[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 83 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6239-S6305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Pending:
Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to
establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools.
Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358),
to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls
Clubs of America.
Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit
the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational
agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of
America in providing equal access to school premises or
facilities.
Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the
nature of a substitute.
Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing
the sense of the Senate that there should be established a
joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to
investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the
country and to determine what is causing the increases.
Clinton further modified amendment No. 516 (to amendment
No. 358), to provide for the conduct of a study concerning
the health and learning impacts of dilapidated or
environmentally unhealthy public school buildings on children
and to establish the Healthy and High Performance Schools
Program.
[[Page S6240]]
Sessions modified amendment No. 604 (to amendment No. 358),
to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
regarding discipline.
Harkin (for Kennedy/Harkin) amendment No. 802 (to amendment
No. 358), to amend the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act regarding discipline.
amendments nos. 604 and 802
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 60 minutes for remarks on the Sessions amendment No. 604
and the Harkin amendment No. 802.
Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, is there any other agreement in terms of
speaking between the votes? Are we going to speak and then vote? Will
we just have an hour equally divided and then vote?
Mr. REID. That is true.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. President, there will be 4
minutes of debate followed by a vote on or in relation to the Sessions
amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. On the second vote?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, the issue we are dealing with today is a very
important issue. I had no idea how significant teachers and principals
and superintendents consider this issue. We have already in the course
of this legislation approved a historic increase in funding for IDEA.
That is going to help schools do a better job of providing specialized
training for students with disabilities to a degree we have never seen
before.
In fact, 10 or 15 years ago, when the IDEA matter was settled and
made a part of Federal law, Congress agreed to pay 40 percent of the
cost that would fall on the school system. That agreement was never
honored. Congress never appropriated that 40 percent. In fact, we are
closer to 10 percent, or even under 10 percent. Now I think we are
around 15 or 20 percent of that commitment under the legislation that
passed here. I hope we will be able to fund it. We voted to fully fund
IDEA. It would be a large increase in funding for school systems.
But as I traveled my State, they expressed concern to me. I visited
20 schools in Alabama recently, and I talked to principals and teachers
at each one of those schools. They tell me that funding is important.
They would like more funding. Many of them know that Congress has not
fulfilled that agreement. They told me. Their frustration just pours
out over the Federal regulations that deal with children with
disabilities.
This is the book that has the regulations in it with which they are
required to comply. Lawyers, experts, testimony, and hearings occur on
a regular basis. It is very difficult for teachers to be able to
maintain discipline in their classrooms.
Anyone who has talked to teachers in recent years--and perhaps
forever, but now I think it is more of a problem--knows they are not
able to maintain the level of discipline in a classroom they would
like. As a result, it makes it more difficult for them to reach the
children in the classroom. It makes learning more difficult. We know
that in certain nations in the world they have classroom sizes three
times or four times what we have in the United States. Yet they are
able to maintain discipline. We need to do a better job of maintaining
discipline in the classroom. If you talk to teachers and principals,
they will tell you that.
One of the greatest irritants to them is the regulation that comes
out of this book. Teachers have left the profession based on it. They
are incredibly frustrated. When you talk to them, their frustration
pours out. They cite example after example of circumstances that you
would think would not and could not happen but do happen in America. In
fact, it does happen on a daily basis.
We have been thinking about how to improve this. How can we improve
the ability of school systems to confront a difficult situation with
compassion, with consistency in the classroom so that it is clear that
no one child can rule the roost, that no one child can just take charge
and know they can't be disciplined and actually utilize that power to
disrupt the classroom?
We have talked with superintendents. We have talked to national
leaders. We have talked to lawyers who handle these cases. We have
proposed an amendment that is modest, that is less strong in some ways
than others that have been adopted, but it will go a long way, if not
all the way, in fixing this problem.
This is what happens: A disabled child who is misbehaving is treated
in an entirely different way than a child who is not a disabled child.
They have extraordinary protections that, in effect, make it difficult
for discipline to even occur. Lawyers are involved in it to an
extraordinary degree.
Let me read one letter from a special education coordinator who wrote
about this problem. We tried to fix some of this in 1997 to improve it,
but from what I am hearing in the field from the teachers, we made the
situation worse, not better. This special education coordinator writes:
The restrictions inherent in [the 1997] legislation have
the potential to ``cripple'' a school system beyond repair.
Although my job is to advocate for students with
disabilities, I also feel a responsibility to protect the
rights of all children to an appropriate education.
An elementary school principal writes:
Today general educators at all grade levels must deal with
a large number of these students who are a challenge to
manage and instruct. Having to deal with these behaviors and/
or to constantly change behavior interventions not only takes
away important instructional time from other students, but
inadvertently reinforces the disabled children's behavior.
All class rules should apply to all students and therefore
all students should share the same disciplinary action.
I have maybe 50 or 60 letters to that effect. Let me read a letter
from one teacher who shared her thoughts on this subject:
As a special educator for six years I consider myself ``on
the front lines'' of the on-going battles that take place on
a daily basis in our nation's schools. I strongly believe
that part of the ``ammunition'' that fuels these struggles
are the ``rights'' guaranteed to certain individuals by IDEA
'97.
Remember this is a special educator.
The law, though well intentioned, has become one of the
single greatest obstacles that educators face in our fight to
provide all of our children with a quality education
delivered in a safe environment. There are many examples that
I can offer first hand. However, let me reiterate that I am a
special educator. I have dedicated my life to helping
children with special needs. It is my job to study and know
the abilities and limitations of such children. I have a
bachelor's degree in psychology, a masters degree in special
education and a Ph.D. in good ole common sense. No where in
my educational process have I been taught a certain few
``disabled'' students should have a ``right'' to endanger the
right to an education of all other disabled and nondisabled
children. It is nonsense. It is wrong. It is dangerous. It
must be stopped. There is no telling how many instructional
hours are lost by teachers in dealing with behavior problems.
In times of an increasingly competitive global society, it is
no wonder American students fall short. Certain children are
allowed to remain in the classroom robbing other children of
hours that can never be replaced. There is no need to extend
the schoolday, no need to extend the school year. If
politicians would just make it possible for educators to take
back the time that is lost on a daily basis, to contain
certain students, there is no doubt we would have better
educated students. It is even more frustrating when it is
a special education child who knows and boasts ``they
can't do anything to me'' and he is placed back in the
classroom to disrupt it day after day, week after week.
And she goes on.
There are many other letters. I thought I would share one from a
student. I think it is particularly insightful into the problem with
which we are dealing. We want to give every possible assistance to
children with disabilities, but there are other children in the
classroom also. We ought to think about them. Sometimes their very
lives are at stake. Sometimes their safety is at stake. Sometimes their
dignity is at stake.
This is what this 14-year-old writes. It was sent to me earlier this
year:
I am a 14 year old eighth grader. I have a problem. There
is this girl that goes to school with me, she is an ADD
student [disabled student]. She has been harassing me for no
reason. She has pretty much done everything from breaking my
glasses to telling me she is going to kill me. This really
bothers me because she is an ADD student and the only
punishment she ever gets is a slap on the hand. My principal
says there is not much that he can do because of her status
as a special ed kid. I asked what would happen if I
threatened her back and he told me that I would be suspended
from school and forced to stay away. The most she has ever
gotten is three days ``in school'' suspension. I think this
is wrong. She scares me and I am tired
[[Page S6241]]
of this. It has been going on for 5 months and it's really
getting scary.
Unfortunately, that is not a rare event. Too often, that is what we
are seeing today.
Our legislation is a realistic attempt to deal with it.
What it says is--and this is the core of it--if a child's misbehavior
in the classroom is unconnected to the disability which they have, then
they should be able to be disciplined like any other child in the
classroom. We are not creating a permanent set of separate and unequal
disciplinary actions in a classroom.
If a child has a disability and that disability is connected to their
disruptive activity, then we, as a society, have decided we will not
remove them from the classroom; that it is something they cannot
control, perhaps, and that we will provide them some form of education,
whether it is in that classroom or in an alternative setting.
But it is morally wrong and legally indefensible, in my view, to say
that a child who has a mobility disability, who sells drugs in a class
to other students, or who brings a gun to school--and that mobility
disability has no connection whatsoever to the misconduct that they act
out and do--they should not be protected and treated preferentially
over the other students in the classroom.
Let me tell you what I have heard from teachers in my State. I have
two different examples I will share. There are many. Two children in a
car bring a gun to a school campus. They did not bring it in the
classroom, but it was a clear violation of the rules. It required a
suspension from the school. The nondisabled student is suspended from
school. The disabled student is not suspended, or is suspended just for
a few days, because they are treated separately.
Another example was told to me by teachers where one child sold
marijuana to two other children on the school grounds. The seller was a
disabled child. The purchasers or receivers were nondisabled children.
Under the school rules, they were clearly in violation. The two who
received the drugs were kicked out of school for a period of time. The
one who sold the drugs was not. The teacher asked: How can we look
those children in the eye? What kind of moral authority can we expect
to have if we maintain discipline such as that? Isn't that wrong? It is
mandated by Federal law, the IDEA regulations that are all over the
country.
We want to help children with disabilities, but we do not want to
create a circumstance that frustrates teachers, that undermines
learning, and really does not help the child involved.
Over and over again, the letters I receive from teachers tell me they
believe it is a bad learning process for a child to believe that they,
in the classroom, can do things other children cannot. Then when they
get out into the work world, they are treated like everybody else and
end up having trouble on the job or with criminal activity.
It is a problem we can confront. This legislation says you are
entitled to a hearing, but if the hearing finds that your bad activity
was not directly connected to your disability, then you could be
treated for disciplinary purposes like any other child in the
classroom. That is only common sense. It surprises me that anyone would
object to that.
Secondly, we found in the course of working on this matter that a
number of parents are sacrificing to have their children take advantage
of special schools. There is a great school, Talladega School for the
Blind, in Alabama where a lot of children go. These are not inexpensive
schools. Parents sacrifice to send their children there.
Under Federal law, the school system must give each disabled child as
much assistance as they can based on their disability.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Torricelli). The Senator's time has
expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this provision would say that if the
school system believes an alternative school could help and if the
parent agrees, if they both agree, they could take their daily
allowance for funding for that student and allow the parent to apply to
another school. I note that the House voted on a tougher bill than this
just the other day by an overwhelming vote. The time has come to fix
this problem.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Sessions
amendment. I hope our colleagues will consider the alternative Senator
Harkin has offered. Let me mention that briefly and then put this into
some context.
The amendment Senator Harkin and I are proposing ensures that
students with disabilities will continue to receive services even if
they are suspended or expelled. It retains the noncessation of services
provision in current law.
It ensures that behavioral supports are available to children so they
may continue to learn. We are agreeing with Senator Sessions that a
uniform policy of discipline for students with or without disabilities
is appropriate. Where we differ is in the ultimate outcome.
Our amendment continues the services while his amendment denies them.
Our communities will be safer. Our children will become better
citizens, if they have the full opportunity to learn. Conversely,
expulsion from school with no alternatives will lead some children down
a path where no one wants them to go. That is the alternative.
I remind our colleagues of the history of the IDEA and where we have
come from in terms of discrimination against those with disabilities.
We have made remarkable progress on the road to free our Nation from
the stains of discrimination. Discrimination was written into the
Constitution. We fought a Civil War. Then again in the late 1950s,
primarily with the leadership of Dr. King, and then in the early 1960s,
we were able to pass landmark legislation that helped, to the extent
that laws could, free us from discrimination on the basis of race,
religion, national origin, gender discrimination, and discrimination on
the basis of disabilities. Hopefully, we are going to free ourselves
from discrimination on sexual orientation as well. It has been a very
difficult march. No place has it been more difficult than trying to
free the 5 million children who 25 years ago were more often locked in
closets, not participating in the educational process. We have moved
beyond that; we have proudly gone beyond that.
We have seen slow but continuing progress. We saw it in 1974-1975,
with the leadership at that time of President Ford. We made important
progress. It was in response to Supreme Court decisions that recognized
that when every State constitution guaranteed education to children, it
didn't mean leaving out the disabled, leaving out the handicapped. The
Supreme Court said we have a responsibility to provide for children who
have certain mental and physical challenges. We have embraced that.
As we have seen through this debate, we have recognized that many
communities are attempting to deal with this problem. Given the
complexity and the challenges of those disabilities, it is costly for
many small communities. I know this is true in every State. Members
have talked about small communities that have children with severe
disabilities and what the impact has been in terms of taxes in the
communities.
What we stated a number of years ago--10 years ago--is that we were
going to at least give the assurance that the Federal Government was
going to provide 40 percent of the help for education. It still is a
State requirement. Make no mistake about it. If we were not providing
the funds, there is still the requirement under the State constitution,
according to the Supreme Court. But we said we want to participate.
That is what this legislation is about in terms of its focus on needy
children. We are saying that that is a particular challenge for our
country, that the poorest children, locked in rural and urban areas,
are a special cause of America. We are also saying those children who
have disabilities are a special cause.
That is one of the most important parts of the bill, and I am going
to do everything I possibly can to ensure that it comes back from
conference
[[Page S6242]]
with the kinds of funding we have guaranteed in this legislation.
There has been slow progress in giving assurance to children that
they are going to have an opportunity to get a decent education in our
public schools.
This issue the Senator from Alabama has raised has been before the
Senate on a number of occasions. The place to deal with it is when we
do the reauthorization of the IDEA, which is going to occur next year.
That is the appropriate place to deal with it. We haven't had the
hearings. We haven't conducted the studies. We haven't had review. We
have anecdotal evidence the Senator from Alabama has provided to us.
Let's take the General Accounting Office. I listened to the Senator
from Alabama talk about various letters. You can get letters on school
behavior from any school in the country. Public schools are still the
safest place in America for children, and we know the number of
incidents taking place in public schools generally in any event. You
could get 1,000 letters from many cities on kids and their concerns
about safety.
We have to do something about it. We are trying to do something about
it. We have included that in the legislation. I will not spend the time
in reviewing that at this moment, but we have taken many steps to
ensure safer and better education in the community.
Let's look at student discipline. In January 2000, just 2 years ago,
we adopted new disciplinary procedures for the public schools. Here is
the GAO report:
Nevertheless, responding principals generally regarded
their overall special education discipline policy as having a
positive or neutral effect on the level of safety and
orderliness in their schools.
That is the GAO. That is not anecdotal. That is not coming here to
the Chamber and reading four or five letters from students. That is
what the General Accounting Office said. They are not advocating my
position or the position of the Senator from Alabama. They are trying
to give us the facts, and these are the facts. The facts are not the
anecdotal message of the Senator from Alabama.
That is what is happening out there. Now, you can go through the
study and you will find out that 27 percent of the principals report
that a separate discipline policy for special education--20 percent
reported that the disciplinary procedures for IDEA are burdensome and
time consuming. I would like to do something about that, but we are not
doing that here on the last 1-hour time distribution on the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. We ought to be able to do something on it.
I would like to get the best people here, the GAO people who wrote
that report. I would like to hear their testimony and get their
recommendations. I would like to help those schools.
But that isn't what this amendment is all about. That is not what
this is all about. It is taking children who have, in these instances,
a disciplinary problem--and note the words of art related to their
particular disability. In fact, if you knock those children out, we
know what happens. It is five or six times as likely that they will
never come back to education once they lose that continuing education.
Those are the statistics. We know what is going to happen. Those
children are gone, out.
Now, this is a difficult challenge, but it is a challenge that I
think most of us think is worth it. What we have seen, as the Senator
from Iowa pointed out very eloquently last night, is the extraordinary
road to progress when local communities and school districts attempt to
deal with these issues, with extraordinary kinds of results, incredible
kinds of reactions. I could spend the time, which I don't have here,
reading letters that have been written by parents who say their
children have learned how to love because they have a child in the
class who has learning disabilities, and we know the problems they
have. We have spent time working with those children and other children
who come together. Do you want to throw those kids out? Do you want to
throw them out because they have had a cigarette outside in the lobby
which was not related to their disability? Throw them out? My goodness.
If we are going to have to have a full debate, let's do it, but do it
on the reauthorization. Let's not take the final hours here to throw
them out of school. That is what this amendment does, make no mistake
about it.
This is a basic major retreat, Mr. President, on the march of
progress for disabled children. It is unworthy of this body, with the
progress that we have made, to go backward. That is where this
amendment takes us. We have a very solid alternative which is
responsive to any of the continuing challenges. It has been offered by
Senator Harkin. Every Member can vote for it with pride and hold their
head high. I give assurance to the Senator from Alabama, if he wants to
do that next year, he can be our first witness on the reauthorization
of IDEA. If he wants other people on the panel that sustain his
position, we will welcome them, too.
Let's not effectively undermine the solid progress that we have made
for children in this country over the period of the last 25 years. That
is what the Sessions amendment does. We should reject it.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time
remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has his own time, 15 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to associate myself fully with the
statement just made by the chairman of our committee regarding the
amendment I spoke on last night. I intend to speak a few more minutes
this morning. First of all, sometimes good things happen, and we ought
to take notice of them.
Apropos of this debate we are having about kids with disabilities in
schools, there is an article that recently appeared in the Washington
Post on June 10th. It is a great story of the success of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is headlined,
``Autistic Teen in DC School Goes to Head of Class.'' It talks about
``Lee Alderman, a shy 19-year-old with autism, who will become the
first special education student in the district, and perhaps in the
metropolitan area, to graduate as valedictorian of his public high
school class.'' This kid with a disability had a lot of problems going
through school. He had the support of IDEA.
Mr. President, I talk about that because in these debates we hear
about discipline problems and all the things that are happening. We
forget the hundreds of thousands of success stories that happen because
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, such as the one I
just mentioned here with Lee Alderman. Yet we pick out a problem in
this school or one in that school and we blame the kids with
disabilities. I don't know why we continue to do that.
I have pointed out many times how I have looked at schools where they
have discipline problems, and they get a new principal and institute
procedures according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, and their problems go away.
The easy thing is always to get a kid with a disability out of the
classroom, segregate them. My principal objection to the Sessions
amendment is that it results in segregation--we are going to once again
turn the clock back to the days when we segregated kids with
disabilities, when we took kids from their homes and their communities
and sent them sometimes halfway across the State to live in an
institution to go to a special school.
As I said last night, that is my personal story. My brother, who was
deaf, was taken from his home, his community, his family, his friends,
and sent halfway across the State to a boarding school for the deaf and
the dumb, as they called it in those days. He was segregated from his
family, his community, only because he was deaf. Mr. President, I don't
want to go back to those days--back to the days when these kids were
shuffled off to institutions.
That is why we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act--to mainstream kids. That is why we passed the Americans with
Disabilities Act--to say that it is wrong to discriminate against
anybody, not just on the basis of race, sex, color, creed, national
origin, but also disability. As a result of this, kids with
disabilities have gone to school with their friends and their
neighbors, kids they know
[[Page S6243]]
and with whom they associate. It has provided opportunities for these
kids with disabilities. But more than that, it has provided the
opportunities for kids without disabilities to be intimately associated
in the classroom with kids who do have disabilities. I believe both
have gained from this experience. I don't want to turn the clock back.
The Sessions amendment basically would allow that segregation--take
the kid out and put him in some segregated setting, without the
protections of current law.
Under IDEA, the law as it is presently constituted, can a child with
a disability be segregated? The answer is yes. If that child is a
safety risk to himself or herself, or to others. And, even if it is a
manifestation of their disability, that child can be segregated, but
only after a process in which the school has to show that they have
provided adequate services for this kid.
Last night, I gave an example of a child in a classroom. They had a
TV monitor. He was watching it. The kid was deaf and some of the
educational materials were put on the television monitor. But there was
no captioning on it. So this went on, I don't know how long--a couple
of days. Then the kid started throwing things. Then he started punching
the kid next to him and things like that. Well, they kicked him out of
the class. But, because of IDEA, there was a process to find out why
that child acted out. When they brought in an interpreter, they found
out the kid was frustrated because he could not understand what was
going on. He was not getting the proper services. Under the Sessions
amendment, that would not happen. That kid could be taken out, if he
done something like that, without the protections of current law and
could be segregated from that classroom.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question on that?
Mr. HARKIN. Just one minute. Yes, I will yield, but I may ask for
more time if I yield. I would not mind getting into a discussion.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would not want the due process hearing to be
eliminated. I don't intend to do that in the legislation. If there is
any language there that does that, I will be glad to discuss it with
the Senator. I do not believe it does.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if you look at my amendment, section 2,
limitation, in general----
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator's amendment or mine?
Mr. HARKIN. My amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator said mine eliminated a due process hearing.
I would like for him to say where it does that.
Mr. HARKIN. Right in ``(2) Limitation.--(A) In General.--'' where you
say ``shall receive a free appropriate public education which may be
provided in an alternative educational setting.'' My amendment adds the
words ``pursuant to Sec 615K'' which does provide that. The Senator's
amendment does not provide that. I ask him to look at that. That is not
provided.
To me, that was the biggest problem. I have other problems with his
amendment. That is the single biggest problem right there. I point that
out.
Look at my amendment; I put in the words ``pursuant to Sec 615K.''
That is one big problem with this amendment. The second problem is
the cessation of services, and this is equally as important, perhaps,
as the segregation.
I agree with the Senator from Alabama; if a student with a disability
violates a school rule and if that behavior is not related to his
disability, that child should be disciplined in the same manner as any
other child, and IDEA allows for that.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, let's say a
child with a disability is caught smoking in the parking lot and that
is a violation of school rules but it is not a manifestation of that
child's disability. That child can be disciplined just as any other
child who was caught smoking in that parking lot. No ifs, ands, or buts
about it.
Here is the point: They can be disciplined, but the educational
services cannot be stopped. We continue the services to this child.
Here is the difference between the approach of the Senator from
Alabama and mine. I do not believe educational services ought to be
stopped for any child. Two years ago, we had the juvenile justice bill
before the Senate. I offered an amendment at that time, which was
adopted, which said that if a student with or without a disability was
disciplined and was segregated or moved out of the school setting,
educational services had to be continued.
Why is it that if we are going to expel a student, we are just going
to throw them out on the street? We shift the problem to the streets
when it may be a family problem or it could be a host of reasons why
this young person is acting up.
The juvenile justice bill continued services for every child, not
just kids with disabilities, but every child who was disciplined and
removed from a school setting continued to receive educational
services.
My approach was to expand the concept of IDEA to all students. The
approach of my friend from Alabama is let's take away everything, all
of the services, even from kids with disabilities. That is the
difference in approach. If one believes that a kid with a disability
who is caught smoking in the parking lot and is kicked out of school
because that is the school policy ought to be thrown on the street and
receive no educational support, no educational services, then that is
what the Sessions amendment does. But if one thinks that child should
continue to receive educational services, that is not contained in his
amendment; he wipes that out. Under IDEA, as the law is constituted
today, that child will continue to get services.
Two years ago when I offered this amendment on the juvenile justice
bill, I had major police and law enforcement agencies of America
supporting my amendment because they wanted to continue educational
services to these kids.
Law enforcement and parents all agree that ceasing services is the
wrong answer, and yet I point out to my friend from Alabama, under
paragraph (C) of his amendment, all of these services are ceased. My
amendment leaves the same language as the Senator from Alabama, except
I say ``except as provided in 612(a)(1)'' which means they continue the
services. They can still be kicked out of school, make no mistake about
it. They can be kicked out, but educational and other services that a
disabled child needs will continue.
I have lived with this now for most of my life. I have lived with
IDEA for 26 years. It just seems as if every year we get some amendment
that comes up to do something about kids with disabilities and
discipline in school. Look, I do not mind, I say to my friend from
Alabama, if he wants to do something about discipline in schools. I am
sure there is something we can do about discipline in schools without
encroaching on local control. But why focus on kids with disabilities?
Why pick on the most vulnerable of our society? When we look at all of
the school shootings from Columbine to Oregon to Pennsylvania, and I
think there was one in Arkansas, not a one of those involved a child
with a disability--not one. Yet every time we have something like that
flare up, there is always an amendment that comes out that goes after
kids with disabilities. It is not right. It is not fair.
We have been through this before. We have been through it time and
time again. I repeat for emphasis' sake what the Senator from
Massachusetts said. We had a GAO study done of this. I wanted to get a
study done to find out whether or not kids in special education were
getting special treatment in the schools. Here is what the GAO report
said in January, and I quote:
Special education students who are involved in serious
misconduct are being disciplined in generally a similar
manner to regular education students based on information
that principals reported to us and our review of the limited
extent research.
That means IDEA is not limiting the ability to discipline children
with disabilities. Really, what the Sessions amendment does is, under
the guise of discipline, it will allow schools to turn the clock back
and segregate these kids again. It will allow us to turn the clock back
and stop services to these kids.
As the Senator from Massachusetts said, we know a lot of times
families with kids with disabilities are struggling. They do not have a
lot of wherewithal. Kids get kicked out, they get
[[Page S6244]]
disciplined, families throw up their hands, the kids get thrown on the
streets, and they never come back. They do not come back. We all know
what happens then, and we know what happens to them after that. They
wind up in our jails, in our prisons.
We have taken major steps in this country to integrate kids with
disabilities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Objection. Five minutes is a bit much at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. OK. Three on each side?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I think we should have 3
minutes for the opposition to this amendment also.
Mr. HARKIN. Sure, that is all right.
Mr. SESSIONS. Three minutes a side is fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I was saying, we have come a long way,
and we should not turn the clock back. On this very bill we are
discussing, Senator Hagel and I offered an amendment that fully funds
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that we passed 26 years
ago. That is in this bill. It is not an authorization; it is actually
an appropriation in this bill, and it was adopted unanimously by the
Senate by voice vote. That means school districts now will have more
Federal funds coming in to help them provide the services these kids
need.
Let's not resegregate these kids until we see the outcomes of full
funding. We are now going to give the schools the support and the
finances they need to make sure they get the appropriate services for
these kids with disabilities.
The amendment I have pending in many ways is similar to the amendment
of the Senator from Alabama, but it does not segregate and it does not
stop services. It does allow schools to discipline kids with
disabilities, it allows them to even kick them out, but it does not
allow them to segregate or stop services to the kids with disabilities.
I think that is a vital, important difference between these two
amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will take managers' time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama was yielded 3
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will take that time.
Let me respond first to the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I know
how deeply he cares about this issue. I understand his concerns. We are
not trying to undertake anything that would be detrimental to children
with disabilities.
I want him to understand clearly that under the example cited about a
child who was frustrated because they could not hear the television--
and some of those things happen--under this amendment I have presented,
that child could not be removed without a manifest determination
hearing, and if in any hearing that would occur it is clearly shown
there was a connection between his disability and his behavior, he
could not be denied school services.
That is the difference between our amendment and the one that passed
the House a few weeks ago in May that does not provide for the hearing.
Under the House bill that passed by 250 or 40-some-odd votes, they
would be treated as any other child for disciplinary purposes.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield.
Mr. GREGG. I yield such time as I may have under this amendment to
the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. For example, it says for disciplinary purposes the
children shall be treated equally.
``(2) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--A child with a disability who is removed
from the child's regular educational placement under
paragraph (1) shall receive a free appropriate public
education which may be provided in an alternative educational
setting if the behavior that led to the child's removal is a
manifestation of the child's disability, as determined under
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (k)(4).
``(B) Manifestation determination.--The manifestation
determination shall be made immediately; if possible, but in
no case later than 10 school days after school personnel
decide to remove the child with a disability from the child's
regular educational placement.
I wanted to get that straight. I know the Senator cares deeply about
that.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. I point out to the Senator, in all fairness, the
paragraph just quoted leaves our ``pursuant to section 615(k)'' of the
underlying bill which provides for that due process hearing. That is
not in your amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Our amendment further says:
(A) Review of manifestation determination.--If the parents
or the local educational agency disagree with a manifestation
determination under subsection (n)(2), the parents or the
agency may request a review of that determination through the
procedures described in subsections (f) through (i).
That is current law, and we provide for the hearing.
Mr. HARKIN. Later, after they are kicked out.
Mr. SESSIONS. The school gets to protect the students until it is
complete, no later than 10 days. I think the school system ought to be
given some deference. The principals and the teachers love children.
They care about their school. They want to do the right thing. We have
pounced on them.
Why does the disability act come up in the U.S. Congress? Because it
is a Federal law that is controlling our teachers and principals. When
they express concern to us, we should listen.
I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Virginia, Mr. Allen. He was a former Governor and was deeply involved
in education.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes
23 seconds; the Senator from Iowa has 1\1/2\ minutes; and the Senator
from Alabama has 13 minutes 49 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am interested because I thought we had an hour evenly
divided at 9 o'clock. I know we went to this a few minutes after 9.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an additional 6 minutes added by
unanimous consent.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sessions amendment
which would properly return the ability to the local schools and
principals to establish and implement uniform discipline policies
applicable to all children in our States and school districts.
I have been listening to a lot of comments back and forth. One of the
reasons this issue comes back year after year after year is that it is
an issue in local schools year after year after year and it becomes an
issue in campaigns.
The issue is not whether or not we support IDEA or support education
and helping those with disabilities. We clearly all agree with that.
The issue is whether or not we are going to have a uniform standard of
conduct applicable to all students within a public school system. That
is the issue.
I was involved in this issue from the first month I came in as
Governor of Virginia in 1994 where we had these problems with this
Federal law. We took the Department of Education to court in
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Riley. We went to the appellate court and
prevailed. Then in 1997 our victory for maintaining order and
discipline in our schools was taken away by the action of the House and
the Senate.
I can promise the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Massachusetts,
and the Senator from Alabama that discipline or expulsion is not taken
lightly in Alabama or Virginia--or I can't imagine in any school. To
accuse our educators, our States, our school boards of wanting to
unfairly discriminate against students with disabilities and shirking
their responsibility by unfairly expelling them is unfounded and wrong.
It is not a question of a kid smoking a cigarette in the parking lot.
The issues are students who set up cocaine rings, sell explosives that
blow off a child's hand, or bloody another student with brass knuckles.
If a child has an epileptic fit and breaks a teacher's
[[Page S6245]]
nose, that is usually a mitigating factor so a child will not be
expelled.
Here are actual cases in Fairfax County, not too far from here, in
public schools. A group of students brought in a loaded 357 magnum
handgun. It was recovered in the school building. The non-special-
education students were expelled. One student, however, was identified
as learning disabled due to the student's weakness in written language
skills. The team reviewed the evaluations and found there was no causal
relationship between the student's writing disability and the student's
involvement in the weapons violation. The student was not expelled.
That student later bragged to teachers and students at the school that
he could not be expelled.
In another recent case in Fairfax High School, a student was part of
a gang that was involved in a mob assault on another student. One
student involved in the melee used a meat hook as a weapon. Three of
the gang members were expelled; the other two who were special ed
students were not expelled and are still in the school.
These are the real situations where there is not an equal or fair
administration of standards of conduct in the schools. I think we all
care about good school conduct. We want small class sizes, good
academics, good assessments, empowerment of parents, and all the rest.
What also is important is a conducive learning environment.
We need to trust in and take care to allow the responsibilities for
maintaining order and discipline in schools to be where they properly
belong and not have a Federal law that really justifies a double
standard on discipline for disabled and nondisabled students, despite
our shared efforts to ensure equal treatment and inclusion into a
mainstream system.
The Sessions amendment would return authority for all students back
to the States and local schools where it belongs. It is for the
parents, teachers, and community, not Washington, to know what is best
for students. We want to provide students with a safe learning
environment, but we do not need any illogical interference from the
Federal Government.
I hope my colleagues will support the Sessions amendment. I thank
Senator Sessions for his brave leadership on this issue. I ask Senators
to stand by your local schoolteachers, stand by your principals, by
providing fair and equal standards of conduct for all students, and
please support the Sessions amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am absolutely amazed and shocked at the
comments of the Senator from Virginia, talking about drugs, guns, and
bombs. Why didn't they call 911? They can be held and expelled. Now we
are finding out what this is all about: Guns, drugs, and bombs in
schools--that disabled children are doing it? Demonstrate it.
I give you the General Accounting Office report that says there is no
such thing that is happening. This is not something we are proposing.
This is a study on discipline and school behavior. If you can find the
words ``guns, bombs, and drugs'' in here, go ahead and find them. It
reaches entirely different conclusions.
Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. No, I don't yield. You talk about it, that it comes up
in campaigns. You bet it does. And we have just heard it, we have just
seen it. We just heard and understand the reasons.
If there is a problem, as the Senator from Alabama says, we don't
find it in the General Accounting Office report. Anyone can get
anecdotal information that there is a problem here and there in some
schools. But that just doesn't happen. That is not the case. That is
not what the General Accounting Office in its report of January of this
year stated.
Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. If you have a different conclusion from that, present
it. But just to say look, there are guns, bombs, and drugs, all these
disabled children all over, disrupting, disrupting--we are used to
that. We have heard that kind of presentation. That is not what this is
about. These children have faced these challenges along the line. This
is what the General Accounting Office report says.
Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I have limited time, Senator. I was here last evening
ready to debate it, and I was here earlier ready to debate it.
Mr. ALLEN addressed the Chair.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for order, Mr. President. Who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
This is what it says:
Special education students who are involved in serious
misconduct are being disciplined in generally a similar
manner to regular education students, based on the
information principals reported to us and our review.
[P]rincipals generally rated their school's special
education discipline policies . . . as having a positive or
neutral effect on the level on [school] safety and
orderliness.
That is what this report, the General Accounting Office report, says:
Based on our analysis of disciplinary actions and past
research, regular education and special education . . . were
treated in a similar manner.
There is the General Accounting Office report. We have, with 1 hour
on the reauthorization of this act, a proposal that is going to take
away the kind of education support systems the Federal Government pays
for--not Virginia pays for but the Federal Government pays for. That is
the effect of it.
You wanted to wipe that out.
The amendment Senator Harkin has introduced is very clear in what it
permits, what it allows. The amendment says that students with
disabilities will continue to have services, even if they are suspended
or expelled. It retains the noncessation of service provisions in
current law and ensures that behavioral supports are available to
children so they may continue to learn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his minute and a half.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will take the last minute.
We are agreeing with Senator Sessions; a uniform policy for students
with or without disabilities is appropriate. Where we differ is in the
ultimate outcome. If you want to change the IDEA law, let's do it when
we do reauthorization.
I have invited the Senator from Alabama to come to our hearing. I
will invite the Senator from Virginia to come and make the
presentation. But to change this march we have had--not since 1994, but
many of us have been here since 1974, at a time when 5 million children
were being put in closets and not educated--not 1994, and we know who
has been discriminated against--we are not going to march backward.
This is a major retreat in providing mainstreaming for the children
of this country which is not only the right educational policy and the
right, decent thing to do, but is also commanded to be done by the
Supreme Court.
I hope the amendment of the Senator from Alabama is defeated and the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa is accepted.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I recognize that the issue of educating
children with disabilities is complex. There are many factors to take
into consideration as we try to determine the best possible policy to
make sure that all children receive a quality education. I have no
doubt that this amendment is intended to improve the educational
opportunities for disabled students, but I have concerns that the
amendment fails to provide protections to make sure that parents of
children with disabilities are not pressured into removing their
children from public schools. If a system of protections were included,
I would likely support this amendment.
Further, this bill is not the appropriate place to resolve this
complicated issue. In view of the fact that this Congress will
reauthorize the bill that guarantees an education to children with
disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, I
believe Congress should wait for that opportunity to make significant
changes in policy concerning educating disabled children. That will
allow us to fully debate these important issues, examine the
alternatives, and come to a clearer understanding of how to best
educate disabled children in this country. I am voting against this
amendment today,
[[Page S6246]]
but I look forward to revisiting this issue during the reauthorization
of the IDEA.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to both
Senator Sessions' and Senator Harkin's amendments, which attempt to
reach the goal of helping school districts establish and implement
discipline policies that are consistent for every child in the school
district.
I strongly believe that we do need to come to a resolution in Federal
law that will help school districts appropriately discipline students
when they act out violently or in a way that disrupts the learning of
other students, but that we should be certain that our actions do not
punish children for their disabilities.
The problem we have, at hand, is that the 1997 IDEA reauthorization,
as passed and implemented, has developed a separate discipline policy
for children in special education, which many school superintendents
have found unequal and unfair in their efforts to maintain discipline
in their schools. In fact, a recent GAO report, published in January of
this year, found that while many principals believe that the differing
school policies had a neutral effect on their schools, 27 percent of
principals did believe that a separate discipline policy for special
education students is unfair to the regular student population.
Now, I want to be very clear that my intention is not to go back to
the pre-1975 days when students with disabilities were segregated from
the regular student population or, even worse, were denied education
all together. In fact, in the early 1970s, I walked door to door trying
to figure out why so many children were staying home from school. The
census, at the time, showed that there were 2 million children out of
school so the Children's Defense Fund worked to answer the question of
why these children were not in school. While working for the Children's
Defense Fund, I was one of the researchers who found that approximately
750,000 of these children were being kept out of school because they
were handicapped. This research led to the first-ever report by the
Children's Defense Fund, ``Children out of School in America,'' which
helped provide solid research to pass the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975.
As the Progressive Policy Institute so eloquently concluded in a
recent report, thanks to this law ``today many disabled children in
America have the opportunity to obtain high-quality educational
experience tailored to their needs and circumstances, the priorities of
their parents, and the judgements of their teachers.'' This report goes
on, however, to point out that the law has not kept up with the
challenges faced by today's schools. Discipline is a primary example.
While IDEA provides protection for disabled students, many believe it
goes too far. That, while protecting disabled students, the law may
unintentionally harm the educational progress of other students in the
classroom.
Senator Sessions' amendment attempts to fix this problem by
eliminating all due process for children with disabilities who have
disciplinary problems. Senator Harkin's amendment, on the other hand,
attempts to address the problem by encouraging local school districts
to implement uniform discipline policies while, at the same time,
recodifying current IDEA law as it relates to the discipline policy.
I oppose these amendments because I do not believe that either
amendment adequately addresses the problem of working toward a uniform
discipline policy that allows school administrators to maintain
discipline so that all children are offered the opportunity to learn
and are not interrupted due to the actions of one child, while
protecting the civil rights of children with disabilities to receive a
free and appropriate education.
There is much work we need to do on this issue and I believe that we
should develop balanced policies that can be part of the discussion and
debate during the 2002 reauthorization of IDEA. We need to look for
policies that help prevent children with discipline problems from
unnecessarily being identified as in need of special education. We need
to ensure that quality alternative educational settings are developed
for those students who need alternative placements. And, most
importantly, we need to fully fund IDEA so that children with
disabilities receive appropriate treatment.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against the
Sessions amendment. I do believe that we need a more uniform standard
of discipline for disabled students, however, I do not believe that it
is prudent for the Senate to consider such an important policy matter
in such a short amount of time. I share several of the Senator's
concerns about the need to revisit the discipline language in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but I do not believe the
reauthorization bill for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is
the appropriate vehicle. The reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act is expected to be considered next year. I
look forward to having a fuller debate on this complex issue at that
time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to give an explanation for votes
that I made earlier today on the amendment offered by my colleague
Senator Sessions and the second degree amendment offered by Senator
Harkins. I voted against these amendments because ultimately I believe
that we should consider such proposals when the Senate debates the
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
IDEA, next year.
