repeat, since I haven't any further time--and we were charged on
our side during the quorum call, with all of my time being charged
initially--even though earlier today when the Senator wasn't here, we
asked for a fair distribution of the time. We can play it whatever way
our friends on the other side want, but this is not the way for good
legislation or good faith.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, possibly, could you tell us what the time
situation is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from California has how much?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remains.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Nebraska?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes, I have 4 minutes,
and there is no time on that side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. GREGG. I don't know how the time is charged, but it seems to me
that time is obviously being charged fairly and equitably because we
are down to 4 minutes on our side, and I think the Senator from
Massachusetts probably spoke for at least 4 minutes on his time.
As to the equity of time charge, I think it was reasonable.
As to the issue which the Senator from Massachusetts has asked--did I
know this was the Enzi amendment--unfortunately, I didn't. But I still
like the Enzi amendment. So I guess I am certainly for it. However, at
this point I will yield to the Senator from Arizona, if the Senator
wishes to claim time from Senator Hagel.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, as a cosponsor of the amendment, perhaps I
could have the remainder of the time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Could we ask for another 20 minutes?
Mr. GREGG. That is fine with me if you want 20 minutes equally
divided. Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, first let me respond to the Senator from
Massachusetts. I think he will find that this is not the Enzi
amendment. That was several pages long. This is the first 21 lines of
the first page of the Enzi amendment.
What this amendment says is that the impact aid which has
traditionally gone to the federally impacted areas is going to be given
a priority. The primary areas we are talking about are Indian
reservations and military installations.
In my State of Arizona, we have more reservation Indians than any
other State in the United States, and a lot of military installations.
My own view is that States and local school districts have always had
the responsibility for school construction. They are the ones primarily
responsible for that.
With respect to Federal involvement in primary and secondary
education, our first obligation ought to be to the our first
responsibilities--the Federal installations and the Indian reservations
over which we have trust land responsibility. Both of them are sorely
in need of these funds. Therefore, it makes sense to me that we should
consider, as a distinct proposition, the first 21 lines of the Enzi
amendment, which provide that the priority goes to these federally
impacted areas--so that they get the money first, and what is left over
can go to other school districts.
To me, that seems very logical. It seems to be the appropriate role
for the Federal Government. Why would we not take care of the Federal
responsibilities first as a priority and then, to the extent there is
money left over, add that to what the States and local school districts
spend for their schools?
Since 1967, impact aid construction has not been fully funded. The
result is a huge backlog of projects. In Education Week, a school board
member in the military impact district said that some districts
conducted so much of their business in portable classrooms and aging
buildings that they ``more closely resemble prison camps than
schools.''
He went on to say, ``Our troops are in Bosnia and those are the kinds
of schools their kids are in.''
I might note that the Military Impact Schools Association, which is
obviously interested in this, estimated it would take $310 million to
meet facility needs in their members' districts.
I can tell you from my experience with the many Indian reservations
in Arizona that you have a very similar situation with federally
impacted schools in Indian Country. In fact, it is even more dire.
According to a 1996 study by the National Indian Impacted Schools
Association, a typical district of this type had more than $7 million
in facilities needs.
And facilities needs are even more pressing for America's 185 Indian
schools, which educate 50,000 Indian students.
According to testimony from the director of the Office of Indian
Education, perhaps half of the schools within the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs exceeded their useful
[[Page S6107]]
lives of more than 50 years, and more than 20 percent are over 50 years
old.
No fewer than 96 schools need to be entirely replaced.
I think it is important that we put the money first where the Federal
Government has the first responsibility, which is in our military
installations and Indian reservations. That is all this amendment does.
There is nothing secret about it. That is all it does.
That doesn't begin to use up the entire $1.5 billion that is
available here. That is approximately the amount, as I understand it.
Again, we are simply providing the priority to the military
installations and the reservations.
I commend the Senator from Nebraska as well as the Senator from
Colorado, Mr. Campbell, for his emphasis on getting these needs met,
and I certainly hope we can adopt this amendment which establishes the
priority for Federal facilities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
Madam President, this is an entirely unacceptable way to do business
in the Senate. The initial Hagel amendment that was printed for all of
us to see applied to impact aid and Native American construction. The
amount of money that was appropriated previously was $10 million. It
was represented to us that this was a technical correction about how
that $10 million was going to be expended between impact aid and Native
American housing.
At the last moment, the Senator from Nebraska asked for a perfecting
amendment. We, to our fault, believed that it was a perfecting
amendment, but the perfecting amendment is an amendment that does not
deal with the $10 million but deals with $1.2 billion and tracks the
Enzi amendment which says the allocations of funding that had been
reached under the Department of Education under the Harkin amendment of
last year will be emasculated and instead there will be an entirely
different distribution according to impact aid, so that every one of
those States that was going to receive the aid now from the Department
of Education are going to receive nothing. Somehow it will be
distributed to States that have impact aid and Native Americans.
That is a perfecting amendment. That just defies understanding,
logic, reason, and truthfulness. Truthfulness.
Madam President, I hope that amendment will be defeated. I will print
the exact language of the Enzi amendment and the 22 lines the Senator
from Arizona says--well, it is true they had 22 lines of the Enzi
amendment. That is the operative language. What difference does it make
if you have five other pages of it? You have 22 lines of it that say
exactly what the Enzi amendment said. That is basically wrong. It is a
bad way to deal with this institution.
I am surprised, quite frankly. I regret having to make these remarks
when the Senator is not here. We are under a time limit on this, and
this amendment ought to be withdrawn, and we ought to deal with the
existing Hagel amendment. When all time expires, I am going to make
that request, that we withdraw the perfecting amendment and go back to
the original Enzi amendment that was distributed and that was
understood to be the amendment on which we were going to act.
I yield the remaining 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in my home State of Illinois, we have an
impact aid district. It is near the Great Lakes Naval Training Station.
It needs additional Federal assistance. I supported it and asked for it
over the years, and I will continue to support it.
The Hagel amendment we are considering is fundamentally inexplicable.
Here we have $1.2 billion to be given, as I understand it, to 200
impact aid school districts; $6 million per school district if you
happen to be in the lucky category of Senator Hagel's amendment. And
who will lose? Sixteen thousand school districts across America that
have already made application and been approved for money for
renovation of schools.
In my home State of Illinois, we are talking about $42 million they
expect to receive in the next few weeks, money that will be spent to
make schools better and safer before the new school year starts. They
will not receive the money under the Hagel amendment. Only one school
district in my State will receive the money, some $6 million. Quite a
windfall.
I am sure they can figure out someplace to use it, but is that fair?
Is it fair at this point in time, after every State in the Union and
the school districts therein have made applications for $1.2 billion in
school construction money, to tell them it is over, they are not going
to receive this assistance? The money that is being applied for in this
construction grant is money to make schools safer so kids can go to
school and have a good learning experience.
I thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. He really explained the
motive behind this amendment. It is not a matter of helping impact aid
districts; it is a matter of many Senators on that side of the aisle
objecting to the notion that the Federal Government would give money to
local school districts.
The Senator from Arizona was very forthcoming. He said when it comes
to school construction, it should come from State and local funds. That
is his philosophy. This amendment reflects it. They do not want Federal
assistance going to school districts across the State.
I respect the Senator for being forthcoming in his statement, but
let's be very clear that this amendment will take away $1.2 billion in
school construction funds that school districts across America have
applied for to make their schools better and safer for the new school
year. That is clearly the intent of it. It is not a question of helping
kids in school. It is a question of ending a program which many people
on the other side of the aisle just do not agree with philosophically.
I happen to believe education is the highest priority in our country.
I believe that an investment from the Federal Government in making our
schools safer so kids do not have the ceilings falling down on top of
them, they are not stuck out in a trailer in the parking lot, they have
a good classroom where they can learn, is a national priority that
deserves a national investment.
Those who opposed that program in years gone by had a chance to argue
against it. They lost the debate. Now they are trying with the Hagel
amendment to win again.
I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, this amendment is, as he
says, a last minute attempt to undermine a good program for school
construction across America. Those school districts in every State are
going to learn, if this amendment is adopted today, they have lost the
Federal assistance they need to improve their schools. I reserve the
remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. How much time is on this side?
Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Arizona 3 minutes.
Mr. REID. How much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 29 seconds.
Mr. KYL. That was the time remaining on the Democratic side; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KYL. And the time remaining on the Republican side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I want to respond to my colleague from
Illinois.
I would like to characterize my position rather than having my friend
from Illinois characterize my position. He complimented me on being
candid to say that I thought the first responsibility for the Federal
Government in school construction is for the military installations and
Indian reservations. That is correct.
That is why, in this amendment, we first apply school construction
funds to the needs of the military installations and the Indian
reservations because those are the schools that get no help from the
States. States do not build schools on military installations of the
Federal Government or on the Federal Indian reservations. Only the
Federal Government has that responsibility.
[[Page S6108]]
Only we spend the money for those facilities.
Those facilities are in horrible condition, far worse as a general
rule than the average school described by my friend from Illinois.
What we are saying is since only the Federal Government takes care of
these two areas, or should, that the money we have allocated for school
construction should first be applied to them as a matter of priority.
Do I have a bit of a parochial interest here? Yes, I do because we
have a lot of military installations and Indian reservations in
Arizona, and the conditions are deplorable on our Federal Indian
reservations. Anybody in this Chamber would be embarrassed to go to
these facilities, and I add to that the court facilities, the jail
facilities, and a lot of other facilities. And who has the
responsibility for them? The Federal Government. Again: these are the
schools that do not get any help from the States.
What are we saying as the Federal Government when we say that we are
going to help the States and local governments build their schools
before attending to our first obligation, our Indian reservations and
military installations? I say that is backwards. We already have
somebody who is supposed to have the responsibility to take care of our
primary and secondary education within the States. It is only the
Federal Government that can take care of the military and Indian
reservations. That is why I say this amendment makes all the sense in
the world.
Let's prioritize the Federal dollars so we take care of our own
responsibilities first and then the remainder of the funds can be
distributed to the State school needs.