I support the provisions in the Harkin amendment that would allow
States and local education agencies to establish and implement uniform
policies regarding discipline applicable to all children. This would
allow school personnel to remove students from school for disruptive
behavior, if such behavior is determined not to be a manifestation of
the student's disability. The amendment further states that school
districts must provide education services to such students in an
alternative setting. Although I agree with my colleague that schools
should strive to uphold such provisions, I believe there may be special
exemptions to this, such as when a student poses a violent threat to
educators and other students.
I share the concern raised by my colleague from Alabama and have
voted in the past to reform discipline provisions to ensure safe and
orderly learning environments. However, such an important issue
deserves our full consideration and attention and I believe we should
deal with this in the context of IDEA reauthorization so we can have a
fuller debate and adopt a more comprehensive approach.
I look foward to working with both of my esteemed colleagues on these
and other important elements of the IDEA when it is reauthorized next
year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. How much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 42 seconds.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, in response to some of the remarks by the
Senator from Massachusetts, let me say this is not an issue about
trying to deprive those students with disabilities of an education.
This is an issue of standards of conduct. Oh, sure, the Federal
Government does put some money into IDEA, but most of it does come from
the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and the State of Alabama. That is the whole issue of the
Harkin-Hagel amendment in the first place. It has been an unfunded
mandate.
To cite the comments and cast aspersions on my remarks, which were
taken from a court decision--these individuals from Richmond City
public schools, Fairfax County public schools, were under oath. Just
because a General Accounting Office report doesn't refer to these
situations doesn't mean they did not occur. Those individuals presented
themselves before a court and swore under oath what happened. There are
school records of it. They were subject to cross-examination.
For the Senator from Massachusetts to say these are just concocted,
falsified stories, unfortunately is not an accurate statement. These
are incidents that occur time after time.
The Senator from Alabama and I are not saying that disabled students
cause trouble all the time. But it does happen, from students who are
disabled
[[Page S6247]]
and students who have no disabilities --they cause problems in schools.
We think the standards of conduct should be fair and equal in their
treatment, with proper due process and equal protection. That is what
the issue is, and no amount of unfair aspersions, raised voices, and
histrionics can avoid the facts of what we are trying to do, to
preserve local autonomy and safe schools as well as equal and fair
treatment.
I yield whatever time I had.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the school system does treat differently
students who bring drugs and guns to school. There is no doubt about
that. I know Senator Harkin feels strongly about this, and Senator
Kennedy does. Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy opposed, when we had
74 votes on the juvenile bill, an amendment that simply said if you
bring a gun to school, you can be treated as any other child for
disciplinary purposes. That got 74 votes in this body. It is time to do
something about this.
Do we not love children if we simply say a child who acts illegally,
who abuses other children, who is sexually aggressive against girls in
the classroom, even teachers, who curses teachers in the classroom--
engaging in that activity, if it is not connected to their disability,
should they be protected and given a special status, as they absolutely
are here?
All this amendment says is, if a child has a disability, as Senator
Harkin used the example, a hearing disability, and that is connected to
their misbehavior, then they cannot be denied services in the school.
They can remain there, and they are entitled to a hearing even on
whether or not they go to a special classroom.
We do not deny hearings. But we are simply saying it is time for the
school principals and teachers to be given some respect. It is time for
school students, as the 14-year-old about whom I read here, who said
she can't respond but she is abused regularly--her glasses are knocked
off. The girl told her she was going to kill her, and she was afraid to
go to school. That child is getting no relief and cannot get it, it
seems.
I believe we have a modest step forward in making progress.
Unfortunately, the Harkin amendment undermines everything the amendment
I have offered seeks to do.
It is return to the status quo. It is return to the Federal
Government micromanaging school classrooms and discipline problems. It
is not healthy for America.
All we are trying to do is exact some balance. The House passed a
much stronger bill earlier last month with 246 votes. That vote did not
provide the kinds of hearings that our bill does. I believe this is the
right approach. It is time to respond to the educators.
Senator Kennedy says the Federal Government is paying for this. We
know the Federal Government is not paying for this. We know we are
paying only a fraction of the cost. It is basically an unfunded Federal
mandate on local schools in America. They are required to do all of
these things.
Newsweek had an article on a student who was called ``the meanest kid
in Alabama.'' He had an aide who went with him from the time he got on
the schoolbus until the time he got to class, all through class, and
then on the way home on the bus. One day he assaulted the schoolbus
driver, and the aide, I think, tried to stop him.
Those are the kinds of problems we have created under this law that
seems to be impossible to deal with. I think the Disabilities Act is a
historic step forward. We want to keep every child in the regular
classroom who can possibly be kept there.
I have visited schools in Alabama. I have seen schools with children
in wheelchairs in the classroom. I have seen blind children in the
classroom. I think that is wonderful. But if a child in a wheelchair
sells dope, should they be treated differently from any other child who
sells dope in school?
That is all we are saying. But even then that child would have to
have a hearing, and the school would have to show that the action he
was being disciplined for was not a result of the disability before he
could be removed from the classroom.
This is a modest step forward to deal with a problem that is very
real for teachers all over this country. If you go into their schools
and talk to them, you will hear them talk about it. If you have friends
who are teachers, ask them about it.
There are many actions in this legislation that are unfair and cannot
be justified, in my opinion.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand there are 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Virginia if he
would please provide to my office these specific examples and the
schools because I would like to take a look at those. I would like to
look at them because, under the 1997 bill that we passed, if you bring
a bomb or a gun or drugs to school, you are out. You are out. So I
would like to ask publicly if the Senator from Virginia would provide
those to my office so we can take a look at those to see why there is
this disagreement. In the 1997 bill, which we passed 98-1 on the Senate
floor, if you bring a bomb or drug or guns to school you are out.
I say to the Senator from Alabama that I realize he has good
intentions. All of us want discipline in schools. I brought two kids
through public schools. Of course, we want discipline in our public
schools. None of us wants our teachers or busdrivers to be subject to
violence by kids who may harm them or harm themselves. None of us wants
that. We want safe schools.
That is why in the process of 26 years we have worked hard on a
bipartisan basis in the Senate and in the House to fashion and change
this legislation so that we meet the needs of those public schools.
That is what the 1997 bill was all about. It is working. Let's not turn
the clock back and segregate these kids as we did in the past. We have
come too far for that. That is what the Sessions amendment does. It
just segregates these kids.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute thirty-two seconds.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Harkin amendment does not do the
job. I urge its defeat. It has the pretense of improving the law, but
it does not in any way.
Under the amendment, the schools would not be free to set uniform
discipline provisions for all students. The double standard that now
exists would continue to exist. Our amendment does not completely
remove the double standard, but it makes substantial progress after
providing a hearing to that student to ensure they are treated fairly.
Even if the bad behavior that a school seeks to address in the
classroom has no relation to the child's disability, the school would
be forced to keep that disruptive or even violent student in the
classroom.
If a child, for example, were blind, and if there were an excellent
blind school nearby, the Harkin amendment would deny the school and the
parent the right to agree--it would take both of them agreeing--to
accept the average daily allowance for that student and apply that to
that school, if the parent wanted to make up the difference and get the
kind of high-quality education that might not be available in that
school.
I believe this is a concern for children. I believe it is
compassionate in every way. It simply tries to give our beleaguered
principals, teachers, and schools more options to deal with a very real
problem.
I thank the Chair. I urge defeat of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 802.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:
[[Page S6248]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]
YEAS--36
Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Feingold
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
NAYS--64
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The amendment (No. 802) was rejected.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday during rollcall votes 185 and 186,
I was necessarily absent to attend services in connection with the
passing of Mrs. Barbara Bailey. Mrs. Bailey was the spouse of the late
John Bailey, the legendary former chairman of both the Connecticut
State Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. She was
also the mother of Barbara Kennelly who represented the 1st
Congressional District of Connecticut from 1983 through 1999. She was a
remarkable woman and her passing saddens us all.
Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted as follows: On
rollcall vote No. 185, the Domenici amendment as modified, I would have
voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 186, the Schumer amendment, I would
have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 604, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4
minutes for debate to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the
Sessions amendment.
Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have a real problem in education
today. It is a mandate that we know we do not fully fund. We are paying
about 10 percent of the cost of IDEA. We ought to be paying 40 percent,
according to our agreement. We have voted to increase that funding
fully now.
The next thing we need to do is deal with the Federal regulations
that are contained in this book that teachers and principals are having
to deal with on a daily basis. Most of you have heard from your
teachers and schools. You know the way we are administering the
Disabilities Act does not work.
My amendment would simply say that a child, after a hearing where it
is found that they are disruptive or perform an illegal or improper act
in school that was not a product of their disability, would be treated,
for disciplinary purposes, as any other child. That would mean that a
child who sold dope, even though they may have a mobility disability,
would be treated as any other child that sold drugs in a classroom. I
think that is the right approach.
The House passed a bill much stronger which said flatout that any
child, whether disabled or not, would be treated the same for
disciplinary purposes.
This is a more modest step, but I believe a good step, in dealing
with the problem that we are hearing about from all our teachers. I
urge passage of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator
from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know that all Senators--I talked with
them in the well--are concerned about discipline in classes. This
Senator is no different. I put two kids in public schools. We are all
concerned about discipline in the classroom. But the Sessions amendment
is the wrong approach. To segregate kids with disabilities and take
them out and put them in a separate setting is not the right thing to
do.
The Sessions amendment would cease services to these kids with
disabilities. That is not the right thing to do. There may be other
things we can do to help provide for discipline in the classroom but
not to segregate kids with disabilities. That is extreme.
Those of us who have lived in families with siblings who were
disabled and watched them taken from our families and our communities
and sent halfway across the State, segregated from their friends, do
not want to go back to that. That is what the Sessions amendment does.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time set
aside in the order entered last night from 1 to 2 for morning business
be terminated. There will be no morning business if this unanimous
consent agreement is agreed to. We want to move along with this bill. I
have spoken to the people interested and they have been very courteous
and have acknowledged it would be better to not do morning business
then.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Allen, Bond, and Voinovich be listed as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is all
time yielded back?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
All time having expired, the question is on agreeing to amendment No.
604, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carnahan
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--50
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 604), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from
Alabama wishes to vote----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has been made and is not
debatable.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding this amendment we just completed--it
did not pass on a vote of 50-50. The Senator from Alabama wishes to
vote on this again. With the consent of the Senator from Alabama and
the Senator from Iowa, it would seem it would be in
[[Page S6249]]
everyone's interest that we would schedule a vote at a time certain on
the motion to reconsider.
My unanimous consent request is it would be after the completion of
the work on the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, which is,
according to the order we entered last night, the next to be debated.
In short, we will complete the debate on the Helms amendment, vote on
that, and immediately go to a vote on the motion of the Senator from
Alabama, with 1 minute on the side of the Senator from Alabama and 1
minute for the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Is there a request before the Senate?
Mr. REID. Yes, there is.
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, I merely want to understand
what the request is.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from West Virginia, if this unanimous
consent request is finalized, we are going to go ahead and complete the
debate on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina.
Following a vote on that amendment, we would come back and vote again
on the motion that was just made.
Mr. BYRD. Why is the Senate voting again on that motion?
Mr. REID. Because the Senator from Alabama wishes to have a vote, and
the fact is, we have not tabled the motion to reconsider on the initial
motion that I made, and the motion the Senator from California made to
table.
We are trying to enter into this agreement. If that does not work,
then the Senator from Alabama is going to suggest the absence of a
quorum to try to figure a way to get out of that and in the meantime we
will waste a lot of time around here.
Mr. BYRD. Is the motion to table before the Senate?
Mr. REID. It is before the Senate, but it has not been agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Was there a vote in progress on that motion?
Mr. REID. No.
Mr. BYRD. There was not. So the Chair has not ruled on the motion to
table. Therefore, the vote is still to be had, whether it be by voice,
by division, or by rollcall.
Mr. REID. The Senator from West Virginia is, as usual, right.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for Members of the Senate, then, we are
going to now begin debate on the amendment of the Senator from North
Carolina.
Amendments Nos. 574 And 648
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of the Helms amendments Nos. 574 and 648.
The Senate will be in order. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to make my remarks from my seat.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe the pending business has already
been announced by the Chair; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will restate the question,
please.
Mr. HELMS. Is it my understanding that the amendment became the
pending business by unanimous consent? Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
As the largest and most universally acclaimed youth-serving
organization in the world, the Boy Scouts of America has led millions
of young boys to respect and abide by the fundamental virtues of duty
to God and respect for individual beliefs, loyalty to their country and
respect for their country's law, service to others, voluntarism,
training of boys in responsible citizenship, in physical and mental
development, and in character development.
This came about early in the last century. It was a curious turn of
events that brought Scouting to America in the year 1910.
The year before, in 1909, a Chicago publisher, William D. Boyce, had
been traveling in Europe.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I ask my friend to yield for a moment.
It is very difficult to hear the Senator. Would you be willing to hold
your microphone because it is very difficult for us to hear your
presentation.
Mr. HELMS. I am delighted. I didn't know anyone wanted to listen to
it.
Mrs. BOXER. Senator Murray and I are hanging on your every word and
we want to hear.
Mr. HELMS. Does the Chair suggest I start over?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would like.
Mr. HELMS. It was a curious turn of events that brought Scouting to
America in 1910. The year before that, in 1909, a Chicago publisher,
William D. Boyce, had been traveling in Europe and got lost in a dense
fog while he was in London. It was a Scout--not by that name but a
Scout--who came to Boyce's aid and guided him through the fog to his
hotel. Afterwards, the boy refused a tip from Mr. Boyce explaining that
as a Scout, he would not and could not take a tip for doing a good
turn.
Since that time, almost a century has elapsed, and the character and
the reputation and the admiration that people have for the Boy Scouts
of America has intensified year after year.
Last June, a year ago, the Supreme Court found it essential to uphold
constitutional rights of Boy Scouts of America, oddly enough, to abide
by and practice the Boy Scout moral guidelines for membership and
leadership, including no obligation to accept homosexuals as Boy Scout
members or leaders.
Yet in spite of the Supreme Court's landmark decision, radical
militants continue to attack this respectable organization--the Boy
Scouts of America.
Specifically, these militants are pressuring school districts across
the country to exclude the Boy Scouts of America from federally funded
public school facilities based on what they did in one instance. They
decided to press for exclusion of the Boy Scouts from the schools
because the Boy Scouts would not agree to surrender their first
amendment rights and because they would not accept the agenda of the
radical left.
I asked the Congressional Research Service, among others, to inform
me as to how many school districts have already taken such hostile
action against the Boy Scouts. The Congressional Research Service
reported to me that at that time at least nine school districts were
known to have attacked the Boy Scouts of America, and, in the majority
of the cases, they had done so in outright rejection of the Supreme
Court's ruling protecting the Boy Scouts' rights, which is now the law
of the land.
Which is precisely why I again decided to offer the amendment
entitled ``The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act.'' This pending
amendment--which unanimously passed the House of Representatives--would
for once and for all put a complete end to the arrogant treatment being
directed by various school districts across this Nation at the Boy
Scouts of America,
Specifically, the pending amendment stipulates that if a public
elementary school, or a public secondary school, discriminates against
the Boy Scouts of America--or any other youth group similar to the Boy
Scouts--in providing equal access to school facilities, then that
school will be in jeopardy of losing its Federal funds.
Now, before opponents work themselves into a frenzy, it may be well
to make clear on exactly how this proposed amendment would work: it
stipulates that the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of
Education be given statutory authority to investigate any
discriminatory action taken by school authorities against the Boy
Scouts of America.
The Office of Civil Rights was established to handle discrimination
problems that occur within the public school system. My amendment would
direct the Office of Civil Rights to handle cases of discrimination
against the Boy Scouts precisely the same as the Department of
Education currently handles other cases of discrimination--barred by
Federal law and which may result in termination of Federal funds.
[[Page S6250]]
It should be noted, Mr. President, that according to CRS,
``historically, the fund termination sanction has been infrequently
exercised--by the Office of Civil Rights--and most cases are settled at
. . . the investigative process . . .''. In other words, when the
Office of Civil Rights warns a school to get its act together, the
school usually listens.
Therefore, it is not likely that any school will be in fact ever that
its funding eliminated; unless it adamantly refuses to provide the Boy
Scouts of America equal access to school facilities.
It will not be handled willy-nilly. It will be based on specific
evidence.
Needless to say, I do hope that the Senate will uphold the
constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America to have equal access
to school facilities.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi, the Republican
leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the manager in opposition to this
amendment for allowing me to go ahead and speak now. Ordinarily, we
make a real point to go back and forth. So I appreciate that. I will be
brief and to the point.
I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is an amendment that
should basically be accepted by all of us. I don't know quite how to
react to the fact that in America even the Boy Scouts seem to be under
attack. Is motherhood and apple pie next? Is there nothing sacred
anymore?
I don't have a conflict of interest. I came from such a small, rural,
poor area that we didn't even have a Boy Scout troop. I was a Cub
Scout. Somehow or other we managed to have a Cub Scout troop. I enjoyed
that. I never got to be a Weeblo or a Boy Scout. I missed it.
I have been very supportive of the Boy Scouts, and I have attended
Eagle Scout ceremonies. I have been to Boy Scouts events that
recognized great Americans who started off as Scouts--such as Jerry
Ford when he got a special recognition.
It is not as if I am defending something from which I directly
benefited. But, quite frankly, I think we all benefit from
organizations such as the Boy Scouts. Their fundamental principles are
rooted in basic good things such as duty to God and respect for
individual beliefs, loyalty to one's country and respect for its laws,
service to others, voluntarism, and training of youth in responsible
citizenship, in physical and mental development, and in character
advancement.
These are all such fine goals. I have watched this organization
transform young men's lives, as the Girl Scouts with girls. They have
given them an opportunity to help themselves, to support causes bigger
than themselves as the saying goes now, and to improve their community
by involvement.
I think in no way should we diminish the importance of that, or take
away what they do for boys and girls of all races and ethnic and
religious backgrounds.
Now what does this amendment do? The title is the Boy Scouts of
America Equal Access Act. It sounds good to me. I assume there are
going to be those who say this is something we shouldn't do or it gives
them some advantage. But all it says is that if a public elementary
school or public secondary school has a designated open forum, then
that school cannot discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America or
any youth group on the basis of its membership or leadership criteria
or on the basis of its oath of allegiance to God and country.
If a public school did discriminate against the Boy Scouts of
America, then that school would be in jeopardy of losing its Federal
education funds.
I know the Supreme Court rendered a decision recently saying a
religious group could have time and access to space at a school if all
other groups have access. You do not have to attend, but if you are
going to have an open policy, then you have to let everybody have an
opportunity to have access to the space in the school. This is a very
meritorious and I think very defensible position to have.
The Boy Scouts have become the largest voluntary youth movement in
the world with a worldwide membership totaling more than 25 million.
Over 6 million of those participants come from the United States alone.
There have been a series of decisions in the courts that I think
relate to this. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Boy Scouts v. Dale that
the Boy Scouts are a private organization and, as such, they can decide
who can be in their organization if they wish.
There was a decision recently involving the Boy Scouts in the U.S.
district court in Florida which said that Broward County could not
evict Scouts off school property.
So there are decisions at the district court level and from the
Supreme Court affecting this. But of the attacks on the Boy Scouts,
some people would say it is no real problem. It is having an impact.
Based on the Boy Scouts' stand on their principles, eight of the United
Way agencies nationwide have withdrawn their financial support from the
Boy Scouts of America. We have seen that there have been some 359
school districts which have severed sponsorships with the Scouts since
last June's ruling.
So it is affecting the Boy Scouts in terms of financial support, and
it is affecting them in that schools are beginning to prohibit Boy
Scouts from being able to have sponsorships and meet in their schools.
So clearly it is having an effect. We have reached the point now
where when a Boy Scout troop comes out--four or five boys; or girls who
are Girl Scouts--they get booed because they are there during the
Pledge of Allegiance. Surely, we cannot reach that kind of ugliness in
America.
So I think it is very important that we have this amendment added. It
would require that public schools treat the Boy Scouts of America
exactly the same as they do all other groups meeting in the schools;
that is all. Surely, the least we can do is to allow them to have equal
access.
So while there may be some wringing of hands and assertions of what
this amendment does way beyond what it does, or its intent, they just
want to be treated the same as everybody else --nothing more, nothing
less.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do want to be heard on this issue. But
in fairness to the other side, I would like to defer so long as I can
follow the Senator, in this order, because of a timing problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Perhaps I could make a quick unanimous consent request. I
am going to speak for 2 minutes and then ask Senator Murray if she
would really open the debate with about--how many minutes does the
Senator need?
Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. And then go to Senator Inhofe.
Is that acceptable?
Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader for making
his remarks concise. I do really appreciate the opportunity given to me
by Senator Kennedy to manage the opposition to this amendment. The
reason I feel very strongly about it is that this amendment is not
about the Boy Scouts. My kids were Scouts. I will never forget that.
They are really old now. I am a grandmother now. But I remember when
they were in their uniforms. My kids were Scouts.
This amendment is not about Scouts because the Supreme Court has
already ruled that the Boy Scouts have the absolute right to take their
programs into the public schools. That issue has been resolved.
So I believe--and I am going to reserve my time, and I will explain
why I have reached this conclusion--that this amendment is unnecessary;
that it is gratuitous. It is hurtful to a group of people. It divides
us again as a country. It brings in this Chamber an issue that divides
us, that hurts people, and I believe--and Senator Murray is going to
[[Page S6251]]
speak to us as a former school board member with a tremendous amount of
authority on this--it is a slap at local control, something my friends
on the other side of the aisle revere.
So I hope in the course of this debate--and I know we go uphill when
this comes up--we face the facts of what this is about. I hope, in the
course of debate, people will look inside their hearts to decide what
this amendment is really about. It is not about the Boy Scouts having
the ability to meet in public schools. That has been determined. It is
about hurting a whole group of people, a minority in this country, for
absolutely no good reason.
I hope people will have the courage to come to this Chamber, to speak
out, to be heard, to lift up this debate, and that we will have a good
vote against this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my friend and colleague from
Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding me time.
Mr. President, I believe that Scouting--whether it is the Boy Scouts
or Girl Scouts--really can help kids develop their character and build
important skills. And that is important. In fact, Scouting has been an
important part of my life and my own children's lives.
I was a Brownie. I was a Junior Girl Scout. I was a Girl Scout. I was
a Brownie Leader. I was a Girl Scout Leader. And, in fact, I was even a
Boy Scout Leader for my son's troop. So I know about Scouting. This
amendment is not about scouting.
This amendment is about imposing a Federal mandate on local schools
that could essentially overwhelm their facilities and strain their
ability to meet their first responsibility, which I believe we all
understand is to educate our students.
The Helms amendment essentially takes a problem that does not exist
and uses it to dictate the decisions that local school boards make.
There are several problems with this amendment, but first and
foremost, it really is not needed, as the Senator from California said.
Right now, under Federal law, Scouts receive the same protection and
access as any other group--nothing more, nothing less--and that is the
way it should be. And that is not just my opinion; it is our Federal
law, known as the Equal Access Act.
Let me read to you part of that statute. It says:
It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which
receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited
open forum to deny access for a fair opportunity to, or [to]
discriminate against, any students wishing to conduct a
meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the
religious, political, philosophical or other content of the
speech at such meetings.
That is the law right now--on the books in black and white. So this
amendment is unnecessary because current Federal law already requires
equal access. Not only do groups such as the Boy Scouts already have
access under Federal law, the courts are reaffirming that access.
In fact, just this last Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a
New York State school had to let a religious organization use its
facilities since it was already allowing nonreligious organizations to
do the same thing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a Washington Post
article which explains this ruling printed in the Record after my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mrs. MURRAY. Equal access is already in the law. It was just upheld
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Groups such as Scouts have equal access.
Therefore, this amendment is not about the question of equal access.
This amendment, however, is about special access. Frankly, we ought to
call this proposal the ``unequal access amendment'' because it selects
one group over all others for special protection.
There is a second problem with the amendment. I served on a local
school board. I know what it is to have limited meeting space in a
school and to have organizations that want to use that space who come
before you and beg and plead for that ability. Right now schools make
those decisions based on their own circumstances within the law.
Schools might not have enough space. They might not have the budget for
the extra cleanup required for groups to use these facilities or
additional groups to use them. They might not have the staff to lock up
the building after hours. Teachers might not have the time in the
schoolday to rearrange their classrooms. Maybe there are only a few
rooms available after school and they are already needed for other
things such as tutoring or they have already been given to another
group. There might be insurance or liability concerns.
Because of all those variables that local school boards have to live
with on a weekly basis, those decisions are made at the local level.
Sometimes those local policies keep schools from having to pick one
group over the other, from picking winners or losers.
The Helms amendment would overrule all of those local policies, all
of those local decisions, and pick one winner and require every school
to accommodate them or risk losing their Federal funding.
Scouts already have the same protections as similar organizations,
and local schools already make good legal decisions based on those
circumstances.
Before I close, I note that I am eager to see how some of my
colleagues vote on this amendment which, as I have noted, is not about
Scouting. It is about forcing decisions on local schools. In recent
years some of my colleagues have spoken at great length about the
importance of local control in educational decisions. Of course, having
served on a local school board, I reminded them that most decisions are
made at the local level and that there is a limited Federal role for
efforts such as helping disadvantaged students and reaching national
educational goals. Frankly, I do not see how setting up a special
national privilege for just one organization falls in that role.
Recently on the Senate floor my amendment to reduce school
overcrowding was defeated on a party-line vote. Opponents on the other
side said those decisions should be made at the local level. They
ignored the fact that funding was optional and flexible, meaning it
could be used for class size reduction or teacher training or
recruitment. Opponents of my amendment said local control was more
important than an effective, targeted, flexible initiative.
Now we get to see if all those Members will stand up to the
principles they have advocated. This Helms amendment is far more
intrusive. It is not optional. Unlike my amendment, the Helms amendment
has nothing to do with schoolday learning. It is definitely a Federal
mandate on local schools. It definitely takes decisions out of local
hands. Frankly, I do not see how anyone who has called for more local
control will support this Helms amendment. This vote will be very
telling.
The Helms amendment addresses a problem that does not exist. Groups
such as the Scouts already have equal access through existing law.
Instead, this intrusive amendment provides special, unequal access for
just one group and overrules what is happening at the local level.
I will share with my colleagues how frustrating and difficult it can
be, as a school board member, to make decisions about who can use your
facilities. I have been in front of many parents who were unhappy with
decisions that school boards have made. This Helms amendment may well
force a school board to tell a group, perhaps a church group that is
already using their gym, that because of the Helms amendment and fear
of a lawsuit, if they don't change their mind, we will have to override
facilities use by that group. This amendment may well force a school to
tell another group that because of our Federal law, the Boy Scouts come
in first.
I care about Scouting. I want our Scouts to have facilities. I want
it to be under equal access, not special protection. That is what the
Helms amendment does.
I thank my colleague from California and yield back my time to her.
[[Page S6252]]
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, June 1, 2001]
Justices Back Bible Group
access to school facilities widened
(By Charles Lane)
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a New York state
school may not prohibit an evangelical Christian children's
club from meeting on its premises, a decision that may have
cleared the last legal obstacles to religious groups' long-
sought goal of having the same access to school facilities as
other organizations.
By a vote of 6 to 3, the court held that the Milford
Central School's effort to deny the after-school use of its
building to the Good News Club, but not to other,
nonreligious groups, was a form of discrimination on the
basis of religious viewpoint, and thus violated the
constitutional guarantee of free speech.
The Good News Club, which operates thousands of chapters
around the country, urges children as young as 6 to accept
Jesus Christ as a personal savior. The school argued that, in
barring the club from meeting there, it was following a New
York law designed to avert any appearance of official
sponsorship of religious worship and to protect children from
getting the impression that the school endorses a particular
religion.
But the court rejected the notion that the club's use of
the school would create a kind of pro-religious pressure on
children, noting that children could not attend the club's
meetings unless their parents approved.
``[W]e cannot say the danger the children would misperceive
the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger
that they would perceive a hostility toward the religious
viewpoint if the Club were excluded,'' Justice Clarence
Thomas said in the opinion he wrote for the court.
Conservative legal scholars noted that the case fits into a
recent trend in which the court has adopted a more
accommodating position toward religion in public places when
it believes that it is merely maintaining a fair balance
between religious and secular activity. That could mean
future support for President Bush's ``faith-based'' social
services initiative, or for school vouchers, they said.
``It will be much harder for anyone to argue that a faith-
based organization's social service treatment program has
crossed a line, becoming, in essence, `too religious,' ''
said Douglas Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University law
school.
But Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, said the decision maintains a
distinction between state support for religious instruction
and extracurricular religious activity, and therefore ``has
no spillover into the voucher area.''
Of the 4,622 Good News Club chapters around the country,
about 527 meet regularly in public school buildings.
Supporters of the group said the ruling gives a significant
boost to the club and others like it.
``It's no secret that it helps them attract children when
they meet in a more convenient location,'' said Gregory S.
Baylor of Annandale-based Religious Liberty Advocates, which
filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Good News's
parent organization, the Child Evangelism Fellowship Inc.
``Prior to this, a lot of school districts were nervous about
letting them in. Now I can say, `Read the Supreme Court
case.' ''
Opponents agree with this forecast, but they said it shows
how the court has titled the church-state balance in favor of
religion.
``This is really religious worship directed at young
children,'' said Jeffrey R. Babbin, an attorney who filed a
friend of the court brief on behalf of the Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith, which backed the school. ``Our
concern is that what can't be done in school shouldn't be
done right after. Often kids can't go home right after
school.''
The case began in 1996 when two parents, the Rev. Stephen
D. Fournier and his wife, Darleen, sought to move the
meetings of their Good News Club chapter from a local church
to Milford's only school building, which houses all classes
from kindergarten through 12th grade.
School authorities in the 3,000-resident rural community
refused, saying that the Good News Club was not simply a
discussion group that talked about morals from a religious
viewpoint, but a form of religious instruction.
The Good News Club's sponsoring organization, the Child
Evangelism Fellowship, based in Warrenton, Mo., says that its
purpose is to ``evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of
the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish (disciple) them in the
Word of God and in a local church for Christian living.''
Good News Club meetings revolve around prayer, songs,
stories and games drawn from the Bible, and some of the
children attending are ``challenged'' to declare Jesus Christ
as their savior.
The Fourniers sued in federal court. The New York-based
appeals court sided with the school, but because its ruling
clashed with a St. Louis-based appeals court's decision in
favor of access for another Good News Club, the Supreme Court
agreed last year to decide the dispute.
In the court opinion yesterday, Thomas said that this case
was essentially no different from previous ones in which the
court had upheld the right of a Christian parents' group to
show a film at a public high school in the evening and of
Christian students at the University of Virginia to receive
the same funding for their publication as other groups.
When the state operates a ``limited public forum'' in which
citizens may express their views, Thomas wrote, ``speech
discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded
. . . on the ground that the subject is discussed from a
religious viewpoint.''
Thomas was joined by the court's other conservative-leaning
members--Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices
Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.
He also picked up the vote of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a
liberal, who wrote a separate opinion to emphasize that he
supported the club's position only insofar as it was asking
for nondiscrimination by the school. He said important issues
remained to be examined, especially whether a reasonable
child might indeed see the club's presence at the school as
an endorsement of religion.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg dissented.
``It is beyond question that Good News intends to use the
public school premises not for the mere discussion of a
subject from a particular, Christian point of view, but for
an evangelical service of worship calling children to commit
themselves in an act of Christian conversion,'' Souter wrote.
The case is Good News Club v. Milford Central School, No.
99-2036.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from
Washington is very sincere in her remarks, but I believe there is a
problem in insisting that we are legislating on a situation that
doesn't exist. I will point out examples of that.
When Senator Helms first started, his microphone wasn't quite on high
enough and we were not able to hear his remarks. I will repeat the
first couple of things he said. He talked about the Boy Scout movement
in our Nation as being part of the largest voluntary youth movement in
the world, with U.S. membership totaling over 6 million. He also
mentioned the three basic fundamental principles.
The fundamental principles of the Boy Scouts include, one, a duty to
God and respect for individual beliefs; two, loyalty to country and
respect for the laws of the land, service to others, and a spirit of
voluntarism; and, three, the training of youth in responsible
citizenship, physical and mental development, and character
advancement.
As a private organization, the Boy Scouts of America has the right to
select persons it believes will provide the leadership that measures up
to the high caliber of standards of this fine institution. Boy Scouts
and other similar groups have a constitutional right to associate
freely, and our publicly funded schools should not inhibit that right
of access to public school facilities.
Not only is this my opinion; it has been found to be the law of the
land by the Supreme Court. In June of last year--this has been alluded
to--in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court ruled that Boy
Scouts have the constitutional right to specifically exclude homosexual
members and leaders. The Helms amendment was prompted by the denial of
public school access to groups such as the Boy Scouts even after this
Supreme Court decision.
For example, the Broward County school board voted to keep Boy Scouts
from using public schools to hold meetings, in direct violation of the
Supreme Court's decision. Luckily, in the Boy Scouts v. School Board of
Broward County, in March of this year, the U.S. district court in
Florida issued an injunction to block the county's attempt to evict the
Scouts from public school property.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. This is why I make the
point that there is a problem out there. The Congressional Research
Service, which Senator Helms alluded to, has reported that at least
nine school districts have publicly attacked Boy Scouts, which is in
direct contradiction of the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Let me give a couple examples of this. In Chapel Hill, NC, the Chapel
Hill-Carrboro school board voted, on January 11, 2001, to give Scouts
until June to either go against the rules of their organization or lose
their sponsorship and meeting places in schools. In New York City, the
New York City school chancellor, Harold Levy, said the school system
would not enter into any new contracts with the Boy Scouts of America.
This is something that happened after that Supreme Court decision. The
Los Angeles City Council has ``directed all of the city's departments
to review contracts with Boy
[[Page S6253]]
Scouts and order an audit of those contracts to ensure compliance with
a nondiscrimination clause.''
In Madison, WI, it is the same thing. It goes on and on--quite a
lengthy list.
The repetitive, hostile actions taken against the Boy Scouts are
inexcusable and against the law and should be stopped immediately.
The Helms amendment reinforces the constitutional rights of Boy
Scouts and the Supreme Court decision upholding those rights. This
amendment states that if a public school has designated ``open forum,''
then the school cannot discriminate against Boy Scouts of America or
any youth group on the basis of its membership or leadership criteria
or on the basis of its oath of allegiance to God and country.
The oversight provisions of the amendment ensure that the Office of
Civil Rights within the Department of Education will protect the Boy
Scouts as it protects other groups that have been or are discriminated
against. We are talking about antidiscrimination in this amendment.
The amendment proposes that any public school receiving Federal
funding from the Department of Education must allow the Boy Scouts or
other similar youth groups equivalent access to school facilities and
must not discriminate against these groups by requiring them to admit
homosexuals as members or leaders or any other individuals who reject
the Boy Scout oath of allegiance to God and country.
So I just submit that I disagree, and it is an honest disagreement
with the Senator from Washington. There is a problem, and it is
necessary to legislate against this problem.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will propose a unanimous consent
request for the order of speakers.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin have 10 minutes, and that
on our side Senator Enzi have up to 15 minutes. Then if somebody comes
on that side to speak, I propose that there be a Democratic speaker.
But if they are not here, I ask that Senator Smith have up to 10
minutes, and then a Democrat speaker, and then Senator Brownback have
10 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a
question I would like to ask at some point to propound about the
language of this amendment. When might I do that?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I propose that we have an order of speakers and----
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may be heard on this.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, it appears with
all these speakers that have been lined up, it would be sensible, as
far as I am concerned, that a question be asked before the speeches are
given, not after.
It is my understanding that the Senator from West Virginia simply
wants to ask a question for someone to answer during the discussion of
this amendment; is that right?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. I hope that the Senator from West Virginia can be
recognized immediately to ask his question. Is there any objection to
the Senator asking his question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. There would be no objection on my part if the Senator
from Illinois is OK with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority whip and all Senators. I wish to get a
clarification of a definition. I think it is well that I pose this
question now.
I don't intend to go into the background at this point, except to say
that I have been concerned about some of the things that have been said
and some of the actions that have been taken with respect to Boy
Scouts. I was very disappointed when at the Democratic Convention there
was a demonstration--not by all Democrats by any means, and I feel sure
it wasn't a part of the convention plans. But I was embarrassed at the
boos and the disrespect shown by some of the participants at that
convention, which I did not attend; I was watching television. I have
been concerned about other hostile actions that have since been
directed at the Boy Scouts of America.
Certainly, my intention up to this moment has been to vote for this
amendment. I do have a question, however. The question deals with
definitions. I would like a better definition or clarification of the
term ``youth group.'' In paragraph 2 of section 2(a), I read the
following:
. . . denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to,
or discriminates against, any group affiliated with the Boy
Scouts of America or any other youth group . . .
I will repeat that: ``. . . or any other youth group.''
. . . that wishes to conduct a meeting within that
designated open forum, on the basis of the membership or
leadership criteria of the Boy Scouts of America or of the
youth group that prohibits the acceptance of homosexuals, or
individuals who reject the Boy Scouts' or the youth group's
oath of allegiance to God and country, as members or leaders.
My problem with that is ``youth group'' could include skinheads, and
it could include Ku Klux Klan youth groups or any other ``hate''
groups. That is what I am concerned about.
I know what we are talking about--the Boy Scouts. That is one thing.
But I hesitate to open the language up to just any ``youth'' group.
That is my problem. I would like for someone to clarify the definition
of ``youth group'', or perhaps offer a modification so that we will all
know what we are talking about.
Mr. BROWNBACK. If the Senator will yield for a response to that.
Mr. BYRD. I am glad to.
Mr. BROWNBACK. We are working with the primary sponsor of the
amendment to get a further definition and clarity on that so that we
can directly respond to the appropriate question of the Senator from
West Virginia. We will do that as soon as possible.
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate that. I have discussed this with the sponsor,
Mr. Helms, and two of his staff members.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the manager will yield, I join the Senator
from West Virginia in asking for a clarification because I think it is
very important that we know what we are talking about.
I am here standing for the proposition that tolerance is a two-way
street; that we should tolerate the gays and lesbians in our community,
but we should also tolerate the Boy Scouts in our community.
Clearly, there are some groups that have national charters that this
Government recognizes, such as the Boy Scouts, and there are groups
that do not. That kind of a distinction perhaps ought to be made
because I think we all want to be voting for the right thing. There are
some groups, such as the skinheads, that I don't want to be voting for
today. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has been consumed.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the terminology which I read here includes
this excerpt:
. . . The Boy Scouts' or the youth group's oath of
allegiance to God and country . . .
Mr. President, as a former member of the Ku Klux Klan--and this is no
secret to anybody; it has been known to the people of this country for
at least 50 years, so I am not telling anything new. But there is no
doubt that that organization purports to swear allegiance to God and
country.
I do not want to open this up to just any group--just any group that
swears allegiance to God and country. That is why I raise the question.
I think there must be a clarification of this. At least I am going to
be on record by what I am saying here, that I am not, regardless of how
I vote on this amendment--I hope this can be clarified, and I hope
there can be some modification of the language.
On the record, I am not supportive of letting just any ``youth
group'' come under the canopy of the definition of that term.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield to me for just a moment?
Mr. BYRD. If I have time.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given 60
seconds additional time so I may engage him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Senator Durbin is anxious to be heard. I thank my friend.
[[Page S6254]]
This amendment is troubling, and the Senator from West Virginia has
put his finger on a very serious problem with this. What if a group
springs up--I am just going to use a name--the Timothy McVeigh Youth
Group and has in its charter antihomosexual language. It is my
understanding, after checking with attorneys, in fact, they would be
given special privileges because they have an antihomosexual charter.