That is the way I characterize this, rather than the way my colleague
from Illinois did. It is a matter of priorities.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 3 minutes 29 seconds, and the
minority has 6 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Iowa is here. He was the proponent of
the initial amendment that provided $1.2 billion which has been
appropriated and now allocated to 50 States. The initial amendment of
the Senator from Nebraska had a program that was previously funded at
$10 million, and his amendment allocated that $10 million to Native
Americans. That was the initial amendment.
The Senator sent up a new amendment that was not even printed that
effectively wipes out all of the money appropriated under the Harkin
amendment a year ago and will deny the 50 States the funding to which
they were entitled.
The remaining 3 minutes goes to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I don't know how this amendment all of a sudden came out
of the clear blue sky. We heard it was noncontroversial. This amendment
robs States of millions of dollars they get on July 1 of this year.
This is money we put in the appropriations bill last year. It was
agreed to by the Republicans, by the Democrats, by the House, by the
White House. This is all signed off on. This is $1.2 billion that goes
to States for emergencies--safety, repairs to schools, to meet fire
code violations.
This is the same amendment--this amendment that is before the
Senate--that was defeated May 16 by a bipartisan vote of 62-37. This is
basically the same amendment. We have already defeated it 62-37. If
Members vote for this amendment, they are voting to cut already
appropriated funds that are going to States. Members are shifting it to
important but a small number of schools in a few States.
Before Members vote, see how much money is going into your State
beginning on July 1 of this year. If this amendment passes, your State
will not get one cent of this money for emergency repairs to meet fire
and safety codes in their schools.
This amendment was defeated on May 16--check the record--by a
bipartisan vote of 62-37. This money is already appropriated. I already
have the amount of money that has been allocated going to each State.
The money is going out on July 1. Your school districts are counting on
getting this money to meet fire and safety codes, to repair and
renovate their schools. This is not building new schools. This is
simply to make your schools safe.
I hope people will reject this amendment as we rejected it before by
a vote of 62-37 on May 16.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Hagel for 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 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 Feinstein 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.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 8 seconds
and the Senator from New Hampshire has 6 minutes 59 seconds.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I make a point: For all the concern which
the other side has, I believe the
[[Page S6109]]
other side has a right to know of the amendments that come forward. The
confusion about this is unfortunate. The fact is, this amendment is a
legitimate second degree to the underlying amendment, and therefore
would have been in order if we had been functioning under the
traditional parliamentary system. We are functioning under a system
where we don't second degree; we have side-by-sides. As a second
degree, it would have wiped out the Feinstein amendment. That is just a
statement of where we are parliamentarily.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask to be recognized for 60 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I make it clear again: On May 16 an
amendment was offered by Senator Enzi of Wyoming that would have
redistributed $240 million of the $1.2 billion that is going out for
school repair. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 62-37. That
would have only redistributed $240 million. This amendment before the
Senate takes the whole $1.2 billion and puts it into Impact Aid.
If a Member was opposed to taking $240 million out of the school
renovation repair for fire and safety code on the Enzi amendment, that
Member surely ought to be opposed to taking $1.2 billion and putting it
into Impact Aid and taking it away from our schools for meeting safety
and fire codes in our local school districts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask to proceed for 2 minutes and give 1 minute to the
Senator.
The initial Hagel amendment was 549; what was called up was No. 797
and was not printed. This was $10 million which we understood was going
to be perfected in some way, as we have been perfecting amendments all
day long on the floor and granting that permission--although it takes
consent to do it. We expected that perfection would be along the lines
of the Hagel amendment, a drafting error. Instead, what was called up
is a completely different amendment, 797, that was not even printed and
otherwise would be out of order since it was not filed in time. Instead
of $10 million, it is $1.2 billion.
I think that is a gross misappropriation. I ask, therefore, that the
perfecting amendment be withdrawn and that we vote on the initial Hagel
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. GREGG. I believe I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I understand the Senator from
Massachusetts is expressing his frustration about the situation. But
the situation is not, as I mentioned before, so far from what a typical
parliamentary situation would be. All the first degrees had to be
cleared, that is correct, but no second degrees had to be cleared. So
there have been second degrees which are not being set up as second
degrees because of this side-by-side process, which has been very
constructive, so that everybody gets a vote on what their position is.
They have been relevant to the first degree but have not been filed. So
this is a second-degree amendment which is being held as a side-by-side
amendment.
That being said, simply, once again, to clear the parliamentary
errors from where we are from our perspective.
I yield the floor.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent we stand in a quorum call for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator can suggest the
absence of a quorum. It will require further consent to terminate the
call. Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wanted to ask if it would be
appropriate----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum call is in progress.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted
for----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may not reserve the right to
object.
Mr. GREGG. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill clerk continued the call of the roll.
Amendment No. 797, Withdrawn
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays on my amendment be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Was the
amendment withdrawn, or did the author of the amendment intend to
withdraw it?
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, my intent is to withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-- of course I
will not object--I cosponsored it because I felt very strongly that it
was something we should do. I hope that sometime we will prioritize
Federal funds for our responsibility to Federal military and Federal
Indian reservation installations. I hope at some point we can get along
with it. But, obviously, I don't object to withdrawing the amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I ask the
distinguished manager of the bill if there will be another opportunity
with appropriate notice to have a vote on the Federal priorities for
Federal schools because I, too, am very interested in our military
schools and our Indian schools being a first priority. That is my
inquiry.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there are amendments which are filed to
that effect and that are in order. I don't have the list as to that
particular measure in front of me.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think there is an amendment coming up
that would be relevant to a second degree. If the Senator wishes to
bring it back, it would be available at that time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend from
Nebraska that his actions tonight, because of a misunderstanding that
could have been on our part, only magnify my feelings about the Senator
from Nebraska. This was very classic action on his behalf, and I
personally appreciate it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in that. The Senator has given me
a good explanation of what his plans were and what his intentions were,
and they were completely honorable--not that they are not always
honorable.
His explanations made a great deal of sense to me when he explained
what he had intended to do. So we were caught up in a difficult
situation. I am enormously grateful to him for this action. We are more
than glad to accommodate Senators as we move on. We will have another
opportunity.
On the basis of the substance, if he wants to, I will certainly ask
consent that we be able to consider the Senator's amendment at a time,
if he chooses to do so, later in this debate. We will all have an
opportunity to vote on it at some time. I will take the opportunity to
discuss this with the Senator and other interested Senators at a later
time.
I thank him very much.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, may I respond. I appreciate very much the
work of my friends and colleagues from Nevada and Massachusetts. I
would very much like to accept the invitation of the distinguished
senior Senator from Massachusetts to at a later date have an
opportunity to revisit this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 370, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment
No. 370, as modified, offered by
[[Page S6110]]
the Senator from California. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--46
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
Murkowski
The amendment (No. 370), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have the Senator from Washington, Ms.
Cantwell, who has an amendment. As I understand it, there will probably
be a side-by-side amendment that will be offered on that from the other
side. It is the desire that both of those would be considered together
probably on the morrow.
We have the Senator from South Carolina and Senator Wellstone to
speak. We are prepared to take the Nelson amendment now and include
that. It has been cleared. Later on in the evening, we will have a
voice vote on the amendment of my colleague, Senator Kerry. There is
going to be, as I understand it, from the other side, a side-by-side
amendment to that of the Senator from South Carolina. That is going to
be available tonight, and it is going to be printed tonight. I don't
know whether the Senator from Pennsylvania intends to speak about it
tonight or not. We are just trying to get the general lay of the land
so that the Members will know the way we are going to proceed. That is
sort of what we have on track.
Then we have a full morning tomorrow with the Senator from
Connecticut and his amendment. We will then dispose of these other
measures.
I see the majority leader here. I know he wants to address the
Senate.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment both managers. I thank
especially my colleague, Senator Kennedy. We have made a lot of good
progress today. Obviously, we have a full night's work tonight. With
that understanding, I have talked with Senator Lott, and I think we are
prepared to say tonight there will be no more votes. We will have those
two votes side by side tomorrow at 9 o'clock.
So we will begin again following our work tonight with the votes
tomorrow, and we will go on to the Dodd amendment and the order that
Senator Kennedy has suggested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Was the Senator propounding a unanimous consent
agreement?
Mr. KENNEDY. No, I was not propounding a consent request. I was
stating the way the managers would like to proceed. We are trying to
proceed in good faith. We have talked to the different Members, and
that seemed to be acceptable. We wanted to let the Members know.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Hollings and I were under the impression we
would vote tonight. Sometimes when colleagues are gone, it is like
spitting in the wind. If we are going to do it tomorrow, could we
have--and this would hold true for Senator Santorum--5 minutes each to
summarize tomorrow?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will put forth a unanimous consent
request, which we will be prepared to propound later tonight. We will
take that request into consideration.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, so we will continue through this evening.
If there are other Senators with other amendments, we will try to
continue the process. We have made good progress during the day, and we
have some remaining important amendments tonight, and particularly in
the morning. We thank our colleagues for their cooperation. We can move
ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify
amendment No. 630.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object--and I will not--it is my
understanding that the Senator from Washington is going to take about 5
minutes; is that right?
Ms. CANTWELL. About 7 minutes.
Mr. REID. Seven minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object----
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator proceed now, and we will
have a chance to look at the modification and make the request for the
modification perhaps later at the conclusion of her remarks? If I could
suggest that to the Senator.
Ms. CANTWELL. I will call up----
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator wants to proceed with her presentation,
and then we will have an opportunity for the other side to review the
modification. I am sure it is in order, and we can modify the amendment
and dispose of this tomorrow.
Amendment No. 630 As Modified
Ms. CANTWELL. I will call up amendment No. 630, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an
amendment numbered 630, as modified.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is no objection to the
modification.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional requirements)
On page 363, line 12, after ``disability.'' insert the
following: ``It shall be a further goal of this part to
encourage the effective integration of technology resources
and systems with teacher training and curriculum development
to establish research-based methods that can be widely
implemented into best practices by State and local
educational agencies.''.
On page 369, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
``(2) outlines how the plan incorporates--
``(A) teacher education and professional development;
``(B) curricular development; and
``(C) technology resources and systems for the purpose of
establishing best practices that can be widely implemented by
State and local educational agencies;''.