My friend has raised a very important issue, and I thank him for it.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I prefer to use the Ku Klux Klan. We
know what we are talking about there. If one wishes to look at the
oath--I will say the oath of the Ku Klux Klan, and there are associate
groups and affiliated groups. Women used to be in the Klan; maybe young
people. I do not recall.
When it comes to patriotism, to God, to country, the words of that
organization are superlative in that respect. How closely the actions
followed the words is something else.
This language needs to be clarified. It needs to be modified. I do
want to support the amendment. I am speaking only as a Senator from
West Virginia. That is the way I see it. I hope there will be some
modification of that language.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I renew my unanimous consent request
that I put forward. I ask that the Democrats who are in turn speaking
will not speak for more than 15 minutes in the unanimous consent
request I put forward.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I do know the
names the Senator talked about. We should cut it off there. This could
go through the entire afternoon. Those names you mentioned be the only
ones.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am not prepared to enter into a time agreement.
Mr. REID. That is my question. I am saying I am happy to agree to the
times as you set forth, and the names you have mentioned, but after
that, we will just have jump ball here.
Mrs. BOXER. No problem. Madam President, I can now say, after Senator
Durbin, Senator Wellstone will follow. That is our list at this time.
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, do I understand there is
time available on our side?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, there is.
Mr. WARNER. Is it restricted to this amendment?
Mr. BROWNBACK. We are attempting to restrict it.
Mr. WARNER. A gentleman's and gentlewoman's understanding.
Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I have an amendment pending at the desk that I want to
withdraw and need about 12 minutes to address the reason for which I am
withdrawing it.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Can the Senator do it afterwards?
Mr. WARNER. I will be delighted to do it after, if the Senator will
be kind enough and indicate in the unanimous consent request for me to
do that.
Mr. REID. That is the question: After what? We have a couple
amendments pending on which we are going to be voting. That will
probably take a while. The Senator may have to wait several hours.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly will be delighted to do that
so long as I, hopefully, can have some assurance for not more than 10
minutes during the course of the day. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the previous order is
modified. Under the previous unanimous consent order, the Senator from
Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I am opposed to
discrimination--discrimination based on race, creed, color, gender, or
sexual orientation. I am sorry that the Boy Scouts of America, which
were an important part of my youth, an important part of my family,
have now become a symbol that is being debated in the Chamber of the
Senate. I am sorry this organization that has meant so much to so many
is now being trivialized or symbolized by this debate. But it is a
fact, and it is a fact that the amendment that has been offered by
Senator Helms raises many questions.
I do not think the question is whether or not Boy Scout chapters have
access to public schools. As the Senator from Washington said, that is
not even debatable. The Supreme Court has ruled on that as late as this
week. They had a specific ruling saying that no school district can
keep any Boy Scout troop out of a public school. They have access. This
amendment is not necessary. It is already the law of the land.
The amendment by Senator Helms goes further. The amendment by Senator
Helms says that no school district can discriminate against a youth
group that also says homosexuals may not belong.
This raises some serious problems because there are school districts
in States across America, including the State of Illinois, which have a
statement of policy, and they say: We will not let any groups be
sponsored by our schools if they discriminate on the basis of race,
creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation. It is just a school
policy. You want your school group to be sponsored by the school? No
way if they discriminate.
I would imagine those statements of policy were passed at school
board meetings without a dissenting vote. Who is going to vote against
that: That you would want a school district sponsoring a group that
discriminates? Yet what Senator Helms says in his amendment is that if
your school district sticks with that policy of nondiscrimination in
sponsorship, you lose your Federal funds.
What does that mean to the school district of the city of Chicago?
Hundreds of millions of dollars coming in to help kids. With the Helms
amendment, it is gone. It is not just Chicago. Many other States are
also affected.
This amendment, which may have been offered as a tribute to the Boy
Scouts or for whatever reason, has become much more. This has gone way
beyond the Boy Scouts, I say to my colleagues in the Senate. What this
amendment is trying to do is, frankly, create an environment which is
antithetical, antagonistic to the beliefs of many school districts
which have basically said: We will not sponsor organizations that
discriminate. Yes, we may be forced to bring some in to have access to
our schools, but we are not going to sponsor them.
According to Senator Helms, if you do not sponsor them, it is
discrimination. If it is discrimination, guess what. You lose your
Federal funds.
Let me go to the point raised by Senator Byrd from West Virginia.
Senator Byrd touched on an important point. He talked about what kinds
of youth groups we are discussing. Senators started using hypothetical
groups: What about skinheads, this group, that group, that happen to
have some awful beliefs but also happen to discriminate against those
of a different sexual orientation? As I read the Helms amendment, the
school not only has to open the door to have access to use the school,
but they also have to be willing to sponsor the group, and if they do
not sponsor that group and others such as it, then they run the risk of
losing their Federal funds.
Is this a farfetched idea that a group such as that might arise? I
wish it was. I will tell my colleagues about my own home State of
Illinois. Have you ever heard of the World Church of the Creator? Mr.
President, I remind my colleagues, they did hear about it in the news
not long ago.
This is a white supremacist organization that advocates openly the
murder of Jewish individuals and people of color. It has what it calls
``holy books,'' ``ministers,'' and religious ceremonies all grounded in
their ``religion'' of white supremacy.
Do my colleagues know when they heard about them? They heard about
them in July of 1999. A young man named Benjamin Smith went on a
shooting rampage throughout Springfield, IL, Urbana, Decatur, Skokie,
Chicago, and Northbrook. He wounded nine and murdered Won-Joon Yoon, a
doctoral student at Indiana University, and he killed Ricky Birdsong,
an African American, the former Northwestern University basketball
coach.
Mr. Smith wounded and killed these individuals because he hated those
who were different from him and because his religion, the World Church
of the Creator, supported taking violent action against them.
If the World Church of the Creator approached a school in Illinois
and asked that school sponsor their youth group, under the Helms
amendment, if
[[Page S6255]]
they said no, they would lose their Federal funds. Why? Because the
World Church of the Creator also has a very clear policy when it comes
to homosexuals. The World Church of the Creator does not allow
homosexuals in the membership or in their leadership.
Think of the situation we are creating. Imagine serving on a school
board with no pay under these circumstances. Senator Helms, in trying
to pay a tribute to the Boy Scouts, has opened the door wide for
mischief from every crazy group in America that wants to not only use
school premises but be sponsored by schools. If they don't go along,
guess what. They get either a lawsuit or the loss of Federal funds.
I consider this amendment a complete disaster. It is a disaster when
one considers the impact it has on schools across America that are
trying to live under the four corners of the law. The Supreme Court has
said open your doors for access, but the Supreme Court doesn't say a
school has to sponsor the group, provide the schoolbus, make sure they
have some sort of special treatment within the school, give them a page
in the yearbook.
Do we want the World Church of the Creator to have a page in the
yearbook of your child's high school? I certainly don't. I am
embarrassed that this organization calls Illinois home. In an open and
free society, these things are allowed to exist, but they are not in a
situation where they ought to receive special treatment, which Senator
Helms wants to give them under this amendment.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, take time to
read this carefully. This is not as simple as it sounds. The language
Senator Helms has put in this bill will create nothing but trouble for
school districts across America which will now be forced to face
impossible decisions as these hate-filled groups come in, one after the
other, asking for special treatment.
Join me in voting no against the Helms amendment.
Mr. REID. I have spoken to the Republican manager of the bill. The
Senator from Wyoming is next, and then Senator Wellstone will be
recognized for up to 15 minutes. Senator Daschle, the majority leader,
wishes to use part of Senator Wellstone's 15 minutes. Senator Wellstone
has given consent to give part of his time to Senator Daschle. We will
not use any more time, but there will be another speaker, if that is OK
with the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct. We will maintain the same flow of
people as under the unanimous consent request.
Mrs. BOXER. I have another speaker. The next Democrat after Senators
Wellstone and Daschle would be Senator Clinton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the order will be so
modified.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 648,
the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, offered by my distinguished
colleague from North Carolina, Senator Helms. I am certain, with some
modifications, any of the inflammatory groups that have been mentioned
will be excluded from the amendment. The amendment was intended to be
simple and straightforward in its purpose, to ensure the constitutional
rights of 6 million Boy Scouts in the United States are not violated by
public schools that receive Federal education funds.
The Boy Scouts of America is one of the oldest and largest youth
organizations in the United States and in the world today. The
organization teaches its members to do their duty to God, to love their
country, and to serve their fellow citizens. And they do that. The Boy
Scouts have formed the minds and hearts of millions of Americans and
prepared these boys and young members for the challenges they are sure
to face for the rest of their lives.
I urge my colleagues to join in defending the Boy Scouts from
unconstitutional discrimination by supporting the Helms amendment.
It has been said earlier in the discussion that this is an
unnecessary amendment. It brings to mind two things. First, when did we
stop doing unnecessary amendments around here? And second, this would
not be brought up if it were not necessary.
I have had a number of opportunities, needs that should never have
happened, to defend the Boy Scouts and make sure they have places to
meet. I have a list of five times it happened during the year 2000, and
eight times already this year. This is a young year.
An Iowa city school board voted to prohibit Boy Scouts from
distributing any information in schools because of Scouts' membership
criteria. Greg Shields, the national spokesman for Boy Scouts of
America, said, ``We simply ask to be treated the same way as any other
private organization . . . [and] that our free speech and right to
assemble be respected just as we respect the rights of others.''
The New York Times reported that New York's Chappaqua School District
officials were able to coerce two local Boy Scout troops into signing a
document that denounced national policies of the Boy Scouts as a
condition to allowing the troops access to school property.
I ask unanimous consent this list be printed at the end of my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. ENZI. Boy Scouts has been a part of my education. I am an Eagle
Scout. I am pleased to say my son was in Scouts. He is an Eagle Scout.
I say it is part of my education because each of the badges that is
earned, each of the merit badges that is earned, is an education. I
tell schoolkids as I go across my State and across my country that even
though at times I took courses or merit badges or programs that I
didn't see where I would ever have a use for them, by now I have had a
use for them and wish I had paid more attention at the time I was doing
it.
Boy Scouts is an education. It is an education in possibilities for
careers. I can think of no substitution for the 6 million boys in
Scouts and the millions who have preceded them. There are dozens on
both sides of the aisle who have been Boy Scouts.
I always liked a merit badge pamphlet on my desk called
``Entrepreneurship.'' It is the hardest Boy Scout badge to earn. It is
one of the most important ones. I believe small business is the future
of our country. Boy Scouts promote small business through their
internship merit badge. Why would it be the toughest to get? Not only
do you have to figure out a plan, devise a business plan, figure how to
finance it, but the final requirement for the badge is to start a
business.
I could go on and on through the list of merit badges required in
order to get an Eagle badge. There are millions of boys in this country
who are doing that and will be doing that. They do need places to meet.
They are being discriminated against. They are being told they cannot
use school facilities.
It isn't just school facilities; it is Federal facilities. A couple
of years ago, we had an opportunity to debate this again on floor, and
it had to do with the Smithsonian. Some Boy Scouts requested they be
able to do the Eagle Scout Court of Honor at the National Zoo and were
denied. Why? The determination by the legal staff of the Smithsonian
that Scouts discriminate because of their support for and encouragement
for the spiritual life of their members. Specifically, they embrace the
concept that the universe was created by a supreme being, although we
surely point out Scouts do not endorse or require a single belief or
any particular faith's God. The mere fact they asked you to believe in
and try to foster a relationship with a supreme being who created the
universe was enough to disqualify them.
I read that portion of the letter twice. I had just visited the
National Archives and read the original document signed by our Founding
Fathers. It is a good thing they hadn't asked to sign the Declaration
of Independence at the National Zoo.
This happens in the schools across the country. Other requests have
been denied. They were also told they were not relevant to the National
Zoo. That is kind of a fascinating experiment in words. I did look to
see what other sorts of things had been done there and found they had a
Washington Singers musical concert, and the Washington premiers for
both the ``Lion King'' and ``Batman.'' Clearly, relevance was not a
determining factor in those decisions.
But the Boy Scouts have done some particular things in conservation
that
[[Page S6256]]
are important, in conservation tied in with the zoo. In fact, the
founder of the National Zoo was Dr. William Hornaday. He is one of the
people who was involved in some of the special conservation movements
and has one of the conservation badges of Scouts named after him.
If the situations did not arise, this amendment would not come up.
But they do arise, as I mentioned with the list of eight incidents
already this year. Four of those are on a statewide basis.
Last summer the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale held
that the Boy Scouts were entitled to full protection under the first
amendment right of expressive association. The High Court held that
State laws such as New Jersey's law of public accommodation
unconstitutionally violated the first amendment rights of this
venerable organization if they were applied to force the Boy Scouts to
accept Scoutmasters whose lifestyles violated the Boy Scout oath. The
Helms amendment will ensure that public schools that receive public
education funds do not force the Boy Scouts to check their first
amendment rights at the schoolhouse door.
The Helms amendment simply requires that the Boy Scouts are treated
fairly, as any other organization, in their efforts to hold meetings on
public school property. It does not require public schools to open
their doors to any organization for before- or after-school meetings on
public school property. It provides if the school is going to provide
an open forum for youth or community groups before or after school,
that school must allow the Boy Scouts the chance to use school property
for their meetings.
Unfortunately, many school districts are bending to the pressure of
far left interest groups in their attempt to deny the constitutional
rights of the Boy Scouts of America. A number of school districts have
prohibited the Scouts from meeting on public school property or have
pressured local Scouting troops to denounce their very principles on
which the organization was founded before they can have meetings there.
An example of this discrimination is in Broward County, FL, where the
school board voted last November to prohibit the Boy Scouts of America
from using public schools to hold meetings and recruitment drives. This
is part of a growing trend of local schools, which are imposing
viewpoint discrimination against the Boy Scouts because they disapprove
of the Scout's message and the way they put this message into practice.
Fortunately, the Federal courts have not looked favorably on this
viewpoint of discrimination against the Boy Scouts in the early legal
challenges to these actions.
In March of this year, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction against the Broward
County School District to block their attempt to keep the Boy Scouts
off public school property. The district court found that since the
school district allowed numerous other groups to use public school
facilities, they had established a limited forum. Accordingly, they
were not allowed to discriminate against Boy Scout speech simply
because they disagreed with the Scout's viewpoint on homosexuality. In
granting this injunction, Judge Middlebrooks wrote:
The constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression are not shed at the school gate.
I have to mention, these are examples of where the Scouts were able
to use the courts to assure that they were not discriminated against. I
am pretty sure everybody in America recognizes if you have to use the
courts to get your rights to use school buildings, it costs money. It
costs time. This amendment eliminates that cost and eliminates that
time, to allow the organizations to have the same rights as the other
groups at school.
It is unfortunate, sometimes, that we have--the legal system is very
important in the country but it has some interesting repercussions. Our
system of lawsuits, which sometimes are called the legal lottery of
this country, allow people who think they have been harmed to try to
point out who harmed them and get money for doing that. It has had some
difficulties for the Boy Scouts.
I remember when my son was in the Scouts their annual fundraiser was
selling Christmas trees. One of the requirements when they were selling
Christmas trees was that the boys selling trees at the lot had to be
accompanied by two adults not from the same family.
I did not understand why we needed all of this adult supervision. It
seemed as if one adult helping out at the lot would be sufficient. The
answer was, they have been sued because there was only one adult there
and that adult was accused of abusing the boys. Two adults provided
some assurance that did not happen.
The interesting thing is, it was just me and my son at the lot and we
still had to have another adult in order to keep the Boy Scouts from
being sued.
They run into some of the same difficulties with car caravans.
So the legal system of this country has put them in the position
where they are doing some of the things that they are doing. The legal
system of the country has caused some of the discrimination that is
done.
It is something we need to correct. This discussion of the Helms
amendment is timely. On Monday of this week, the Supreme Court held
that a public school in New York was not allowed to exclude the Good
News Club, which is a private Christian organization for gradeschool
children, from using public school facilities for the group's
afterschool meetings. In the Good News Club v. Milford Central School,
the Court determined that the school violated the club's first
amendment free speech rights by discriminating against the group's
viewpoint. The Helms amendment would assure that these free speech
protections would also apply to the Boy Scouts of America.
The Boy Scouts of America is one of the oldest and largest youth
organizations in the United States and the world today. The
organization teaches its members to do their duty to God, to love their
country, and serve their fellow citizens. The Boy Scouts have formed
the minds and hearts of millions of Americans and prepared these boys
and young men for the challenges they are sure to face the rest of
their lives. It is an essential part of Americana. I urge my colleagues
to join me in defending the Boy Scouts from constitutional
discrimination by supporting the Helms amendment.
Exhibit No. 1
examples of boy scouts being discriminated against
On May 21, 2001, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network--an activist homosexual organization--reported that
``After launching a campaign last September [against the Boy
Scouts] the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network has
tracked a total of 359 school districts which have severed
sponsorships with the Scouts since the Supreme Court ruling
last June'' [www.glsen.org].
On May 11, 2001, the Associated Press reported that the
Iowa City School board voted to prohibit the Boy Scouts of
America from distributing any information in schools because
of the Scouts membership criteria. Greg Shields, the national
spokesman for Boy Scouts of America said, ``We simply ask to
be treated the same way as any other private organization . .
. [and] that our free speech and right to assemble be
respected just as we respect those rights of others.
On February 8, 2001, the Ashbury Park Press reported that
the State [of New Jersey] is considering a rule change that
would bar school districts from renting space to the Boy
Scouts of America because of their position on homosexuality.
On February 7, 2001, The Arizona Republic reported that the
Sunnyside School District, in Tucson [two-sawn], Arizona
decided to charge the Boy Scouts of America fees to use
school facilities, even though no other groups have to pay
fees. The ACLU executive director said that, ``While Boy
Scouts, atheists, Nazis, even Satanists have the right to
express their views, government should not use public money
to promote them.''
On January 28, 2001, the Boston Globe reported that the
Acton School Committee in Massachusetts decided to prevent
the Boy Scouts from distributing literature at school--even
though other groups can do so. In defending its actions,
Acton School Committee cited Massachusetts law, which says
that schools cannot sponsor the Boy Scouts.
On January 14, 2001, the New York Times reported that New
York's Chappaqua School District officials were about to
coerce two local Boy Scout troops into signing a document
that denounced the national policies of the Boy Scouts of
America as a condition for allowing these troops access to
school property.
On January 13, 2001, the Wisconsin State Journal reported
that the Madison School Board voted unanimously to post a
condemnation against the Boy Scouts of America in all 45
school districts.
[[Page S6257]]
On January 11, 2001, the News & Observer reported that
``The Chapel Hill-Carroboro school board voted to give Scouts
until June to either go against the rule of their
organization or lose their sponsorship and meeting places in
schools.''
On December 18, 2000, the Seattle Union Record reported
that a state coalition of advocates for gay and lesbian
students has asked Seattle Public Schools to restrict the Boy
Scouts of America's access to students and school buildings.
On December 2, 2000, the New York Times reported that the
Schools Chancellor barred New York City public schools from:
bidding on contracts with city schools, sponsoring Scout
troops or allowing the Scouts to recruit members during
school hours.
On November 20, 2000, the Associate Press reported that in
Mount Pleasant, Michigan, School boards in Minneapolis and
New York City, as well as other city and state governments
and groups nationwide, have recently cut support of the
Scouts because of its gay policy. In the Detroit suburb of
Plymouth, a teachers union asked its school board to ban
groups--including the Boy Scouts--that discriminate against
gays.
On November 16, 2000 Fla. Today reported that ``Broward
County's school board voted unanimously to keep the Boy
Scouts of America from using public schools to hold meetings
and recruitment drives because of the groups ban on gays.''
[District Court intervened.]
On November 15, 2000 the Telegram and Gazzete reported that
in Worchester, Ma, ``Superintendent of Schools Alfred Tutela
. . . banned the Boy Scouts from holding meetings in the
properties of the Wachusett Regional Schools District.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, prior to my colleague, Senator
Wellstone, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague, I thank him for adding to this
debate. But if you believe in the rule of law, which we all do, the
Supreme Court has spoken very clearly on this point. The Boy Scouts
have equal access to every single public school in this country. The
Supreme Court has so declared. So I, again, say to my friend, what is
the purpose of this amendment? It is gratuitous, it seems to me. It is
unnecessary. It hurts a group of people. It divides the country. We
already know the Boy Scouts have equal access. With all the remarks he
has made, if schools are not allowing that, they are breaking the law.
We do not need another law which, by the way, opens up a can of
worms, as Senator Byrd, who supports the underlying amendment, says. It
is a can of worms. It could invite people in who you really do not
want. He mentioned the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads and other groups.
I appreciate being given this 1 minute.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute before my
colleague from Minnesota speaks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I think some of the reasons the
Senator from California is raising may be valid to the point that this
should pass 100-0. If this is not seen as a particularly contentious
issue, if it is something that is going to happen and it is agreed to
anyway, I hope we will all support the Boy Scouts. This is, indeed,
about the Boy Scouts, and it is important to that organization that has
23 million members worldwide. I think it would be a good statement of
support to them.
This issue is about the Boy Scouts and there are legitimate issues
that have been raised. I think we can tighten the language; if some
people are concerned about the expansiveness of ``youth group,'' make
it just about the Boy Scouts and pass it 100-0.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the majority leader is on the floor.
I will limit my remarks to 3 minutes.
First of all, I am a son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution
from Ukraine and then Russia. I grew up in a family where I was taught
it was wrong to discriminate against anyone. I have tried to teach my
children and my grandchildren the same. I am against discrimination of
people because of nationality, race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual
orientation.
I commend the Boy Scouts for all of the good work they have done for
people. But I am very saddened that the Boy Scouts have engaged in what
are discriminatory policies towards gays and lesbians. I think that is
most unfortunate for what is otherwise a very fine organization.
There was a piece of legislation on this floor a number of years ago
which said that any school district that ``promoted homosexuality''
would be cut off from Federal funds. Then I looked at the operational
definition of it down a number of paragraphs, and that included
counseling. So if you have a young man in high school and he goes to
see a counselor, and if he says: I am gay, my friends disowned me, my
parents have disowned me, and I feel worthless--I do a lot of work in
suicide prevention and the mental health field. Unfortunately, a high
incidence of suicide is among boys who are gay.
The way the Court has ruled, it is clear that if, in fact, community
groups come into schools, so can Boy Scouts. That isn't even the issue.
The question is whether or not if a school district has a policy of
nondiscrimination and it chooses not to sponsor the Boy Scouts because
the Boy Scouts discriminate against this group of citizens--against
gays--it would no longer be able to do so, which then would provide Boy
Scouts with not access but with special treatment.
That is wrong. It is wrong to say to any school district in any State
and to any school board that you have to change your policy; that you
have to sponsor a group which goes against the very values that you
have professed, which is what we should not do; that is, discriminate
against any group of citizens, any children anywhere.
That is why I oppose this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I think what the Senator from Minnesota
said so eloquently, passionately, and accurately probably leaves little
left to be said in regard to what this amendment is.
I rise today to express my disappointment with this amendment.
The Senate has been debating the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act--off and on--for more than eight weeks now.
This is an important debate. We are talking about the blueprint for
federal education policy and funding.
So far, this has been an unusually bipartisan debate.
We have been making principled compromises, and real progress.
And now this.
Let me be clear: I believe the Boy Scouts should have the same access
to public school facilities as any other private organization.
But I fear that is not what this amendment is about.
I oppose Senator Helms' amendment for two reasons.
First: It could usurp the rights of states, counties and local
communities to make certain decisions for their own schools.
Under this amendment, communities that feel strongly that
discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong could face a
terrible choice. They could either disregard their own conscience. Or
they could follow their conscience and lose millions of dollars that
their children's schools need.
Both sides have said, throughout this debate, that one of our goals
should be to find ways to allow communities to make more decisions
about their own schools, not fewer.
This amendment does exactly the opposite.
The second reason this amendment is such a disappointment to me is
that--in my opinion--it tolerates discrimination.
A year and a half ago, Congress awarded the Congressional Medal of
Honor--the highest honor this nation can bestow on civilians--to the
``Little Rock Nine.'' More than a generation ago, as children, they had
the courage to help desegregate the Little Rock public schools.
Back then, millions of Americans--in Little Rock and across this
nation--believed that segregation was a moral imperative.
There are many people today who believe that discriminating against
gays and lesbians is also a moral imperative. I understand that. But
that is not the American way.
Over the years, I've been honored with awards from many groups.
[[Page S6258]]
There are only a few that I keep in my office in the Capitol. One is
an award I got three years ago this week from the National Capital Area
Chapter of the Boy Scouts.
It's a sculpture of a young boy. I keep it in my office because of my
profound respect for the good work the Boy Scouts have done in this
country for more than 90 years.
We believe in principled compromise. But we cannot compromise on
fundamental issues of civil rights.
Supporters of this amendment say they are merely defending the
constitutional right of free association. They say they are simply
protecting the right of a private organization to set its own rules.
But the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Boy Scouts have the
same right as any other community or youth group to use school
facilities.
This amendment seeks special rights for one organization. It could
force communities to grant that organization special privileges--or
lose thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in federal education aid.
It is sad to see the Boy Scouts--a group that has worked for more
than 90 years to avoid political polarization--being used now by some
to foster political polarization in this Senate, and in our society as
a whole.
I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment. I hope that we can
work together to finish this good bipartisan education bill because our
children's future, our country, and the rights of all people,
minorities, and those who are not minorities, stand in the balance.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, if I could have 2 minutes to associate
myself completely with the majority leader's eloquent statement, I rise
in opposition to this amendment for all of the reasons that the
majority leader has just outlined; but also, further, to say I was
honored to serve for 8 years as the Honorary Chair of the Girl Scouts
of America. I know the value of the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts.
To deprive any youngster of the opportunity to participate over this
issue strikes me as regrettable at the very least.
The Girl Scouts don't discriminate. We have had an organization that
has gone for so many years without any of this difficulty. It should be
up to the local level to determine whether or not a local school
district wishes to have the Boy Scouts offer these services to
youngsters in their schools and in their districts.
I am absolutely amazed that my friends on the other side would
propose an amendment that so totally eviscerates local control. It is
already unnecessary, as we know, with respect to the use of facilities.
The Supreme Court has already, as it did again yesterday, reaffirmed
access to public school facilities.
If we are saying that having the Boy Scouts either in its present
form or with slight modifications determined by the local parents and
the schools would in any way jeopardize all Federal funding, it just
absolutely amazes me that people on the other side could make such an
argument.
So I believe, with all my heart, that we should not be discriminating
against anyone in our country. But certainly a local district that
tries to work out whatever its problems are with the Boy Scouts, and
makes a decision that it considers in the best interests of its
children, should not face the peril of losing all Federal funding that
should be made available to educate our children, which is what we have
been debating now for more than a month.
So I hope all of us will join in rejecting this amendment and making
clear that we respect the Boy Scouts, we respect the Girl Scouts, and
we especially respect local control over educational facilities and
opportunities.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Oregon is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I think I am going to come at
this issue more differently than any of my colleagues who have spoken
so far.
I stand here as an Eagle Scout. I stand here as an Oregon Senator. I
stand here as one who believes that gays and lesbians are due equal
rights. I have tried to demonstrate that in the way I have conducted my
service in the Senate, by supporting Jim Hormel's nomination to be an
Ambassador for our country, by being the cosponsor, with Senator
Kennedy, of hate crimes legislation, and by now endorsing a new version
of ENDA that has a broader religious exemption. I believe I stand here
with some credibility when I come to the issue of tolerance.
One of my core values is that if we are to be true disciples, we
should love one another. I try actively not to discriminate. But I
believe I just heard the majority leader and the Senator from New York
say that the Boy Scouts have a right to be in the schools but we can
discriminate against them. And that is what impels me to this Chamber
this morning.
This amendment of Senator Helms is not raised in a vacuum. It hurts
me personally, as one of five sons of my parents to have the Eagle
badge, and the father of another Eagle, and another son on the way to
Eagle, to see the values of that organization held up to ridicule by
some on the left who I believe are terribly intolerant and who do
discriminate against people of faith whenever they can.
I will tell you that in my working with the Human Rights Campaign,
the folks there with whom I have worked have been very respectful of
religious faith and have worked with me regarding religious
organizations under the proposed ENDA law. I think that was a tolerant
thing for them to do.
My great frustration is trying to say to the right and to the left:
Toleration is a two-way street. What I have heard back and forth this
morning is intolerance on both sides. I will tell you, as a Republican,
how disappointed I was to see from the Republican Steering Committee
this morning chapter and verse of instances where a homosexual man and
Scout leader was also a pedophile. The inference they are trying to
draw is that if you are a homosexual, ergo, you are a pedophile and
cannot be a Scout leader. That is no more true than the proposition
that a man who coaches a girl's soccer team will necessarily sexually
abuse the girls.
We have to get beyond these stereotypes. This is wrong; this is
intolerant; and it goes both ways.
So I believe Senator Helms is here in good faith. I believe he is
going to amend his amendment. I believe we can narrow it in a way to
exclude those groups who do not have national charters with this
Government or in some way to say that, yes, we do feel a need to stand
up for the Boy Scouts of America.
Assuming we find that language, I intend to vote with Senator Helms
because, I will tell you, what I learned as a Scout is an ideal that I
want to see preserved for our country. And I don't want them excluded
from the national parks; I don't want them excluded from our public
places; because I believe what I learned as a Boy Scout is as
invaluable and as enduring today as it was when I learned it as a 12-
year-old boy.
Madam President, we are doing a school bill here because we want to
help our kids. Let me tell you what I learned as a Scout. We memorized
it. I have to use these glasses now. I didn't then. But these are the
qualities I would like taught in school: A Scout is trustworthy, loyal,
helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave,
clean, and reverent.
Then you come to the Scout oath. The last phrase is what everybody
focuses on anymore. I didn't even know what it meant in a modern
context when I learned it as a boy. It is:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
And to obey the Scout law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
Mentally awake,
and morally straight.
Do you know what I knew as a boy about ``morally straight''? I didn't
know anything about gays or lesbians or ``straight.'' What I was taught
that meant was that as a boy and a young man I should be sexually
abstinent and that as an adult and a married man I should be sexually
faithful to my spouse. Is that wrong? I know that that is a tough
standard, but I say the U.S. Senate should keep that ideal high. And we
can do it by supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
So while we are working out the language on the Helms amendment, I
thank the Senator from North Carolina for the spirit of the amendment
that
[[Page S6259]]
says these ideals, these values are valuable still.
Madam President, I think what is often lost in this debate about the
Boy Scouts is how it is even organized. The Boy Scouts is a national
institution with a national charter with this Government, and it is put
out for any group that wants to sponsor it. They are called chartering
institutions. Most of the chartering institutions are churches and
synagogues. Some are police stations. Some may even be a school
district. But I tell you, we ought to understand the spirit of
religious accommodation. It ought to apply to the Boy Scouts as well.
But in many cities in our country, this organization is being singled
out for discrimination, and it is wrong because this is a standard.
These are values that I want taught in public school. And these are
values that when I live them, my life is better for it and my pursuit
of happiness is more full.
So I hope we can find the right language because this Eagle Scout
feels a need to vote for the Boy Scouts of America on the floor of the
U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, with the agreement and the graciousness
of Senator Brownback, we will have Senator Murray speak for 3 minutes,
and I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I will never forget my daughter when she was that little
Brownie girl. All the women Senators are giving the proceeds of our
book to the Girl Scouts. There isn't anyone on this side of the aisle
who doesn't believe it is very important to have organizations such as
these to help our kids. We also believe, however, if you read this
amendment, it is not about equal access for the Boy Scouts.
I yield to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to respond quickly to the
Senator from Oregon. I was concerned with his mischaracterization of
those who oppose this amendment. As I heard him, I felt he was saying
those who support this amendment support the Boy Scouts and the values
of the Boy Scouts, and those who oppose it oppose the Boy Scouts.
I tell the Senator from Oregon and our colleagues, that is absolutely
not the case. I have sat here and listened to the entire debate.
Everyone who has opposed this amendment has spoken about the Boy Scouts
personally in their own lives, including me. I remind the Senator from
Oregon that I was a Brownie. I was a junior Girl Scout. I was a Girl
Scout. I was a Brownie leader. I was a junior Girl Scout leader. I was
a senior Girl Scout leader, and I was a Boy Scout leader for my son.
I think the Boy Scouts do a tremendous job in this country for a lot
of young people, and I want them to continue to do that.
The opposition to this amendment comes because the Boy Scouts already
have equal access to our facilities. They have them under current law,
and it has been affirmed by court decisions. The concerns on our side
are that this amendment and the language of the amendment as written
will give the Boy Scouts access above and beyond any other group that
asks for a school facility.
As a former school board member, the bind that will put our school
districts in, as they look at this language and are told that if a
church group comes to them and another group, perhaps seniors who are
looking for tutoring, and Boy Scouts, is that they will have to pick
the Boy Scouts over those other groups. School boards make these
decisions based on a lot of different local decisions: On space, on how
the facility will be used, on how many janitors they are going to have
to hire, on what other kinds of demands there are on their facilities.
Their underlying goal as a school board is to make sure the kids in
their district are educated. We have to leave this decision in their
hands and not put language into the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act that forces them to choose one group over another.
Equal access is currently provided under law and by the courts. What
we cannot do is tie the hands of school boards to give unequal access
to a group, even though all of us on the floor may agree that it is a
great group.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I say to Senator Murray, I don't cast aspersions
on anyone. But I have heard a few say that the Boy Scouts are
discriminators and therefore should be discriminated. I have heard that
in several remarks. I am only making reference to that. I believe some
legitimate concerns about the amendment have been raised. I am hearing
from some that the Boy Scouts are out of date and old-fashioned. I am
saying they ought to remain in fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate that. I rise in support of the amendment.
This is one that should pass 100-0. Hearing some of the comments on
both sides of the aisle, I am not sure I understand why there should be
any opposition to it.
I will read the applicable part of the amendment. It is on page 2. It
says to any State educational agency, if a school, or schools served by
the agency, denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet or
discriminates against any group affiliated with the Boy Scouts of
America or any other youth group that wishes to conduct a meeting
within that designated open forum--and that is where the language is
being worked on right now--on the basis of the membership or leadership
criteria of the Boy Scouts, their funding is limited.
As the Senator from North Carolina pointed out, most of these never
get to that point. The Department of Education looks at it,
investigates. It is worked out at the local school district level. This
all gets worked out. The operative point here is that if the Boy Scouts
are going to be discriminated against, you are going to go into a
process of being reviewed on your Federal funding.
Is this a legitimate concern? Some have raised the point this is not
a legitimate concern. Let's look at the headlines. In the year
following the decision of the Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts v. Dale,
which affirmed the Scouts' right of free association--that is the issue
here, right of free association, in the Constitution; it has been a
raging storm. The New York Times has compared the Scouts to a hate
group. Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times characterizes Scouts
as engaged in hateful politics. They have been accused of bigotry.
Activists groups have expressed being appalled at some of the Scouts'
positions. Unfortunately, many school districts have responded to the
controversy by attempting to discriminate against the Boy Scouts.
This is a point I am reiterating from the Senator from Wyoming, a
former Eagle Scout. I, unfortunately, was not an Eagle Scout. We didn't
have the Boy Scouts in Parker, KS. I wish we had. My son was in the Boy
Scouts. It is a great organization. Some of the school districts have
followed on after this sort of hyperbole and rhetoric regarding the Boy
Scouts and they have started to respond.
Listen to what is happening.
In Seattle, the home State of the Presiding Officer, from the Seattle
Union Record:
Safe Schools Coalition Asks for Restricted Access for
Seattle Scouts.
From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:
Broward School Board to Review Scouts' Lease.
From the Detroit News:
Plymouth Schools to Vote on Ban on Scout Meetings.
This is an active issue against the Boy Scouts of America. People are
saying the Boy Scouts is a good organization: we like the Boy Scouts,
are part of the Boy Scouts, continue to be a part of the Boy Scouts; we
should let them have public access. If you think this is an
insignificant amendment, vote for it 100-0 then.
Unfortunately, the school districts' response to this controversy is
based on what other people are saying about
[[Page S6260]]
the Boy Scouts of America and not what the Boy Scouts are doing or
saying. In Kansas, we have a tradition and a thought that is
appropriate to bring here; that is, that you take people at their word.
Rather than attempting to characterize the nature of the Boy Scouts as
an organization or offering just my opinions on that, I think we ought
to let them speak for themselves. We talk a lot on the floor about
character, the need for character, the need for that in this country.
Everybody would agree we need character. We need to bring back those
fundamental principles that this country was built upon.
Are the Boy Scouts a part of that? First and foremost, consider the
question of whether or not Scouts are a hate group, as some have
alleged. It is important to go back to the roots of this 90-year-old
organization, look at the values upon which they exist.
Let's consider their oath the Senator from Oregon was citing, which I
think is so beautiful. It is something we all ought to memorize as U.S.
Senators and others:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
``In God we trust,'' above the halls of the Senate, major door
through which we walk.
And to obey the Scout law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake,
and morally straight.
As a parent of five, I like that. I think that is pretty good. I
think that is pretty good character education. I don't see anything
hateful in it. However, the oath does refer to the Scout laws. Maybe we
need to look to see if this is a hate group or not.
In the Scout group, they call for trustworthiness. A Scout tells the
truth, keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct.
People can depend on him. A Scout is loyal. A Scout is true to his
family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and Nation. A Scout is helpful.
A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for
others without pay or reward. That is a nice notion to bring back.
A Scout is friendly. A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to
other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with
ideas and customs other than his own.
A Scout is courteous. A Scout is polite to everyone, regardless of
age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get
along together. A Scout is kind. A Scout understands there is strength
in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does
not hurt or kill harmless things without reason. A Scout is obedient. A
Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He follows
the rules of the school. He obeys the laws of his community and
country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have
them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.
A Scout is cheerful. A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He
cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.
They may be being tasked on that one at this point in time.
A Scout is thrifty. A Scout works to pay his way and to help others.
He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural
resources. He carefully uses time and property. A Scout is brave. A
Scout can face danger, even if he is afraid. He has the courage to
stand for what he thinks is right, even if others laugh at or threaten
him. And they are being threatened today.
A Scout is clean. A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He
goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He
helps keep his home and community clean. He helps keep his home and
community clean. A Scout is reverent toward God and faithful in his
religious duties. Listen to this one. He respects the beliefs of
others.
I don't see any hate espoused there. In fact, quite the contrary, the
Scout law advocates respecting the beliefs of others. Yet the Scouts'
beliefs are not being respected here and they are being singled out for
discrimination, and some are even alleging they are discriminatory.
Helping others is part of it, as are being gentle and treating others
with respect. That is part of their core values. Considering all of the
violent and hateful influences which our children are exposed to on an
hourly basis, I find it supremely ironic that school boards are so
concerned with the influence of an organization whose slogan is ``do a
good turn daily.''
Looking at the Scouts' founding principles may not be enough to clear
the record. Perhaps it is better to take them at their word regarding
the particular issue of this debate--their stand on having homosexual
leaders. The question I believe many school boards in the country are
asking is, Are the Boy Scouts of America a homophobic organization? To
which I would aggressively respond: No. No, they are not. Even in their
own creed they say ``respect for diversity.''