On page 375, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
``SEC. 2309. NATIONAL EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGY PLANS.
``Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of
this title, the Secretary, in consultation with other Federal
departments or agencies, State and local educational
practitioners, and policy makers, including teachers,
principals and superintendents, and experts in technology and
the application of technology to education, shall report to
Congress on best practices in implementing technology
effectively consistent with the provisions of section
2305(2). The report shall include recommendations for
revisions to the National Education Technology Plan for the
purpose of establishing best practices that can be widely
implemented by State and local educational agencies.''
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington will proceed
for 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
[[Page S6111]]
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support this bipartisan amendment to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act that embraces the powerful role technology can play as a
tool in educating our Nation's children.
Before I proceed further, I thank Senator Kennedy for his exceptional
work and leadership on this bill, and I thank Senator Enzi for his work
in helping me develop this amendment. His leadership in technology
issues during his tenure in the Senate has been outstanding, and I look
forward to the continued work on these and other important technology
issues.
Technology has brought innovation and efficiency to our lives through
businesses, and now it is time to make sure we make those same
achievements in our educational system.
Across the country, we have seen the proper uses of technology can
transform a curriculum into a multimedia interactive experience that
not only helps children learn more effectively but also fosters a
student's passion for learning.
Numerous recent studies, including some done by the Department of
Education, the White House Office of Science and Technology, and the
Rand Corporation, have shown that technology serves the goal of
education in several important ways: Supporting student performance,
increasing motivation and self-esteem, and preparing students for the
future.
Last fall, a San Francisco-based independent research organization
released a study showing that the integrated use of computer technology
in schools significantly increases learning. The study focused on the
first 3 years of Microsoft's Anytime, Anywhere Learning Program which
provides laptops for students and their teachers to integrate
technology into the classroom and into their daily classwork. The study
showed it improved the students' writing and encouraged collaboration
and more involvement with their school classwork.
So we understand that the potential of education and technology is no
secret. But what we are finding today, as this chart shows, is that
much of the investment has been made, in fact, in equipment. The chart
shows that unless technology is properly integrated into curriculum,
students will not realize the benefits of having access. Without
teachers who know how to use computers to teach children, they will not
benefit. When teachers are well trained and technology is used
effectively to unleash children's imagination and creativity, magical
things happen in our educational system.
Take, for example, Tonasket, WA, where a teacher, Larry Alexander,
combined computer technology and a 500-tree apple orchard to teach his
fifth grade class about science, math, and technology. The kids studied
a range of topics, including cell growth, life cycles, geometry,
economics, and hands-on learning experiences, literally becoming the
most favorite program in the school.
What the Cantwell-Enzi amendment says is that in addition to
computers and access, we need to assure teacher training and curriculum
development. The Cantwell-Enzi amendment takes the first step in
bridging the technology and teaching divide. The amendment says the
technology block grant program for State and local agencies should be
amended so that instead of just putting dollars into technology under
the title II program, States applying should integrate their system
resources with teacher training and professional development and
curriculum development, thereby assuring a focus on teacher training
and curriculum development and not just on equipment.
There are many examples of success to which this kind of legislation
can lead, but I want to give one example from the State of New Jersey
where a neighborhood of Cuban citizens and a school in Union City have
made great success. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an
article that appeared in Business Week in the last year on this
subject.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Wired Schools--A Technology Revolution Is About To Sweep America's
Classrooms
In 1989, the schools in Union City, N.J., an impoverished
Cuban enclave along the Hudson River across from Manhattan,
were among the nation's worst. They received failing marks in
44 of the 52 categories New Jersey used to assess schools,
and state officials warned they would seize control if Union
City didn't shape up. The threat prompted many changes in
Union City, including a technological transformation of its
entire educational system. Aided by Bell Atlantic Corp.
(BEL<http://host,businessweek.com/businessweek/corporate
snapshot.html?Symbol-BEL&Timespan=260>, officials equipped
the schools and students' homes with a network of computers,
creating ``one of the most, if not the most wired urban
school district in the U.S.,'' says Margaret Honey, director
of the Center for Children & Technology in New York City. But
Union City did far more than simply buy computers. The school
day was restructured into longer classes; teachers were given
40 hours of training a year, up from 8; the district's school
budget more than doubled; and the traditional curriculum,
emphasizing rote learning, was scrapped so students would
work on joint projects such as researching a report on
inventions. ``The dynamics have changed tremendously,'' says
Mary Ann Sakoutis, a 37-year veteran social studies teacher
at Union City's Emerson High School, whose U.S. history
students now spend much of their time on the Net researching
such events as the Spanish-American War. ``The kids are more
involved, and I am no longer force-feeding them.'' It shows.
Last year, Union City topped all New Jersey cities on state
tests. The number of graduates accepted at top institutions
such as Yale University and Massachusetts Institute of
Technology has jumped from 8 in 1997, the last class taught
the old-fashioned way, to 63 in 1999.
* * * * *
Ms. CANTWELL. The article says:
But Union City did far more than simply buy computers. The
school day was reconstructed into longer classes; teachers
were given 40 hours of training a year--
And the school district doubled its budget--
and the traditional curriculum of emphasizing rote learning
was scrapped so students could work on joint projects such as
research reports and inventions.
The article further says that the kids are more involved and they are
no longer being force fed in the educational system. The result is, the
article says, that Union City topped all New Jersey cities on State
tests. The number of graduates accepted at top institutions such as
Yale University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology has jumped
from just 8 of their graduates from Union City in 1997, the last time a
class was taught the old-fashioned way, to 63 accepted graduates in
1999.
I think it shows the success of our focus on technology ought to be
on curriculum development, teacher training, and on integration of the
system.
This amendment asks that the Department of Education analyze after 3
years the best practices so we can scale the use of these best
practices into our educational system in this country.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic cosponsor of
the Cantwell-Enzi amendment. For some time, we have been working
together to make sure there is not a digital divide in the United
States of America. Both in the budget and in other amendments in this
bill, we have passed legislation to provide access to technology, but
we also have to be sure our children have access to people who know how
to teach technology.
Bill Gates said that if you have access to technology and know how to
use technology, whether you are a person, a county, or a country, your
future is bright, but if you do not have that access, your future is
dismal.
As we are working on our legislation, we want to make sure we have
access to technology, but it is not only about gadgets, it is not about
gear, it is about opportunity and empowerment.
We need to make sure the children do have technology, but the single
most important thing is teacher training--that the teachers themselves
know how to use technology and then also, through creativity and new
ingenious software, get our children ready for the future.
We do not have a worker shortage in this country, but we do have a
skill shortage. K-12 is the farm team for the future. Just as we have
little leagues for baseball, we have to make sure our teachers are big
league and ready to teach technology.
I am pleased to continue to support the legislation that ensures
there is no digital divide. The amendment offered
[[Page S6112]]
by the Senator from the State of Washington is just what we need to
make highest and best use of the technology we are going to provide. I
congratulate her on her research, creativity, and the practicality of
her amendment. I look forward to voting for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was under the impression this amendment
was going to take a couple minutes, that the other side accepted it.
Now I understand they are going to offer a second-degree amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. To Wellstone.
Mr. REID. To Wellstone, not to this.
Does the Senator from New Jersey wish to speak for 5 minutes on this
amendment? I ask unanimous consent that be the case. If I may, while I
am proceeding, I ask the Republican manager, is there going to be a
second-degree amendment offered to this amendment?
Mr. GREGG. Yes.
Mr. REID. May we vote on them in the morning?
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding we will be voting on these in the
morning. If they are acceptable, there will be less time needed to
debate them in the morning.
Mr. REID. They both may be accepted; is that right?
Mr. GREGG. If they are going to be accepted. I do not know if your
side has reviewed the second-degree amendment.
Mr. REID. My only question is, we have Senators Hollings and
Wellstone waiting, and we know they are going to be second-degreed.
Senator Santorum already spoke to Senator Hollings. I wonder how much
more time the Senator from Virginia wants on this amendment.
Mr. REID. Again, we have Senators Hollings and Wellstone waiting.
They thought they be would next.
Mr. ALLEN. We thought we were going to be introducing this amendment
tomorrow morning. Copies are being made now. I believe I can give my
remarks in 15 minutes this evening and it would be perfectly fine to
vote. I understand people want to move forward.
Mr. REID. If the Senator from New Hampshire has the floor, maybe the
Senator from Virginia could offer his amendment tonight, we could look
at it, and he could speak on it sometime tomorrow and we could dispose
of these two amendments.
Mr. GREGG. That is an excellent suggestion. Perhaps those folks who
wish to speak on the amendment of the Senator from Washington could
also speak tomorrow prior to the vote on both.
Mr. REID. Senator Corzine only wishes to speak for 5 minutes. We have
Senator Hollings waiting.
Mr. GREGG. We will plan to do it that way.
Mr. REID. We vote on Senator Hollings in the morning and Senator
Santorum in the morning.
Mr. GREGG. That is correct. Senator Santorum may need some time,
unless it is accepted.
Mr. REID. He has whatever time he needs tonight. Senator Hollings and
Wellstone wanted 5 minutes. Does he need more than that?
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Pennsylvania is in the Chamber and can
advise how much time he believes he needs in the morning.
Mr. SANTORUM. Maybe 10 or 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. We will prepare something in writing.
Mr. GREGG. Thank you.
Mr. ENZI. I wanted to speak on the Helms amendment, as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. I rise in strong support of the amendment that develops
best practices for teaching technology education, the integration. This
amendment ensures that our kids benefit from new technologies that are
rapidly changing the face of our country.
Before I discuss the amendment, I extend my compliments to the
Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, for her outstanding leadership
on this issue. Given her State and her own personal background, it is
fitting she has taken the lead in this area. I think her expertise and
her commitment to the application of technology in our society is a
terrific addition to the Senate.
I am particularly pleased the Senator from Washington cited Union
City, NJ, as one of those places that has effectively integrated
computer technology into the educational system, making a real
difference in the lives of children in their learning experience. We
heard the statistics.
It is clear the Internet and the proliferation of computers have
created a revolutionary change in our society. Yet when it comes to
using the Internet to improve our schools, we have only scratched the
surface. As the Senator suggested, we have done a lot regarding
investing in hardware, but not a lot on the software, particularly
among the teachers that have to bring the technology to our students.
We need to move beyond word processing and e-mails and get to the
real heart and soul of learning in a fundamental way and make it more
interesting, more effective. The same kind of productivity gains we
have had in our economy we can have in education. To do that we need to
do a better job of training teachers and showing them how computers can
change, not just what we teach but how we teach, integrating the
technology and educational experience together.
A few years ago, it would have been difficult for a fifth grader in a
New Jersey school to share their experiences with a similar class in
Australia or anywhere else in the world. Now they can. A few years ago
it would have been difficult for students to chat real time with real
experts around the country about questions discussed in class. Now they
can. A few years ago it would have been unrealistic for a teacher to
involve students with interactive software that uses exciting games to
teach math and science. Now they can.
However, they cannot do any of these things if teachers do not have
the ability or the background to deliver those experiences. Today, many
classrooms are equipped with computers, but their teachers are not
equipped to integrate the computers into a learning experience. That is
why this amendment is vital. Truly, it will make a difference. It will
require States and local education officials to develop strategies for
improving teacher training and curriculum development in order to
assure that schools take full advantage of the Internet and other new
technologies. There is tremendous potential and this amendment will
make that possible.
Again, I thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership on this issue. I
urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, bringing the
advances we have had in the rest of our society to our classrooms.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. What is the present business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Cantwell amendment, as modified, is
pending.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the amendment, and I
send an amendment to the desk and ask it be reported on behalf of
Senator Santorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, the Senator sent the amendment which
will be offered as a side-by-side, the Santorum amendment, for
tomorrow. I hope the amendment is printed and that interested Members
and their staffs have a chance to take a look. We have copies available
for the staff.
There is no objection.
Mr. GREGG. I withdraw my unanimous consent to set aside the Cantwell
amendment so this can be a second degree. Is that correct procedure?
Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, we are going to follow the precedent
from earlier of voting side by side. We had the opportunity to vote
first on the Cantwell amendment and then the other amendment, with
back-to-back votes. I think that is what is intended. I think the
Senator from New Hampshire agrees with me.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the cleanest way to do this is, if I may
inquire of the Chair, to offer this as a first degree and have the
Cantwell amendment also be a first degree. Would that be the most
appropriate way to proceed?
[[Page S6113]]
Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, at this moment I ask to withhold further
action on the amendment I sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to conform to the unanimous
consent agreement. Accordingly, I ask my amendment at the desk be
called and reported. I take it it is an amendment in the first degree?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment as drafted is a second-degree
amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be considered
as a first degree.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 798 and 799 to Amendment No. 358
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time the
Santorum amendment, which I had sent to the desk, be reported and that
it be considered as a first degree in a side-by-side status with the
Hollings amendment which is now a first degree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an
amendment numbered 798.
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr.
Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 799.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 798
(Purpose: To permit States to waive certain testing requirements)
On page 47, after line 12, insert the following:
``(i)(I) a State may elect, in accordance with this clause,
to waive the application of the requirements of this
subparagraph if--
``(aa) the State determines that alternative public
elementary and secondary educational investments will produce
a greater increase in student achievement; or
``(bb) the State can demonstrate the presence of a
comparable assessment system;
``(II) a waiver under subclause (I) shall be for a period
of 1 year;
``(III) a State with a waiver in effect under this clause
may utilize Federal funds appropriated to carry out
activities in schools that fail to make yearly progress, as
defined in the plan of the State under section 1111(b)(2)(B),
to--
``(aa) increase teacher pay;
``(bb) implement teacher recruitment and retention
programs;
``(cc) reduce class size;
``(dd) hire additional teachers to reduce class sizes;
``(ee) improve school facilities;
``(ff) provide afterschool programs;
``(gg) tutor students;
``(hh) increase the access of students to technology;
``(ii) improve school safety; or
``(jj) carry out any other activity that the State
educational agency determines necessary to improve the
education of public elementary and secondary school students;
and
``(IV) a State shall ensure that funds to which this clause
applies will not be used to pay the cost of tuition, room, or
board at a private school or a charter school;''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 799
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding science
education)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
``It is the sense of the Senate that--
``(1) good science education should prepare students to
distinguish the data or testable theories of science from
philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name
of science; and
``(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum
should help students to understand why this subject generates
so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the
students to be informed participants in public discussions
regarding the subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, following the debate here for the last 7
weeks, one would think the public school system of this Nation is in
terrible, terrible disrepair. In fact, you'd think it should be closed
down, a good bit of it. That is the thrust of the so-called testing
approach given here, whereby for $7 billion over a 7-year period, all
who have not done so will do so immediately. In other words, third to
eighth grade pupils will be tested and then found inadequate and the
trustees found unresponsive. Thereby, what we have is a closing down of
the public school system.
So we are going to show them from Washington. It is all out of whole
cloth. The fact is, at the Federal level, we only provide some 7 cents
of every education dollar. So we are not closing down the schools. And
we ought to understand, at the outset, the public school system is one
of the geniuses of the Founding Fathers.
It was James Madison:
A popular government without popular information or the
means of acquiring it is about a prologue to a farce or a
tragedy.
In the earliest days, there was Madison.
John Adams:
The whole people must take upon themselves the education of
the whole people and be willing to bear the expense of it.
The reason I start in this vein, to make these quotes, is because I
have observed the 20-year effort to close down public schools: put in
tuition tax credits, put in vouchers, put in charter schools--anything
but give to the public schools and the pupils of America what they
need.
Thank heavens for the wonderful Senator from Minnesota, Senator Paul
Wellstone. I had not been in on the early parts of this 7-week debate.
But watching his zeal, his brilliance, and the way he has approached
this particular problem, he has really been an education to all of us
in the Senate.
Let's look, for example, at the Land Ordinance of 1785, whereby 4
years before the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.
They divided up in the western lands of Minnesota, 6 miles by 6 miles
square, 36 squares, with the provision that square 36, in the middle,
be reserved for public education. And Horace Mann, the father of public
schools in America, said that this law laid the foundation of the
present system of free schools:
The idea of an educational system that was at once both
universal, free, and available to all the people, rich and
poor alike, was revolutionary. This is the great thing about
America. No other nation ever had such an institution. Three
centuries later it is a stranger to the bulk of the people of
the world. The free public school system which the Puritans
conceived, has been, in large measure, the secret of
America's success. In these classrooms, children of all ages,
nationalities, and tongues, learned a common language and
became imbued with one central idea: The American conception
that all men are created equal, that opportunities are open
to all, that every minority, whether respected or despised,
has the same guaranteed rights as the majority. Parents who
landed here often brought with them the antagonisms, the
rivalries, the suspicions of other continents, but their
children became one and united in the pursuit of a
democratic ideal.
Mr. President, what Mann said and persists today is what he calls the
large measure of the secret of America's success--not failure, success.
I emphasize that because in the hinterlands 70 years ago, I was
tested. We have been having tests, tests. The fact of the matter is I
looked it up. This past school year, they spent $422 million on
testing.
Let's go to the little State of South Carolina where we have been
having tests for the third through eighth grades, complete, at the cost
of some $7.8 million.
The superintendent of education in South Carolina, Ms. Inez
Tenenbaum, said students under her testing system made significant and,
in some cases, dramatic improvements in the latest round of tests.
South Carolina increased greatly, met or exceeded the international
average in the Third International Math and Science Study.
The national report card, Quality Counts 2001, published by the
respected national magazine, Education Week, recognized South
Carolina's efforts to improve teacher quality and raise academic
standards. South Carolina was ranked among the top six States in the
Nation in both categories.
[[Page S6114]]
My little State is not affluent with a low per capita income, and
with a large minority population who, for 200 years, did not have
public schools.
The first thing I did the week I was elected back in 1948 was to
attend the Freedom School across the Cooper River in my county in
November. It was one big square building with a potbelly stove in the
middle, with classes in each of the four corners, and one teacher. That
is what the minorities had in 1948. We didn't start providing adequate
educational opportunities for minorities until 1954 with Brown vs.
Board of Education, and we are still playing catchup. It is not because
we haven't made the effort or we do not know what is going on.
I really get annoyed when I hear the Senator, not to be identified,
say what we want to do is find out what works. Come on, Washington, ha-
ha. We are going to find out what works.
Mr. President, I have a school that has been taken over by this
distinguished superintendent. It has almost a totally black population.
They have the zeal. They have the interest. They don't have the
wherewithal. Now, we are helping at the State level. But to find out
what works, they only have to go up to the junior high school in
Columbia, SC, which was extolled in last week's issue of Time magazine,
or to the Spartanburg High School in Spartanburg, SC, which was the
first 4-time Blue Ribbon School.