I want to put in a quote the Boy Scouts forwarded:
The Boy Scouts of America respects the rights of people in
groups who hold values that differ from those encompassed in
the Scout Oath and Law, and the Boy Scouts of America makes
no effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to
hold their attitudes or opinions.
That is what the Boy Scouts say and do themselves. Scouts come from
all walks of life. They are exposed to diversity in Scouting that they
may not otherwise experience. I know from my work with the Scouts, it
is a diverse group. It gives a lot of opportunity to a lot of kids. The
Boy Scouts of America aim to allow youth to live and learn as children
and enjoy Scouting without immersing them in the politics of the day.
I think this last quote from the Boy Scouts is particularly
appropriate. In truth, this debate is not about the Scouts--it is about
the politics of the day into which the Scouts have been swept. They
have had this motto, and they have had these views and they have been
an organization 90 years. As far as the politics of banning one of the
oldest and most noble youth organizations in this country from public
property, we cannot, should not, and we must not let this happen.
I call on all of my colleagues in the Senate to pass this worthy
amendment. With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Helms amendment is a solution in
search of a problem. The Senator from North Carolina says his amendment
is needed because schools are excluding the Boy Scouts from using their
facilities, and this is simply not true. Just this week, the Supreme
Court reaffirmed the right of groups such as the Boy Scouts to use
public school facilities. This amendment is about punishing schools
that decided to no longer sponsor the Boy Scouts because of their
exclusionary membership policy.
Currently, 359 school districts, with a total of 4,418 schools in 10
States, including Massachusetts, no longer sponsor the Boy Scouts. This
is the statute in my State of Massachusetts:
Extracurricular activities, advantages, and privileges of
public schools include all extracurricular activities made
available, sponsored, or supervised by any public school. No
school shall sponsor or participate in the organization of
outside extracurricular activities conducted at such school
that restricts student participation on the basis of race,
color, sex, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation.
This does not prohibit school committees from allowing the use of
school premises by independent groups with restrictive membership.
Therefore, they can use the facilities. The Massachusetts statute
indicates they can't be made to sponsor.
The Helms amendment is attempting to override the State statute and
the decisions being made locally. I think that is unwise, unnecessary,
and wrong. Although the schools do not sponsor the Boy Scouts, the
Scouts are still given access to school facilities as any other group.
The Boy Scouts may have a constitutional right to use public school
facilities. They do not have the right to demand school sponsorship.
Yet that is exactly what the amendment allows them to do.
The amendment also contains a harsh punishment on the schools that
decide no longer to sponsor the Boy Scouts with the loss of all Federal
education funds. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the
Helms amendment.
Madam President, we have been on the floor for 8 weeks attempting to
try to fashion and shape legislation that
[[Page S6261]]
was going to enhance the education of children all over this country.
We have a good bill, and it seems to me to be unwise in that effort to
bring effectively something that these children have no control over.
We are giving accountability to the children to exceed themselves in
the challenge they are facing. We put additional challenges on
teachers, on parents, on schools. We are encouraging the States for
greater participation and involvement. Now we have this amendment, the
results of which would deny the benefits of the advantages of this
legislation to reach many different children in our country. It seems
to me to be unwise. I hope the amendment is defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. As the Chair knows, I obtained unanimous consent that I
might deliver my remarks from my chair for obvious reasons.
I have listened in fascination to the discussion on the Senate floor
this morning and this afternoon. It bears out exactly what I was told
was going on in the way of the lining up of opposition on the other
side to this amendment by the homosexual-lesbian leaders in this area.
Let me say at the outset that I don't like the corruption of a once
beautiful word ``gay'' which has been adopted as a description of
conduct that is anything but that.
It is all right with me if the other side wants to make a political
football out of this thing, but they were not prepared and they had not
been energized when this amendment came up the first time. In any case,
I have heard here that the Boy Scouts are not being discriminated
against and all of this is false, and so forth and so on.
Let me give a few examples. On May 11 of this year, the Associated
Press reported that the Iowa City school board voted to prohibit the
Boy Scouts of America from distributing any information in schools
because of the Scouts' membership criteria. A spokesman for the Boy
Scouts of America:
We simply ask to be treated the same way as any other
private organization and that our free speech and right to
assemble be respected just as we respect the rights of
others.
On February 8 of this year, the Asbury Park Press reported that the
State of New Jersey is considering a rule change that would bar school
districts from renting space to the Boy Scouts of America because of
their position on homosexuality.
On February 7 of this year, the Arizona Republic reported that the
Sunnyside School District in Tucson decided to charge the Boy Scouts of
America fees to use school facilities, even though no other groups have
to pay for use.
The ACLU executive director said:
While Boy Scouts, atheists, Nazis, even satanists have a
right to express their views, Government should not use
public money to promote them.
What goes on here? Is this not really an attack by one group on the
Boy Scouts of America? Of course, it is. Why do you think these people
have been standing up and telling how long they served in the Girl
Scouts in a tearful sort of way? The goal here is the goal of the
organized lesbians and homosexuals in this country of ours.
On January 28 of this year, the Boston Globe reported that the Acton
School Committee in Massachusetts decided to prevent the Boy Scouts
from distributing literature at school even though all other groups can
do so. In defending its actions, Acton School Committee cited
Massachusetts law that says schools cannot sponsor Boy Scouts.
On January 14 of this year, the New York Times reported that New York
Chappaqua School District officials were able to coerce two local Boy
Scout troops into signing a document that denounced the national
policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a condition for allowing these
troops access to school property.
Don't you see what is going on here? The Supreme Court knocked them
in the head. The Supreme Court stood up for the Boy Scouts of America,
exactly as I am trying to stand up for them.
I am a little bit sick at my stomach at some of the mewling and
puking that has gone on in this debate this morning and this afternoon.
On January 11 of this year, the News and Observer, my favorite
newspaper in Raleigh, NC, said that the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School
Board voted to give Scouts until June--la-di-da--either to go against
the rule of their organization or lose their sponsorship and meeting
places in schools.
I have two or three more pages. If anybody is interested, Madam
President, I will be glad to read them into the Record. Otherwise, I am
going to place them in the Record so they can be examined when the vote
has been taken, and if the other side manages to defeat this amendment,
as has been advocated and worked for by the organized groups to which I
have been referring, then it will be there for the public to see who is
who and who is for what.
I am going to pause momentarily, but I will be back, because Senator
Kyl has been waiting to address this amendment. I thank the Senator for
coming. I yield to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise in support of the Helms amendment.
Since 1910, for the past 91 years, the Boy Scouts of America have been
instilling in young boys the values of personal responsibility,
community, and duty to God, respect for individual beliefs, and
patriotism. Millions of boys have become better citizens because of the
availability of Scout troops in their communities.
I respect the message of the Boy Scouts and respect their commitment
to instilling these ethical and moral values in young boys.
Unfortunately, there are some who do not respect the Boy Scouts'
message. Some school boards are taking action to prevent the Boy Scouts
from distributing recruitment information and holding meetings and not,
as has been suggested, because some more appropriate group needs the
space but because of what the Scouts believe. That is why I have chosen
to speak today to voice my concerns regarding the discrimination the
Boy Scouts are facing and to support the Helms amendment that will
allow the good work of the Scouts to continue in schools.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts' first
amendment right of association to create their own criteria for Scout
leaders, even if that means prohibiting homosexual leaders in order to
uphold its focus on strong moral values. That was in Boy Scouts v.
Dale.
Since that critical Supreme Court decision, the Boy Scouts have
experienced serious discrimination for exercising their
constitutionally protected rights, and that is not right.
Boy Scout troops across America are facing obstacles put in place by
school boards. In a Wall Street Journal article from last July, it was
noted that poor minority children will suffer the most as a result of
this all-out attack on the Boy Scouts.
It is vital to hold Scout meetings in local public schools,
particularly in inner-city neighborhoods because often that is the only
safe place for these kids to congregate.
The Senator from Massachusetts said the amendment is a solution
looking for a problem, but the Congressional Research Service has
reported already nine specific school boards have taken action to
restrict Boy Scout access to public school facilities. The Senator from
North Carolina had just gotten started reciting a litany of examples
where this has occurred and apparently has several more pages from
which he can read.
This is a problem, unfortunately, that requires a solution, and the
point of his amendment is to stop the trend so we do not have any more
examples and so the Boy Scouts do not have to continually litigate
every time they want to enforce their constitutional rights.
This Congress has taken action over and over where the Supreme Court
has guaranteed rights to a group or an individual or a cause of one
kind or another, and we have sought to embody in the law a remedy so
that the entity or the group does not have to constantly go to court to
battle for these constitutionally guaranteed rights. That is what is
meaningful about the kind of action that is being proposed today.
An example as recently as November 2000, the Broward County School
Board voted to prevent the Boy Scouts altogether from using public
schools to hold meetings and recruitment drives. They challenged this
in the Federal
[[Page S6262]]
court, and the Boy Scouts won the initial victory.
In March 2001, the district court issued a preliminary injunction
that will allow the Boy Scouts to continue their regular meetings and
recruitment.
Yes, it is true that some have argued there is a remedy for the Boy
Scouts to enforce their constitutionally protected rights. Why wouldn't
we want to assist them so they do not have to go through expensive
court litigation every time another school board decides to take this
kind of discriminatory action.
This past Monday, the Supreme Court held that a public school
violated the Christian organization's free speech rights by excluding
the club from meeting after school. The Court found the school was
discriminating against the club because of its religious nature, and
the Court rejected this viewpoint discrimination.
More and more the Court is acknowledging the fact it is appropriate
for us to protect these kinds of rights. There are about 85,000 Cub
Scouts and Boy Scouts in my own State of Arizona. They rely on every
public elementary school in Arizona to open the cafeteria or another
room in afterschool meetings and help Scouts distribute information.
I have gone to these schools and participated in the awarding of
Eagle Scout badges, for example. I suspect almost all of us have done
that, and it makes us feel very good to be supporting these youngsters
who really want to become very good citizens.
Even in my State of Arizona, the Boy Scouts have been subjected to
this kind of discriminatory practice by school boards. One district
outside of Tucson will simply not sponsor Scouting anymore. It has
nothing to do with the need of other school activities for the space
that has been devoted to the Scouts.
Another school district began charging fees for the Scouts to use its
facilities, but the same district does not charge a fee for any other
group. Why charge the Scouts? The district said the Boy Scouts do not
meet the goals and objectives of the school district.
In another district, school employees took it upon themselves to
throw away recruitment fliers in order to prevent the Boy Scouts from
getting its information out to the students.
I think the need for this is clear. The Boy Scouts need our help to
ensure equal access to our public schools. They should not be forced to
continually go to court to protect their constitutionally guaranteed
rights.
If they are denied access for legitimate purposes, this amendment
does not apply. It is only to enforce their right against
discrimination. They are experiencing hostility and exclusion from some
public schools. It has to stop.
The Helms amendment ensures they are not going to have to go to court
to protect their rights. They will continue to be able to meet and
teach young boys strong moral values. I hope others will join in
supporting this very important and needed amendment to this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss this issue. I think it is an important issue. There is a real
problem we need to wake up and face. As a former Boy Scout and former
Eagle Scout, I feel strongly about it and want to share some remarks on
the subject.
We grew up in a little community outside of town with nine boys in
the community. Of the nine, eight became Eagle Scouts and one was a
Life Scout. We always teased him, why he didn't finish, and he always
said he regretted not having completed the program, one step from being
an Eagle Scout.
Every Thursday evening, we went to town, and we had to pool our cars.
A parent or kids who had their license would drive to our meeting. We
would do camps together. We did the Scout oath and Scout laws every
Thursday night:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
And to obey the Scout law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake,
and morally straight.
I never thought that much about it, but over the years that had an
impact on my life. In our town, people remained in Scouts into their
senior year in high school.
The first time I came to Washington was with a Boy Scout troop. We
had a 50th anniversary of that troop, and 60 had been Eagle Scouts.
From the 9 boys of my little community, 15 miles outside of the town,
every one of them had a full degree from college, several have Ph.D.'s,
law degrees, and advanced degrees. One is a medical doctor. One is a
dentist.
It meant a lot to me. We also did the Scout laws every Thursday
night: A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous,
kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty--that is a good word we don't use
much anymore--brave, clean, and reverent. The word ``God'' is used and
the word ``reverent'' is used, but it is decidedly not a sectarian
organization. Not one bit of the literature or otherwise suggests that.
To the contrary, it is an organization that encourages boys to develop
a spiritual side and to recognize that they are indeed more than a
random collection of particles but are created persons. That is a key
component of the Boy Scouts.
Several years ago my friend, Senator Enzi from Wyoming, talked about
being an Eagle Scout, as is his son. He told a story about the
Washington zoo in the U.S. capital. The Washington zoo would not allow
the Boy Scouts to have a Court of Honor. And, by the way, one of the
founders of the Washington zoo was one of the founders of Boy Scouts.
They were not allowed because they discriminate against atheists. The
oath required that boys do their duty to God. They said if you were an
atheist, you could not take the oath; therefore, you were a
discriminatory organization and you could not use the property at the
Washington zoo to have a Court of Honor.
We raised that point. It was not lightly taken. There were letters
written to defend it. But when confronted with it, the leader of the
zoo capitulated and apologized and said that was not a good policy and
they would not continue to adhere to it.
What is troubling to me is that we have skirted the issue some, but
there is a group of Americans who believe very strongly--and I don't
disparage their motives--that the Boy Scouts' position on gay
Scoutmasters is not appropriate, and they have set about to punish the
Boy Scouts. I don't think there is anybody here who would deny it. They
are politically active. They work United Fund committees, and they work
school boards and city councils. And they seek to get them to eliminate
Boy Scouts from public facilities. That is what is happening. There is
no mystery about that.
We give a lot of Federal money to school systems. I don't believe
every time something irritates us that the Federal Government ought to
get involved, but I feel strongly abut this. The Supreme Court of the
United States upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to make this
determination.
Some say there is no discrimination going on against the Scouts.
There plainly is. It will plainly continue. As far as I am concerned,
if there is a school system in America that says to a little Boy Scout
troop, such as troop 94 in Camden, AL, you can't have a meeting on
school grounds because of your policy concerning your leadership and
the behavior of your members, you can't have it here, even though the
Supreme Court said yes, as far as I am concerned, they don't need
Federal money and I am not voting to give it to them.
That is where we are. I am not sure exactly how the language is going
to come out. I know Senator Helms would like to make sure there was the
least possible controversy over it. I would like that also. I firmly
believe we ought to affirm through governmental entities and
organizations the kind of character-building program to which the Boy
Scouts are committed. ``Do a good turn daily'' is the motto.
I read and clipped an article that brought tears to my eyes, an
article in one of the newspapers about Boy Scouts in Rwanda. They had
all their uniforms confiscated, but they had their kerchiefs. The
picture with that article showed those Scouts at a hospital in war-torn
Rwanda, cutting the grass. They were interviewed, and they said: We
always do a good turn daily. I
[[Page S6263]]
tried to get them some help. The article went on to say that when the
totalitarian leader took over, he oppressed the Scouts; he took their
uniforms and their books, and he forced all the young people to join,
for lack of a better word, a Hitler-type youth group of which everybody
had to be a part. They refused. They stayed true to their oath. Under
oppression we have the finest example of commitment. That was very
moving to me.
These ideals are wonderful ideals. I find it difficult for anyone to
conclude that there is something unhealthy in the way the Boy Scouts do
business. It ought to be affirmed and nurtured. A school system that
will not provide them their constitutional right does not deserve a
dime of Federal money, in my opinion. I think the Helms amendment will
help deal with that and get some attention from around the country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today, the U.S. Senate made a strong
statement in support of the right of the Boy Scouts of America and
other youth groups to enjoy equal access and a fair opportunity to use
the facilities of our Nation's public schools. I am proud to have
joined my Senate colleagues in supporting an amendment to S. 1, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which will codify in Federal
law recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States
upholding these basic rights of equality and fairness for the Boy
Scouts.
I am also a strong supporter of the right of private organizations
such as the Boy Scouts to organize as they wish. My son was on Eagle
Scout, and I know firsthand the values on which the Boy Scouts and the
Girl Scouts stand. The Scouts stand for strong moral character, duty to
God, a respect for the rule of law, service to others and loyalty and
allegiance to country. Based upon these high standards, the Boy Scouts
and any such private organization should be allowed to determine its
own membership without interference. This prerogative has been upheld
by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as this week, and I commend the
Senate for endorsing this fundamental right.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms. This
amendment, the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, is very clear in
its purpose, which is ``To prohibit the use of Federal funds by any
State or local educational agency or school that discriminates against
the Boy Scouts of America in providing equal access to school premises
or facilities.'' I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment.
It is appropriate that this amendment be considered and adopted on
this education bill. Since its founding in 1910, the Boy scouts of
America, BSA, has complemented youth education with a program that
teaches skills and values that will help those youth throughout their
lifetimes. Over the past 91 years, more than 100 million young men and
women have been served by Scouting. For those young people, Scouting
has provided a program of values and leadership, joined with an
opportunity to improve themselves by helping others.
The BSA is primarily concerned about the youth it serves. Its mission
statement states: ``The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to
prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by
instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.'' The Scouting
program has three specific objectives, commonly referred to as the
``Aims of Scouting.'' They are character development, citizenship
training, and personal fitness. The methods by which the aims are
achieved are Advancement, Uniforms, Outdoor Program and Skills, Youth
Leadership, Patrol Method, Community Service, and Adult Association. In
addition, the Scouting Program through a variety of means works to
prevent child abuse, drug abuse, hunger, functional illiteracy, and
teen unemployment.
Scouting has become an American institution, a natural element in
most communities. Scouts exemplify the values outlined in the Scout
Oath and Law and dedicate themselves to serving their communities.
The BSA respects the rights of people and groups who hold values that
differ from those encompassed in the Scout Oath and Laws, and the BSA
makes no effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to hold
their attitudes or opinions. Likewise, the Boy Scouts of America aims
to allow youth to live and to learn as children and enjoy Scouting
without immersing them in the politics of the day. Unfortunately,
certain groups dissatisfied with the Boy Scouts of America's membership
policies and the moral views on which they are based have suggested
that the BSA not have the privilege of meeting in public schools or
distributing recruitment information at public schools. I do not agree
with that suggestion. Just as other student or community groups are
permitted to have access to public school facilities, the Boy Scouts of
America should have the same access.
I am proud of my association with the Boy Scouts of America. I
strongly support the amendment that would permit the Boy Scouts to have
equal access to public school facilities. This amendment is consistent
with the decision by the United States Supreme Court which reaffirmed
the Boy Scouts of America's standing as a private organization with the
right to set its own membership and leadership standards.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Helms
entitled the ``Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act'' aims to ensure
that the Boy Scouts of America has access to our nations' public school
facilities. The Boy Scouts already have access to our public schools,
access that is guaranteed by the Constitution. As recently as this past
Monday, the Supreme Court confirmed in the case of Good News Club v.
Milford Central School that when a public school establishes a limited
open forum, the school may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint
among groups wishing to use that forum. Under that decision and its
predecessors, the Boy Scouts already have the same right to use public
schools as any other group. We do not need to echo the Constitution's
clear protections through an amendment to the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Moreover, this amendment does more than simply reiterate what the
Supreme Court has already made clear about access to our public
schools. It conditions federal funding on the willingness of school
districts to accept groups with ``membership or leadership criteria,
that prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals.'' Districts that refuse
space to any groups besides the Boy Scouts, or groups with similar
views on homosexuality, are subject to no Congressionally-mandated
penalty. Indeed, the only specially protected viewpoint under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act would become the refusal to
accept gays and lesbians. I am uncomfortable with the Congress
endorsing these particular views above all others, and I believe that
the courts would likely find this to be impermissible viewpoint
discrimination. The Supreme Court has stated that: ``Regulations which
permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of
the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment.'' Simon &
Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 112 S.
Ct. 501, 508 (1991). In my opinion, this amendment would do precisely
what the Court has said the First Amendment prohibits.
I oppose the Helms amendment because it accomplishes nothing except
to provide special and unprecedented protection for one particular and
deeply controversial view, the Boy Scouts' decision to ``prohibit the
acceptance of homosexuals.'' This is not the job of Congress, and it
should not interfere with the important work we are doing to reform our
education system. It is also worth noting that this amendment does not
prevent schools from withdrawing their sponsorship of the Boy Scouts,
as some supporters have stated. It simply guarantees the organization
the access that they already have.
This amendment is unnecessary. This debate needs to be about the
education of our children, about pressing problems such as providing
high quality teachers; ensuring access to technology; funding programs
to assist low-income and disadvantaged students;
[[Page S6264]]
and, renovating and repairing deteriorating schools. We have had a good
debate on these issues over the past several weeks and have done so in
a bipartisan and cooperative manner. As we come to what may be the
closing hours of our consideration of the critical issue of education
reform, I urge my colleagues to maintain the focus on our school
children and the quality of the programs, facilities and services they
receive and to oppose this divisive and unnecessary amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms
amendment. Under our Federal Constitution and laws, public schools are
already required to provide equal access to their facilities. This
amendment, therefore, is unnecessary. As such, its only result would be
to divide our communities rather than bring them together.
It is unfortunate that an organization that has meant so much to our
nation has now become the object of a larger debate on civil rights and
national unity. This amendment is not a vote on the legitimacy of the
Boy Scouts as a national institution. Rather, it is a vote on the
direction in which we want our country to go.
I have heard from constituents who are opposed to this amendment. One
was a teacher who spoke eloquently to the divisiveness of the
amendment. He wrote:
Dear Senator Feinstein:
As your constituent, I strongly urge to oppose the Helms
amendment to the Education Bill (S. 1), which would deny all
Federal education funding to any school that has been found
to discriminate against the Boy Scouts or any other youth
group that denies membership to gays and lesbians.
Aside from being politically divisive and unrelated to the
underlying bill, the Helms amendment is completely
unnecessary and is a punishment in search of a problem. The
use of public school facilities is governed by the First
Amendment. The Helms amendment does nothing to further the
goals of improving education and serves only as an anti-gay
attack. I urge you to oppose this amendment and look forward
to hearing your views on this important issue.
Other constituents voiced their concerns about the message of
intolerance such an amendment would carry if passed. A family from
Valley Glen, CA wrote:
We are very much offended by the discrimination that the
[Boy Scouts of America] is able to operate with under the
blessings of the U.S. Supreme Court. On one hand we applaud
the actions of school boards, city councils, police
departments, corporations and United Way agencies for
standing up for what they believe. On the other hand, as
members of Temple Beth Hillel (Valley Village, CA), we are
quite proud of our Pack 311 and Rabbi Jim Kaufman's stand
that the basic program is great and that the best way to make
change is from within.
Additionally, as a family who is very active in the Girl
Scouts . . ., we are quite proud that [the Girl Scouts] are
inclusive of all girls and their families.
Our tax dollars should not be used to support the
discrimination that the ``Boys Scouts Equal Access Act'' is
trying to affirm. We urge you to help to defeat this act and
to help to hold the [Boy Scouts of America] to the same
standards that the country as a whole is striving for. The
[Boys Scout of America] is a great American institution
and we hope that it can continue to be so following the
same non-discriminatory rules as the rest of the country.
Here are my views on the matter: first, the Supreme Court has already
spoken to the issue of equal access for private organizations. Last
year, the Court ruled in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America that the Boy
Scouts had a First Amendment right to prohibit gay men and lesbians
from serving as leaders in the Boy Scouts. What this decision means is
that the governments cannot directly penalize the Boy Scouts for
constitutionally protected views and policies, as the New Jersey public
accommodations law had sought to do in the case. Nor can they
indirectly penalize the Scouts by denying access to public facilities
and other benefits available to other private groups.
So, for me, the matter is settled. Already a school must allow access
to an organization like the Boy Scouts, regardless of the
organization's viewpoints, or risk losing federal funding. The
Constitution already protects the Boy Scouts and similar youth groups,
so there is no reason for Congress to intervene.
I also oppose the Helms amendment because of its sweeping potential
to limit the rights of state and local governments to make decisions
for their own school districts, and for their own children, as to their
communities' tolerance of discrimination. One provision of the
amendment in particular troubles me: It would provide special
protection to groups that prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals.
Basically, it singles out for protection a type of discrimination. A
consensus developing in our country is that discrimination of this kind
is wrong. Across the nation, local jurisdictions are voting to prohibit
discrimination against gays and lesbians.
In my hometown of San Francisco, a city that prides itself on the
diversity of its views and the diversity of its people, a cornerstone
of the community is its belief that basic civil rights protections
should extend to every American, and not only to a few and under
certain circumstances. A vote in favor of this amendment would be an
indictment against the people of San Francisco and of their rich
tradition of accepting others.
And it would be an indictment of the many other communities
throughout California and the rest of the nation that promote diversity
and tolerance for all. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment,
which would foster a sense of division and disunity.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the work of the Boy Scouts of America is
commendable, and I am proud to have been a Boy Scout. However, I must
oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Mr.
Helms, on constitutional grounds.
The Helms amendment would prohibit federal education funding for
schools, school districts, or States that deny access to their
facilities to the Boy Scouts, or other such organizations that
discriminate based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Supreme Court
has already held that if school districts provide some groups access to
their facilities as an open forum, they must provide all groups equal
access to those facilities. The Helms amendment is not needed to assure
the Boy Scouts equal access if a local school district decides to open
its facilities to outside groups.
Regrettably, the effect of the Helms amendment as drafted is to give
specific groups additional rights to school resources not afforded to
other groups. As such, the amendment would thus violate the first
amendment by singling out groups that discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation for special treatment. Just as government may not
retaliate against or be hostile toward a particular viewpoint, it may
not endorse or show favoritism toward such a message. I do not believe
that the Federal Government should single out particular policies for
special protection using the power of education funding.
Because the Helms amendment violates the first amendment, I will vote
``no.'' I hope that the amendment can be revised in conference to
protect all groups from unfair treatment at the hands of federally
funded schools based on the views that they express. That would be the
right, and the constitutional, way to handle this issue.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts on
Senator Helms' amendment that would deny Federal education funds to
schools that deny access to the Boy Scouts of America.
I want to be very clear that my vote against this amendment in no way
represents a vote against the Boy Scouts of America. I have always
been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of the Boy Scouts of
America. The Boy Scouts provides an opportunity for our children to
create and accomplish goals, increasing their sense of self worth and
discipline. Boy Scouts learn about the importance of maintaining
respect and honor for themselves and others, and Scouts are often
excellent role models for their peers. I am firmly convinced that
organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts play an important
role in the development of well-adjusted and productive children.
I voted against this amendment because I felt it provided a Federal
solution to a local issue, and I think that is wrong. Under current
law, local school board members decide which organizations are
permitted to meet in their schools. I want community members and school
board members to continue to have that ability. They know best what
their children need, and their decisions reflect local values and
priorities.
I further want to point out that the Boy Scouts already have equal
access
[[Page S6265]]
to our schools under current law. I firmly believe that the Boy Scouts
should be allowed in our schools, and I am pleased that the Supreme
Court has upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to have equal access to
our public schools. Should there be cases where the Boy Scouts are
denied access to our schools, I think our judicial system is well
positioned to determine whether a school's decision was fairly and
equitably reached.
I felt that this Supreme Court decision fairly addressed the issue of
equal access while keeping control at the local level. I further felt
that this decision would give the necessary support to the Boy Scouts
of America to meet in our schools without necessitating Congressional
intervention. For these reasons, I voted against this amendment.
In my mind, a better alternative, in the form of an amendment
introduced by Senator Boxer, existed. I supported that amendment, which
affirms the right of the Boy Scouts to meet in our schools without
imposing a Federal mandate.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if I could direct a question to the
Senator from North Carolina, does the Senator have an idea how much
longer he wishes to have this matter debated, just so we can inform
Senators when we can expect a vote?
Mr. HELMS. I would say not more than 4 more hours.
Mr. REID. The Senator has said for not more than 4 more hours, so
everyone should keep that in mind. If Senator Helms uses the time he
wants, we would vote about 5:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I was listening to the debate and wanted
to come down and offer a few thoughts.
First of all, I have heard all the people talking about their days in
Scouting. I wish I could add to those voices except I was not
necessarily the cleanest cut kid in the world. As a matter of fact, I
tried Scouting for only about 3 weeks. So I cannot join the chorus of
those who were Eagle Scouts and made it on to the U.S. Senate. But
scouting was something that I witnessed growing up. I saw a lot of
people whose lives it transformed. Perhaps if I had stayed with
Scouting my life would have been transformed a little earlier than it
otherwise was.
I have seen many children over the years whose lives have been
influenced so greatly by Scouting. The Eagle Scout ceremonies I have
gone to honor incredible people. They honor not only the Scouts
themselves, but the leaders of the Scout troops who dedicate so many
hours to young people and their development. These are the types of
activities we should be encouraging.
But I also wanted to add a few words. We do not want to be gay
bashing around this Chamber. At least I do not believe we should be.
People have the right to live their lives as they choose to live their
lives. But I believe in freedom in America. I believe, for instance, if
there was a group of people who believe in a gay lifestyle, they may
require that same lifestyle or belief of their leadership. I believe
that group should be allowed all of its constitutional rights; the
right to require that their leaders have their same beliefs. This is,
to me, a matter of freedom.
The Boy Scouts have chosen what they want and what they determine as
their organization. In America, we should be able to have these types
of organizations.
As a matter of fact, there is a group called the Royal Rangers. For
those who are not familiar with the Royal Rangers, they are Christian
organizations who believe that the Boy Scouts have become too
secularized. So the Royal Rangers was formed to bring more of a
Christian perspective to scouting because they did not feel that the
Boy Scouts were meeting their religious needs.
The point of that is they did not try to change the Boy Scouts. They
respected the Boy Scouts' right to believe and to operate how they were
operating. But instead of trying to destroy the Boy Scouts or try to
hurt the Boy Scouts, they formed their own organization based on their
own beliefs. That is the direction we should be going in this country.
If people want to form their own organization, they can form it based
on their own beliefs--that really is what America is supposed to be
about. This amendment here simply says that a group that has a certain
belief system, and has proven that their belief system leads to good
citizenship, then we should be encouraging this group. We should not be
discriminating against those groups going into our public school
systems.
I hope we can get a bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment. I
believe that in the long run this amendment will be good for America
because I believe the Boy Scouts are good for America.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Madam President, this is just to notify Senators, Democrats
and Republicans, that when this amendment is finished, whatever time
that may be, we have a number of other matters that will be completed
today. Whenever this amendment is completed, we have a number of other
important amendments to move to. Senator Gregg told me earlier today he
has at least one other amendment that could take a little bit of time,
maybe two other amendments. But this is to notify everyone we are going
to work tonight until we finish this bill. If we cannot finish it late
tonight, then we will come back tomorrow and finish it. It was
announced as early as Monday. We are going to work until we finish this
bill. I know people feel very strongly about this issue and other
issues developed during the day.
We want to make sure everyone has every opportunity to speak and let
the Senate know how they feel. But I think there is a time that comes
when we have to vote. As my friend, Mo Udall, said in the House one
time when he came to appear before a committee: Everything has been
said, but not everyone has said it.
I think we may be arriving at that point in the near future on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, it is, frankly, really a
sad day when we have to be here on the floor of the Senate to defend
the Boy Scouts of America as if they have done something wrong and they
have to be defended.
I have seen a lot of things since I have been in this place. We have
had a lot of interesting debates on a lot of interesting subjects. I
sit at the desk of Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster didn't know about the
Boy Scouts of America in his time. I cannot imagine what Webster would
think if he were here today to listen to this debate--or Washington or
Jefferson or any of the great leaders.
I rise today without equivocation to support the amendment of my
friend from North Carolina, to protect one of America's treasures, the
Boy Scouts of America.
I would like to call your attention to the photograph behind me
during the course of these brief remarks. These are the bad people we
are keeping out of our schools, these young boys. I had two sons who
were Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout.
I can't think of anybody who is hurt to be a Boy Scout. When you talk
about precluding ``the Scouts,'' the Boy Scouts from being in a school,
what does that mean? Does it mean if a Boy Scout comes in in his
uniform for his class, is he going to be thrown out of class and sent
home? I guarantee you, if some boy came into class and created a
disturbance, it is highly unlikely he would be thrown out of class
under the current rules and regulations that some teachers have to
face.
I am trying to be as unemotional as I can about this, but this is
such an outrage. The organization, the Boy Scouts of America, has one
of the most rich traditions and history in American history, in
American culture for all time. How many Boy Scouts are there whose
names are on that Vietnam Wall? How many Boy Scouts were in the
greatest generation that Tom Brokaw talked about? How many Boy Scouts
led the fight in World War I? How many?
These are the boys we want to keep from having their meetings in
schools that receive billions of taxpayer dollars. I never thought I
would see the day when I would have to stand on the Senate floor and go
to bat for the Boy Scouts to have that right. But do you know what.
Senator Helms, I am proud to stand here with you and do it.
We need to do it. Then we will do it. I am with him.
[[Page S6266]]
The Boy Scouts of America was recognized by Federal charter in 1916
to provide an educational program for boys and men to build character
and to train citizens--yes--to promote reverence for God and country.
How horrible that must be. We are going to promote reverence for God
and country in this time of political correctness. Isn't it awful that
somebody might take an oath of allegiance to God and country? What are
we coming to? How bad does it have to get before we wake up?
Some of the people who are standing here today in opposition to
Senator Helms on this amendment not too long ago were standing on this
floor defending the right to immerse a crucifix in urine and get
Federal dollars to display it as art--the same people. That is what we
have come to in America. God bless us.
The largest voluntary youth organization and movement in the world--
the Boy Scouts--is under siege right on the Senate floor. Six million
American boys are members from a wide diversity--religious, ethnic,
economic, disability, special needs, honor students, Eagle Scouts, all
of it--are under siege.
A large number of Boy Scouts are sponsored by local churches. They
meet in church basements.
This tradition should be revered and protected by the Federal
Government, not attacked by the Federal Government. We shouldn't
discriminate against an organization because it teaches boys morality.
Senator Helms says we are going to condition Federal education money
on a State or locality not discriminating against the Boy Scouts of
America. And Senator Helms is right. He is absolutely right. In your
heart you know he is right.
On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, upheld the first amendment rights of Boy
Scouts of America to maintain its almost century-old moral code and its
standard for membership and leadership.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Boy Scouts have a right under
the first amendment to set standards for membership and leadership by
concluding that the first amendment protects the right of a private
organization to determine its own membership.
The Senate has conditions for membership in this body. Maybe we
shouldn't have any conditions. Should we be attacked by the same
groups?
The Boy Scouts embrace the following oath. I want to repeat that
oath. I think it has been repeated here before. But it is the central
purpose of why we are here. Why does Senator Helms need to be here to
offer this amendment to protect the Boy Scouts? Why? Here is their
honor code and the oath that they take:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
And to obey the Scout law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake,
and morally straight.
These boys, and boys like them, by the millions, are being told they
can't even have a meeting in their school or in a school in some
communities across America.
I will tell you something. Rome died from a lot less than this. When
you dilute your moral code to this extent, and if this keeps up, the
obituary for America is going to be written. And it is sad to see it is
being written here on the floor of the Senate.
When the count is taken, I know where I want to be, and I know where
Senator Helms is going to be.
This is wrong, pure and simple. It is wrong to do this to this
organization. There is an organized campaign against the Boy Scouts. It
is under siege by the American Civil Liberties Union. It is attacked.
The Boy Scouts have recently suffered discrimination and unfounded
accusations of prejudice resulting in discriminatory actions being
taken against the organization and its members.
I know this has been said before. It is not meant to be a cheap shot.
It is meant to bring up a point. Senator Byrd talked about it.
Delegates at the Democratic National Convention on August 17, 2000,
booed the Boy Scouts while the Boy Scouts were leading the delegates in
the Pledge of Allegiance. Not all Democrats did that. Very few
Democrats did that. But they did it. No one threw them out of the
convention. No one threw them out of the meeting. They sat there under
their rights booing the Boy Scouts for leading their convention. If I
had been a Democrat at that meeting, I would have sought them out and
had them thrown out. What a sad day in America.
On September 5, 2000, in Framingham, MA, the superintendent of
schools considered prohibiting the local Boy Scout troop from
recruiting other Scouts on school grounds for exercising their
constitutionally protected rights. Can you believe that? They cannot
even recruit a Boy Scout on the grounds of Framingham, MA, schools.
You wonder why we have problems in America. Should you really be
surprised when you hear that children shoot children or children commit
crimes or children don't respect their parents or children don't
respect their authority? What are we telling them? What message are we
sending here? How bad does it have to get before America wakes up?
We are in this age of political correctness. That is what we are
talking about here--political correctness.
Another shocking example of this same thing is in Robbinsdale
district elementary school in Minnesota. One of the teachers in that
school states that she will not let the Boy Scouts into her classroom.
Again, is that the Boy Scouts, the organization, a Boy Scout in his
uniform--or a Girl Scout, for that matter?
The teacher wrote to the State attorney general:
Schools and teachers who continue to do business as usual
with the Boy Scouts of America participate in discrimination
through complicity, acceptance through silence. I will not.
That was printed in the Star Tribune on September 3, 2000.
The State of Connecticut has banned contributions to the Boy Scouts--
banned contributions to the Boy Scouts by State employees through a
State-run charity. Can you believe that? It is unbelievable. I never
thought I would live to see the day that this would happen in this
country.
If Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington aren't rolling in
their graves now, I can't imagine what would ever motivate them to.
Let's look at some of the horrible, terrible things the Boy Scouts of
America do.
Let me read from the Bergen County Record of May 29, 2001. This is a
good example of what the Boy Scouts do:
Americans marked Memorial Day with solemn remembrance by
making pilgrimages to grave sides, bearing flowers and flags
to honor soldiers who sacrificed their lives in battle.
``It means a lot to me, coming out here and seeing the
veterans,'' said Boy Scout Lee Booker, 15, as he helped place
miniature American flags at the foot of 46,850 veterans
headstones at the Memphis National Cemetery in Tennessee.
And those boys can't meet on school grounds? And you wonder why we
are losing our kids.
Is it time to defund the Boy Scouts of America? Is this the group
that we want to expel from our public schools? That is what this is all
about.
I applaud the Boy Scouts for all the wonderful contributions that
group has provided to American society. I am proud to have an Eagle
Scout on my staff--one that I know of; there may be more. Jeff
Marschner is a shining example of what an important contribution the
Boy Scouts of America make to all of us.
They ought to be held in esteem. When they ask to have a meeting,
they ought to be asked: Which room do you want?
What have they done that is so wrong? The answer is, nothing. What
they have done is so right. And they are being punished for it.
I am going to say it: Every leader in this country who takes that
position--local, State, or Federal--ought to have to pay a political
price for it. I would say to my critics on this: What were you doing on
Memorial Day while the Boy Scouts of Tennessee were placing miniature
American flags on the tombstones of Tennessee soldiers?
All persons have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of
association. And the Boy Scouts have earned theirs. I hold the first
amendment rights of every American in esteem. Freedom of association is
fundamental. I do not support the Government attacking groups because
of their membership
[[Page S6267]]
policies. Some membership policies I don't like. I don't like the KKK.
I don't like the skinheads. I don't like those organizations. And
anybody who can stand in this Senate Chamber and equate them to the Boy
Scouts has a real serious problem.
If the first amendment is gutted for the cause of forcing the Boy
Scouts to change their membership policies, what is next?