We know what works. We are working on what works. What really gets
this Senator is potentially spending $3 to $7 billion on testing,
according to the National Association of State Boards of Education. I
ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
ESTIMATED COST OF FEDERAL TESTING MANDATE FOR READING AND MATH (DOES NOT INCLUDE SCIENCE ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENT)
(Calculations on the attached chart were made using the accepted cost scale of developing and administering (scoring, reporting results, etc.)
assessments. Developing state tests aligned to standards range from $25-$125 per student. Administering tests is an annual expense that usually runs
from $25-$50 per student. The number of students was derived from the 1999-2000 school year enrollment statistics in grades 3-8 in each state. Since
administration is an ongoing expense, it was calculated based on being implemented in the 2004-05 school year as called for in the President's proposal
and detailed in H.R. 1 and running through the remainder of the seven year reauthorization term of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
The estimates do not include the cost of the science assessments required in 2007-08.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development Administration Total cost--development plus
Students, -------------------------------------------------------------------- administration
States grades 3-8 ---------------------------------
$25 $125 $25 $50 Minimum Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................... 351,299 $8,782,475 $43,912,375 $8,782,475 $17,564,950 $43,912,375 $114,172,175
Alaska........................... 64,019 1,600,475 8,002,375 1,600,475 3,200,950 8,002,375 20,806,175
Arizona.......................... 407,991 10,199,775 50,998,875 10,119,975 20,399,550 50,998,875 132,597,075
Arkansas......................... 211,380 5,284,500 26,422,500 5,284,500 10,569,000 26,422,500 68,698,500
California....................... 2,765,332 69,133,300 345,666,500 69,133,300 138,266,600 345,666,500 898,732,900
Colorado......................... 331,605 8,290,125 41,450,625 8,290,125 16,580,250 41,450,625 107,771,625
Connecticut...................... 262,403 6,560,075 32,800,375 6,560,075 13,120,150 32,800,375 85,280,975
Delaware......................... 53,216 1,330,400 6,652,000 1,330,400 2,660,800 6,652,000 17,295,200
DC............................... 31,634 790,850 3,954,250 790,850 1,581,700 3,954,250 10,281,050
Florida.......................... 1,126,261 28,156,525 140,782,625 28,156,525 56,313,050 140,782,625 366,034,825
Georgia.......................... 672,760 16,819,000 84,095,000 16,819,000 33,638,000 84,095,000 218,647,000
Hawaii........................... 87,515 2,187,875 10,939,375 2,187,875 4,375,750 10,939,375 28,442,375
Idaho............................ 112,786 2,819,650 14,098,250 2,819,650 5,639,300 14,098,250 36,655,450
Illinois......................... 930,160 23,254,000 116,270,000 23,254,000 46,508,000 116,270,000 302,302,000
Indiana.......................... 462,285 11,557,125 57,785,625 11,557,125 23,114,250 57,785,625 150,242,625
Iowa............................. 219,167 5,479,175 27,395,875 5,479,175 10,958,350 27,395,875 71,229,275
Kansas........................... 214,838 5,370,950 26,854,750 5,370,950 10,741,900 26,854,750 69,822,350
Kentucky......................... 292,915 7,322,875 36,614,375 7,322,875 14,645,750 36,614,375 95,197,375
Louisiana........................ 345,366 8,634,150 43,170,750 8,634,150 17,268,300 43,170,750 112,243,950
Maine............................ 100,617 2,515,425 12,577,125 2,515,425 5,030,850 12,577,125 32,700,525
Maryland......................... 396,137 9,903,425 49,517,125 9,903,425 19,806,850 49,517,125 128,744,525
Massachusetts.................... 458,740 11,468,500 57,342,500 11,468,500 22,937,000 57,342,500 149,090,500
Michigan......................... 763,727 19,093,175 95,465,875 19,093,175 38,186,350 95,465,875 248,211,275
Minnesota........................ 389,236 9,730,900 48,654,500 9,730,900 19,461,800 48,654,500 126,501,700
Mississippi...................... 232,811 5,820,275 29,101,375 5,820,275 11,640,550 29,101,375 75,663,575
Missouri......................... 418,709 10,467,725 52,338,625 10,467,725 20,935,450 52,338,625 136,080,425
Montana.......................... 73,408 1,835,200 9,176,000 1,835,200 3,670,400 9,176,000 23,857,600
Nebraska......................... 130,074 3,251,850 16,259,250 3,251,850 6,503,700 16,259,250 42,274,050
Nevada........................... 156,584 3,914,600 19,573,000 3,914,600 7,829,200 19,573,000 50,889,800
New Hampshire.................... 102,346 2,558,650 12,793,250 2,558,650 5,117,300 12,793,250 33,262,450
New Jersey....................... 577,632 14,440,800 72,204,000 14,440,800 28,881,600 72,204,000 187,730,400
New Mexico....................... 152,283 3,807,075 19,035,375 3,807,075 7,614,150 19,035,375 49,491,975
New York......................... 1,275,051 31,876,275 159,381,375 31,876,275 63,752,550 159,381,375 414,391,575
North Carolina................... 611,381 15,284,525 76,422,625 15,284,525 30,569,050 76,422,625 198,698,825
North Dakota..................... 50,867 1,271,675 6,358,375 1,271,675 2,543,350 6,358,375 16,351,775
Ohio............................. 848,082 21,202,050 106,010,250 21,202,050 42,404,100 106,010,250 275,626,650
Oklahoma......................... 281,037 7,025,925 35,129,625 7,025,925 14,051,850 35,129,625 91,337,025
Oregon........................... 256,063 6,401,575 32,007,875 6,401,575 12,083,150 32,007,875 83,220,475
Pennsylvania..................... 845,909 21,147,725 105,738,625 21,147,725 42,295,450 105,738,625 274,920,425
Rhode Island..................... 73,218 1,830,450 9,152,250 1,830,450 3,660,900 9,152,250 23,795,850
South Carolina................... 314,851 7,871,275 39,356,375 7,871,275 15,742,550 39,356,375 102,326,575
South Dakota..................... 60,191 1,504,775 7,523,875 1,504,775 3,009,550 7,523,875 19,562,075
Tennessee........................ 416,306 10,407,650 52,038,250 10,407,650 20,815,300 52,038,250 135,299,450
Texas............................ 1,833,022 45,825,550 229,127,750 45,825,550 91,651,100 229,127,750 595,732,150
Utah............................. 212,143 5,303,575 26,517,875 5,303,575 10,607,150 26,517,875 68,946,475
Vermont.......................... 48,157 1,203,925 6,019,625 1,203,925 2,407,850 6,019,625 15,651,025
Virginia......................... 526,475 13,161,875 65,809,375 13,161,875 26,323,750 65,809,375 171,104,375
Washington....................... 466,546 11,663,650 58,318,250 11,663,650 23,327,300 58,318,250 151,627,450
West Virginia.................... 132,200 3,305,000 16,525,000 3,305,000 6,610,000 16,525,000 42,965,000
Wisconsin........................ 393,473 9,836,825 49,184,125 9,836,825 19,673,650 49,184,125 127,878,725
Wyoming.......................... 42,606 1,065,150 5,325,750 1,065,150 2,130,300 5,325,750 13,846,950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals..................... 21,582,814 539,570,350 2,697,851,750 539,570,350 1,079,140,700 2,697,851,750 7,014,414,550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Law.................. School Fails to School Fails to School School Corrective Cont'd--Year 6. Cont'd--Year 7
make AYP--Year make AYP--Year Improvement--Ye Improvement--Ye Action--Year 5.
1. 2. ar 3. ar 4.
New plan; 10% $ (Cont'd W/hold $ or
on prof dev. activities). change
governance or
reconstitute
or other
[[Page S6115]]
Best Act..................... School Fails to School School Corrective Reconstitution-
Make AYP--Year Improvement--Ye Improvement--Ye Action--Year 4. -Year 5
1. ar 2. ar 3.
At the beginning If school is If school failed Schools that Move out of
of year 2, still failing for 3 failed for reconstitution
school must to make AYP, it consecutive four years to if make
implement, w/in must, starting years to make make AYP must progress over
3 months, a new the next school AYP, at the go into next 2 years
plan that year: continue beginning of reconstitution or repeat
includes: 10% activities from the 4th year it which requires reconstitution
funds for prof previous year; must: institute them to:
dev; research- and must alternative provide
based provide public governance, or supplementary
strategies to school choice replace staff, services;
turn around. options. A or use a new provide public
district may curriculum; and school choice
institute with no more with
corrective than 15% of transportation
actions. Title I funds, ; and reopen
it must provide the school
the option for under new
transportation governance.
for public
school choice
and
supplemental
services for
the lowest
achieving
students.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it shows the cost of this particular
approach.
Then we hear Senator after Senator saying curriculum, and the other
one is class size. The other one is better teacher pay. The other one
is more reading after school, and on down the list of particular needs.
But this Washington, one-size-fits-all, unfunded mandate says do as we
say do, and go through our $7 billion exercise in futility. And come up
with what? Let's assume it works. Let's assume that 30 or 40 schools in
my State are closed. You can't go from one county to the other. You
can't just waltz from Allendale over to Hampton. You would have to
change the laws in South Carolina. We act like we know what is going
on. We are the ones who do not know what is going on. We are the ones
who ought to be tested. Come on.
Then, of all things, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has
been going over and over again, we have given them the test without
giving them the course.
Sure, I believe in testing. We all believe in testing. But give them
the course, and test them on the course. But if you give them the
women, infants, and children nutritional program, they would come into
this world with strong minds. If you do not give them Head Start, which
is only 30 percent covered right now, they aren't prepared to learn
when they enter school. If you do not give them Title I for the
disadvantaged--which we only fund at 33 percent of its authorized
level--they haven't had the course. If you do not give them a prepared
teacher, they don't receive quality instruction. I have had tutors go
into some of the schools, and say they were rather embarrassed because
the teacher spoke English poorly.
So the student hasn't had the course. But in Washington, we know what
to do. We are going to mandate as much as $7 billion in standardized
tests before they have had the course. Can't we spend $7 billion giving
them the course, giving them good teachers, giving them the small
classrooms, curriculum, remedial reading and math, afterschool
programs, and give them a good building?
Let's take the money and assume we have had the test in effect over
the past 4 years. Let's assume it proves schools are failing. So we
have schools that are closed down. Let's take the closed-down or about-
to-be-closed-down schools, because they are not going to do it. Let's
assume they are the poor schools. We need revenue sharing. I put that
first bill in on February 1, 1967. It worked well until the Senators
found out that the Governors were using it to distribute money around
the States to run against Senators. Senator Howard Baker and some
others repealed it. But it worked.
My distinguished colleague from California, Senator Boxer, says there
is no silver bullet. But there is silver money.
What they need is revenue sharing and financial assistance for all
these particular endeavors that everybody has. The side-by-side
amendment is curriculum. I tend to support Senator Santorum on that
curriculum, and all the other Senators around. But let's not try to
dignify this flawed approach to public education. It is just downright
pollster politics. They haven't been able to do away with the
Department. They have haven't been able to get tuition tax credits,
vouchers, or charter schools, or any way to divert money to the private
sector.
Incidentally, I have had children that have gone to both private and
public schools. I have a daughter who graduated from Woodrow Wilson
High, and another one who went to Cathedral right here in the District.
I know the value of both of them.
But the duty of the Congress, the United States Senators and the
United States Government is to provide, as John Adams and James Madison
and Horace Mann said, public education, not private. That isn't how to
do it.
We cannot oversee the private schools. We cannot dictate to the
private schools. We should not dictate to the private schools. But we
have a duty. Do not give me this ``private approach'' like somehow we
don't know what works or what works better. We know.
Right to the point, if we use this money, we can get something done
rather than go through an exercise in futility. We are already testing
in all 50 States. You can't show me a State in the United States that
does not have testing. You can't do it.
What we really need to do--and I will yield to my distinguished
colleague from Minnesota in a moment--is fund what works. But now that
has to really be upgraded with respect to globalization, the technology
that is needed in these classrooms, the good teachers and everything
else of that kind. That is what we need to do.
Let's not waste money. In the last campaign in 1998, my challenger
took me on before all the principals and talked about the bureaucracy
in Washington--the Washington nanny, the Washington approach. That is
exactly what this is. This is not helping the local schools at all.
This is saying, we are putting you on trial, and you are going to have
to pay for a good part of it. That is an unfunded mandate. Can you
imagine such a thing really being signed by the President or suggested
by a mature body such as the Senate?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit on this debate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe I interrupted the Senator
from South Carolina. I will take a couple minutes because the Senator
from South Carolina has said it better than I can.
Listening to the Senator from South Carolina, I want to say a couple
things. First of all, I want to say one thing personally, which is
unusual to say, but I hope people were able to listen carefully to the
history behind the remarks.
There are some people in our country--I am sorry, but the Senator was
so kind and gracious, I just sound like a politician engaged in
flattery--there are few people I have met who I so admire. I cannot
believe the people that were at the heart of the struggle in the South
who took on a system of apartheid. And this Senator from South Carolina
is one of them. There are very few of us who have this history--very
few of us. It doesn't mean Senators have to agree with his position on
this amendment. But I just wanted to say that. There are some people
who showed unbelievable courage and were prophetic. And I feel that way
about Senator Hollings from South Carolina.
When I was listening to the Senator from South Carolina, I was
thinking to myself that actually there are a couple different issues
here. On one of them, I spent so many hours I felt as if I was giving
enough speeches to deafen the gods. And maybe that is what happened
because I did not get a lot of votes on
[[Page S6116]]
the amendment that meant the most to me.
There were some amendments we did on testing, I say to my colleague,
that make this bill better, much, much better if, in fact, it ensures
that assessments do not just become standardized, multiple choice
tests, and rather include multiple, high quality measures.
Then there was the question of whether or not, if we are going to
mandate--my colleague talks about unfunded mandates--that every child
will be tested in every State, in every school district, in every
grade, then I was praying for a Federal mandate or mission that would
say that we would also have equality of opportunity for every child in
our country to be able to do well in these tests, to be able to
achieve.
I think part of what the Senator from South Carolina is saying is
that in some ways this is utterly ridiculous. We already know the
schools where kids have two and three and four teachers during a year.
We already know the schools where I would argue housing is becoming a
major educational issue. In some of our towns kids, little kids are
moving--little children that are my grandchildren's age--two or three
or four times during the year.
We already know the difference between a beautiful building, that is
inviting, that tells children that we care about them versus a
dilapidated, crumbling building that tells children that we don't care
about them.
We also know of the schools where there are toilets that work and
computer technology and buildings that were warm this winter and are
not stifling hot in the summer. We know that that works. As a matter of
fact, most Senators can look at where their children have gone to
school, and they know what works.
We already know that the smaller class sizes are good. We already
know that support services for teachers are really important, whether
it be more counselors, whether it be additional teaching assistants to
help children read or to do better in reading or to do better in math.
We already know it all. I think that is part of what the Senator is
saying.
So this amendment says, if a State chooses, in its wisdom, to say, we
don't really need to do this, but we would certainly make use of this
money to help the children, to help our kids, to help our schools, to
help our teachers, we leave it up to the States to do so.
Is my understanding correct?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I only have two more points to make,
one point I have not made in this Senate Chamber but I have been
thinking about this and thinking about this and thinking about this to
the point where I just don't even know how to decide how to vote. A
large part of me wants to vote against this bill. On the other hand
there are strong improvements in the bill--most particularly mandatory
funding for the IDEA program. That is really important. That will help
a lot of our schools, I say to Senator Hollings. It really will.
But the other side of the coin is clear. I have asked a question of
some of my friends who are more conservative than I. There are a number
of Senators who may be more conservative than I. But I have asked them:
How do we get to this point where the Federal Government is now going
to mandate--first of all, the NAEP test every year. Despite NAEP's high
quality these are still new tests that every State is going to have to
do.
Seven years ago we started some testing under Title I, but we have
not even gotten the results on that testing authorized in 1994. We have
not begun to evaluate whether or not that testing has had a positive
impact on student learning. But now we are going to move ahead and test
every child every year.
We have the Federal Government now telling school districts--which I
always thought was the heart of the grassroots political culture in
America--that it doesn't matter what you have decided you need to do.
It doesn't matter how you think you can be most accountable. We, the
Federal Government, are telling every school district in every State,
you will test every child in the third grade, the fourth grade, the
fifth grade, the sixth grade, the seventh grade, and the eighth grade.
I do not know whether the Federal Government has any business doing
that.
I am amazed, frankly, that there is not more opposition. It would
seem to me a good conservative principle would be that this is an
overreach.
Now people could turn around and say to me: Well, you, of all people,
Senator Wellstone but, for me, when it comes to civil rights or when it
comes to human rights or when it comes to the first amendment or when
it comes to a floor beneath which no poor child should fall or when it
comes to basic educational needs of children or that children should
not go hungry, I do not think that is up to a State to decide. To me,
we, as a national community, should say, no, we all live by these
rules, these values.
But the other part of me is a decentrist. I do not know whether I
really believe the Federal Government has any business telling every
school district in every State they have to do this. I think we can
very well rue the day that we voted for this.
On that philosophical point, as well as on the question of how we are
setting a lot of kids and teachers in schools up for failure because we
have not committed the resources to make sure they will all have the
opportunity to learn, it seems to me this amendment speaks of that.
That is why I rise to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am obviously very grateful for the
more than laudatory, exaggerated remarks. We are good friends. We are
working the same side of the street.
Let me emphasize, with respect to our minority schools, endeavors
have been made there. In 1950-51 in South Carolina, we passed a 3-
percent sales tax that I authored. We were trying to play catchup ball.
When we increased the sales tax, under Governor Riley, to 5 percent, we
were supported by the Black Caucus. I want to emphasize that we were
opposed at the time by the Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina
Association of Textile Manufacturers, and the other business groups.
Minorities know there is one way to really try to catch up and get a
piece of this American dream. That is public schools, public education.
Wherever you can give them the support and the means to really
implement it, they support public education. I did not want to infer,
when I talked about my Allendale school, that they were not for it. In
fact, I have other reports in here, with which I will not belabor the
Senate, on the tremendous improvements already made in the takeover of
that particular school. We have worked year in and year out, and we
still are trying our best.
One of the things that goes into the calculation is the quality of
the teacher. If you go to the institutions of higher learning in this
country, public and private, the education degree, in large measure, is
to take care of the football team. If you have a big, old, hefty 280-
pounder who is not too quick upstairs but very quick with his legs and
everything else downstairs, then you put him in education. Let him get
into an education major. I have discussed this with college presidents.
We have been into every facet of this thing.
The one big waste is this bill. It is a tremendous waste of time and
money. It should not be. Yes, I agree on the disabilities provisions in
there. All of us are frustrated because we all know about the needs. We
have been pointing out different needs. So we should address these
needs directly instead of creating costly tests that tell us what we
already know.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the documents I referred
to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S6117]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount spent Revenue
State on testing (in Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Number of 3-8 New tests sharing
thous) tests required proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. $4,000 B B B B B B 12 0 $6,918,844
Alaska.................................................. 3,500 B B .......... B B B 10 2 3,714,151
Arizona................................................. 4,800 B B B B B B 12 0 7,551,260
Arkansas................................................ 3,200 .......... B B B B B 10 2 5,358,006
California.............................................. 44,000 B B B B B B 12 0 33,848,095
Colorado................................................ 10,700 R R B B B B 10 2 6,699,152
Connecticut............................................. 2,000 .......... B .......... B .......... B 6 6 5,927,183
Delaware................................................ 3,800 B .......... B .......... .......... B 6 6 3,593,640
Florida................................................. 22,400 B B B B B B 12 0 15,563,774
Georgia................................................. 14,000 B B B B .......... B 10 2 10,504,837
Hawaii.................................................. 1,400 B .......... B .......... .......... B 6 6 3,976,256
Idaho................................................... 700 B B B B B B 12 0 4,258,161
Illinois................................................ 16,500 B .......... B .......... .......... B 6 6 13,376,210
Indiana................................................. 19,000 B .......... .......... B .......... B 6 6 8,156,926
Iowa.................................................... 0 .......... B .......... .......... .......... B 4 8 5,444,873
Kansas.................................................. 1,100 .......... M R .......... M R 4 8 5,396,581
Kentucky................................................ 8,100 B R M B R M 8 4 6,267,553
Louisiana............................................... 9,000 B B B B B B 12 0 6,852,660
Maine................................................... 3,300 .......... B .......... .......... .......... B 4 8 4,122,412
Maryland................................................ 17,100 B B B B B B 12 0 7,419,025
Massachusetts........................................... 20,000 R B .......... M B R 7 5 8,117,380
Michigan................................................ 16,000 .......... B R .......... R R 5 7 11,519,600
Minnesota............................................... 5,200 B .......... B .......... .......... B 6 6 7,342,043
Mississippi............................................. 7,600 B B B B B B 12 0 5,597,075
Missouri................................................ 13,400 R M .......... .......... R M 4 8 7,670,823
Montana................................................. 282 B .......... .......... .......... .......... B 4 8 3,818,888
Nebraska................................................ 1,650 .......... R .......... .......... .......... R 2 10 4,451,014
Nevada.................................................. 3,300 B B B .......... .......... B 8 4 4,746,741
New Hampshire........................................... 2,500 B .......... .......... B .......... .......... 4 8 4,141,700
New Jersey.............................................. 17,000 .......... B .......... .......... .......... B 4 8 9,443,656
New Mexico.............................................. 650 B B B B B B 12 0 4,698,762
New York................................................ 13,000 .......... B .......... .......... .......... B 4 8 17,223,571
North Carolina.......................................... 11,300 B B B B B B 12 0 9,820,136
North Dakota............................................ 208 .......... B .......... B .......... B 6 6 3,567,436
Ohio.................................................... 12,300 .......... B .......... B .......... .......... 4 8 12,460,605
Oklahoma................................................ 2,500 B .......... B .......... .......... B 6 6 6,135,051
Oregon.................................................. 7,000 B .......... B .......... .......... B 6 6 5,856,458
Pennsylvania............................................ 15,000 .......... .......... B R .......... B 5 7 12,436,365
Rhode Island............................................ 2,300 R B .......... .......... R B 6 6 3,816,768
South Carolina.......................................... 7,800 B B B B B B 12 0 6,512,256
South Dakota............................................ 720 .......... B R .......... .......... B 5 7 3,671,448
Tennessee............................................... 15,600 B B B B B B 12 0 7,644,016
Texas................................................... 26,600 B B B B B B 12 0 23,447,902
Utah.................................................... 1,400 B B B B B B 12 0 5,366,518
Vermont................................................. 460 .......... B .......... .......... .......... B 4 8 3,537,206
Virginia................................................ 17,900 B B B B .......... B 10 2 8,872,984
Washington.............................................. 7,700 B B .......... B B .......... 8 4 8,204,458
West Virginia........................................... 400 B B B B B B 12 0 4,474,730
Wisconsin............................................... 2,000 R B .......... .......... .......... B 5 7 7,389,308
Wyoming................................................. 1,700 .......... B .......... .......... .......... B 4 8 3,475,283
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 422,070 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 387 213 390,409,780
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--B=Tests in Reading and Math; M=Tests in Math; R=Tests in Reading.