The Boy Scouts, as an organization, is empowered by our Constitution
to determine their own membership criteria--not the Federal Government,
not a State, not a local government, not a local school board, not a
mayor, not a Governor, not the President, not any unelected bureaucrat
in this country. Only the Boy Scouts have a right under the
Constitution of the United States to determine their membership
requirements for their Boy Scouts, for these boys. That is who has the
obligation and the responsibility to do it, and no one else under this
Constitution.
Children--boys, girls--are this Nation's most precious resource. Yet
this is what we do to them in this Senate Chamber--unbelievable.
I support the Helms amendment. I have never been prouder in my entire
political life than I am today to stand here with Senator Jesse Helms
in support of this amendment. I cannot think of one issue that I have
ever stood here and talked about that I am more proud to do than what I
am doing today. It is not discriminatory. It is fair and simple. It is
to protect the Boy Scouts from discrimination, that Boy Scouts cannot
be banned from schools that receive millions and millions--and
billions--of dollars.
The education bill has money. This bill has money, more money than we
have ever given to education from this body. And all Senator Helms is
asking is that governments that accept this money not discriminate
against these young men, and young men like them, shown in this
picture. Is that asking too much? I certainly hope not.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. If the other side is willing to yield back its time, I
will yield back my time.
Mr. REID. We have no time to yield back, but we are ready for a vote,
Madam President.
Mr. HELMS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
The question now is on agreeing to Helms amendment No. 648. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 648) was agreed to.
Change of Vote
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, on rollcall vote 189, I voted yea. It
was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be
permitted to change the vote since it will not affect the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to explain my vote. I ask unanimous
consent for 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Senate is not in order. I will not
proceed until it is in order. This was a very important vote.
Madam President, I want Senators to get out of the well. I am
entitled to be heard, and I want other Senators to have the same
respect and same entitlement.
This was not an easy vote for me. I believe just as strongly as any
Senator on that side of the aisle about the rights of the Boy Scouts
and about the respect we ought to show the Boy Scouts. I was ashamed
and embarrassed by the actions of some people--not by the Democratic
Party--by some people at the Democratic Convention who may or may not
have been delegates, in showing disrespect for the Scouts.
Having said that, I had some concerns about this language, and I took
those concerns to the author of the amendment, Mr. Helms. He indicated
he would try to have that language changed. Several other Members on
that side of the aisle voiced their sentiments as being equal and
square with mine: That the language needed to be clarified and
modified.
The language was this language: ``Any other youth group.'' Similar
language is used in at least one other place in the amendment.
My question was: What is the definition of ``youth group'' as it is
being used in this amendment? The definition in the amendment reads as
follows:
Youth Group--the term ``youth group'' means any group or
organization intended to serve young people under the age of
21.
That can be a Black Panthers group. That can be a skinhead group.
That can be a Ku Klux Klan group. I do not mind speaking on that
subject. I detest the Klan. I have been a member of it. That is not
news. Everybody in this Senate knows that, and I do not carry that
badge with pride. But I do not want the Ku Klux Klan or any other hate
group in our schools. So, I thought there ought to be a clarification
and better definition of ``youth group.''
I came to the floor when the vote occurred. Nobody came to me and
said: With regard to your concern, we have changed the language, or, we
have not. Nobody said that.
When I saw on the television screen that the vote on the amendment
was in progress, I came to the floor, and I went to Senator Helms. I
said: Was there a modification of that language?
He said: No.
He was in accord with having a modification but he said, ``they
didn't want it modified.'' I do not know who ``they'' were. But in any
event, faced with having to vote up or down on this amendment, I voted
for it, but I am still concerned that the definition of ``youth group''
was not changed. I am concerned because that request, which I think was
a reasonable request, was somehow rejected by somebody. I voted for the
amendment.
I take the floor now to say I hope that in conference that language
will be changed. The distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith,
earlier suggested that it be changed to mean groups that have national
charters. I believe I am correct in the way he stated it--groups that
are nationally chartered. That would be fine with me. But that change
was not made.
I only take the floor now to explain my vote and to express my
regrets that what I thought was a very reasonable request was
apparently just rejected out of hand.
[[Page S6268]]
I hope that attention will be given in conference to changing this
language to make it clear that the term ``other groups'' pertains to
groups that are nationally chartered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of
Senator Helms that just passed be allowed to be amended as Senator Byrd
has explained it and as some Members lobbied to have it changed. I
think it will be a better amendment. If it is not done here, it ought
to be done in the conference committee. We all understand that. No one
wants this opened up to skinheads, Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, or any
other hate group, but we want to say the standards of the Boy Scouts of
America are standards and values that are valuable still.
Mr. REID. Madam President, did the Senator make a unanimous consent
request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we, in good faith, during
the 8 weeks of this debate have been doing amendments side by side. If
your side has an amendment, we have an amendment. We have been doing
that and have done it 25 times. We certainly have done it the last week
many times. I personally--and I don't know how anyone else feels--think
that is not a bad idea as long as we have the opportunity to have our
amendment debated, if we have an amendment we believe is an appropriate
amendment, and we would be happy to show it to any Member who wants to
see it and we have a right to vote on the Helms amendment, which has
already been voted on. If you want to modify, that is fine, but we want
an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote. We have done it for weeks
and I don't see why this amendment should be any different.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I withdraw my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
Mr. KENNEDY. I listened to the Senator from West Virginia. A similar
amendment has already passed in the House of Representatives, so we
have the House language and this language. It is identical. If we
follow past precedence, there is not the flexibility to take into
consideration what the Senator from West Virginia has requested. That,
I think, is part of the reality in terms of the way these institutions
run. They have passed a similar amendment by a voice vote, we passed an
amendment, and for all intents and purposes that is what will be before
the conference. If we follow the precedent, that flexibility that the
Senator had mentioned would not be before the conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. 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. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have been discussing this matter
over the last few moments. I ask, after I have given a description of
our circumstances, that Senator Byrd be recognized for a unanimous
consent agreement.
Just for the notification of our colleagues, we would then recognize
Senator Boxer who has the right to offer a second-degree amendment. It
is a freestanding, side-by-side amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. To my own amendment.
Mr. DASCHLE. That will be offered. Then we will also have the
Sessions amendment vote.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. May I inquire if we could amend the consent request, if
Senator Byrd would allow me to be recognized for 30 seconds prior to
his statement?
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I do
not object to the request of the Senator, but just to make sure I
understood, was there an original request? Did Senator Daschle make a
unanimous consent request?
Mr. DASCHLE. I only asked Senator Byrd be recognized to make the
unanimous consent request. Following that, we would go to a vote on the
Sessions amendment. After the Sessions amendment is disposed of, we
would recognize Senator Boxer for purposes of offering another
amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. A second-degree.
Mr. LOTT. You were just announcing the intention with regard to how
to proceed? The UC was to allow Senator Byrd to offer a modification,
and then I believe the Senator just wanted 30 seconds to speak?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Prior to Senator Byrd.
Mr. LOTT. I withdraw my reservation.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate?
Madam President, in an effort to help the Senate to reach the best
possible product of the amendment's status at this point, so that a
consensus of minds in this body may come to a conclusion as to what in
their judgment seems to be the best outcome, I ask unanimous consent
that on page 2 of the amendment, section 2 titled ``equal access''
subsection (a), paragraph (2), line 12 thereof, be amended as follows:
To insert the words, following the word ``group": ``listed in title 36
of the United States Code as a patriotic society,'' and I ask unanimous
consent further that I may be allowed, additionally, to amend the
amendment, as modified, which is presently pending, in a second place.
The second place being on page 4 under section (C), titled ``Youth
Group,'' on line 8 strike the comma following the numerals ``21'' and
insert the following: ``and which is listed in title 36 of the United
States Code as a patriotic society.''
So I am asking to amend the bill in two places with the amendment--I
am asking to amend the pending amendment, as modified, in two places
and as I have outlined.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, is it now not in order to move to the
Sessions amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate must first adopt the Helms
amendment, as amended and modified.
Mr. DASCHLE. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
No. 574, as modified.
The amendment (No. 574), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, as I understand, each side now has 1
minute to make their presentation prior to the vote on the Sessions
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are on the verge and so close to
making a realistic and fair and just step in dealing with the
complications and frustrations our school systems are wrestling with
every day involving disciplinary situations with disabled students.
Anyone who talks to them knows it is a very real problem.
Our legislation is a middle-ground position. It is more cautious than
the Gorton amendment which got almost 50 votes. It is more modest than
the House amendment that passed. It simply says, if a child is disabled
and commits a violation of discipline rules that would result in
discipline for them, they would be treated as any other child, unless
and only after a hearing has been held to ensure that the misbehavior
the child committed was not connected to that disability--because some
children have emotional problems and have difficulty containing
themselves. Those children would not be able to be disciplined like
other students.
We think this is a fair and progressive step. I urge your support. I
believe with the Vice President we would be able to pass this. I urge
its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
[[Page S6269]]
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senator from Iowa is not here. I
will take one moment.
We have fought for 25 years to try to mainstream disabled children. I
remember when there were 5 million who were kept in the closets and
shut away. IDEA may not be perfect, but we have a GAO study, which is
an authoritative study, that says the changes that were made 2 years
ago on discipline seem to be working.
The previous vote was 50-50. We are divided.
Next year we are going to have a complete reauthorization of IDEA.
Why have a major step backward in terms of assisting the children in
this country?
If we have to change it, let's do it at the time we have the
reauthorization--not on the basis of a 50-50 vote or 1 hour of debate
and discussion on this measure.
Make no mistake about it. If we accept the Sessions amendment,
history will record this as the first major step backward instead of
forward with regard to disabled children.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
reconsider. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Smith) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Smith would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
Smith (NH)
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing upon
reconsideration to amendment No. 604 offered by the Senator from
Alabama. The yeas and nays are automatic.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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, I ask unanimous consent that the matter
before us, the Sessions amendment, be handled on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. It takes unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.
I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 604) was agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
California is recognized.
Amendment No. 562 to Amendmenet No. 358
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I send amendment No. 562 to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 562.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding, and authorize
appropriations for, part F of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965)
At the end of title IX, add the following:
SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The afterschool programs provided through 21st Century
Community Learning Centers grants are proven strategies that
should be encouraged.
(2) The demand for afterschool education is very high, with
over 7,000,000 children without afterschool opportunities.
(3) Afterschool programs improve education achievement and
have widespread support, with over 80 percent of the American
people supporting such programs.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) Congress should continue toward the goal of providing
the necessary funding for afterschool program by
appropriating the authorized level of $1,500,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 to carry out part F title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
(2) such funding should be the benchmark for future years
in order to reach the goal of providing academically enriched
activities during after school hours for the 7,000,000
children in need.
Amendment No. 803 to Amendment No. 562
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 803 to amendment No. 562.
The amendment is as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Equal Access to Public
School Facilities Act.''
SEC. 2. EQUAL ACCESS.
In General.--No public elementary school, public secondary
school, local educational agency, or State educational
agency, may deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet
after school in a designated open forum to any youth group,
including the Boy Scouts of America, based on that group's
favorable or unfavorable position concerning sexual
orientation.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I need literally a minute.
In this amendment, we are codifying what the Supreme Court has said,
and that is every group, including the Boy Scouts, has equal access to
school facilities. It is very simple. It is very straightforward. It
stays away from the can of worms we believe was opened in the Helms
amendment.
I hope all of our colleagues, 100 strong, will vote in favor of this
simple, straightforward statement that all groups, regardless of their
viewpoint, be allowed equal access to the public schools.
I yield the floor. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this
amendment, and I wish to express some concerns regarding it.
We just adopted an amendment which I think addressed the issue at the
core, and that was concerning the treatment of the Boy Scouts of
America.
The Boy Scouts of America, as many people know, has been recently
pursued by a number of organizations saying they were not going to
allow them to
[[Page S6270]]
participate and use public schools for Boy Scout meetings. That was the
direction of the amendment on which we worked.
I will point out what some of the organizations and schools are
pursuing with the Boy Scouts. They are saying: Look, we do not want to
allow them to have access to our schools. We do not want to allow them
to meet.
Listen to some of these examples:
On May 11, 2001, the Associated Press reported the Iowa City School
Board voted to prohibit the Boy Scouts of America from distributing any
information in schools because of the Scouts membership criteria. Greg
Shields, the national spokesman for Boy Scouts of America, said:
We simply ask to be treated the same way as any other
private organization . . . [and] that our free speech and
right to assemble be respected just as we respect those
rights of others.
On February 8, 2001, the Asbury Park Press reported that the State of
New Jersey was considering a rule change that would bar school
districts from renting space to the Boy Scouts because of their
position on homosexuality.
On February 7, 2001, the Arizona Republic reported that the Sunnyside
School District in Tucson decided to charge the Boy Scouts of America
fees to use school facilities, even though no other groups have to pay
fees.
The ACLU executive director said:
While Boy Scouts, atheists, Nazis, even satanists have the
right to express their views, Government should not use
public money to promote them.
On January 28, 2001, the Boston Globe reported that the Acton School
Committee in Massachusetts decided to prevent the Boy Scouts from
distributing literature at school, even though other groups can do so.
Defending its actions, Acton School Committee cited Massachusetts law
which says schools cannot sponsor the Boy Scouts.
On January 14, 2001, the New York Times reported that New York's
Chappaqua School District officials were able to coerce two local Boy
Scout troops to sign a document that denounced the national policies of
the Boy Scouts of America as a condition for allowing these troops
access to school property.
I have several more pages of examples. The reason I wanted to point
these out is to show what the problem is, and that is, the Boy Scouts
are being threatened to have access to public schools denied. That is
the reason for the amendment. That was the reason for the Helms
amendment.
The Boy Scouts is a 90-year-old organization with millions of members
in the country. My guess is a fair number of Members of this body were
Boy Scouts or their children are Boy Scouts. Senator Nelson of Nebraska
was an Eagle Scout. Senator Smith of Oregon was an Eagle Scout. Senator
Enzi's son was an Eagle Scout. Senator Landrieu's family members were
Eagle Scouts.
My point in saying this is here is an organization that has been next
to God and country and mom and apple pie for as long as we can think
of, and it is being pursued. It is being pursued, being castigated. The
ACLU executive director mentioned the Boy Scouts in the same sentence
as atheists, Nazis, and satanists. They are trying to categorize them
in a dark category, a negative category, and all they want to do is do
a good deed daily. That is their motto. They are being pursued.
What did we do? What was the response this body voted on by a bare
margin of victory? This body said we are not going to tolerate them
being pursued or kept out of school buildings. We said in this
amendment: If you are going to try to keep them out of school
buildings, then we are going to review the Federal funding for you
because we so strongly believe in this organization--90 years old,
basic value training, character training in which many people in this
body participated.
The Senator from California then proposes an additional amendment
apparently trying to address much of the same topic. In that amendment,
she puts forward:
No public elementary school, public secondary school, local
educational agency, or State educational agency, may deny
equal access to meet after school in designated open forum to
any youth group, including the Boy Scouts of America, based
on that group's favorable or unfavorable viewpoint concerning
sexual orientation.
She is trying to cover it. The problem is it does not cover it. It
does not cover this for the Boy Scouts. It does not have any
enforcement mechanism for the Boy Scouts. They are going to have to go
into court with this language the same as they would right now to try
to get access to public schools in school districts across the country
that are trying to deny them access.
What we did instead was flip the burden. We flipped it to the school
districts, saying: If you are going to deny the Boy Scouts, you are
going to have to state why and clearly to the Federal educational
agency if you are going to continue to get Federal funds. We put the
onus and burden on the school districts in the Helms amendment, which
is the proper and appropriate place to put it, instead of draining
these private coffers of the Boy Scouts of America to pursue lawsuit
after lawsuit in various jurisdictions to simply get access to public
schools.
What do you want to do? The Boxer amendment, while on its face would
look fine, puts the burden back on the Boy Scouts. It says the Boy
Scouts are going to have to go to court to get access. You have this
law, yes; you have the Supreme Court ruling; but you are going to have
to go to court and spend thousands and, at the end of the day, millions
of dollars to get access to public schools for the Boy Scouts of
America. Let's deny apple pie access to public schools next. They are
going to make the Boy Scouts spend millions of dollars to get in and
have a meeting at the public school.
That is not appropriate. That is not the right place, to put this
burden on the Boy Scouts. They raise private moneys to do character
education and do what all of us laud, I believe, in this body. I
believe all of us laud the Boy Scouts and what they are after and what
they are doing. Maybe that is not the case. Maybe some do not. I hope
everybody supports the Boy Scouts.
This is not the right way to go. The Boxer amendment puts the burden
back on the Boy Scouts to spend millions of dollars to fight their way
into public schools. We should not do that. We do not need to do that.
I would rather the Boy Scouts spend millions of dollars on camping,
doing things as a scouting troop, as my son did when he was a part of
the Boy Scouts, as some of the Eagle Scouts here did. I would rather
they buy campgrounds and land to explore and take care of
underprivileged youth, as Boy Scouts do across the country. I would
rather they take underprivileged youth from inner cities as part of the
Boy Scouts, take them to the countryside and camp and spend millions of
dollars doing that rather than millions of dollars in court simply to
gain access to the public educational institutions in our country for
which we provide substantial funding.
That is why this amendment is flawed and should fail and why I oppose
this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to oppose and vote against this amendment
because we are shifting the burden back to the Boy Scouts and making
them fight their way into the public schools. We really do not need to
do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. With all due respect to my distinguished colleague, I
don't quite understand the argument that the Boy Scouts will have to
fight their way into the schools. Constitutionally, they cannot be
denied access to the schools now. They cannot be denied access. I
suspect if one argues that you are going to have to fight your way in,
there is the implication a lot of schools are trying to keep the Boy
Scouts out.
Second, since Brown v. The Board, you cannot keep black kids from
going to school. If we had an amendment that took the language out of
Brown, parroted it, as my distinguished colleague from California does,
from the 1998 Supreme Court case that sets out this principle--we
cannot do this--it means every black child has to spend thousands of
dollars to fight their way into the schools.
One of the things that distinguishes the United States of America,
when the Supreme Court of the United States speaks clearly, and
particularly when the Senate then legislatively parrots the exact
language that the Supreme Court uses--guess what. The American
[[Page S6271]]
people, even those who do not agree, obey. That is the pattern we have
in this country.
The idea that there will be Boy Scouts--and I was a Boy Scout and
proud of it; I was an Explorer Scout; I support the Scouts; I will
match my merit badges against my colleague's merit badges--Boy Scouts
standing with tin cups in front of schools saying, ``We need to raise
money to go to Federal court to make sure we can get in,'' is not going
to happen. Theoretically, it could happen, just as theoretically today
a school in the State of Delaware, or Kansas, could say, ``We will not
let black folks in.'' Theoretically, that can happen. Guess what. The
black parents have to go to court.
This is as much a threat to the Boy Scouts having to raise millions
and millions of dollars as black folks having to raise millions and
millions to get access to public schools. There is a constitutional
amendment.
My friend--and he knows he is my friend--Senator Helms from North
Carolina, has an amendment that I voted against. I think it got pretty
well cleaned up by the Byrd amendment, but it has some arcane problems.
I will not take the time of Senators and bore them, but the reason it
is probably still unconstitutional, although I have no objection to the
way it got cleaned up--the reason it is arguably still unconstitutional
is it is not content neutral because--and this is a constitutional
principle--we will deny a school district funds--money--if in fact they
discriminate, they violate the Constitution, by not letting in Boy
Scouts or like organizations that determine their leadership based on
criteria that are their own, to which others may object.
The problem with that is, technically, constitutionally, it does not
include every group in the world. It does not include every group in
the world. It is no longer viewpoint neutral. It says we are only going
to penalize school districts that discriminate against one type of
organization as opposed to all. I know that is not my friend's
intention, but that is why the amendment is still probably flawed,
although I am willing to take a chance on it.
As I said to my friend from California, I am not sure this amendment
is needed. I will support it. I think we all should support it. All we
are doing is supporting the Supreme Court decision.
On this idea that we have to go further, then it seems to me you
should say, okay, we will cut off all moneys to all schools that
violate the Supreme Court's rulings that you are not allowed to have
organized prayer. How about that one? Does anybody want to sign up on
that one? Same folks who want to sign up on this want to sign up on
that? I don't think so. I don't think we will have people running
across the aisle saying, look, if that school district or that school
allowed organized prayer--and I am not opposed to prayer, obviously,
but that is what the Supreme Court said, in a Supreme Court decision.
What is done if a school violates the decision? Bring an action. Very
few schools violate. But to make the Helms amendment content neutral--
and I did not want to start playing games, and I know occasionally it
is suggested I am too constitutional. The mistake I make is I teach
constitutional law. My mother would say a little bit of knowledge is a
dangerous thing.
The truth is, if you wanted to make the Helms amendment pass
constitutional muster, you could arguably say, OK, as long as you do
not discriminate, you deny school funds to any school district that
violated any constitutional right of anybody. That is why technically
it is not constitutional. It doesn't do that. It protects only one
viewpoint as opposed to all viewpoints.
I don't want to get into that because the truth is, we all know on
this floor, nobody, if we are a private citizen, is going to go home to
the school district and say, by the way, I don't like the fact that the
Boy Scouts don't allow homosexual Scout leaders so I will go to the
school board meeting tomorrow and insist they be blocked access to my
school.
This is a bit of a charade. Everybody on the floor supports the Boy
Scouts. We may disagree whether they should or should not allow
homosexuals to be members. And I think they should. We may disagree on
that. But no one disagrees on the ruling of the Supreme Court which
says you cannot discriminate against them because the Court ruled it is
OK for this organization to say we don't want homosexual Scout leaders.
That is what the Supreme Court said. It is OK. I accept that. It is the
Supreme Court of the United States of America.
I also accept the fact that the Supreme Court says you cannot
discriminate against the Boy Scouts because of the decision they made.
I think it is Kafkaesque. We are arguing about something on which we
don't disagree. This is about politics. This is a political game we are
playing. It is a joke--who is more Boy Scout. I am as big a Boy Scout
as anyone here. We can all compare merit badges and our support for the
Boy Scouts. So let's not make a mockery of this thing.
The fact is there is a technical, legal, constitutional argument that
the last amendment is unconstitutional. That is the core of the
objection of those who voted for it before it got amended. After it has
been amended, it is arguably still unconstitutional. I am willing to
take a chance on it. I am satisfied to let it go at that.
This clearly is constitutional. This clearly restates what I thought
we all want. No school district can deny Boy Scouts access if they have
access for anybody.
Again, I conclude by saying the idea this could cost the Boy Scouts
millions of dollars I find a bit of a stretch.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I rise in opposition to the amendment and point out one of
the real values of Boy Scouts is that it isn't designed to be
competitive. It isn't designed to see who is the best Boy Scout, who
has the most merit badges, who has better merit badges. It is designed
to teach young men good values. It is designed to teach young men about
the world. It is designed to teach young men about possible careers.
That is being thwarted.
I will not repeat everything I said this morning. I am sure that is a
relief. I hope Members look at the record. I am convinced they did not
pay attention when I spoke earlier. An important point: The record of
five cases a year ago, where the Boy Scouts had to go to court. We are
not talking hypothetical; we are not talking about the possibility that
somebody's constitutional rights were violated. We are talking about
actual situations. Some of those will be resolved over the years at
great cost. We are not talking hypothetical on the cost either.
I am not going to pretend to be a constitutional lawyer because I am
one of the few people here who is not a lawyer at all. But I was a Boy
Scout. I am watching what is happening to the Boy Scouts in this
country.
Five times in the year 2000, this instance came up. I have to tell
you, already this year, eight times. That is just ones that I was able
to find, which means they are ones that made national press. It doesn't
mean it is all the instances of it happening.
The five last year and the eight this year are cases where it
happened in school. I am not talking about all of the discrimination
that there is out there against the Boy Scouts. I am just talking about
in school.
We cleared up the definitional problem that I think would have made
that a near unanimous vote before. It should have made it a near
unanimous vote before. Now we have an amendment that tries to eliminate
anything that the Helms amendment could have done. Here is how it
eliminates it. It does it in two ways.
It eliminates the enforcement mechanism. There was not anything in
the Helms amendment that automatically took money away from schools.
There was a review process. If the review process said they
discriminated, there was the possibility that they would lose their
funds.
Enforcement: There is no enforcement in this amendment. It may say
what the Constitution says, but it doesn't provide enforcement. The
amendment we agreed to before, that provides enforcement.
The second problem is this one allows discrimination against the Boy
Scouts. The wording in here does not preclude--this is a big problem
with the school--does not preclude charging them exorbitant rates. They
would still
[[Page S6272]]
have equal access; they would have, depending on how you took it to
court, a fair opportunity. But it would not be the same thing as in the
Helms amendment where you could not be charged discriminatory fees to
keep the Scouts out. Every one of those things would require another
court action.
I am not an attorney. I am told a lot, when I go back to Wyoming,
that one of the problems in this country is we have too many attorneys.
They talk about the old towns in the West where the first attorney came
to town and he went broke. In other towns the first attorney came to
town, he was accompanied by another attorney, and they both did very
well. That is what is happening to the Boy Scouts. We have enough
attorneys; they can all do very well at the expense of the Boy Scouts.
The dollars being spent on litigation ought to be spent on good
programs for youth. We have been talking throughout the education bill
about the need to do things for youth, the need to have kids taken care
of after school. This is an organization where you do not take care of
the kids after school, the kids help take care of us after school. We
are talking about a communitarianism group, a group focused on helping
their community through their volunteer efforts.
In order to get your Eagle award you have to do a community project--
not a personal project, not a family project. It has to be a community
project. So these kids get to find out what voluntarism is. It is not
voluntarism for them. It is that grand distinction; it is for other
people, that chance to do something for other people.
We need to make sure every time we can get a free program such as the
Boy Scouts that will teach character and take care of the community, we
do everything we can to promote it. We have taken care of this through
the Helms amendment. We can destroy it through the Boxer amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, as soon as Senator Reid is done, I will
claim the floor.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I wanted to ask a question of the manager.
I am speaking to a Chamber empty on the minority side.
The question we have on this side is, When, if at all, are we going
to vote on this? Does anybody know? Maybe one of the managers is in the
back. It is now 4 o'clock, approximately. We have an amendment that
says:
No public elementary school, public secondary school, local
educational agency, or State education agency, may deny equal
access or a fair opportunity to meet after school in a
designated open forum to any youth group, including the Boy
Scouts of America, based on that group's favorable or
unfavorable viewpoint concerning sexual orientation.
A little different from my friend from Wyoming, I am a lawyer. If
there is something wrong with this legally, I suggest voting against it
as some did on the underlying amendment that passed. It does not seem
to me, at this late time, we are going to benefit by continuing to talk
about this. So I would like to get something from the minority.
This morning I talked to Senator Helms. He said he wanted 4 more
hours. That at least gives people an idea how much time it will take.
Does anyone have any idea how much longer the minority wishes to debate
this 1-paragraph amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, as far as I am aware, I am the last
speaker. I was just waiting to get an opportunity to speak.
I do not know. There may be someone else over here who is welling up
in their chest with a speech, but as far as I know, I am it.
Mr. REID. I will say to my friend, if they are not now, they will
after your speech.
Mr. GRAMM. Maybe there will be a rush of people on your side,
although I do not think so. I would not want to defend this amendment.
Mr. REID. The Senator from California yielded to me. I apologize to
my friend from Texas. I return the floor to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. I say thank you to my friend from Texas. I will only
speak for about 60 seconds, and then I am happy to yield the floor.
There are some days when I wonder where I am and what I am doing.
This is really one of those days.
I have an amendment that simply codifies a Court decision that was a
victory for the Boy Scouts of America. When it was announced, everyone
said: OK, in our Nation, regardless of an organization's viewpoint,
they have a right to equal access to our public schools; freedom of
speech. For those people, and I count myself among them, who believe we
are all God's children, and I abhor discrimination against anyone for
any reason, including their sexual orientation, I thought: This is
tough because if a school district really has a strong feeling and they
believe this to be a fight for civil rights, they are still going to
have to let the Boy Scouts in. But that is America. We allow equal
access and that is the way it is.
Now I have an amendment that simply guarantees this equal access,
that says the Senate agrees on equal access for all groups, whatever
their view is on sexual orientation. And I have people who stand up and
say I am undoing the Boy Scouts.
Again, my most enduring memory of my little girl, who is now a mother
herself, is her in her little outfit when she was a little Brownie, and
the character building that went with that. So no one can get up on the
other side and say Members on this side do not care. We do care.
This amendment, again--and then I will yield the floor to my friend
because I know he has reasons that he is against this, and I am
interested to hear his explanation--simply says what the Supreme Court
said: Equal access for the Boy Scouts to every single public school in
America because every group, regardless of their viewpoint, has a right
to have such equal access.
So I am kind of glad I proposed this amendment. I am kind of stunned
that anyone would be against it. But that is their right, their
privilege. As a matter of fact, it is their duty if they find something
wrong with it. But I thought the Supreme Court decision was cheered by
the Boy Scouts, and I am a little stunned that my Republican friends
somehow do not view it that way.
I hope we will have a bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if someone showed up from Mars and
listened to this discussion, I am sure they would be convinced that
this was somehow a simple amendment that was protecting the Boy Scouts.
But they would be convinced only if they showed up in the last 30
minutes, because we spent much of this day debating and voting on an
amendment by Senator Helms that said if a school system denied access
of facilities on a nondiscriminatory basis to the Boy Scouts of
America, they would lose Federal funds.
In listening to our dear colleague from California, you would think
Boy Scouts using public schools would be a noncontroversial amendment.
Maybe if you came from Mars 30 minutes ago you would be convinced of
that. But if you came from Mars an hour ago, you would realize that
after a lengthy debate 49 Members of the Senate voted to not deny
Federal funds to school systems that discriminate against the Boy
Scouts of America. We had a vote on exactly this subject. The vote was
51-49.
What is wrong with the amendment that is before us? There are several
things that are wrong with it. I think I can explain it pretty simply.
First of all, we have an unequivocal statement in the bill right now
with a Helms amendment that says you lose Federal funds if you deny the
Boy Scouts of America the ability to use your facilities after school
on a nondiscriminatory basis.
How does the Helms amendment work? It has an enforcement mechanism.
That enforcement mechanism is, you lose Federal funds. So the Boy
Scouts of America don't have to go out and hire a lawyer, go to the
district court, the circuit court, and the Supreme Court to get to use
the local schools for Scout meetings after school. The Helms amendment
has an enforcement mechanism in it.
Second, the Helms amendment says the Boy Scouts can use the
schoolhouse on a nondiscriminatory basis, which means they cannot be
charged a higher fee than anybody else. They cannot face separate rules
than anybody else, where they could be denied
[[Page S6273]]
the right to hand out material, for example. That is the Helms
amendment. That is the position of the education bill as it now stands.
We voted on that issue. The vote was 51-49. Where I come from, that
is about as close as you can get and have a determinant result.
Now in comes this amendment which says no public elementary school or
public secondary school or local education agency or State agency may
deny equal access. No one is opposed to this freestanding, but this now
clouds the position of the underlying bill.
Why is this amendment a very weak amendment which does virtually
nothing to protect the Boy Scouts? Let me explain why.
First of all, there is no enforcement mechanism. Unlike the Helms
amendment, which is currently part of this bill, there is no
enforcement mechanism if a school violates the law. What would that
force the Boy Scouts of America to do? It would force the local troop
to hire a lawyer and to go to court. You could literally dissipate the
assets of the Boy Scouts of America in trying to enforce a bill that
has no enforcement clause in it.
The amendment which is now in the bill, which is undercut by adding
this amendment to it, has an enforcement mechanism, because you lose
funding, and any school faced with giving up Federal funding is going
to allow the Boy Scouts to use their facility.
Second, this amendment does not guarantee that the Boy Scouts would
be able to use the facility on an equal basis. They couldn't
discriminate against the Boy Scouts or anybody else in terms of using
it. But it does not have a provision, as the Helms amendment does, to
guarantee that you don't have to pay a higher fee or that you wouldn't
get to use it on an equal basis or you wouldn't be able to hand out
materials
I am not saying this is a bad amendment. If this had been offered
freestanding, if we had not debated the other amendment all day long, I
think some might have found some merit in it.
My point is, we have a provision in the bill that has an enforcement
mechanism, which this does not. We have an unequivocal statement in the
bill that was passed 51-49. My basic position is that this actually
weakens the bill by putting two provisions in it, one which is strong
and enforceable and has an enforcement mechanism, and one which does
not.
Therefore, my view is, with all due respect, that we have already
decided this on a 51-49 vote, and if your objective is to guarantee
that the Boy Scouts of America get to use the schoolhouse like other
organizations, then the thing to do would be to leave the provision
which is currently in the bill there and to reject this amendment.
If we adopt this amendment, then we have two amendments in the bill
that are very different. Then you are going to leave it up to conferees
to decide which one they want to take.
If your objective is to have the strongest possible language for the
Boy Scouts, I assert--this is a free country, and people have their own
opinions--that the way to keep the strongest language is to not dilute
it by putting weaker language without an enforcement mechanism next to
it. With all due respect, that is why I am going to vote no on it.
I would be very happy to yield to my dear friend.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a brief
comment and question, my objective is to make sure the Boy Scouts have
access to the school.
My worry is, having been the guy who wrote the statutory language on
flag burning, the Supreme Court is going to rule unconstitutional the
Helms amendment, if you pass it. Ask any conservative or liberal
lawyer. There is a 60-percent chance that will happen.
I view it in the exact opposite way, although approaching it with the
same objective as my friend from Texas does. The reason to include this
other provision is to have a fail-safe constitutional guarantee because
what the Court is going to say on the Helms amendment--which I support
as amended--is the following. It is going to say that you do not have a
guarantee to take away funds from any school district that denies
homosexual organizations the right to be in the school. You do not deny
funds to any organization or any school that denies or permits prayer
in school, which is unconstitutional.
The Court is going to look at it and say it is not content neutral.
That is what I mean. I know my friend from Texas knows as well. That is
why--it is not content neutral--the same rationale that declared my
constitutional statute against flag burning unconstitutional. It was
not content neutral.
I argue, for those of you who truly want to make sure the Boy Scouts
have access, even if you voted for and support the Helms amendment--
which I think is a reasonable position--you should vote for this
amendment as well because it guarantees you double protection.
This is clearly, unequivocally constitutional. The Helms amendment,
as amended, is unquestionably constitutional.
I yield the floor. I thank my colleague.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, responding very briefly, first of all, if
you believe a provision is unconstitutional, in my opinion, you ought
to vote against it. We sort of hide behind this idea of ``let the
Supreme Court decide.'' But when we put our hand on the Bible and swear
to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, in my opinion, we are
swearing to do that.
I personally do not believe the Helms amendment is unconstitutional.
We have passed amendments and bills all the time that deny or grant
Federal funds based on what a school system does. But everybody has
their own opinion about that.
My basic position is that the Helms amendment is quite strong and has
an enforcement mechanism. This amendment would require that the Boy
Scout troops all over America get lawyers and go to court on an
individual basis. It would be really unenforceable, except with the
expenditure of tremendous amounts of money that the Boy Scouts don't
have.
I think we have a strong measure in the bill now. Fifty-one Members
voted for it. My suggestion is, keep it strong if you want the Boy
Scouts in schools, and I would vote no on this. Obviously, people have
other opinions. That is why----
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?
Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I also appreciate the
discussion on the amendment.
I may be off base, but I am reading the amendment, and it says:
. . . State educational agency, may deny equal access or a
fair opportunity to meet after school in a designated open
forum to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts of
America, based on that group's favorable or unfavorable
position concerning sexual orientation.
Maybe I am misreading that, but it looks to me as if it is an
invitation for gay activist groups, for all kinds of groups, to meet.
If you give access to the Boy Scouts, then you have to give access to
gay activists in elementary schools, grade schools, schools up to the
12th grade, senior high schools.
Mr. GRAMM. May I respond to that?
Mr. NICKLES. Please do.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me respond by saying, remember Senator Byrd got up and
asked that we change the Helms amendment because it had language in it
that said ``or other groups.'' So the argument was made by Senator Byrd
that the language in the Helms amendment that said ``other groups'' was
so vague that it could include Nazis, skinheads.
My point is, this language is at least as broad as the language we
took out of the Helms amendment because this requires that they open it
up to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts. And the question is,
Do we want to force public schools to open up to skinheads? Or to the
Ku Klux Klan? I do not think we do.
Senator Byrd made the point. I supported him in changing the Helms
amendment because it said: Boy Scouts or other groups. And we made that
change by unanimous consent.
Now we have this amendment before us that says that we open it up
``to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts'' without regard to
their view on sexual orientation. But what about their view on America
or race or numerous other things?
[[Page S6274]]
I am saying that the criticism Senator Byrd raised of the Helms
amendment--that it opened it up for all these hate groups--that same
criticism can, and I think should, be leveled against this amendment.
Maybe it should be corrected by modifying these other youth groups to
assure they are groups that have a Federal patent, for example.
But I simply say that the point Senator Byrd made was as valid
against this amendment as it was against the Helms amendment and we
changed the Helms amendment.
Amendment No. 803, As Modified
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make that
modification, as we allowed that modification to be made in the Helms
amendment, to mirror that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Is there objection?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. GRAMM. No, let's not object.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I just want to understand.
Mrs. BOXER. Instead of saying ``other youth groups,'' we would say
that have a national charter. It would mirror the Helms amendment.
Mr. BROWNBACK. OK. So you would insert that language? You would
strike the language ``any other youth group'' and instead insert those
in section 36?
Mrs. BOXER. That is absolutely correct. We would do it the same way
we allowed you to modify yours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the
following:
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE
This title may be cited as the ``Equal Access to Public
School Facilities Act.''
SEC. 2. EQUAL ACCESS
In General.--No public elementary school, public secondary
school, local educational agency, or State educational
agency, may deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet
after school in a designated open forum to any youth group,
listed in title 36 of the U.S. Code as a patriotic society,
including the Boy Scouts of America, based on that group's
favorable or unfavorable position concerning sexual
orientation.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague for making that point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. I am glad that correction was made, but that does not
change any of the other points I made. There is no enforcement
mechanism here. We have a provision in the bill that does have an
enforcement mechanism. So we are weakening our commitment to it by
putting this amendment in the bill.
Secondly, we do not have any guarantees that the Boy Scouts--while
they might be permitted to come to the school grounds, they might be
charged a higher fee or separate conditions may be imposed on them. And
for both those reasons, I believe this amendment ought to be rejected.
We have already acted on it. It was a tough vote. It was 51-49 as to
who wanted to guarantee the right to the Boy Scouts. I think we have
spoken. I think this is a weaker amendment.
I hope we will not move away from the strong, unequivocal position we
took that the Boy Scouts of America, and their commitment to God and
country, is a commitment we believe belongs in every schoolhouse in
America where they want to operate. So I urge my colleagues to reject
the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this week, this month, we have been
seeking to redefine the role of the Federal Government in education in
our country.
For much of this day we have spent our time in this Chamber trying to
make sure that Boy Scouts have the opportunity to have their meetings
and their activities in our public schools.
As a number of my colleagues, I was a Boy Scout. As a number of our
colleagues, I am the father of not one Boy Scout but two Boy Scouts.
One just made Star this past week, two steps away from Eagle. The other
guy is a new guy, brand new, just was a Weeblo, just crossed over. He
is going camping tomorrow night with Troop 67 to Lum's Pond outside
Newark, DE.