____
Statewide Focus on School Improvement Produces a Year of Improving Test
Scores
(By Inez M. Tenenbaum)
The end of a school year is always an exciting time. We
take time to review the year behind us and immediately begin
to plan for the one ahead. The school year just ending has
been marked by the most significant student test score
improvements in the history of South Carolina's public school
system. Indeed, we are well on our way to forever putting to
rest the misguided perception that our students and schools
cannot succeed. Clearly, they can.
South Carolinians should take pride in the progress we are
making. Consider these successes from the past year:
Students made significant and in some cases dramatic
improvements in the latest round of PACT testing, with gains
reported across all grade levels, subjects and demographic
groups.
Scores of South Carolina High School Exit Exam rose nearly
three points , the largest gain in a decade.
South Carolina high school seniors raised their average SAT
score by 12 points, the largest gain in the country and four
times the national increase. In addition, South Carolina high
school juniors improved their performance on the Preliminary
SAT by 5.2 points, nearly four times the national increase of
1.4 points.
Scores of South Carolina high school seniors taking the ACT
college entrance exam rose from the previously year while
sophomores who took PLAN--the preliminary ACT--scored one-
tenth of a point higher than the national average.
Our fifth-, eighth- and 11th -graders scored above the
national average in reading, language and math on TerraNova,
a nationally standardized test of reading, language and math
skills.
South Carolina eighth-graders met or exceeded the
international average in the Third International Math and
Science Study, which compared test sores from students in 38
nations.
An analysis by the nonprofit RAND organization of
improvements in student reading and math test scores ranked
south Carolina 17th among the states.
For the fifth consecutive year, the number of South
Carolina first-graders scoring ``ready'' for school set a new
record. More than 43,000 first-graders--a record 85.2
percent--met the state's readiness standard. That was a 13
percentage-point improvement from 1995, the year before the
state began a three-year phase-in of full day kindergarten.
The biggest improvement were by minority students and
students from low-income families.
In the midst of these test score improvements, the national
report card ``Quality Counts 2001,'' published by the
respected national magazine Education Week, recognized South
Carolina's efforts to improve teacher quality and raise
academic standards, South Carolina was ranked among the top
six states in the nation in both categories.
This report was especially significant, because I believe
that a major reason for South Carolina's success has been our
dramatic raising of academic standards. By setting the bar so
high, and by creating the extremely rigorous PACT tests to
measure our progress, we have challenged our students and
schools--and they have responded.
I do not mean to suggest that the struggle to build a
world-class school system in South Carolina has been won.
Although it's true that we have schools in our state that are
as excellent as any in the nation, we also have schools that
struggle to provide their students with even the most basic
education.
This November, South Carolina's first school report cards
will be published under the mandate of the Education
Accountability Act of 1998. Many schools will have their
excellence confirmed, and others will be identified as
needing extensive assistance. As State Superintendent of
Education, I can assure you that these schools will get that
assistance.
But as we await November's report cards, let's remember the
amazing accomplishments of the school year that's now ending.
Our progress is real, and it is undeniable. South Carolina
educators, students, parents, businesses, and communities are
proving every day that focus and hard work pay off.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article
in today's Washington Post, ``From Teachers to Drill Sergeants,'' be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, June 12, 2001]
From Teachers to Drill Sergeants
(By Jay Mathews)
I have watched hundreds of teachers over the last two
decades and am sure of one thing: I couldn't last two days in
their jobs. After the first day, my throat would be sore, my
legs wobbly and my energy level needle pointing below empty.
That night I would fall asleep trying to make a new lesson
plan.
[[Page S6118]]
The next morning I would call in sick, making it clear I had
an incurable, terminal illness.
So it is unbelievably presumptuous of me to write columns
and give speeches on how to make schools better. I regularly
remind myself, and anyone who might be listening, that when
it comes to talking about education, I am just a balding, 5-
foot-6-inch playback machine. The thoughts are not mine, but
those of the many educators, as well as students and parents,
who have patiently explained to me over the years what is
going on, and why.
I am always amazed that such smart and busy people have
time for me. That is especially true these last few weeks.
Scores of readers have responded to the request in my May 22
column for a precise accounting of how the new state
achievement tests affect teaching. I now have a much deeper
appreciation of what the tests--and administrators' ill-
considered reaction to them--have done to many schools.
Only about half of the teachers who wrote me said they had
been forced to change their teaching, but that is because in
many cases they refused to alter what was working for their
students. ``My philosophy has long been, continues to be, and
. . . will continue to be largely the test,'' said Al Dieste,
who teaches at-risk middle schoolers at Springfield Community
Day School, a public school in Columbia, Calif. ``I teach;
the test be damned.''
Lisa Donmoyer, a kindergarten to eighth grade science
specialist in Easton, Md., said ``a rich, interesting
classroom is more likely to produce students who do well on
the test than a classroom where the teacher employs the
`drill and kill' method.''
But in many cases, teachers said, administrators made it
very difficult to do the right thing.
At one Fairfax County high school, non-honors students were
dropped from in-class National History Day essay writing
activities so they would have more time to study for the
Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) tests, even though some
non-honors students had won previous district competitions.
Hewitt, Tex., high school teacher Donna Garner resigned in
protest when her popular program for teaching the lost art of
grammar was banned because it conflicted with the step-by-
step schedule for preparing for the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills (TAAS) tests.
A third-grade teacher in Fort Worth, said her principal
asked her if she had designated as many students as possible
for special education classes so they would be exempt from
the tests and make the school average higher.
Raymond Larrabee was told his son's eighth-grade honors
English class would not have time to read all of Charles
Dickens' ``David Copperfield'' because there were too many
topics to cover for the Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MACAS) test.
A Florida principal told a novice teacher that her wide-
ranging discussions of the possible answers to sample test
questions was a waste of time. Just tell them which answers
are correct, she was told.
Doug Graney, a history teacher at Herndon High School in
Fairfax, and a recently retired Arlington teacher who asked
not to be identified, dropped their engaging approach to U.S.
history because of the SOLs. They had been starting with post
World War II history, stimulating family discussions about
events their students' parents and grandparents had
witnessed. Then they went back to colonial days to show how
it had all started.
The e-mails illuminated two problems that I think all sides
in the testing debate would acknowledge. First, some states
may be demanding that teachers cover too much, ensuring once-
over-lightly instruction. Second, many principals, moved by
blind panic or cross-town rivalry, are demanding more test
prep--taking practice tests, learning testing strategies,
memorizing key essay words--than is necessary or useful.
Problem one is something for state school boards and
superintendents to ponder. Problem two is, at least in part,
something that teachers can do something about.
Okay. I know. I am the coward who lacks the fortitude to
even try teaching. But I think many educators are right when
they say that too many of their colleagues are obeying their
principals rather than their principles.
Even pointy-headed, fire-breathing managers will back off
if key employees tell them results will only come if they
butt out. That takes gumption, but it is worth a try.
Gerald Gontarz, a sixth-grade science and social studies
teacher in Plymouth, NH., drops raw chicken eggs from
airplanes and sends up hot air balloons to involve kids in
his lessons. ``Much of the time I spend on this stuff will
not help my students take the test.'' he said. But ``it
really turns them on, and honestly, there is no state test
that measures' students' motivation.''
Kenneth Bernstein, a ninth-grade social studies teacher in
Prince George's County, stated what should be the teacher's
creed: ``I will not object to testing if you will allow me to
get my kids ready the best way I can, and not also mandate
the specific steps of instruction, for then I cannot teach
the individual child.''
I sensed some teachers are having second thoughts about
groveling before the testing gods. Graney, for instance, told
me in a follow-up e-mail that he plans to return to his
reverse approach to U.S. history.
The results are still important. A teacher should be able
to raise his class's overall achievement level a significant
amount from September to April or May. Some students will
falter because of unhappy home lives or test anxiety or other
factors beyond a teacher's control, but on average there
should be progress. If there isn't, I don't think the teacher
can blame the test.
Many educators will object to this. They say the tests are
too narrow and their own assessments of each child should be
enough. In many cases, they are right, but parents cannot
stay in the classroom all year making certain of this. I
don't think I will ever be comfortable without an independent
measure of how my child and her school are doing, and I think
the vast majority of parents feel the same way.
I think we can agree on one thing: Principals and
superintendents should not force good teachers to turn
themselves into drill sergeants if there are better ways to
teach the material. Administrators should set the goals and
let their teachers decide how to meet them, then find ways to
help those teachers who do not measure up.
Most principals already do that, but since so many of them
are portrayed as clumsyvillains by my e-mail correspondents,
they deserve a chance to defend themselves. My e-mail address
is [email protected]. How many of you administrators are
telling your teachers to fill their class time with practice
tests? Are you sure that is the best way to go?
Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a piece Jay Mathews wrote. I want to give some
examples from this article. There is one thing he mentions that is
really important:
I have watched hundreds of teachers over the last two
decades and am sure of one thing: I couldn't last two days in
their jobs. After the first day, my throat would be sore, my
legs wobbly and my energy level needle pointing below empty.
That night I would fall asleep trying to make a new lesson
plan. The next morning I would call in sick, making it clear
that I had an incurable, terminal disease.
Then the article gets much more serious. Part of the insulting
assumption of this legislation is that the teachers in this country
don't want to be held accountable, that we now have to do the tests to
show that they really are not doing their job.
There are, of course, teachers you will find who subtract from
children, but many of them are saints. And I doubt that there is one
Senator who condemns these teachers who could last an hour in the
classrooms they condemn. If you go and visit schools, teachers are
talking about other issues: What happens to children before they get to
school; the whole question of kids who come to kindergarten way behind.
They are talking about the lack of affordable housing, children who are
coming to school hungry today in America, class size and all of the
rest of it. That is what they are talking about. But our response is to
go to these tests and to assume that somehow, once children are tested,
everything will become better.
I want to give some examples Jay Mathews gives today, about the
effect that an over-reliance on testing can have on the classroom. He
writes:
Lisa Donmoyer, a kindergarten to eighth grade science
specialist in Easton, Md., said ``a rich, interesting
classroom is more likely to produce students who do well on
the test than a classroom where the teacher employs the
`drill and kill' method.''
But in many cases, teachers said, administrators make it
difficult to do the right thing.
Hewitt, Tex., high school teacher Donna Garner resigned in
protest when her popular program for teaching the lost art of
grammar was banned because it conflicted with the step-by-
step schedule for preparing for the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skill (TAAS) tests.
A third grade teacher in Fort Worth said her principal
asked her if she had designated as many students as possible
for special education classes so they would be exempt from
the tests and make the school average higher.
Raymond Larrabee was told his son's eighth grade honors
English class would not have the time to read all of Charles
Dickens' ``David Copperfield'' because there were too many
topics to cover for the Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS) test.
A Florida principal told a novice teacher that her wide-
ranging discussion of the possible answers to sample test
questions was a waste of time. Just tell them which answers
are correct, she was told.
Doug Graney, a history teacher at Herndon High School in
Fairfax, and a recently retired Arlington teacher who asked
not to be identified, dropped their engaging approach to U.S.
history because of the [Virginia standard of learning test].
They had been starting with post World War II history,
stimulating family discussions about events their
students' parents and grandparents had witnessed. Then
they went back to colonial days to show how it all
started.
[[Page S6119]]
So I just want to issue this warning, about where I am afraid we are
heading: I think in the absence of the resources and with the
overreliance on tests that is emerging, what we are going to have is,
as one teacher put it so well to Jonathan Kozol, you are going to have
great teachers living in ``examination hell.'' A lot of the really good
teachers are going to get out. In fact, they are now. Some of the
really great teachers are just refusing to be drill instructors,
teaching to tests, tests, tests. They are leaving. This is the opposite
direction from where we should be going.
It is very much the case that the best teachers are the ones who are
not going to want to be teaching to these tests. And frankly, some of
the worst teachers can do it.
When I am in schools, and I have been in a school about every 2 weeks
for the last 10 and a half years I ask the students, when we get into a
discussion of education: What do you think makes for a good education?
You are the experts. Before class size, before technology, before
anything else, they say: Good teachers.
Then I say: What makes for a good teacher? I never hear students say:
Well, the really good teachers are the teachers who teach to
worksheets. The really good teachers are the teachers who basically
have us memorizing all the time and then regurgitating that back on
tests. They talk about teachers who spend time with them, teachers who
fire their imagination, teachers who don't just transmit knowledge but
basically empower them to figure out how to live their lives. They talk
about teachers who get the students to connect personally to the books
that are being discussed, to the ideas that are being discussed, to how
those ideas affect their lives. That is what they talk about.
That is not the direction we are going, not with what we are bringing
down from the Federal Government, top-down to school districts all
across our land. Again, that is why this amendment is so important.
I thank my colleague for the amendment. I am proud to support him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume consideration of S. 1 on Wednesday, June 13, at 9 a.m. with 40
minutes for closing debate on the Santorum amendment No. 799 and the
Hollings amendment No. 798 concurrently, with 20 minutes each prior to
votes in relation to the amendments, with no second-degree amendments
in order prior to the votes, and that the Santorum amendment be voted
on first. Further, I ask that following disposition of the Santorum and
Hollings amendments, Senator Landrieu be recognized to call up her
amendment No. 474, with 30 minutes for debate in the usual form prior
to a vote in relation to her amendment, with no second-degree
amendments in order; further, following disposition of the Landrieu
amendment, Senator Dodd be recognized to call up his amendment No. 382
regarding 21st century afterschool programs, with 2 hours for debate
prior to a vote on a motion to table the amendment, with no second-
degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are moving along very well. This has been
a difficult day. We have a number of other amendments to which we think
we can go quite rapidly. I think with luck we can finish this bill on
Thursday.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 519, As Modified
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously
agreed to Bingaman amendment No. 519 be modified to reflect a
correction in a numerical error in the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 577, line 2, strike the double quote and period.
On page 577, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``SEC. 4304. SCHOOL SECURITY TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE CENTER.
``(a) Center.--The Attorney General, the Secretary of
Education, and the Secretary of Energy shall enter into an
agreement for the establishment at the Sandia National
Laboratories, in partnership with the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Southeast and
the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock,
Arkansas, of a center to be known as the `School Security
Technology and Resource Center'.
``(b) Administration.--The center established under
subsection (a) shall be administered by the Attorney General.
``(c) Functions.--The center established under subsection
(a) shall be a resource to local educational agencies for
school security assessments, security technology development,
evaluation and implementation, and technical assistance
relating to improving school security. The center will also
conduct and publish school violence research, coalesce data
from victim communities, and monitor and report on schools
that implement school security strategies.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $4,750,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, of which
$2,000,000 shall be for Sandia National Laboratories in each
fiscal year, $2,000,000 shall be for the National Center for
Rural Law Enforcement in each fiscal year, and $750,000 shall
be for the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center Southeast in each fiscal year.
``SEC. 4305 LOCAL SCHOOL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Grants authorized.--From amounts appropriated under
subsection (c), the Secretary shall award grants on a
competitive basis to local educational agencies to enable the
agencies to acquire security technology for, or carry out
activities related to improving security at, the middle and
secondary schools served by the agencies, including obtaining
school security assessments, and technical assistance, for
the development of a comprehensive school security plan from
the School Security Technology and Resource Center.
``(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a local educational agency shall submit to the
Secretary an application in such form and containing such
information as the Secretary may require, including
information relating to the security needs of the agency.
``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to local educational agencies
that demonstrate the highest security needs, as reported by
the agency in the application submitted under paragraph (2).
``(b) Applicability.--The provisions of this part (other
than this section) shall not apply to this section.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
each of''.
Amendment No. 513
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would first like to express my
appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate's
Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee for accepting this
important amendment to S. 1, the Better Education for Students and
Teachers Act.
Simply put, the amendment that I have offered will help protect the
ability of school counselors, social workers, psychologists and others
to receive professional development and training as determined by local
school districts.
Each of us in this body wants what's best for our Nation's children,
and when it comes to their education, we want our schools and our
educators to find ways to provide a first-class education for our
children, to ensure their safety, and to help them develop their God-
given talents so they may become upstanding, contributing members of
our society.
Nearly everyone agrees our schools need help, but not everyone agrees
on which way is best. That is why we in the Senate have tried to put
together this Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization
bill that gives our states and localities the flexibility to do what is
necessary to improve their schools.
[[Page S6120]]
Part of educating, protecting, and preparing our students is seeing
to it that they get the help they need to succeed in the classroom.
That is why I offered this amendment to make pupil services personnel
eligible to be recipients of title II professional development funds.
Pupil services personnel, the men and women who are our school
counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, and other
school-based personnel, are essential components in our effort to
guarantee that no child is left behind. These educators help ensure
student achievement by securing a safe learning environment, helping to
solve problems students experience that extend far beyond the
schoolyard, and crafting a challenging, personalized, college-oriented
curriculum so that all students have a chance to succeed.
To maximize State and local flexibility, it is important that pupil
services personnel be included under title II programs. For example, if
a school district wants to engage a team of teachers, principals, and
pupil services personnel in a comprehensive curriculum reform planning
program, Federal law should not exclude part of that team from taking
part in those activities if they use title II funds. Nothing in my
amendment would mandate that title II funds have to be spent on these
educators, only that we not rule out their participation, which I
believe would limit state and local flexibility. Further, adding pupil
services personnel under title II ``allowable uses'' does not add any
additional funds on top of those already authorized in this ESEA
reauthorization legislation.
Pupil service organizations represent more than one million people
who work and teach in our schools. Allowing these educators access to
title II professional development opportunities could unlock innovative
approaches to reduce barriers to classroom learning and integrate
future planning-like professional or college preparation-into classroom
practice. In Ohio, it leaves options open to include an estimated
40,000 school-based educators in professional development activities.
For the students and parents served by these educators, the benefits of
having highly-trained, integrated pupil services staff are potentially
shared by tens of thousands of additional stakeholders each year.
Achieving school reform and improving student achievement requires
the support and active participation of all educators in each school. I
hope my colleagues will agree that, using our limited role in educating
our children, we will provide the flexibility to promote innovative,
coordinated professional development opportunities that may help
generate solutions to the problems that face our schools.
____________________