My friends, we have talked about this long enough today. I suggest
that we call a halt to this debate and go ahead and vote. There are
those of us who want to go camping with the Boy Scouts this weekend. I
don't want to be here tomorrow night talking about this issue; I want
to be camping.
Mr. REID. I would ask we vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have a couple comments I would like
to make regarding this amendment.
We have talked in the abstract on this issue of: Will the Boy Scouts
have to sue to get into schools or will they not? There have been some
allegations made. Several Members have said this is not the case.
I want to put a real case in front of us. On January 11, 2001, the
News & Observer reported that the Chapel Hill-Carroboro school board
voted to give Scouts until June to either go against the rule of their
organization or lose their sponsorship and meeting places in schools.
That was January of this year. That school board says: By June, you
either change--go against the Boy Scouts organization--or lose your
privileges to get into the schools.
We have two different proposals in front of us: the Helms amendment
that was adopted and the Boxer amendment that is being proposed.
Under the Helms amendment that was adopted, the school board in this
district would be the one that would have to say: This is why we are
blocking the Boy Scouts from being in this school. This is what we are
doing. And if they don't, if they don't have the rationale, then they
are going to lose their Federal funding.
Under the Boxer amendment, which is basically the current law, the
Boy Scouts have to sue to say: We have a right to be in this school.
That is the law today. The Boxer amendment just basically renews the
law as it is currently today. The Boy Scouts would have to sue to say:
Look, we are not going to go against our Federal charter, and we still
want into the school. This is current law, what this school district
did. The Boxer amendment basically puts forward current law again. So
the Boy Scouts would have to hire a bunch of lawyers to go against the
school district--in this situation as well as in hundreds of thousands
of situations across the country--to get into the school.
That is a real live case. That is an example of what we are talking
about. The Boxer amendment does not cure that.
On the other hand, the Helms amendment that was adopted--by a very
tight vote, a close vote--would say that the Department of Education
goes to the Chapel Hill School District and says: Why are you blocking
the Boy Scouts? And if you are going to continue down this road, we are
going to pull Federal funding. So then it is on the school districts,
in that particular case, to defend as to why they are blocking the Boy
Scouts or they will get their Federal funding pulled.
The Boy Scouts have an access to be able to get in. They have a tool
to be able to get there. On the other side, they have to fight their
way through court. And for those who are saying: You are dreaming up
cases, here is an example:
I read five others when I took the floor earlier. There are more that
I could read. The simple point of this is, thankfully, the amendment is
being changed some, so it is not all organizations--skinheads and
others, but the fact of it is, who are you going to put the burden on,
on the school district or are you going to put it on the Boy Scouts?
The Boxer amendment puts it on the Boy Scouts. The Helms amendment
puts it on the school district. I hope we will all say we want the Boy
Scouts in the schools. We don't want to charge them a bunch of money to
get there. We don't want to charge undue fees. We don't want to charge
them more to be able to get into the schools. That is the point.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment, if they
support the Boy Scouts and keeping them from having to spend a lot of
money just to get into the schools, places where they presently deserve
to be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
803, as modified.
[[Page S6275]]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from 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 52, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--47
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Inouye
The amendment (No. 803), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
562, as amended.
The amendment (No. 562), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this might not be the case, but there is
a possibility that it might be the case, and that is, to my knowledge,
Senator Clinton is going to speak for 1 to 2 minutes on her amendment,
and I understand it is going to be accepted.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator let me speak?
Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act.
Education no longer simply involves students learning the
fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Rather, students must
possess the resources to compete and succeed as we proceed into the
new, highly technical millennium. The computer and the Internet have
become integrated into every aspect of our lives, and are becoming
essential teaching tools in our schools and a basic component of any
classroom.
To meet this challenge, we must strive for innovative ideas and to
determine exactly how we can maximize the Federal Government's
resources because: Even on its best day the Federal Government can
never be a replacement for local administrators, educators, and
parents.
Simply put, New Mexicans are in a far better position to know exactly
what our schools and students need than government officials here in
Washington.
Most Washingtonians probably do not know the Corona School District
has 82 students, the Deming School District has 5,300 students, and the
Albuquerque School District has 85,000 students. Additionally, the
Gallup School District encompasses nearly 5,000 square miles, an area
greater than Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
My point is simple, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot work in New
Mexico and will not work in many areas of our country. Consequently, we
must have solutions that are flexible and meet the diverse needs of our
States, school districts, and schools.
I want to take a couple of minutes and provide my perspective on how
we arrive at the point we are today with the BEST bill.
Not too long ago during the mid 1990's a number of us came to the
conclusion that the current K-12 education status quo could no longer
be maintained. I think this realization may have been spurred by
Senator Frist's excellent work as the chair of the Senate Budget
Committee Task Force on Education. The task force produced: ``Prospects
for Reform: The State of American Education and the Federal role.''
The report asked the simple question of ``how well are our children
doing?'' The answer was mediocre at best because student achievement
had stagnated over the past two decades even though America had
established a record of near universal access and completion of high
school. Thus, the report concluded that we must address the issue of a
quality educational system. In other words the need for academic
competence and rigor.
Building upon the excellent work of the Task Force, Senator Frist
soon introduced the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999
commonly referred to as Ed-Flex. The bill simply said: one size does
not fit all and thus, States should be allowed to waive-out of the
regulations pertaining to certain Federal K-12 education programs.
Ed-Flex already existed as part of a demonstration program and
Senator Frist's bill merely sought to provide all 50 States within that
same flexibility. The Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly by a vote
of 98-1 and within a month the President had signed the measure into
law. Unfortunately, after the passage of Ed-Flex for a variety of
reasons there was not any further fundamental changes made to our K-12
system. Instead, since the last reauthorization of the ESEA in 1994
there is no approach that we learned is a complete failure: merely
providing more funding.
In 1996 the Federal Government spend about $23 billion on education
and within a few short years the number ballooned to over $42 billion
in FY 2001. The logical conclusion is that a near doubling of
educational funding would result in dramatic improvements in student
achievement. Sadly, for all of our funding we simply do not have the
matching results.
For instance, in 1996 the average reading score for a 4th grader was
212 and the Federal Government spent about $11 billion on the ESEA.
Five years later, Federal spending on the ESEA has nearly doubled to
$20 million, while the average reading score of a 4th grader remained
at 212.
In New Mexico, the number of 4th graders testing at or above
proficient in reading actually fell from 23 percent in 1992 to 22
percent in 1998. I submit that we are not receiving a very good return
on our investment, a near doubling of funding with no corresponding
improvement. Imagine savings a greater and greater portion of your
paycheck each week and after 5 years actually having less money. I
think it is fair to say that very few individuals would stand for these
results, if instead of students we were talking about our retirement
savings.
Thus, we are now debating the BEST bill because many of us believe we
simply must have a new approach to measuring academic success. The bill
fundamentally alters the practice of Washington deciding the best
educational practices and then distributing increasingly greater and
greater sums of money without any accountability.
Make no mistake, we have not abandoned our commitment to providing
the necessary resources to our States and school districts. In fiscal
year 2001 ESEA spending totaled $18.4 billion.
President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal requested a $19.1
billion authorization for ESEA for fiscal year 2002, a 9-percent
increase.
Building upon the President's proposal, the FY 2002 budget resolution
includes the President's 9-percent increase in federal education
spending for reading education, the Individuals and Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA, and teacher training.
I think it is also important to note that on May 3 when the Senate
began debate, the BEST bill already authorized $27.7 billion for ESEA
in FY 2002, a 57-percent increase over 2001 and nearly
[[Page S6276]]
$190 billion over the authorization period of FY 2002-2008.
If one does not believe that is enough then you will be interested to
hear how much spending we have added since May 3:
$11 billion in ESEA and other education spending for a total of $38.8
billion in FY 2002, an increase of 120 percent over FY 2001.
$211 billion in ESEA and other education spending for a total of $416
billion over the seven year authorization period of the bill.
And of that total, $112 billion is mandatory spending under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
With the preceding as a backdrop, I believe the BEST bill follows the
President's promise to leave no child behind by ensuring academic
success through a fresh approach to education like: Accountability.
Our schools will be held accountable for their progress in educating
our children through high standards, testing, and consequences for
failure.
Every child in grades 3-8 will be tested in reading and math
proficiency annually. In New Mexico alone about 151,000 students will
be tested. Also, the State will receive an additional $4.5 million next
year and more than $33 million over the next 7 years to offset any new
costs.
Instead of simply continuing to receive increased Federal funding in
the face of failure, schools will now face consequences for persistent
failure.
Schools failing to demonstrate improvement will face corrective
action, parents will be given the option of public school choice and
supplemental services for their children, and ultimately a school's
persistent failure could lead to reconstitution.
Consolidation of duplicative education programs will provide maximum
local flexibility to focus on improving student achievement. For
instance, title II of the BEST bill created a new State teacher
development grant program with a substantially larger pot of money by
combining all of the current teacher funding. States will have the
option to use the funding for professional development, teacher
mentoring, merit pay, teacher testing, as well as recruiting and
training high-quality teachers.
For example, New Mexico maintains a commendable student-teacher ratio
of 15.2 and under the bill will no longer be required to use a portion
of these funds for class size reduction. Instead, New Mexico will have
the option to use that money for teacher recruitment and retention
programs or maybe additional training.
The new accountability provisions will ensure that historic increases
in Federal education funding will be based upon school performance. The
bill includes the President's Reading First initiative to ensure all
children and kindergarten through third grade become proficient readers
by the end of third grade. The bill also includes programs to create
Math and Science Partnerships, Strengthen After-School Care, and
provide for Early Childhood Reading Instruction.
Parents and the public will be given detailed school-by-school report
cards on the performance of their schools. Parents will have the option
to transfer their child from a failing public school to an effective
public school with transportation provided or to redirect their child's
share of federal funds towards tutoring or after-school academic
services. Parents will be given the option to transfer their child out
of a persistently unsafe public school to another public school of
their choice.
As Congress proceeds, one of its primary missions will be to
determine what is working, what is not working, and what can be
improved to give our children a better chance of succeeding in the
future.
Before I conclude, I want to briefly talk about several provisions
that are of personal importance to me:
First, Senator Dodd and a bipartisan group of Senators joined me
earlier this year to introduce the Strong Character for Strong Schools
Act. I think it is important to note that reform does not only apply
math, science, and reading; instead we must also reform the culture of
our schools.
Our bill will be part of an amendment offered by Senator Cochran and
seeks to encourage the creation of character education programs at the
State and local level by providing grants to eligible entities. I
believe our bill builds upon the highly successful demonstration
program to increase character education that was contained in the last
ESEA bill.
Since 1994, the Department Of Education has made $25 million in
``seed money'' grants available to 28 States to develop character
education programs. Currently, there are 36 States that have either
received federal funding, or have enacted their own laws mandating or
encouraging character education. Thus, the time is now to ensure that
there is a permanent and dedicated funding source available for
character education programs.
I also believe schools must not only have the resources for core
missions like teaching reading, writing, math, and the sciences, but
the additional resources to face emerging challenges.
Thus, I am extremely pleased the Senate has accepted an amendment
authored by Senator Kennedy and I to increase student access to mental
health services by developing links between school districts and the
local mental health system.
School districts would partner with mental health agencies, juvenile
justice authorities, and any other relevant entities to better
coordinate mental health services by: Improving preventive, diagnostic,
and treatment services available to students; providing crisis
intervention services and appropriate referrals for students in need of
mental health services and continuing mental health services; and
educating teachers, principals, administrators, and other school
personnel about the services.
Finally, we must provide our school districts and schools with the
resources to both recruit and retain the best available teachers for
our children.
Earlier this year I introduced the Teacher Recruitment, Development,
and Retention Act of 2001. I am very pleased to see elements of that
bill included in the pending legislation. I am also grateful the Senate
has accepted my amendment that will allow States the option of using
Teacher Quality funds for the creation of Teacher Recruitment Centers.
Teacher Recruitment Centers will serve as statewide clearinghouses for
the recruitment and placement of K-12 teachers. The centers would also
be responsible for creating programs to further teacher recruitment and
retention within the state.
Thank you and I look forward to the working with my colleagues on
this important issue and final passage of this bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, before turning to my tuition tax credit
amendment, I am pleased to inform the people of Arizona that an
agreement has been reached to allow the T.J. Pappas School to remain
open and eligible for federal funds, including homeless education
funds.
As I understand it, a modified version of the amendment I have
offered to secure this objective will be incorporated into the bill
shortly.
The Pappas School is well-known and well-regarded in the greater
Phoenix area because it combines a high-quality education with
essential social services required by the homeless students who attend.
I have visited the school and I believe that the work that they are
doing is good work. I also believe that it would be a grave disservice
to children who have already borne significant misfortune if the
Federal Government deprived them of the opportunity to attend an
institution that serves them so well.
Last fall, President Bush visited the school and came away impressed
by the commitment of the staff and the hope that those dedicated
professionals have instilled in their students.
The agreement that was hammered out by my self, Senator Feinstein,
Senator Murray, and Senator Boxer, revises the language in the
underlying bill to allow Pappas and a number of
[[Page S6277]]
other worthy schools to continue serving children in need. It also
ensures that essential safeguards for homeless students and their
families are protected.
Of course, a homeless child should be able to attend any school he or
she wishes--whether it be the school he or she attended before becoming
homeless, or a school like Pappas that addresses their distinct needs
on a transitional basis with the objective of enabling them to return
to a mainstream school.
I am very pleased that despite some fundamental philosophical
differences, it was possible to reach this agreement.
Mr. President, I want to make a brief statement on behalf of Senator
McCain and myself and others who have worked out the language of an
amendment which will permit some schools for homeless children to
continue to operate.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the
Arizona Republic of June 14, 2001, relating to just one of the success
stories of this school, the Thomas J. Pappas School.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
``From the Arizona Republic, June 14, 2001''
Pappas Valedictory?
sole graduate may be last for school
(By Karina Bland)
Crystal Sumlin is all there is to the Class of 2001,
graduating tonight from the Thomas J. Pappas School for
homeless children.
She is the school's first--and possibly last--graduate
depending on a vote expected today in Congress to ban federal
funding for homeless schools. The School is under fire for
segregating kids from their public school peers.
``If it weren't for Pappas, I don't think I would have made
it to graduation,'' Sumlin said. ``And I know I wouldn't be
going to college.'' The school, open for more than a decade,
added a high school three years ago, so its oldest students
are juniors. But Sumlin, 17, who has almost straight A's--she
got a C in trigonometry--finished her course work a year
early.
Despite the uproar in Congress over her school, Sumlin is
thinking only of finishing up a report on Arizona's
unemployment rate and the new dress she'll wear under her
black cap and gown.
Sumlin, her three younger sisters and little brother have
been at Pappas for three years after a lifetime of switching
schools. One year, she switched schools seven times.
She said her family moves about every three months, usually
because the rent is too high, the landlord complains of too
many kids, or her brother Jason, 16 and in a detention
center, sometimes gets into trouble.
But they've been in the same place since November, the
longest most of the kids remember without a move. They've
lived in a shelter, cheap motels and apartments.
``I hate moving,'' Sumlin said. ``When I got older, I
thought I wanted to travel, but, now, I don't know. I think
I'll find a place and stay in it.''
eye on the ball
Shy at first, Sumlin starts talking and her plans spill
out: Arizona State University in the fall. Maybe a class this
summer to start. She wants to be an attorney.
School officials are helping her apply for financial aid
and promising a scholarship.
``I'm going to be somebody,'' she said.
She is determined, said Mary Michaelis, the school's
student services coordinator. And, unlike many kids at
Pappas, Sumlin is pushed by her mother, Velma Williams, to do
well.
``She is too big on school, my mom is,'' Sumlin said. ``She
says I'm not going to drop out if she has anything to do with
it.''
mom helps out
Williams has everything to do with it. She volunteers at
the school and stops by regularly to check on her kids.
``I push my kids a little harder than most people push
their kids so that they make something of their lives and not
have to work a job like I'm working now,'' Williams said.
She works 40 to 50 hours for less than $300 a week,
collecting bills for a telemarketing company.
She knows about unpaid bills. Her phone doesn't work
because she spent the money on new shoes, stockings and a
rented limousine for Pappas', and the girls', first prom.
They'll eat bologna for a week.
She is raising six kids. Her oldest, Chris, 21, is on his
own in school in Seattle, with no government assistance and
no child support. The kids have no contact with their
fathers.
All the kids need new shoes. She'll buy two pairs this
week, two the week after and two more after that.
``I have always taught them if you want something, you work
for it,'' Williams said. ``You don't expect the next person
to hand it to you.''
pappas picks up the slack
Pappas is the only place her kids have had a chance to do
well, she said. Now, no matter how often they move, they stay
put at school--the same teachers, the same friends.
It is the one stable thing in their lives, their mother
said.
Most schools require kids to live within attending
boundaries or get there on the their own. Pappas buses travel
hundreds of miles a day, picking up kids wherever they live.
Kids can eat, get clothes and even medical treatment there.
Pappas could lose $850,000, almost two-thirds of its annual
budget, if Congress decides today to pull its federal
funding.
Maricopa County Schools Superintendent Sandra Dowling said
she'd come up with the money somehow rather than lose the
school at Fifth Avenue and Van Buren Street.
holding down the fort
Sumlin is in charge in her family's two-bedroom townshouse
near 24th Street and McDowell Road until Mom gets off work,
sometimes 8 or 9 p.m.
In the long afternoons, she weaves complicated braids in
her sister's hair. They listen to music, singing along with
Mariah Carey.
``We don't have vocal skills,'' Sumlin said, laughing.
``But we do it anyway.''
Michael, 9, the youngest and only boy at home, has hazel
eyes and girlfriends in sixth and eighth grades. He wants to
be a firefighter.
Report cards are out. The kids pass them proudly. Berry a
tubby Basset hound, rolls belly up.
Sumlin cooks for the kids, often making spaghetti or
chicken and Rice-A-Roni.
She hopes her family stays put awhile, though she plans to
live in a dormitory at ASU.
Sumlin is nervous about going to college but said, ``I
think I'll be all right as long as I can come home and
visit.''
No matter where home may be.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will briefly explain what we accomplished
in this amendment. An agreement was reached to allow the Thomas J.
Pappas School in Arizona to remain open and eligible for Federal funds,
including these homeless education funds. A modified version of the
amendment I offered to accomplish this will be incorporated into the
bill shortly.
For the information of my colleagues, the Pappas School is well known
and very well regarded in the greater Phoenix area because it combines
a high-quality education with essential social services required by the
homeless students who attend the school.
I have visited the school, and I know the work they are doing is very
good. I also think it would be a grave disservice to the children who
have already borne significant misfortune in their lives if the Federal
Government deprived them of the opportunity to attend an institution
that has served them so well.
Last fall, president Bush visited the school and came away very
impressed by the commitment of the staff and the hope those dedicated
professionals have instilled in their students.
The agreement I speak of was hammered out by Senator Feinstein,
Senator Murray, Senator Boxer, Senator McCain, and myself, and revises
the language in the underlying bill to allow the Pappas School and a
number of other worthy schools to continue serving children in need.
It ensures essential safeguards for homeless students, and their
families are protected. Of course, a homeless child should be able to
attend any school, whether it is the school he or she attended before
becoming homeless or a school that addresses their distinct needs on a
transitional basis with the objective of enabling them to return to a
mainstream school.
I am very pleased, despite fundamental philosophical differences, it
was possible to reach this agreement. We have done something for
homeless children, and for that I think we should be rightly proud.
Secondly, Mr. President, I would like to offer a few words about an
amendment that I will not be offering. I believe that these comments
will go some distance toward explaining the reasons why I plan to vote
against final passage of the bill before us.
Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about
my amendment number 580.
I will not be offering this amendment so that there will be no blue
slip problems with the House.
This amendment, like the Gregg amendment, that--unfortunately--was
defeated earlier this week, would make real reforms that address the
urgent need to improve elementary and secondary education in our
country.
The tax bill that we passed last month takes a very important first
step along these same lines by allowing
[[Page S6278]]
the Coverdell education IRAs to be used not only to facilitate savings
for college education but for grades K through 12 as well.
While the administration of our schools is and should remain a local
responsibility, we have a compelling national interest in improving the
quality of K through 12 education.
And there are ways to discharge that responsibility without adding to
the bureaucracy in Washington and without adding new mandates.
As has been noted repeatedly during debate on this bill: It is a fact
that America is currently not educating the workforce it needs for the
economy of the 21st century. Raising overall achievement will enhance
America's competitiveness.
It is a fact that international tests reveal that American high
school seniors rank 19th out of 21 industrialized nations in
mathematics achievement and 16th out of 21 nations in science
achievement.
Ironically, this threat to our competitiveness is the result of our
failure to apply the very principles undergirding our economy's success
in the area of education.
Our Nation has thrived because our leading industries and
institutions have been challenged by constant pressure to improve and
to innovate. The source of that pressure is vigorous competition among
producers of a service or a good for the allegiance of their potential
customers or consumers.
So why not promote innovation by producers and choice for consumers
in the field of education?
The quasi-monopoly of public education today discourages this
innovation.
We must find a way to promote innovation and opportunity through
greater choice of parents. Those are the concepts that have built this
country through our great free market economic system, and it is the
same concept that can improve our educational system.
The other problem with our education system is that too many of our
children are literally being left behind.
Anyone who has followed this debate has heard the particulars, but
they demand our repeated attention: Thirty-seven percent of American
fourth graders' tests show that they are essentially unable to read.
For Hispanic fourth graders, the proportion is 58 percent, and for
African-American fourth graders, it is 63 percent.
As President Bush has repeatedly noted, far too many of America's
most disadvantaged youngsters pass through public schools without
receiving an adequate education. It is intolerable that millions of
children are trapped in unsafe and failing schools.
Parents should have a right in the United States of America to get
the best education possible for their children as they see it, and the
amendment I offer today will help secure that right.
My amendment would provide a $250 tax credit, $500 for joint filers,
to partially offset the cost of donations to tuition scholarship
organizations.
These organizations--usually founded by business leaders--that
provide tuition scholarships to enable needy youngsters to attend a
school of their families' choosing. The idea first came to light about
a decade ago when the first one was founded in Indianapolis. Now there
are more than 80 such programs serving more than 50,000 students
nationwide.
For families who benefit, these programs are a godsend. A study that
was just released by the Kennedy School of Government found that 68
percent of parents awarded scholarships are very satisfied with
academics at their child's school compared with only 23 percent of
parents not awarded scholarships.
I should pause on that point to observe if this amendment became law
and scholarships were to become more widely available, the schools
these students left would have a much greater incentive to improve than
is the case today.
Because we anticipate that the tax credit would foster competition,
we anticipate that its adoption will bring improvement of all schools,
not just a few.
But today, the problem is that demand for scholarships far outstrips
supply, even though these low-income families must agree to contribute
a significant portion of the total cost of tuition.
For example, in 1997, 1,000 partial tuition scholarships were offered
to needy families in the District of Columbia. Nearly 8,000
applications were received.
Another example: In 1999, 1.25 million applied for 40,000
scholarships in a national lottery. Clearly, there is a huge unmet
demand for this kind of assistance.
In 1997, Arizona implemented an innovative plan to meet that demand
in our State: A $500 tax credit to offset donations to organizations
that provide tuition scholarships to elementary and secondary students.
The results: Upwards of $40 million in donations to tuition scholarship
organizations.
The number of school tuition organizations operating in my State of
Arizona is up from 2 to 33, and the organizations have a very wide
range of emphasis and orientations. For example, they range from the
Jewish Community Day School Scholarship Fund to the Fund for Native
Scholarship Enrichment and Resources to the Foundation for Montessori
Scholarships.
Nearly 15,000 Arizona students, nearly all of them from disadvantaged
backgrounds, have received this scholarship assistance.
While some have charged that the law was unconstitutional--
particularly given the explicit prohibition on direct aid to parochial
schools in Arizona's constitution--our State supreme court recognized
that allowing taxpayers to use their own money to support education is
a different matter and upheld the program.
And consistent with previous holdings on the subject, the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to review the decision.
In other words, the Arizona tax credit should be embraced by those
concerned that Federal dollars going to vouchers which students would
then take to the school of their choice could possibly be
unconstitutional.
In Arizona, you do not have public dollars being given to students in
the form of vouchers which are then taken to the school of their
choice.
Instead, what we provide is that if people want to contribute money
to a duly qualifying scholarship fund, that scholarship fund can then
give that scholarship to needy students and those students can take
that scholarship to whatever school in which they want to be educated
and the donors receive a tax credit.
That is constitutional. It does not violate any notion of separation
of church and state.
And yet it permits people to help those who need the help the most to
have the flexibility that only the most wealthy in our society have
today: the ability to take their kids to the school of their choice.
I have come to believe that it offers the best possible way
to resolve this problem of choice and innovation.
It meets the constitutional challenges; it involves the private
sector; it involves personal donations; it does not give the Federal
Government the task of funding and administering a large voucher
program.
Yet it gets the benefits to the students who need it the most, who
are willing to contribute part of their own income to match that
scholarship and pay the tuition at the school of their choice.
Now when I brought this amendment up during the debate on the tax
bill, I listened carefully to the arguments that were offered in
opposition by my colleague, Senator Bingaman.
In his remarks, my colleagues made two basic contentions.
First he said:
What we are saying [if we pass this amendment] is we will
not appropriate money directly to those schools, but we will
give each taxpayer a $250 credit if they will give that $250
to the private school. That, to men, seems to be a pretty
direct way of providing Federal support for private and
parochial schools.
But as Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb noted, this argument
equating tax credits with direct appropriations ``ultimately rests on
the odious theory that government is entitled to all your money, and
anything it doesn't grab is in fact expended.''
Senator Bingaman went on to argue that it would be imprudent to enact
a proposal this ``costly'' at a time ``when we are unable to make [a
comparable] commitment to the public schools.''
But the recent history of the bill before us today rebuts the premise
of that argument.
[[Page S6279]]
The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated this credit could cost
the Federal Treasury $43.4 billion over a 10-year period.
Meanwhile, the Budget Committee's staff report that, as of last week,
the Senate has added $211 billion to this bill for a total seven-year
price tag of $417 billion.
And given the concern about public schools, it is also worth noting
that this tax credit is neutral as to whether scholarships should be
used at public or non-public schools.
Scholarships could be used to offset tuition costs at a private
school, or to pay the tuition costs families in most states must pay to
enroll a child in a school across district boundaries.
I hope that my colleagues will think about what a magnitude of
difference that money would make in the lives of our children: $43
billion would finance 12.4 million $3,500 scholarships.
Think of the opportunity provided to those 12.4 million students with
a $3,500 scholarship to take them out of the condition of education
they are in now, out of the failing school, out of the unsafe school,
and to a school where they can achieve, where they can learn, where
they can be competitive, where they can learn their full potential.
I have said many times that if we can get education right, almost
everything else in this country will follow. By ``we,'' I do not just
mean the Federal Government. In fact, I mean primarily the parents and
local school folks.
First, it will help people realize their full potential.
Second, it will make them more qualified to compete for the kinds of
jobs that are going to exist in the future.
Third, it will help our Nation compete. We are going to need to
compete in a world environment.
Fourth, it is going to make us more secure because we are going to
have the kind of young students who can invent the things that are
going to help us keep our technological edge when it comes to national
security.
Fifth, it is going to make us better citizens.
I have been somewhat appalled at what some of our schools do not
teach about the history of this great country of ours, about the
foundation for the self-governance we have, about the need for people,
especially young people, to participate in our democratic Republic.
I fear that generations of Americans are growing up not being taught
the fundamentals of our society, our Government, and our free-market
system that we were taught, and I think fairly well.
If we go a couple generations without teaching our children
accurately and adequately in subjects from math and reading to history
to government to economics and all the other subjects that students in
this complex world have to master, then we are not going to progress as
a nation and be the leading superpower and the leader of the world we
are today, in economic terms or in terms of human rights, democratic
principles, and other societal values.
If we get education right, we can flourish in all of these areas, and
if we stay 19th out of 21 countries on these tests, then Americans are
not going to be as well educated and we will be overtaken by other
nations.
We have led the world in foreign aid and assistance. We have led the
world in our insistence on human rights.
In other words, America stands for what is good on this Earth, and
for us to continue to be the leader of the world to promote these
values requires an educated citizenry, a citizenry that will be
educated and committed to these ideals, to these propositions.
We cannot sustain that kind of education with the system we have
today. The scholarship tuition credits I am proposing with this
amendment will enable parents to allow their children to be educated in
the very best schools for those students and to enable them to escape
the kind of system we have today to one where each child can grow to
their full potential. We must demand nothing less of our system.
This scholarship tax credit is an idea whose time has come, and that
is why I have pressed it repeatedly and will continue to do so.
Amendments Nos. 571 as Modified, 527 as Modified, 457 as Modified, 582
as Modified, 432 as Modified, 585 as Modified, 586, 587 as Modified,
588, 589, 590, 591, 592 as modified, 593, 595, 512 as Modified, 435 as
Modified, 386, 424, 516, 804, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 358
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are in a position to clear amendments
by consent. I ask unanimous consent to consider these amendments en
bloc, the amendments be agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 571, as modified
(Purpose: To provide grants to states with high growth rates in Title I
children)
Beginning on page 141, strike line 23 through line 13 on
page 142, and insert the following:
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the amount made available for each local
educational agency under sections 1124 and 1124A for the
fiscal year shall not be less than the greater of--
``(i) 100 percent of the amount the local educational
agency received for fiscal year 2001 under sections 1124 and
1124A, respectively; or
``(ii) 100 percent of the amount calculated for the local
educational agency for the fiscal year under sections 1124
and 1124A, respectively, determined without applying the hold
harmless provisions of this subparagraph.
``(C) Applicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary shall not take into consideration the
hold harmless provisions of this subsection for any fiscal
year for purposes of calculating State or local allocations
for the fiscal year under any program administered by the
Secretary other than a program authorized under this part.
``(D) Population Updates.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (4), in fiscal
year 2001 and each subsequent year, the Secretary shall use
updated data, for purposes of carrying out section 1124, on
the number of children, aged 5 to 17, inclusive, from
families below the poverty level for counties or local
educational agencies, published by the Department of
Commerce, unless the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce
determine that use of the updated population data would be
inappropriate or unreliable.
``(ii) Inappropriate or unreliable data.--If the Secretary
and the Secretary of Commerce determine that some or all of
the data referred to in this subparagraph are inappropriate
or unreliable, the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce
shall--
``(I) publicly disclose their reasons;
``(II) provide an opportunity for States to submit updated
data on the number of children described in clause (i); and
``(III) review the data and, if the data are appropriate
and reliable, use the data, for the purposes of section 1124,
to determine the number of children described in clause (i).
``(iii) Criteria of poverty.--In determining the families
that are below the poverty level, the Secretary shall utilize
the criteria of poverty used by the Bureau of the Census in
compiling the most recent decennial census, as the criteria
have been updated by increases in the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
``(iv) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Commerce
for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to update
the data described in clause (i).
____
amendment no. 527, as modified
(Purpose: To establish an exception to the prohibition on segregating
homeless students)
On page 284, strike lines 6 through 13 and insert the
following:
``(3) Prohibition on segregating homeless students.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B)
and section 723(a)(2)(B)(ii), in providing a free public
education to a homeless child or youth, no State receiving
funds under this subtitle shall segregate such child or
youth, either in a separate school, or in a separate program
within a school, based on such child's or youth's status as
homeless.
``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A),
paragraphs (1)(H) and (3) of subsection (g), section
723(a)(2), and any other provision of this subtitle relating
to the placement of homeless children or youth in schools, a
State that has a separate school for homeless children or
youth that was operated in fiscal year 2000 in a covered
county shall be eligible to receive funds under this subtitle
for programs carried out in such school if--
``(i) the school meets the requirements of subparagraph
(C);
``(ii) any local educational agency serving a school that
the homeless children and youth enrolled in the separate
school are eligible to attend meets the requirements of
subparagraph (E); and
``(iii) the State is otherwise eligible to receive funds
under this subtitle.
``(C) School requirements.--For the State to be eligible to
receive the funds, the school shall--
``(i) provide written notice, at the time any child or
youth seeks enrollment in such school, and at least twice
annually while the child or youth is enrolled in such school,
to
[[Page S6280]]
the parent or guardian of the child or youth (or, in the case
of an unaccompanied youth, the youth) that--
``(I) shall be signed by the parent or guardian (or, in the
case of an unaccompanied youth, the youth);
``(II) reviews the general rights provided under this
subtitle; and
``(III) specifically states--
``(aa) the choice of schools homeless children and youth
are eligible to attend, as provided in subsection (g)(3)(A);
``(bb) that no homeless child or youth is required to
attend a separate school for homeless children or youth;
``(cc) that homeless children and youth shall be provided
comparable services described in subsection (g)(4), including
transportation services, educational services, and meals
through school meals programs;
``(dd) that homeless children and youth should not be
stigmatized by school personnel; and
``(ee) contact information for the local liaison for
homeless children and youth and State Coordinator for
Education of Homeless Children and Youth;
``(ii)(aa) provide assistance to the parent or guardian of
each homeless child or youth (or, in the case of an
unaccompanied youth, the youth) to exercise the right to
attend the parent's or guardian's (or youth's) choice of
schools, as provided in subsection (g)(3)(A); and
``(bb) coordinate with the local educational agency with
jurisdiction for the school selected by the parent or
guardian (or youth), to provide transportation and other
necessary services;
``(iii) ensure that the parent or guardian (or youth) shall
receive the information required by this subparagraph in a
manner and form understandable to such parent or guardian (or
youth), including, if necessary and to the extent feasible,
in the native language of such parent or guardian (or youth);
and
``(iv) demonstrate in the school's application for funds
under this subtitle that such school--
``(I) is complying with clauses (i) and (ii); and
``(II) is meeting (as of the date of submission of the
application) the same Federal and State standards,
regulations, and mandates as other public schools in the
State (such as complying with sections 1111 and 1116 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and providing
a full range of education and related services, including
services applicable to students with disabilities).
``(D) School ineligibility.--A separate school described in
subparagraph (B) that fails to meet the standards,
regulations, and mandates described in subparagraph
(C)(iv)(II) shall not be eligible to receive funds under this
subtitle for programs carried out in such school after the
first date of such failure.
``(E) Local educational agency requirements.--For the State
to be eligible to receive the funds described in subparagraph
(B), the local educational agency described in subparagraph
(B) shall--
``(i) implement a coordinated system for ensuring that
homeless children and youth--
``(I) are advised of the choice of schools provided in
subsection (g)(3)(A);
``(II) are immediately enrolled in the school selected in
accordance with subsection (g)(3)(C); and
``(III) are provided necessary services, including
transportation, promptly to allow homeless children and youth
to exercise their choices of schools in accordance with
subsection (g)(4);
``(ii) document that written notice has been provided--
``(I) in accordance with subparagraph (C)(i) for each child
or youth enrolled in a separate school described in
subparagraph (B); and
``(II) in accordance with subsection (g)(1)(H)(ii);
``(iii) prohibit schools within the agency's jurisdiction
from referring homeless children or youth to, or requiring
homeless children and youth to enroll in or attend, a
separate school described in subparagraph (B);
``(iv) identify and remove any barriers that exist in
schools within the agency's jurisdiction that may have
contributed to the creation or existence of separate schools
described in subparagraph (B); and
``(v) not use funds received under this subtitle to
establish--
``(I) new or additional separate schools for homeless
children or youth, other than schools described in
subparagraph (B); or
``(II) new or additional sites for separate schools for
homeless children or youth, other than the sites occupied by
the schools described in subparagraph (B) in fiscal year
2000.
``(F) Report.--
``(i) Preparation.--
``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare a report on
the separate schools and local educational agencies described
in subparagraph (B) that receive funds under this subtitle in
accordance with this paragraph.
``(II) Contents.--The report shall contain, at a minimum,
information on--
``(aa) compliance with all requirements of this paragraph;
``(bb) barriers to school access in the school districts
served by the local educational agencies; and
``(cc) the progress the separate schools are making in
integrating homeless children and youth into the mainstream
school environment, including the average length of student
enrollment in such schools.
``(ii) Compliance with information requests.--For purposes
of enabling the Secretary to prepare the report, the separate
schools and local educational agencies shall cooperate with
the Secretary and the State Coordinators for the Education of
Homeless Children and Youth, and shall comply with any
requests for information by the Secretary and State
Coordinators.
``(iii) Submission.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of the Better Education for Students and
Teachers Act, the Secretary shall submit the report described
in clause (i) to--
``(I) the President;
``(II) the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the
House of Representatives; and
``(III) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the Senate.
``(G) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `covered
county' means--
``(i) San Joaquin County, CA;
``(ii) Orange County, CA;
``(iii) San Diego County, CA; and
``(iv) Maricopa County, AZ.''
____
amendment no. 457, as modified
(Purpose: To increase parental involvement and protect student privacy)
On page 778, after line 21, add the following:
``PART C--INCREASING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND PROTECTING STUDENT
PRIVACY
``SEC. 6301. INTENT.
``It is the purpose of this part to provide parents with
notice of and opportunity to make informed decisions
regarding the collection of information for commercial
purposes occurring in their children's classrooms.
``SEC. 6302. COMMERCIALIZATION POLICIES AND PRIVACY FOR
STUDENTS.
``(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
no State educational agency or local educational agency that
is a recipient of funds under this Act may--
``(1) disclose data or information the agency gathered from
a student to a person or entity that seeks disclosure of the
data or information for the purpose of benefiting the person
or entity's commercial interests; or
``(2) permit a person or entity to gather from a student,
or assist a person or entity in gathering from a student,
data or information, if the purpose of gathering the data or
information is to benefit the commercial interests of the
person or entity.
``(b) Parental Consent.--
``(1) Disclosure.--A State educational agency or local
educational agency that is a recipient of funds under this
Act may disclose data or information under subsection (a)(1)
if the agency, prior to the disclosure--
``(A) explains to the student's parent, in writing, what
data or information will be disclosed, to which person or
entity the data or information will be disclosed, the amount
of class time, if any, that will be consumed by the
disclosure, and how the person or entity will use the data or
information; and
``(B) obtains the parent's written permission for the
disclosure.
``(2) Gathering.--A State educational agency or local
educational agency that is a recipient of funds under this
Act may permit or assist a person or entity with the
gathering of data or information under subsection (a)(2) if
the agency, prior to the gathering--
``(A) explains to the student's parent, in writing, what
data or information will be gathered including whether any of
the information is personally identifiable, which person or
entity will gather the data or information, the amount of
class time if any, that will be consumed by the gathering,
and how the person or entity will use the data or
information; and
``(B) obtains the parent's written permission for the
gathering.
``(c) Definitions.--In this part:
``(1) Student.--The term `student' means a student under
the age of 18.
``(2) Commercial interest.--The term `commercial interest'
does not include the interest of a person or entity in
developing, evaluating, or providing educational products or
services for or to students or educational institutions, such
as--
``(A) college and other post-secondary education
recruiting;
``(B) book clubs and other programs providing access to low
cost books or other related literary products;
``(C) curriculum and instructional materials used by
elementary and secondary schools to teach if--
``(i) the information is not used to sell or advertise
another product;
``(ii) the information is not used to develop another
product that is not covered by the exemption from commercial
interest in this paragraph; and
``(iii) the curriculum and instructional materials are used
in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local
policies, if any; and
``(D) the development and administration of tests and
assessments used by elementary and secondary schools to
provide cognitive, evaluative, diagnostic, clinical,
aptitude, or achievement information about students (or to
generate other statistically useful data for the purpose of
securing such tests and assessments) and the subsequent
analysis and public release of aggregate data if--
``(i) the information is not used to sell or advertise
another product;
[[Page S6281]]
``(ii) the information is not used to develop another
product that is not covered by the exemption from commercial
interest in this paragraph; and
``(iii) the tests are conducted in accordance with
applicable Federal, State, and local policies, if any.
``(d) Locally Developed Exceptions.--A local educational
agency, in consultation with parents, may develop appropriate
exceptions to the consent requirements contained in this part
if--
``(1) the information to be collected is not personally
identifiable;
``(2) the local educational agency provides written notice
to all parents of its policy regarding data or information
collection activities for commercial purposes; and
``(3) with respect to any particular data or information
gathering or disclosure, the agency provides written notice
to all parents of--
``(A) the data or information to be collected;
``(B) the person or entity to whom the data or information
will be disclosed;
``(C) the amount of class time, if any, that will be
consumed by the collection activities; and
``(D) the manner in which the person or entity will use the
data or information.
``(e) Funding.--A State educational agency or local
educational agency may use funds provided under subpart 4 of
part B of title V to enhance parental involvement in areas
affecting children's in-school privacy.
``(f) Technical Assistance.--Upon the request of a State
educational agency or local educational agency, the Secretary
shall provide technical assistance to such an agency
concerning compliance with this part.
``(g) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take appropriate
actions to enforce, and address violations of, this section,
in accordance with this chapter.
``(h) Office, Functions.--The Secretary shall designate an
office to enforce this section and to provide technical
assistance.
``(i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to supersede the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g).''.
____
amendment no. 582, as modified
(Purpose: To protect student privacy)
On page 778, after line 21, add the following:
SEC. __. GUIDELINES FOR STUDENT PRIVACY.
(a) Development of Student Privacy Guidelines.--A State or
local educational agency that receives funds under this Act
shall develop and adopt guidelines regarding arrangements to
protect student privacy that are entered into by the agency
with public and private entities that are not schools.
(b) Notification of Parents of Privacy Guidelines.--The
guidelines developed by an educational agency under
subsection (a) shall provide for a reasonable notice of the
adoption of such guidelines to be given, by the agency or a
school under the agency's supervision, to the parents and
guardians of students under the jurisdiction of such agency
or school. Such notice shall be provided at least annually
and within a reasonable period of time after any change in
such guidelines.
(c) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply to the
development, evaluation, or provision of educational products
or services for or to students or educational institutions,
such as the following:
(1) College or other post-secondary education recruitment
or military recruitment.
(2) Book clubs, magazines, and programs providing access to
other literary products.
(3) Curriculum and instructional materials used by
elementary and secondary schools to teach.
(4) The development and administration of tests and
assessments used by elementary and secondary schools to
provide cognitive, evaluative, diagnostic, clinical,
aptitude, or achievement information about students (or to
generate other statistically useful data for the purpose of
securing such tests and assessments) and the subsequent
analysis and public release of aggregate data.
(5) The sale by students of products or services to raise
funds for school- or education-related activities.
(6) Student recognition programs.
(d) Information Activities by the Secretary.--Once each
year, the Secretary shall inform each State educational
agency and each local educational agency of the educational
agency's obligations under section 438 of the General
Education Provisions Act (added by the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974; 20 U.S.C. 1232g) and the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C.
6501 et seq.).
(e) Funding.--A State educational agency or local
educational agency may use funds provided under subpart 4 of
Part B of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 to enhance parental involvement in areas
affecting children's in-school privacy.
(f) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary
school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'',
``Secretary'', and ``State educational agency'' have the
meanings given those terms in section 3 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965.
____
amendment no. 432, as modified
(Purpose: To broaden local applications, and for other purposes)
On page 324, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(11) A description of how the local educational agency
will provide training to enable teachers to--
``(A) address the needs of students with disabilities,
students with limited English proficiency, and other students
with special needs;
``(B) involve parents in their child's education; and
``(C) understand and use data and assessments to improve
classroom practice and student learning.
On page 326, line 2, strike ``and''.
On page 326, line 7, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 326, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
``(D) effective instructional practices that involve
collaborative groups of teachers and administrators, using
such strategies as--
``(i) provision of dedicated time for collaborative lesson
planning and curriculum development meetings;
``(ii) consultation with exemplary teachers;
``(iii) team teaching, peer observation, and coaching;
``(iv) provision of short-term and long-term visits to
classrooms and schools;
``(v) establishment and maintenance of local professional
development networks that provide a forum for interaction
among teachers and administrators about content knowledge and
teaching and leadership skills; and
``(vi) the provision of release time as needed for the
activities;
``(E) teacher advancement initiatives that promote
professional growth and emphasize multiple career paths (such
as career teacher, mentor teacher, and master teacher career
paths) and pay differentiation.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 585, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To improve the Early Reading First Program)
On page 207, strike line 8 and all that follows through
page 212, line 15, and insert the following:
``Subpart 3--Early Reading First
``SEC. 1241. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of this subpart are as follows:
``(1) To support local efforts to enhance the early
language, literacy, and prereading development of preschool
age children, particularly those from low-income families,
through strategies and professional development that are
based on scientifically based research.
``(2) To provide preschool age children with cognitive
learning opportunities in high-quality language and
literature-rich environments, so that the children can attain
the fundamental knowledge and skills necessary for optimal
reading development in kindergarten and beyond.
``(3) To demonstrate language and literacy activities based
on scientifically based research that support the age-
appropriate development of--
``(A) spoken language and oral comprehension abilities;
``(B) understanding that spoken language can be analyzed
into discrete words, and awareness that words can be broken
into sequences of syllables and phonemes;
``(C) automatic recognition of letters of the alphabet and
understanding that letters or groups of letters
systematically represent the component sounds of the
language; and
``(D) knowledge of the purposes and conventions of print.
``(4) To integrate these learning opportunities with
learning opportunities at preschools, child care agencies,
and Head Start agencies, and with family literacy services.
``SEC. 1242. LOCAL EARLY READING FIRST GRANTS.
``(a) Program Authorized.--From amounts appropriated under
section 1002(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants, on a
competitive basis, for periods of not more than 5 years, to
eligible applicants to enable the eligible applicants to
carry out the authorized activities described in subsection
(e).
``(b) Definition of Eligible Applicant.--In this subpart
the term `eligible applicant' means--
``(1) one or more local educational agencies that are
eligible to receive a subgrant under subpart 2;
``(2) one or more public or private organizations or
agencies, acting on behalf of 1 or more programs that serve
preschool age children (such as a program at a Head Start
center, a child care program, or a family literacy program),
which organizations or agencies shall be located in a
community served by a local educational agency described in
paragraph (1); or
``(3) one or more local educational agencies described in
paragraph (1) in collaboration with one or more organizations
or agencies described in paragraph (2).
``(c) Applications.--An eligible applicant that desires to
receive a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary which shall include a
description of--
``(1) the programs to be served by the proposed project,
including demographic and socioeconomic information on the
preschool age children enrolled in the programs;
``(2) how the proposed project will prepare and provide
ongoing assistance to staff in the programs, through
professional development and other support, to provide high-
[[Page S6282]]
quality language, literacy and prereading activities using
scientifically based research, for preschool age children;
``(3) how the proposed project will provide services and
utilize materials that are based on scientifically based
research on early language acquisition, prereading
activities, and the development of spoken language skills;
``(4) how the proposed project will help staff in the
programs to meet the diverse needs of preschool age children
in the community better, including such children with limited
English proficiency, disabilities, or other special needs;
``(5) how the proposed project will help preschool age
children, particularly such children experiencing difficulty
with spoken language, prereading, and literacy skills, to
make the transition from preschool to formal classroom
instruction in school;
``(6) if the eligible applicant has received a subgrant
under subpart 2, how the activities conducted under this
subpart will be coordinated with the eligible applicant's
activities under subpart 2 at the kindergarten through third-
grade level;
``(7) how the proposed project will evaluate the success of
the activities supported under this subpart in enhancing the
early language, literacy, and prereading development of
preschool age children served by the project; and
``(8) such other information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Approval of Applications.--The Secretary shall select
applicants for funding under this subpart on the basis of the
quality of the applications, in consultation with the
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development,
the National Institute for Literacy, and the National Academy
of Sciences. The Secretary shall select applications for
approval under this subpart on the basis of a peer review
process.
``(e) Authorized Activities.-- An eligible applicant that
receives a grant under this subpart shall use the funds
provided under the grant to carry out the following
activities:
``(A) Providing preschool age children with high-quality
oral language and literature-rich environments in which to
acquire language and prereading skills.
``(B) Providing professional development that is based on
scientifically based research knowledge of early language and
reading development for the staff of the eligible applicant
and that will assist in developing the preschool age
children's--
``(i) spoken language (including vocabulary, the contextual
use of speech, and syntax) and oral comprehension abilities;
``(ii) understanding that spoken language can be analyzed
into discrete words, and awareness that words can be broken
into sequences of syllables and phonemes;
``(iii) automatic recognition of letters of the alphabet
and understanding that letters or groups of letters
systematically represent the component sounds of the
language; and
``(iv) knowledge of the purposes and conventions of print.
``(C) Identifying and providing activities and
instructional materials that are based on scientifically
based research for use in developing the skills and abilities
described in subparagraph (B).
``(D) Acquiring, providing training for, and implementing
screening tools or other appropriate measures that are based
on scientifically based research to determine whether
preschool age children are developing the skills described in
this subsection.
``(E) Integrating such instructional materials, activities,
tools, and measures into the programs offered by the eligible
applicant.
``(f) Award Amounts.--The Secretary may establish a maximum
award amount, or ranges of award amounts, for grants under
this subpart.
``SEC. 1243. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.
``The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services in order to coordinate the activities
undertaken under this subpart with preschool age programs
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.
``SEC. 1244. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.
``From the funds the National Institute for Literacy
receives under section 1227, the National Institute for
Literacy, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
disseminate information regarding projects assisted under
this subpart that have proven effective.
``SEC. 1245. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
``Each eligible applicant receiving a grant under this
subpart shall report annually to the Secretary regarding the
eligible applicant's progress in addressing the purposes of
this subpart. Such report shall include, at a minimum, a
description of--
``(1) the activities, materials, tools, and measures used
by the eligible applicant;
``(2) the professional development activities offered to
the staff of the eligible applicant who serve preschool age
children and the amount of such professional development;
``(3) the types of programs and ages of children served;
and
``(4) the results of the evaluation described in section
1242(c)(7).
``SEC. 1246. EVALUATIONS.
``From the total amount appropriated under section
1002(b)(3) for the period beginning October 1, 2002 and
ending September 30, 2008, the Secretary shall reserve not
more than $5,000,000 to conduct an independent evaluation of
the effectiveness of this subpart.
``SEC. 1247. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.
``From the amount appropriated under section 1002(b)(3) for
each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2006, the Secretary
shall reserve not more than $3,000,000 to conduct, in
consultation with National Institute for Child Health and
Human Development, the National Institute for Literacy, and
the Department of Health and Human Services, additional
research on language and literacy development for preschool
age children.''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 586
(Purpose: To improve the Pupil Safety and Family School Choice Program)
On page 83, strike lines 3 through 9.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 587, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To refine the Improving Academic Achievement Program)
On page 774 strike line 1 and all that follows through page
778, line 21, and insert the following:
``PART B--IMPROVING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
``SEC. 6201. EDUCATION AWARDS.
``(a) Achievement in Education Awards.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make awards, to be
known as `Achievement in Education Awards', using a peer
review process, to the States that, beginning with the 2002-
2003 school year, make the most progress in improving
educational achievement.
``(2) Criteria.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make the awards on
the basis of criteria consisting of--
``(i) the progress of each of the categories of students
described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II)--
``(I) towards the goal of all such students reaching the
proficient level of performance; and
``(II) beginning with the 2nd year for which data are
available for all States, on State assessments under the
National Assessment of Educational Progress of 4th and 8th
grade reading and mathematics skills;
``(ii) the progress of all students in the State towards
the goal of all students reaching the proficient level of
performance, and (beginning with the 2nd year for which data
are available for all States) the progress of all students on
the assessments described in clause (i)(II);
``(iii) the progress of the State in improving the English
proficiency of students who enter school with limited English
proficiency;
``(iv) the progress of the State in increasing the
percentage of students who graduate from secondary school;
and
``(v) the progress of the State in increasing the
percentage of students who take advanced coursework, such as
advanced placement and international baccalaureate courses,
and who pass advanced placement and international
baccalaureate tests.
``(B) Weight.--In applying the criteria described in
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give the greatest
weight to the criterion described in subparagraph (A)(i).
``(b) Assessment Completion Bonuses.--The Secretary may
make 1-time bonus payments to States that complete the
development of assessments required by section 1111 in
advance of the schedule specified in such section.
``(c) No Child Left Behind Awards.--The Secretary may make
awards, to be known as `No Child Left Behind Awards' to the
schools that--
``(1) are nominated by the States in which the schools are
located; and
``(2) have made the greatest progress in improving the
educational achievement of economically disadvantaged
students.
``(d) Fund To Improve Education Achievement.--The Secretary
may make awards for activities other than the activities
described in subsections (a) through (c), such as character
education, that are designed to promote the improvement of
elementary and secondary education nationally.
``SEC. 6202. LOSS OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS.
``(a) 2 Years of Insufficient Progress.--
``(1) Reduction.--If the Secretary makes the determinations
described in paragraph (2) for 2 consecutive years, the
Secretary shall reduce, by not more than 30 percent, the
amount of funds that the State may reserve for the subsequent
fiscal year for State administration under the programs
authorized by this Act that the Secretary determines are
formula grant programs.
``(2) Determinations.--The determinations referred to in
paragraph (1) are determinations, made primarily on the basis
of data from the State assessment system described in section
1111 and data from State assessments under the National
Assessment of Educational Progress of 4th and 8th grade
reading and mathematics skills, that--
``(A) the State has failed to make adequate yearly progress
as defined under section 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D) for all
students and for each of the categories of students described
in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II);
``(B) beginning with the 2nd year for which data are
available on State assessments under the National Assessment
of Educational Progress of 4th and 8th grade reading and
mathematics, the State has failed to demonstrate an increase
in the achievement of each of the categories of students
described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II); and
``(C) the State has failed to meet its annual measurable
performance objectives, for helping limited English
proficient students develop proficiency in English, that are
required to be developed under section 3329.
[[Page S6283]]
``(b) 3 or More Years of Insufficient Progress.--If the
Secretary makes the determinations described in subsection
(a)(2) for a third or subsequent consecutive year, the
Secretary shall reduce, by not more than 75 percent, the
amount of funds that the State may reserve for the subsequent
fiscal year for State administration under the programs
authorized by this Act that the Secretary determines are
formula grant programs.
``SEC. 6203. GRANTS FOR STATE ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED
ACTIVITIES.
``(a) State Grants Authorized.--From amounts appropriated
under subsection (c) the Secretary shall award grants to
States to enable the States to pay the costs of--
``(1) developing assessments and standards required by
amendments made to this Act by the Better Education for
Students and Teachers Act;
``(2) working in voluntary partnerships with other States
to develop such assessments and standards; and
``(3) other activities described in this part or related to
ensuring accountability for results in the State's public
elementary schools or secondary schools, and local
educational agencies, such as--
``(A) developing content and performance standards, and
aligned assessments, in subjects other than those assessments
that were required by amendments made to section 1111 by the
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act; and
``(B) administering the assessments required by amendments
made to section 1111 by the Better Education for Students and
Teachers Act.
``(b) Allocations to States.--
``(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated to carry
out this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary first
shall allocate $3,000,000 to each State.
``(2) Remainder.--The Secretary shall allocate any
remaining funds among the States on the basis of their
respective numbers of children enrolled in grades 3 through 8
in public elementary schools and secondary schools.
``(3) Definition of state.--For the purpose of this
subsection, the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums
as may be necessary for each of the succeeding 6 fiscal
years.
``SEC. 6204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) National Assessment of Educational Progress.--For the
purpose of administering the State assessments under the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, there are
authorized to be appropriated $110,000,000 for fiscal year
2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6
succeeding fiscal years.
``(b) Education Awards.--For the purpose of carrying out
section 6201, 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.''.
On page 458, strike lines 10 through 12, and insert the
following:
``(C)(i) who was not born in the United States or whose
native language is a language other than English, and who
comes from an environment where a language other than English
is dominant;
On page 486, strike lines 10 and 11, and insert the
following:
``(1) parts A, C, E (other than section 3405), and F shall
not be in effect; and''.
____
amendment no. 588
(Purpose: To amend the local educational plan under section 1112(c) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding models of
high quality, effective curriculum)
On page 74, strike line 24, and insert the following:
``parents and teachers; and
``(14) make available to each school served by the agency
and assisted under this part models of high quality,
effective curriculum that are aligned with the State's
standards and developed or identified by the State.''; and
____
amendment no. 589
(Purpose: To improve section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 regarding assessment and local educational agency
and school improvement)
On page 83, line 25, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and
insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
On page 84, line 4, insert ``, principals, teachers, and
other staff in an instructionally useful manner'' after
``schools''.
On page 84, line 25, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and
insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
On page 88, line 6, strike ``meet'' and insert ``make
continuous and significant progress towards meeting the goal
of all students reaching''.
On page 90, line 5, insert ``(including problems, if any,
in implementing the parental involvement requirements
described in section 1118, the professional development
requirements described in section 1119, and the
responsibilities of the school and local educational agency
under the school plan)'' after ``problems''.
On page 91, line 15, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and
insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
On page 92, line 13, insert ``and giving priority to the
lowest achieving students'' after ``basis''.
On page 95, line 9, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and
insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
On page 95, beginning with line 13, strike all through page
96, line 6, and insert the following:
``(i)(I) provide all students enrolled in the school with
the option to transfer to another public school within the
local educational agency, including a public charter school,
that has not been identified for school improvement under
paragraph (1); and
``(II) if all public schools in the local educational
agency to which children may transfer are identified under
paragraph (1) or this paragraph, the agency shall, to the
extent practicable, establish a cooperative agreement with
other local educational agencies in the area for the transfer
of as many of those children as possible, selected by the
agency on an equitable basis;
``(ii) make supplemental educational services available, in
accordance with subsection (f), to children who remain in the
school;
On page 96, line 7, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
On page 96, line 21, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(iv)''.
On page 96, strike line 23 and all that follows through
page 97, line 23.
On page 97, line 24, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(D)''.
On page 98, line 7, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 98, line 16, strike ``and fails'' and all that
follows through ``this paragraph'' on page 98, line 20.
On page 98, line 25, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 99, line 6, insert ``(i)'' after ``(B)''.
On page 99, line 12, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(I)''.
On page 99, line 14, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(II)''.
On page 99, line 16, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(III)''.
On page 99, line 19, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(IV)''.
On page 99, line 21, strike ``(v)'' and insert ``(V)''.
On page 99, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
``(ii) A rural local agency, as described in section
5231(b), may apply to the Secretary for a waiver of the
requirements of this subparagraph if the agency submits to
the Secretary an alternative plan for making significant
changes to improve student performance in the school, such as
providing an academically focused after school program for
all students, changing school administration, or implementing
a research based, proven effective, whole school reform
program. The Secretary shall approve or reject an application
for a waiver under this subparagraph not later than 30 days
after the submission of information required by the Secretary
to apply for the waiver. If the Secretary fails to make a
determination with respect to the waiver application within
such 30 days, the application shall be considered approved by
the Secretary.
On page 100, line 6, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 100, line 23, strike ``(A)''.
On page 101, strike lines 5 though 20.
On page 102, lines 15 and 16, strike ``(7)(C) and subject
to paragraph (7)(D)'' and insert ``(5)''.
On page 102, line 21, strike ``, and that''
and all that follows through ``1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II),'' on
page 102, line 25.
On page 103, line 1, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 103, line 7, strike ``, and that'' and all that
follows through ``disadvantaged students,'' on page 103, line
10.
On page 103, line 20, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 104, line 22, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and
insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
On page 105, line 13, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and
insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
On page 105, lines 20 and 21, strike ``section
1111(b)(2)(B)'' and insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and
(D)''.
On page 106, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
``(C) Not later than 30 days after a State educational
agency makes an initial determination under subparagraph (A),
the State educational agency shall make public a final
determination regarding the improvement status of the local
educational agency.
On page 106, lines 22 and 23, strike ``meet proficient
levels'' and insert ``make continuous and significant
progress towards meeting the goal of all students reaching
the proficient level''.
On page 109, line 15, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 112, line 16, strike ``(A)''.
On page 112, line 19, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(6)''.
On page 112, strike line 23 and all that follows through
page 113, line 2.
On page 113, line 14, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 115, line 14, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
At the appropriate place insert:
The current section 1501, U.S. Code, is deleted and
replaced with the following:
[[Page S6284]]
SEC. 1501. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF TITLE I
(a) National Assessment.--The Secretary shall conduct a
national assessment of the impact of the policies enacted
into law under title I of the Better Education for Students
and Teachers Act on States, local educational agencies,
schools, and students.
(1) Such assessment shall be planned, reviewed, and
conducted in consultation with an independent panel of
researchers, State practitioners, local practitioners, and
other appropriate individuals.
(2) The assessment shall examine, at a minimum, how
schools, local educational agencies, and States have--
(A) made progress towards the goal of all students reaching
the proficient level in at least reading and math based on a
State's content and performance standards and the State
assessments required under section 1111 and on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress;
(B) implemented scientifically-based reading instruction;
(C) implemented the requirements for the development of
assessments for students in grades 3-8 and administered such
assessments, including the time and cost required for their
development and how well they meet the requirements for
assessments described in this title;
(D) defined adequate yearly progress and what has been the
impact of applying this standard for adequacy to schools,
local educational agencies, and the State in terms of the
numbers not meeting the standard and the year to year changes
in such identification for individual schools and local
educational agencies;
(E) publicized and disseminated the local educational
agencies report cards to teachers, school staff, students,
and the community;
(F) implemented the school improvement requirements
described in section 1116, including--
(i) the number of schools identified for school improvement
and how many years schools remain in this status;
(ii) the types of support provided by the State and local
educational agencies to schools and local educational
agencies identified as in need of improvement and the impact
of such support on student achievement;
(iii) the number of parents who take advantage of the
public school choice provisions of this title, the costs
associated with implementing these provisions, and the impact
of attending another school on student achievement;
(iv) the number of parents who choose to take advantage of
the supplemental services option, the criteria used by the
States to determine the quality of providers, the kinds of
services that are available and utilized, the costs
associated with implementing this option, and the impact of
receiving supplemental services on student achievement; and
(v) the kinds of actions that are taken with regards to
schools and local educational agencies identified for
reconstitution.
(G) used funds under this title to improve student
achievement, including how schools have provided either
schoolwide improvement or targeted assistance and provided
professional development to school personnel;
(H) used funds made available under this title to provide
preschool and family literacy services and the impact of
these services on students' school readiness;
(I) afforded parents meaningful opportunities to be
involved in the education of their children at school and at
home;
(J) distributed resources, including the state reservation
of funds for school improvement, to target local educational
agencies and schools with the greatest need;
(K) used State and local educational agency funds and
resources to support schools and provide technical assistance
to turn around failing schools; and,
(L) used State and local educational agency funds and
resources to help schools with 50 percent or more students
living in families below the poverty line meet the
requirement of having all teachers fully qualified in four
years.
(b) Student Achievement.--As part of the national
assessment, the Secretary shall evaluate the effectiveness of
the programs and services carried out under this title,
especially Part A, in improving student achievement. Such
evaluation shall--
(1) provide information on what types of programs and
services are most likely to help students reach the States'
performance standards for proficient and advanced;
(2) examine the effectiveness of comprehensive school
reform and improvement strategies for raising student
achievement;
(3) to the extent possible, have a longitudinal design that
tracks a representative sample of students over time; and
(4) to the extent possible, report on the achievement of
the groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II).
(c) Developmentally Appropriate Measures.--In conducting
the national assessment, the Secretary shall use
developmentally appropriate measures to assess student
performance.
(d) Studies and Data Collection.--The Secretary may conduct
studies and evaluations and collect such data as is necessary
to carry out this section either directly or through grants
and contracts to--
(1) assess the implementation and effectiveness of programs
under this title;
(2) collect the data necessary to comply with the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
(e) Reporting.--The Secretary shall provide to the relevant
committees of the Senate and House--
(1) by December 30, 2004, an interim report on the progress
and any interim results of the national assessment of title
I; and
(2) by December 30, 2007, a final report of the results of
the assessment.
____
amendment no. 590
(Purpose: To amend the uses of funds under the Local Innovative
Education Programs)
On page 683, strike lines 12 and 13, and insert the
following:
``(H) programs to improve the literacy skills of adults,
especially the parents of children served by the local
educational agency, including adult education and family
literacy programs;
On page 684, line 6, strike ``and''.
On page 684, line 7, strike the period and insert a
semicolon.
On page 684, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
``(O) programs that employ research-based cognitive and
perceptual development approaches and rely on a diagnostic-
prescriptive model to improve students' learning of academic
content at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels;
and
``(P) supplemental educational services as defined in
section 1116(f)(6).
____
amendment no. 591
(Purpose: To amend section 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 regarding professional development activities)
On page 130, strike line 2, and insert the following:
quality of professional development; and
``(J) provide assistance to teachers for the purpose of
meeting certification, licensing, or other requirements
needed to become highly qualified as defined in section
2102(4).'';
On page 130, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and
''.
On page 130, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Requirement.--Each local educational agency that
receives funds under this part and serves a school in which
50 percent or more of the children are from low income
families shall use not less than 5 percent of the funds for
each of fiscal years 2002 and fiscal year 2003, and not less
than 10 percent of the funds for each subsequent fiscal year,
for professional development activities to ensure that
teachers who are not highly qualified become highly qualified
within 4 years.''.
On page 127, line 23, insert ``(1)'' after ``(b)''.
On page 127, line 24, strike ``in paragraph (1),''.
____
amendment no. 592, as modified
(Purpose: To provide a manager's package of amendments)
On page 29, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``SEC. 16. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION.
``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require,
authorize, or permit, the Secretary, or a State, local
educational agency, or school to grant to a student, or deny
or impose upon a student, any financial or educational
benefit or burden, in violation of the fifth or 14th
amendments to the Constitution or other law relating to
discrimination in the provision of federally funded programs
or activities.''.
On page 36, lines 21 and 22, strike ``served under this
part''.
On page 36, strike line 24 and all that follows through
page 37, line 2, and insert the following:
guage arts, history, and science, except that--
``(i) any State which does not have standards in
mathematics or reading or language arts, for public
elementary school and secondary school children who are not
served under this part, on the date of enactment of the
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act shall apply
the standards described in subparagraph (A) to such students
not later than the beginning of the school year 2002-2003;
and
``(ii) no State shall be required to meet the requirements
under this part
On page 37, line 18, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
On page 37, line 23, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
On page 37, strike line 24 and all that follows through
page 38, line 4.
On page 38, line 19, strike ``subparagraph (B)'' and insert
``subparagraphs (B) and (D)''.
On page 41, strike lines 6 through 8 and insert the
following:
``(vii) includes school completion or graduation rates for
secondary school students and at least 1 other academic
indicator, as determined by the State, for elementary school
students, except that
On page 41, line 13, strike ``discretionary''.
On page 44, lines 13 and 14, strike ``curriculum''.
On page 45, line 2, strike ``curriculum''.
On page 46, strike line 20 and all that follows through
page 47, line 2.
On page 47, line 3, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(D)''.
On page 47, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
``(E)(i) beginning not later than school year 2001-2002,
measure the proficiency of
[[Page S6285]]
students served under this part in mathematics and reading or
language arts and be administered not less than one time
during--
``(I) grades 3 through 5;
``(II) grades 6 through 9; and
``(III) grades 10 through 12;
``(ii) beginning not later than school year 2002-2003,
measure the proficiency of all students in mathematics and
reading or language arts and be administered not less than
one time during--
``(I) grades 3 through 5;
``(II) grades 6 through 9; and
``(III) grades 10 through 12;
``(iii) beginning not later than school year 2007-2008,
measure the proficiency of all students in science and be
administered not less than one time during--
``(I) grades 3 through 5;
``(II) grades 6 through 9; and
``(III) grades 10 through 12;
On page 47, line 8, strike ``annual''.
On page 47, line 10, insert ``annually'' after
``standards''.
On page 47, line 11, insert ``, and at least once in grades
10 through 12,'' after ``8''.
On page 47, line 12, insert ``if the tests are aligned with
State standards,'' after ``arts,''.
On page 48, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``(G) at the discretion of the State, measure the
proficiency of students in academic subjects not described in
subparagraphs (E) and (F) in which the State has adopted
challenging content and student performance standards;
On page 48, line 15, strike ``(G)'' and insert ``(H)''.
On page 49, strike line 7 and all that follows through page
50, line 7, and insert the following:
``(iv) notwithstanding clause (iii), the assessment (using
tests written in English) of reading or language arts of any
student who has attended school in the United States
(excluding the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) for 3 or more
consecutive years, except that if a local educational agency
demonstrates to the State educational agency that assessments
in another language and form is likely to yield more accurate
and reliable information on what such a student knows and can
do, then the State educational agency, on a case-by-case
basis, may waive the requirement to use tests written in
English for those students and permit those students to be
assessed in the appropriate language for one or more
additional years, but only if the total number of students so
assessed does not exceed one-third of the number of students
in the State who were not required to be assessed using tests
written in English in the previous year because the students
were in the third year of the 3-year period described in this
clause;
``(I) beginning not later than school year 2002-2003,
provide for the annual assessment of the development of
English proficiency (appropriate to students' oral language,
reading, and writing skills in English) of students with
limited English proficiency who are served under this part or
under title III and who do not participate in the assessment
described in clause (iv) of subparagraph (H);
On page 50, line 8, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(J)''.
On page 50, line 17, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(K)''.
On page 50, lines 19 and 20, strike ``scores, or'' and
insert ``performance on assessments aligned with State
standards, and''.
On page 51, line 1, strike ``(J)'' and insert ``(L)''.
On page 51, line 20, insert ``, but such measures shall not
be the primary or sole indicator of student progress toward
meeting State standards'' after ``measures''.
On page 51, line 21, insert ``Consistent with section
1112(b)(1)(D),'' before ``States''.
On page 52, strike lines 21 and 22 and insert the
following:
is applicable to such agency or school;
``(B) the specific steps the State educational agency will
take to ensure that both schoolwide programs and targeted
assistance schools provide instruction by highly qualified
instructional staff as required by sections 1114(b)(1)(C) and
1115(c)(1)(F), including steps that the State educational
agency will take to ensure that poor and minority children
are not taught at higher rates than other children by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out of field teachers, and the
measures that the State educational agency will use to
evaluate and publicly report the progress of the State
educational agency with respect to such steps;
``(C) how the State educational agency will develop or
identify high quality effective curriculum models aligned
with State standards and how the State educational agency
will disseminate such models to each local educational agency
and school within the State; and
``(D) such other factors the State deems
On page 53, line 12, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(j)''.
On page 59, lines 16 and 17, strike ``performance
standards,'' and insert ``performance standards, a set of
high quality annual student assessments aligned to the
standards,''.
On page 59, line 19, insert ``and take such other steps as
are needed to assist the State in coming into compliance with
this section'' after ``1117''.
On page 68, line 24, strike ``paraprofessionals'' and
insert ``a paraprofessional''.
On page 69, line 18, insert ``, the setting of State
performance standards, the development of measures of
adequate yearly progress that are valid and reliable,''
before ``and other''.
____
amendment no. 593
On page 202, delete line 1 through line 4, and insert the
following:
``(a) In General.--From funds reserved under section 1225,
the Secretary shall contract with an independent outside
organization for a 5-year, rigorous, scientifically valid,
quantitative evaluation of this subpart.
``(b) Process.--Such evaluation shall be conducted by an
organization outside of the Department that is capable of
designing and carrying out an independent evaluation that
identifies the effects of specific activities carried out by
States and local educational agencies under this subpart on
improving reading instruction. Such evaluation shall use only
data relating to students served under this subpart and shall
take into account factors influencing student performance
that are not controlled by teachers or education
administrators.
``(c) Analysis.--Such evaluation shall include the
following:
``(1) An analysis of the relationship between each of the
essential components of reading instruction and overall
reading proficiency.
``(2) An analysis of whether assessment tools used by
States and local educational agencies measure the essential
components of reading instruction.
``(3) An analysis of how State reading standards correlate
with the essential components of reading instruction.
``(4) An analysis of whether the receipt of a discretionary
grant under this subpart results in an increase in the number
of children who read proficiently.
``(5) A measurement of the extent to which specific
instructional materials improve reading proficiency.
``(6) A measurement of the extent to which specific
rigorous diagnostic reading and screening assessment tools
assist teachers in identifying specific reading deficiencies.
``(7) A measurement of the extent to which professional
development programs implemented by States using funds
received under this subpart improve reading instruction.
``(8) A measurement of how well students preparing to enter
the teaching profession are prepared to teach the essential
components of reading instruction.
``(9) An analysis of changes in students' interest in
reading and time spent reading outside of school.
``(10) Any other analysis or measurement pertinent to this
subpart that is determined to be appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(d) Program Improvement.--The findings of the evaluation
conducted under this section shall be provided to States and
local educational agencies on a periodic basis for use in
program improvement.
____
amendment no. 595
At the end of title IX, add the following:
SEC. . MAINTAINING FUNDING FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
Section 611 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act is amended to add the following new subsection:
``(k) Continuation of Authorization.--For fiscal year 2012
and each fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purpose of
carrying out his part, other than section 619.''.
____
amendment no. 512
(Purpose: To authorize programs of national significance)
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001,
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
amendment no. 435, as modified
(Purpose: To support the use of education technology to enhance and
facilitate meaningful parental involvement to improve student learning)
On page 369, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
and redesignate the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
``(2) outlines the strategies for increasing parental
involvement in schools through the effective use of
technology;''.
On page 370, line 24, strike ``and''.
On page 370, line 26, strike the period and insert a
semicolon.
On page 371, line 1, insert the following:
``(b) Allowable Uses of Funds.--
``Each local educational agency, may use the funds made
available under section 2304(a)(3) for--
``(1) utilizing technology to develop or expand efforts to
connect schools and teachers and parents to promote
meaningful parental involvement and foster increased
communication about curriculum, assignments, and assessments;
and
``(2) providing support to help parents understand the
technology being applied in their child's education so that
parents are able to reinforce their child's learning.''.
On page 371, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following
and redesignate the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
``(3) a description of how the local educational agency
will ensure the effective use of technology to promote
parental involvement and increase communication with parents;
``(4) a description of how parents will be informed of the
use of technologies so that the parents are able to reinforce
at home the instruction their child receives at school;''.
On page 374, line 24, strike ``and''
On page 378, line 24, strike ``and''.
[[Page S6286]]
On page 379, line 1, insert the following and redesignate
the remaining subparagraph accordingly:
``(F) increased parental involvement in schools through the
use of technology: and''.
____
amendment no. 386
(Purpose: To provide resource officers in our schools)
On page 893, after line 14, add the following:
SEC. __. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROJECTS.
(a) COPS Program.--Section 1701(d) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796dd(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7) by inserting ``school officials,''
after ``enforcement officers''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by using
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools to serve as a law enforcement liaison
with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and
regulatory agencies, combat school-related crime and disorder
problems, gang membership and criminal activity, firearms and
explosives-related incidents, illegal use and possession of
alcohol, and the illegal possession, use, and distribution of
drugs;''.
(b) School Resource Officer.--Section 1709(4) of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796dd-8) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) to serve as a law enforcement liaison with other
Federal, State, and local law enforcement and regulatory
agencies, to address and document crime and disorder problems
including gangs and drug activities, firearms and explosives-
related incidents, and the illegal use and possession of
alcohol affecting or occurring in or around an elementary or
secondary school;
(2) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) to train students in conflict resolution, restorative
justice, and crime awareness, and to provide assistance to
and coordinate with other officers, mental health
professionals, and youth counselors who are responsible for
the implementation of prevention/intervention programs within
the schools;''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) to work with school administrators, members of the
local parent teacher associations, community organizers, law
enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical
personnel in the creation, review, and implementation of a
school violence prevention plan;
``(I) to assist in documenting the full description of all
firearms found or taken into custody on school property and
to initiate a firearms trace and ballistics examination for
each firearm with the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms;
``(J) to document the full description of all explosives or
explosive devices found or taken into custody on school
property and report to the local office of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and
``(K) to assist school administrators with the preparation
of the Department of Education, Annual Report on State
Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act which tracks the
number of students expelled per year for bringing a weapon,
firearm, or explosive to school.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11)
of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(C) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
school resource officer activities under sections 1701(d)(8)
and 1709(4), to remain available until expended $180,000,000
for each of fiscal year 2002 through 2007.''.
____
amendment no. 424
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 14, 2001,
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
amendment no. 516, as further modified
(Purpose: To provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health
and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school buildings on
children and to establish the Healthy and High Performance Schools
Program)
(The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
amendment no. 804
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cochran
amendment to the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act.
Specifically, I would like to speak to two elements of this amendment
that are of particular importance to me and my State of Iowa.
I would first like to speak to a portion of this amendment that
address an often overlooked segment of our student population, gifted
and talented children. There are approximately three million children
in the United Sates who are considered gifted and talented. It is
important to point out that these gifted and talented children do not
simply possess an extraordinary level of intelligence, but they
actually have a unique way of thinking and learning. Gifted and
talented children look at the world differently and often have a
different way of interacting socially. As a result, gifted and talented
students have different educational needs from other students.
These remarkable children have enormous potential. Today's gifted and
talented child may grow up to become a leader in the field of science
or a world-renowned performer. However, this will not happen
automatically. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged and
their unique skills must be nurtured. Currently, many gifted and
talented children do not receive the educational programs and services
they need to live up to their potential. In fact, many gifted and
talented children lose interest in school; they learn how to expend
minimum effort for top grades, have low motivation, and develop poor
work habits. Others abandon their education altogether and drop out of
school. This is a tragedy not only for the students, but also for our
society.
Much of the Federal role in education is focused on helping Stats to
meet the needs of disadvantage students and students with special
learning needs. Currently, the availability and quality of gifted and
talented educational services varies widely from State to State. This
situation adversely affects all gifted and talented students, but
especially disadvantaged students. In areas without adequate public
school services for gifted and talented students, more well-off parents
can afford to place their children in a private school that offers
gifted and talented programs or pay for private supplemental equational
services like tutors and summer camps. Meanwhile, disadvantaged
talented and gifted students remain in public school settings that
cannot meet their unique educational needs without federal assistance.
My gifted and talented initiative, which is contained in the Cochran
amendment, will help to ensure that ALL gifted and talented students
have the opportunity to achieve their highest potential by providing
grants, based on State's student population, to State education
agencies. These grants will be used to identify and provide educational
services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and
racial backgrounds--including students with limited English proficiency
and students with disabilities. My proposal outlines four broad
spending areas but leaves decisions on how best to serve these students
to states and local school districts.
The legislation ensures that the Federal money benefits students by
requiring the State education agency to distribute not less than 88
percent of the funds to schools and that the funds must supplement, not
supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, rather than simply
accepting Federal funds, States must make their own commitment to these
students by matching 20 percent of the Federal funds. The matching
requirements will help ensure that programs and services for gifted
education develop a strong foothold in the States.
The Cochran amendment also reauthorizes the Javits Gifted and
Talented Students Education Program. The Javits Program is a research
program that funds a national research center and provides grants to a
wide range of public and private entities in order to build a
nationwide capability to meet the special educational needs of gifted
and talented students. The research results from the Javits Program
provide invaluable tools to help schools and teachers learn how to
identify gifted and talented students and improve gifted and talented
programs. I would like to emphasize that, because of the nature of this
program, a continued Federal commitment is required. It simply wouldn't
be practical or prudent to ask each State to conduct its own research
into gifted and talented education. And yet, the research fostered by
this program remains essential in ensuring that teachers have the best
possible information about how to help gifted and talented students
reach their full potential.
I am pleased that my own State of Iowa is one of the leaders in
gifted education. Indeed, I have learned of many
[[Page S6287]]
remarkable young people and dedicated education professionals through
the advocacy efforts of the Iowa Talented and Gifted Association. I
have come to believe, strongly, that Congress must support initiatives
designed to identify and serve the special learning needs of gifted and
talented children.
Our Nation's gifted and talented students are among our great
untapped resources. However, our help is needed to ensure that States
and local school districts are able to address the unique educational
needs of gifted and talented students. In the spirit of the President's
challenge to leave no child behind, I would urge my colleagues to
remember America's gifted and talented children.
I would also like to express my support for another portion of this
amendment that addresses an important educational need in our country.
The Cochran amendment reauthorizes provisions for the National Writing
Project. The National Writing Project is a nationally recognized
nonprofit organization that works to improve student writing
achievement by improving the teaching and learning of writing in the
Nation's schools. Each summer, successful writing teachers at 167 local
sites in 49 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia attend
annual summer institutes through the National Writing Project. At these
summer institutes, teachers examine their classroom practices, conduct
research, and develop their own writing skills. After completion of one
of these summer institutes, the participating teachers return home and
provide professional development workshops for other teachers in their
home schools and communities. These follow-up activities are conducted
throughout the entire academic year in order to maintain and encourage
continued use of writing skills. As a result, the National Writing
Project is able to reach far more teachers than would be possible
through directly administered professional development activities and
teachers are able to reap the benefits the whole year long.
I proud to say that the National Writing Project has a long and
successful history in Iowa. The Iowa Writing Project was initiated in
1978 and was among the first in the Nation. Since its inception, over
8,000 teachers have taken part in the annual summer institutes. And,
this group of teachers has served as the means of administering and
conducting workshops and in-service training programs for many more
thousands of Iowa teachers. In fact, upon returning home from attending
one of those summer institutes, Iowa Writing Project participants can
in turn impact as many as fifty percent or more of their fellow
educators in their community. Thus, the relatively small number of
teachers who participate in the Iowa Writing Project summer institutes
can provide professional development opportunities in writing for
entire communities.
The success of the National Writing Project has resulted in
substantial support in the areas where it has been implemented. In
fact, for every dollar of Federal funding, writing project sites
generate more than six dollars in support from States, host sites, and
other public and private sources. Yet, while the National Writing
Project has a regional focus and widespread local support, the 167
local sites could not operate without the coordination and support
provided by the national organization. At a time when both institutions
of higher education and businesses are increasingly discovering that
Americans do not have the writing skills they need to be successful, it
is essential that we support proven writing programs, like the National
Writing Project.
The two portions of this amendment which I have addressed are
examples of areas where there are clear educational needs that cannot
be met by states alone and where our existing efforts have proven
successful. I support the general goals of the B.E.S.T. bill, including
consolidating or eliminating programs that are not working or that
interfere with decisions that are more properly made at the State or
local level. However, where our efforts have been shown to be
successful and needed, our support should be maintained. Therefore, I
would urge my colleagues to support the Cochran amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleague from
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for including my legislation
reauthorizing the smaller learning communities program in his amendment
related to national activities. I am also grateful to my colleagues for
supporting this amendment. My legislation ensures that the currently
authorized and funded smaller learning communities program, which I
sponsored during the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, continues. This program provides funds to
school districts to assist in the creation of smaller learning
communities or ``schools within schools.'' This is an extremely
important program that we know works to improve student achievement and
make our schools safer.
In the past 40 years, schools--especially high schools--have been
getting bigger and bigger. In today's urban and suburban settings, high
school enrollment of 2,000 and 3,000 are commonplace; in some places
like New York City school enrollments near 5,000. Research demonstrates
that students in schools of this size do not perform as well as
students in smaller schools and large schools are less safe.
Research also has shown that small schools and large schools broken
down into smaller learning communities are superior to large schools on
virtually every measure of educational success. Student achievement is
higher in small school environments. Students in these schools tend to
have higher grades, test scores, and honor roll membership, even when
other variables such as teacher quality or community characteristics
are considered. Furthermore, students from small school environments
are more likely to finish high school. They also are more likely to be
admitted to college, do well once they are there and complete their
studies. These results are even more pronounced for minority and low-
income students. Because teachers have fewer students in smaller
schools they can know their students better, minority and low-income
students are less likely to be overlooked. As a result, the creation of
smaller learning communities can be an effective way to address the
achievement gap between poor students and their more affluent peers.
Smaller learning environments also address non-academic learning
because they provide an environment where students can learn how to
participate actively in their school community. Student attitudes are
overwhelmingly more positive in small schools. Students are far more
likely to be involved in extracurricular activities than students in
large schools. In order to have a sufficient number of players on the
team or members of the club, all students must participate in small
schools. In contrast, in large schools many students do not have a
chance to participate in these important school experiences unless they
display some special talent. Research has demonstrated that
participating in extracurricular activities contributes significantly
to student learning and makes it less likely that the student will drop
out of school or have poor attendance.
Smaller learning communities also result in safer schools. Large
school environments tend to promote feelings of isolation and
alienation. In contrast, smaller learning communities promote a sense
of belonging and community. Since there is an undisputed relationship
between students' feelings of alienation and school violence, the
creation of smaller learning communities is a very effective strategy
for preventing the occurrence of acts of school violence that have
become tragically commonplace in schools across the country in recent
years. In smaller learning environments, problems in interpersonal
relationships or other difficulties can be addressed before they lead
to violence. Because teachers can get to know all students on a
personal level, smaller learning communities go a long way towards
ensuring that all students feel they belong and that they are safe.
This makes the creation of smaller learning communities an important
method of preventing school violence.
Smaller learning communities also help to decrease teacher attrition
and therefore improve the quality of instruction. Teachers working in
smaller learning environments often feel that they have more
opportunity to teach instead of dealing with paperwork and discipline
problems that are more common in larger school environments.
[[Page S6288]]
Under such circumstances, teacher morale is improved making good
teachers less likely to ``burn out.''
I have been advocating for small schools and the creation of smaller
learning communities for a number of years. The smaller learning
community program was first authorized in 1994. The program was funded
in FY 2000. Last year, a total of 354 schools serving over 400,000 high
school students in 39 States were awarded grants to plan, develop and
implement strategies that would personalize the learning environment
for students.
The legislation allows for local decisionmaking with respect to how
to build smaller learning communities. Some of the most common
strategies include: (1) creating career academies that offer students
academic programs organized around a broad career theme, often building
on team teaching methods; (2) implementing mentoring systems in which
teachers, counselors, and other school staff advise students on a
personal level; and (3) creating schools within schools so that smaller
groups of students take all or most of their classes together--often
from the same team of teachers and/or administrators and often
operating in distinct areas of the school facility. All of these
strategies are designed to create a more individualized learning
environment.
In my home State of New Mexico, the Albuquerque School District
received a substantial grant under this program last year, which will
allow them to create smaller learning communities in six of their high
schools and hopefully with additional funding through this program they
will be able to do so in all of the city's high schools. I was able to
visit one of these schools recently and see the good work being done
with some of the funding from this program. I visited Cibola High
School, where they have created a school-within-a-school for ninth
graders with their small schools grant. Taking into account evidence of
a high drop out rate at ninth grade, the faculty at Cibola decided to
move all of the ninth graders into one corridor and divide them into
five teams. Each team of teachers meets together two to three times a
week to discuss instructional strategies and any concerns about
students on their team. The grant allowed them to hire four more
teachers reducing pupil/teacher ratios. They also created two lunch
periods within the school so that the ninth graders have their own
lunch. Preliminary data indicates that the work at Cibola has been
quite successful. The drop out rate declined from 9 percent to a little
over 1 percent. Eighty-six percent of the ninth graders earned all of
their credits last year and moved on to the tenth grade. Students,
teachers and parents continually comment on how the new arrangements
has helped students to be successful. The schools reports that students
feel safer and less worried about the transition to high school.
Teachers comment that they enjoy teaching more since there are fewer
discipline problems and they have more opportunity to work with
students one-to-one. I have a letter from Linda Sink, the principal at
Cibola High School, summarizing the success at the school.
I also note that teachers and administrators in schools in Las Lunas,
NM were also delighted to receive a smaller learning communities grant
last year. They are confident that the career academy, which will open
in August 2001, funded through this grant will do much to improve the
educational experience of their students. This academy will offer core
academic content within the context of career programs in pre-
engineering, electronics, culinary arts, criminal justice, education
and health services.
No doubt small schools in themselves are insufficient to address all
of the problems that are facing our nation's educational system. But
the strategy of reorganizing our large schools into smaller learning
communities is a proven method of reform which attacks many if not most
of the challenges facing schools today. Throughout the history of
education parents of means have sent their children to small schools
because they have known that in smaller schools their children will
have the opportunity to connect with adults who care about them and can
give consideration to their learning needs. With your support, small
schools can continue to be created in order to provide children with
learning environments that help all children succeed.
amendment no. 386
Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hollings, Bingaman,
Landrieu, Cleland, and Johnson be added as original cosponsors to my
amendment.
This amendment is fairly simple, and I hope all of my colleagues can
support it.
It would extend the Justice Department's school resource officer
program for 6 years. It authorizes $180 million per year through 2007
for the wildly successful COPS in Schools Program. This is the same
amount appropriated for the program in each of the last 2 years, the
same amount requested by the administration in its Budget, and it's
enough money to hire 1,500 resource officers per year.
This is a great program. Police departments and schools get together
and they file their application jointly, based on the community's
needs. To date, the Justice Department has funded over 3,800 school
resource officers. They are 3 year grants, totaling up to $125,000 per
officer. That's about $40,000 per year, usually enough to fund the
officer's whole salary.
Why offer this amendment now. Well, the bill before us is designed to
improve our schools, but without my amendment it does not include
dedicated funds to hire school resource officers. And authority for
COPS in Schools, one of the most successful school safety programs out
there, expired last year.
My amendment has been endorsed by the National Association of School
Resource Officers, by the National School Safety Center, by the Center
for the Prevention of School Violence, by the National Education
Association, and by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Why do school safety experts, line officers, the resource officers
themselves, and the heads of police departments across the country, and
educators support this amendment. Because they know COPS in Schools
works. They know school resource officers can help quiet troubled
schools halls, can quickly stop a violent incident, and can mentor
students.
What are school resource officers. These are specially-trained police
officers, men and women who work in and around elementary schools,
middle schools, and high schools. They work with teachers, parents, and
kids to identify and combat school-related crime and disorder problems.
They get to know the students. They are their counselors and their role
models, and, when necessary, they enforce the law.
D.A.R.E. police officers would be eligible to receive funding under
this amendment, just as they are under the current COPS in Schools
program.
I recently sat down with all of the school resource officers in
Delaware. My State has embraced the concept, today, 16 members of the
Delaware State Police serve as school resource officers. So do two
members of the Wilmington Police Department, and one Newark police
officer.
And about 1 year ago, I held a field hearing on school safety at the
William Penn High School in Delaware. One of the witnesses was Delaware
State Police Corporal Jeff Giles. Jeff told me low successful he has
been as a school resource officer, how the kids feel safer, the school
is more secure, and parents and teachers are put at ease.
This program works, COPS in Schools is a success. Let me tell you a
story: When a high school in my State, Lake Forest High School, tried
to phase out its school resource officer because of a lack of funds,
the kids walked out. They walked out of school to protest Corporal Gary
Fournier's, dismissal! The kids would not let their school resource
officer go, they liked having him around so much. We found some funds
that let the school keep Corporal Fournier on, but it should never have
come to that.
Now, I was pleased the appropriators saw fit to include $180 million
for COPS in Schools last year. And it looks like the Administration
wants to continue the program at the same level this year. But year-to-
year appropriations are no substitute for a multi-year authorization.
Schools need to have assurances this is a program that's here to
stay. City
[[Page S6289]]
councils and other local governing bodies need to be able to pass their
budgets knowing the Federal Government is there to help. Today, as we
debate this education bill, authority for the whole COPS program has
expired and with it, the COPS in Schools program's future is unclear.
That just shouldn't be the case. A lot of these school resource
officers are heroes, and we shouldn't end the program that helps fund
them. Take a look at the tragic shooting this past March in Granite
Hills High School in El Cajon, CA. Local officials there have stated
that but for the quick response of Rich Agundez, that school's resource
officer, lives may have been lost. In the weeks following this
shooting, San Diego school officials decided to station resource
officers in all of their 180 schools.
We should help communities like San Diego. We should make sure they
hear the message, loud and clear, that this Senate agrees with them.
Let's give school resource officers to every school that wants one.
Let's give parents a little peace of mind that their kids are safe when
they get on that school bus and head off to learn. Let's give teachers
a hand in maintaining order in their classrooms.
Let's pass my amendment and fund the COPS in Schools program. It
works. It works, and I challenge any of my colleagues to tell me
otherwise.
Amendment No. 640 Withdrawn
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent, further, to withdraw amendment numbered
640.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask consent following final passage,
until the close of business today, the two managers be permitted to add
a managers' amendment to the bill, provided that the amendment is
agreed to by both leaders and both managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Without objection, the Jeffords substitute amendment No. 358 is
agreed to.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
rural education
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to shift the direction of the
education debate for a moment. For the past few weeks, we have been
debating now best to engage the Federal Government in ways to improve
our K-12 schools. There has been a lot of constructive debate on a
number of important topics. An amendment that I planned to offer, S.A.
387, would have addressed another important topic relative to our
schools: recruitment and retention of teachers in rural areas.
I have spoken with Senator Kennedy and agreed to withdraw my
amendment, but I want to speak for a moment about its importance. My
amendment would have increased the scope of current loan forgiveness
provisions for teachers, including an expansion of eligibility to those
teachers who teach in districts identified within the Rural Education
Achievement Program.
I offered this amendment because there is a significant need in our
rural schools for assistance in attracting and keeping good teachers.
My amendment may have helped that situation.
I understand that the issue of rural teacher recruitment and
retention is one that needs further investigation, though, and am
pleased that Senator Kennedy has agreed to address the needs of rural
schools in Senate HELP Committee hearings. We need to better understand
rural needs and find effective ways to provide our rural schools, home
to roughly 17 percent of students throughout the country, with the
resources they need to delivery a quality education.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you for bringing this important matter before us
in the Senate. I agree with you that we should take a closer look at
the needs of our rural schools, and I look forward to looking at how
different mechanisms, including teacher loan forgiveness programs, can
help meet the needs of our rural schools.
Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator, for giving your attention to this
issue of great importance to rural schools in my home State of Montana
and throughout the country
amendment no. 505
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, yesterday we passed amendment No. 505 by
unanimous consent. The amendment relates to BIA schools. The
legislation was considered by the Indian Affairs Committee and the
amendment was cosponsored by the distinguished Chair and Ranking Member
of that Committee. I would like to note for the record that the Navajo
nation has some concerns regarding some of the provisions in that
amendment. I understand that Senators Inouye and Campbell are working
with my office and representatives of the Navajo nation to address
those concerns. I'd like to ask Senator Inouye if my understanding is
correct?
Mr. INOUYE. We are working to address those concerns and hope to be
able to make any necessary changes to the amendment in conference.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I'd like to thank my distinguished colleagues for their
efforts. I also ask my Chair, Senator Kennedy, for his assistance
during the conference to make any necessary amendments to the
underlying bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would be happy to work with Senator Bingaman on making
any necessary changes related to this amendment during the conference.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with the passage of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, there has always been broad support
for the Federal Government to provide assistance and leadership to the
States and localities, the entities that serve as the primary sources
for implementing our education system. Over these past 36 years, we
have had thoughtful debates regarding the Federal role in both
establishing and overseeing education policy. Through these spirited
discussions, we have tried to create initiatives that emphasize
excellence for all students.
Over the past 3 years, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee has closely examined elementary and secondary education. In
the 106th Congress, two dozen hearings were held regarding the ESEA
reauthorization. One of the very first hearings the committee held this
year featured Secretary Paige and focused on the President's education
initiative.
All 20 members of the HELP Committee worked together to draft S. 1
and unanimously voted the bill out of committee. Following committee
action, I and several of my colleagues worked with the White House to
further refine the committee bill that has now passed the Senate.
S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, begins a
new chapter that not only sets goals designed to improve student
performance, but provides a road map for achieving those goals. With
the leadership of President Bush, and the leadership of many Senators
from all parties, we have, before us, legislation that better targets
resources and provides greater accountability at both the State and
local levels.
Our goal must be to ensure that every child will obtain the knowledge
necessary to succeed in our society and in our economy. To ensure
progress toward this goal, the legislation before us will establish
accountability measures for every school, school district and State in
the country, so that the public can see whether or not they are making
annual academic progress.
The House and Senate conferees will soon begin their work in putting
together a final product that will hopefully not set unrealistic goals
and undermine our overall goal of leaving no child behind. If we are
not very careful, the result of our efforts might be havoc rather than
help for our education system and the students it is designed to serve.
I look forward to continuing to work with all of my colleagues in
writing a conference report that will provide the foundation for every
child in this Nation to receive a quality education.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Kennedy,
Senator Gregg, and the other members of the committee. I would like to
join the managers in thanking all of the committee staff for their hard
work. Particularly, I would like to thank my staff, Sherry Kaiman,
Susan Hattan, Scott Giles, Jenny Smulson, Andy Hartman, Justin King,
Carolyn Dupree, Leah Booth, Ann Clough, Sallie Rhodes, and Frances
Coleman for their efforts. I also want to thank Wayne Riddle and Jim
Stedman from the Congressional Research Service and Mark
[[Page S6290]]
Koster, Liz King, and Bill Baird from the Office of Legislative Counsel
for their tremendous contribution in shaping S. 1.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, education is, and should be, among our top
priorities here in the Senate.
Parents know that the quality of a child's education can make or
break that child's future. Businesses understand that they cannot
compete in this high-tech world without a well trained and well
educated workforce.
That is why what we are doing here today, and have done in the past
few weeks is so important.
We have had an opportunity to put aside partisan differences to craft
a federal education policy that will strengthen schools, increase
accountability, empower parents, and give our teachers and
administrators the resources they need to give our children the
education they deserve.
In many respects, we have been successful. The bill itself takes some
positive steps toward improving public education in America. It
provides for annual testing of students and a process for identifying
and turning around failing schools. It requires that high standards be
set for all students. It targets federal education resources towards
the students who need the greatest assistance. It includes a new early
reading initiative to promote literacy. Ands it contains other
important provisions to help increase parental involvement in their
children's education.
In addition, we were able to make a number of key improvements to the
underlying bill during the Senate debate. The bill now includes
language calling for full funding of title I for disadvantaged children
and full funding of the federal commitment to educate children with
disabilities. We increased funding for bilingual education and after-
school programs. We provided additional funding to improve and
modernize resources in school libraries. We passed additional changes
to make sure that States use high quality tests to gauge the progress
of students. And we passed an amendment that I was proud to cosponsor
that will help recruit more teachers.
I am also pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment to provide
$180 million to put more school resource officers in our schools. These
officers are specially trained to prevent school violence and to
quickly respond to crimes, while serving as mentors and role models and
providing guidance to students.
Despite these important steps that we have taken, I must say that I
am truly disappointed by some missed opportunities.
We missed an opportunity to make reducing class sizes a priority when
the Senate voted against Senator Murray's amendment to increase funding
for the 100,000 teacher initiative and ensure that it is not
consolidated with other teacher quality programs.
We missed an opportunity to help our States renovate and build new
schools when the Senate voted against Senator Harkin's amendment to
reauthorize a bi-partisan school construction plan.
But above all else, we missed an opportunity to resolve the issue of
adequate funding for all the education reforms that this bill requires.
The truth is, we can stand here and make eloquent speeches about all
these needed changes in our education system, many of which I
wholeheartedly support, but without the resources to back up these
eloquent words, nothing will change. I am hopeful that even more
resources can be directed toward education during the conference
committee negotiations and though the annual appropriations process
that will begin shortly.
I believe that on the whole this bill takes a dramatic step in the
right direction. It improves accountability, empowers parents, and
begins to make the types of investments that our teachers and students
deserve and need.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the education
reform bill. I am encouraged by the renewed emphasis President Bush and
many in Congress have placed on education and I welcome this
opportunity to share my views on this important subject.
Improving elementary and secondary education has long been a goal of
those of us in Congress. However, for too long, the debate at the
Federal level has focused on the same old ideas that boil down to more
spending without ensuring results and more Federal control of local
schools. That is why I am pleased that President Bush has put forward a
plan for education that takes us in a new direction. S. 1, the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act, encompasses the President's
main goals and puts the Federal role in education on the right track.
Since 1965, when Congress embarked on its first elementary and
secondary education initiative, the Federal Government has continued to
expand its role in the area of education. Yet, while the Federal role
in education has increased, accountability has not. The Federal
Government continues to spend more and more on education while creating
complicated and overlapping programs that may or may not address the
needs of local schools. In fact, research has shown that, while Federal
funding for education has increased substantially over the last 30
years, students' test scores have not shown improvement.
The BEST Act seeks to change this situation by taking steps to ensure
accountability for the use of Federal education dollars. Under this
bill, States will be required to develop their own strategy to measure
improvement and hold schools and school districts accountable through
the use of State-run assessments. In this way, schools and school
districts that fail to help students achieve can be identified so that
assistance can be provided and necessary corrective action taken.
Going hand in hand with the need for greater accountability is the
necessity for increased flexibility for States and local school
districts. Part of the problem of stagnant student achievement despite
increased Federal funding is that Federal funding comes with a
disproportionate degree of Federal control. Federal micro-managing of
classrooms ties the hands of teachers and can actually prevent them
from meeting the individual needs of students.
We in Washington must face the fact that we cannot possibly know
what's best for every school in America. My home State of Iowa contains
a wide variation of school districts from rural to urban. Students in
Des Moines are likely to have different needs from those of students in
Lineville. What works in Davenport may not work in Sioux Center. How
then can we in Washington direct Federal funding to meet the needs of
all the students of Iowa, much less vastly different regions of our
country, without providing for a substantial degree of local control?
If States are to meet tough new goals for student achievement, they
must be given the freedom to do so without having their hands tied by
unnecessary Federal regulations. This bill does just that by
consolidating related programs into more flexible block grants and
allowing schools to waive certain Federal regulations in return for
results.
It is also essential that parents have the opportunity for greater
involvement in their child's education. Under the BEST Act, school
report cards will be issued so that parents will have information on
the quality of their child's school, and support will be given to local
educational agencies and nonprofit organizations to implement parental
involvement programs that are designed to improve student performance.
In addition, parents of disadvantaged students in failing schools will
be given the choice to move their children to a better school.
In closing, while this bill does provide for a substantially
increased investment in elementary and secondary education, it does so
in a framework of real reform that provides greater flexibility to
states and local school districts in return for demonstrated results.
This bill represents a shift from the old Washington-knows-best view of
education to one which empowers states, local communities, and parents
to improve student achievement. President Bush has called on us to
ensure that no child in America is left behind. The Better Education
for Students and Teachers bill will put us on course to meet that
challenge.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
innovative and far-reaching legislation before us, the Better Education
for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act. The Senate for several weeks has
been considering this reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, ESEA, which was first enacted in
[[Page S6291]]
1965 as part of President Johnson's war on poverty. While the anchor of
this law has always been title I--a program to provide support to low-
income and disadvantaged students--ESEA has evolved over the past 35
years to also include important professional development, technology
and after-school programs. The bill before us today makes significant
changes to education policy, reflecting our commitment to make the
Federal Government an effective partner in reforming the nation's
public schools. We all hope these reforms will be the right ones for
our children. While I do have some concerns about the commitment of the
President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
adequately fund the programs in the BEST Act, I am willing to take them
at their word, to leave no child behind.
During the Senate's consideration of the BEST Act, a variety of
amendments offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle have been
considered. I would like to take a moment to highlight just a few of
these.
First, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the managers
of this bill, Senators Kennedy and Gregg, for accepting an amendment
offered by Senator Hatch and myself to re-authorize Department of
Justice grants for new Boys and Girls Clubs in each of the 50 States.
In 1997, I was proud to join with Senator Hatch and others to pass
bipartisan legislation to authorize grants by the Department of Justice
to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. This bipartisan
amendment authorizes $60 million in Department of Justice grants for
each of the next five years to establish 1,200 additional Boys and
Girls Clubs across the Nation. These grants will bring the total number
of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000 to serve 6,000,000 young people by
January 1, 2007.
In my home State of Vermont, this long-term Federal commitment has
enabled Vermonters to established six Boys and Girls Clubs, in
Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes.
Indeed, Vermont's Boys and Girls Clubs received more than $1 million in
Department of Justice grants since 1998. I am hopeful this amendment
will ensure future funding for these successful youth programs.
Some of the most publicized and often-discussed provisions of the
BEST Act are the expanded requirements for student assessment,
specifically the annual testing of schoolchildren in Grades 3 through
8. The legislation will require states to establish comprehensive
assessment systems in order to evaluate the achievement of their
schools and students. Accountability in education is important.
Parents, students, teachers, and taxpayers should know how their
schools are performing. However, it is important that testing be used
as a diagnostic tool in an overall assessment system and not become a
reform in its own right. Tests should measure school progress based on
standards that are part of a high-quality curriculum. My home State of
Vermont has a fine tradition of high expectations in education and
currently has in place a comprehensive framework for school standards
and accountability. I am hopeful that the new role of the Federal
Government outlined in the legislation before us will reinforce, not
undermine, state and local efforts to improve student performance.
For small States--like Vermont--the costs associated with
implementing a large-scale assessment system can be prohibitively
expensive. During consideration of the BEST Act, the Senate approved
two key amendments that will help lessen the burden on the States.
First, the Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to require that
the Federal Government provide at least 50 percent of the costs of
developing and administering the testing requirements in the underlying
bill. If the Federal Government does not provide these funds, the
States will not be required to administer the tests.
Second, the Senate adopted an amendment to have the General
Accounting Office conduct a study to evaluate the true costs to the
States for the testing provisions. This report will be completed prior
to the implementation of the Best Act's assessment requirements. If the
GAO finds the costs to be higher than anticipated, the Senate should
return to the issue. We must not require reform from our States--
especially small States without providing the necessary resources to
support those reforms. We must not set our schools and students up for
failure.
In addition to these important testing-related improvements, the
Senate also approved an amendment to fully fund the Federal
Government's portion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, IDEA. This is a crucial issue and one that education officials
back in our home States have been pushing for--for the Federal
Government to fulfill its responsibility. The Senate also agreed to
authorize full-funding for the title I program, a strong reflection of
our commitment to providing resources to schools that educate low-
income and disadvantaged students.
While several other amendments were approved that will strengthen the
BEST Act, I was pleased that the Senate rejected some proposals that
would have weakened our commitment to public school education. In
particular, I was pleased that the Senate rejected an amendment that
would have directed public dollars to private schools. I have long had
concerns about using Federal tax dollars to support private schools
through vouchers. Although I support the options private schools
provide for some of our Nation's youth, our primary responsibility must
be to ensure that our public schools are the best they can possibly be
in order to give our children the education they deserve. Rather than
send precious public funds to private or religious schools, we must
ensure that all public schools in the United States have the resources
to provide a high quality education for all of our Nation's children.
By approving the legislation before us today, we will be taking the
first step toward enacting quality education reform in our Nation's
schools. The second step will come later in the year when Congress and
President Bush determine the funding level for these Federal programs.
In recent days many of my colleagues have spoken about the need for
adequate funding for these reform efforts. I want to add my voice to
that debate. Unless we commit ourselves to providing the resources
necessary for States to carry out the reforms outlined in this bill, we
will be doing serious harm to our children.
I will vote in support of this bill today with the belief that it
will improve the educational and learning opportunities of the school
children in Vermont and across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to
continue our commitment to education and to provide the resources
necessary to ensure that this far-reaching legislation achieves its
goals.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1,
the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act (the ``BEST'' Act),
which will reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
(``ESEA'').
President Bush has appropriately indicated that education reform is
his number one priority. The BEST bill, which is based on the
President's blueprint, is premised on the President's goal: ``No Child
Left Behind.'' I share the President's goal. Our educational system
must leave no child behind.
Education is the key to a better quality of life for all Americans.
From early childhood through adult life, educational resources must be
provided and supported through partnerships with individuals, parents,
communities, and local government. The federal government has a
limited, but important role in assisting states and local authorities
with the ever-increasing burdens of education.
Originally passed in 1965, the ESEA provides authority for most
federal programs for elementary and secondary education. ESEA programs
currently receive about $18 billion in federal funding, which amounts
to an estimated 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent on education.
Nearly half of ESEA funds are used on behalf of children from low-
income families, under Title I. Since 1965, the federal government has
spent more than $120 billion on Title I.
Despite the conscientious efforts of federal, state, and local
entities over many years, our education system continues to lag behind
other comparable nations. Nearly 70% of inner city fourth graders are
unable to read at a
[[Page S6292]]
basic level on national reading tests. Fourth grade math students in
high poverty schools remain two grade levels behind their peers in
other schools. Our high school seniors score lower than students in
most industrialized nations on international math tests. And,
approximately one-third of college freshman must take a remedial course
before they are able to even begin college level courses.
The underlying issue is--do we just pour more taxpayer dollars to
perpetuate these mediocre results or do we take some bold new
initiatives?
Increased federal education funding, increased state and local
flexibility in their use of federal funds, and increased accountability
are all components of this bill that are steps in the right direction.
First, in regard to funding, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents
will continue to support increased education funding. Last year, nearly
$44.5 billion was appropriated to the Department of Education. This was
a $6.6 billion increase from Fiscal Year 2000 levels. Without a doubt,
education will receive another significant increase this year when
Congress passes the appropriations bill that funds the Department of
Education.
Next, in regard to flexibility, the BEST bill significantly increases
state and local flexibility in the use of their federal education
dollars.
In the current fiscal year, the ESEA funds over 60 programs. Most of
these programs have a specified purpose and a target population.
Our schools do not need a targeted one size fits all Washington, D.C.
approach to education. While schools in Boston, Massachusetts may need
to use federal education dollars to hire additional teachers to reduce
classroom size, schools in other parts of the country may wish to use
federal dollars for a more pressing need, like new text books.
Federally targeted programs for a specified purpose do not recognize
that different states and localities have different needs.
Who is in a better position to recognize these local needs, Senators
and Representatives in Washington, D.C. or Governors, localities, and
parents? Those Virginians serving in state and local government and
serving on local school boards throughout the Commonwealth are
certainly in a better position than members of Congress from other
states to determine how best to spend education dollars in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
The BEST Act increases flexibility and local control. The Straight
A's provisions of this bill and the Teacher Empowerment provisions
serve as two good examples.
The Straight A's provisions of this bill creates a 7 state and 25
district demonstration program. Under the program, 7 states and 25
districts that choose to participate gain the flexibility to
consolidate a number of federal formula grant programs and integrate
these federal dollars with state and local monies that serve children.
In addition, S. 1, in its Teacher Empowerment provisions,
consolidates the targeted and inflexible class size reduction programs
and the targeted Eisenhower Professional development program. The money
in these programs is consolidated so states and localities can use
these funds for a variety of options, including hiring additional
teachers, retaining high quality teachers, developing professional
development programs, or to hire mentors, to name a few of the numerous
options.
Straight A's and the Teacher Empowerment provisions are key
components of the increased flexibility provided in the BEST bill.
Finally, accountability, in certain areas, is needed. Our education
policy is locking out many students and not providing them the key to a
better life. It's time to move forward in education to ensure that all
of our children are given the opportunity to receive a higher quality
of education.
Let's seize this challenge.
President Bush's proposal to test students annually in grades 3-8 in
reading and math, which is part of the BEST bill, is a strong proposal
that promotes accountability.
These tests will result in parents and teachers receiving the
information they need to know to determine how well their children and
students are doing in school and how well the school is educating.
Testing also provides educators the information they need to help them
better learn what works, improve their skills, and increase teacher
effectiveness.
While some have expressed concern that President Bush's proposal
calls for too much testing, I have a different view. A yearly standard
test in reading and math will allow our educators to catch any problems
in reading and math at the earliest possible moment. Tests are becoming
a vital part of life, no matter how onerous. If America is to survive
in the rapidly emerging global economy, tests are a key part.
I note that Virginia has already recognized the importance of
testing, having installed an accountability system called the Standards
of Learning (SOLs). In Virginia, we already test our students in math
and science in grades 3, 5, and 8. The accountability provisions in the
BEST bill will augment the Commonwealth of Virginia's Standards of
Learning.
Mr. President, in summary, the evidence demonstrates that the $120
billion spent on elementary and secondary education since 1965 has
produced mediocre results, at best. This bipartisan legislation is a
step in the right direction, and I look forward to President Bush
ultimately signing education reform legislation into law.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for nearly 2 months the Senate has been
debating reform measures that would establish new goals for our
teachers, our schools, our students and their parents. These
substantial and creative measures passed the Senate today as part of
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The legislation focuses on improving student achievement, student
performance, and school success through expanding accountability
provisions, increasing resources, improving technical assistance, and
providing mechanisms intended to help turn around schools which are
falling short. The bill seeks to ensure that local education agencies
and States have the resources over the next four years to put a highly
qualified teacher in every classroom. This provision also includes an
amendment that I offered which provides that the professional
development training authorized for these teachers also include
training in the use of computer technology to improve student learning
in core academic subjects.
The bill also provides for over 125,000 new teachers to be paired
with mentors and to have the opportunity for year-long internships. The
Reading First provisions of the legislation authorize an important new
initiative that provides nearly $1 billion for States and local school
districts to improve reading education, and help teachers get ready to
ensure that all children become proficient readers by the end of the
third grade. I am pleased that an amendment I offered, to permit funds
under this program to be used for family literacy programs, was
adopted.
The bill also authorizes partnership grants, a new initiative
designed to boost achievement in the areas of math and science through
strengthening and training and recruitment of highly qualified
teachers; and continues the ``Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use
Technology'' program, which trains teachers in the use of technology in
the classroom.
Mr. President, this legislation contains extremely complicated
testing requirements. I have reservations about the utility of such a
federal mandate, given the tests that are already administered in my
State of Michigan. However, because I support the essential reforms
also included in this legislation, I have decided, on balance, to
support the bill.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on one of
the most important pieces of legislation that we will debate this year.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has provided the framework
for the Federal role in education for more than 35 years. The bill
currently before us, the Better Education for Students and Teachers
Act, will chart the course for the Federal role in education for the
next seven years and beyond.
I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting
our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. The Federal Government
has an important role to play in supporting our States and school
districts as they carry out one of their most important
[[Page S6293]]
responsibilities the education of our children.
Every child in this country has the right to a free public education.
Every child. That is an awesome responsibility, and one that should not
have to be shouldered by local communities alone. The States and the
Federal Government are partners in this worthy goal, and ESEA is the
document that outlines the Federal Government's responsibilities to our
Nation's children, to those who educate them, and to our States and
local school districts.
It is with this bill that we must find the right balance between
local control and Federal targeting and accountability guidelines for
the Federal dollars that are so crucial to local school districts
throughout the United States.
Ninety percent of American children attend public schools. More than
879,000 young people in my home state of Wisconsin are enrolled in
public schools, from pre-school through grade twelve. I am a graduate
of the Wisconsin public schools, and I am proud to say that all four of
my children have attended them as well.
The legislation before us has generated vigorous debate in Wisconsin.
I have heard from parents, teachers, school board members, school
administrators, school counselors and social workers, state officials,
and other interested observers. And their comments are clear: they say
that the Congress must not undermine the targeted measures aimed at
improving education for disadvantaged students. They say that we must
live up to our commitment to fully fund the Federal share of elementary
and secondary education programs.
If we are, as President Bush has said, to ``leave no child behind,''
we should ensure that the programs created to help the most vulnerable
children are fully funded.
We should fully fund title I, we should fully fund the Federal share
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), we should
fully fund Head Start, we should fully fund Impact Aid, and we should
fully fund these programs in a fiscally responsible manner.
For too long, the Federal Government has failed to live up to its
promise to fund these and other important education programs. During
this debate, some of our colleagues have argued that money is not the
only answer, and they are partially correct. In Wisconsin, however,
where the State imposes limits on the amount of money that school
districts can raise and spend annually, Federal funding is absolutely
critical. I have heard time and again from frustrated school board
members who have to make the tough decisions about which programs to
fund and which programs to cut. In this time of economic prosperity, we
should not pit groups of students against each other for scarce
education dollars.
In that regard, I am pleased that the Senate has passed amendments to
this legislation that authorize the full funding of title I and of
IDEA.
Nevertheless, I cannot support a bill that includes a new, largely
unfunded Federal mandate for annual testing in grades 3-8. As I noted
earlier in this debate, the response to this proposal from the people
of my state is almost universally negative. My constituents oppose this
proposal for many reasons, including the cost of developing and
implementing additional tests, the loss of teaching time every year to
prepare for and take the tests, the linking of success on these tests
to ESEA administrative funds, and the pressure that these additional
tests will place on students, teachers, schools, and school districts.
I am pleased that the Senate adopted amendments to help to ensure
that these tests are of a high quality, to award bonuses to States for
developing high quality tests rather than for the speed with which the
testing program is implemented, and to require a study by the General
Accounting Office on the true costs of these tests to the States. I am
also pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to increase the
funding provided for these tests by the Federal Government, but I
remain concerned that this bill still falls far short of authorizing
enough funding for this new Federal mandate.
I am concerned that this bill does not do enough to ensure that local
school districts will have the resources to help students be successful
on these tests. I am disappointed that the Senate failed to adopt an
amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, of
which I was an original cosponsor, which would have modified the annual
testing provisions to clarify that States would not have been required
to implement the annual tests unless title I is funded at $24.7 billion
by July 1, 2005, funding levels consistent with the Dodd-Collins
amendment adopted by the Senate.
I was also pleased to cosponsor an amendment offered by the Senator
from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, which would have allowed a State to
opt out of the new federal testing requirements if the State already
has comparable accountability measures in place. Many States and local
school districts around the country, including Wisconsin, have such
programs. We should leave the means and frequency of assessment up to
the States and local school districts who bear the responsibility for
educating our children. Every State and every school district is
different. A uniform testing policy may not be the best approach.
I have also heard from a number of my constituents that this Congress
should do nothing that would undermine the good that the Federal
Government's support has done to help states and local school districts
over the last several years. They told me that we should not undermine
the progress that we have made in smaller class sizes, in technology
education, in standards-based reform, and in accountability for
results.
I regret that this bill does not authorize class size reduction as an
independent program. And I particularly regret that the amendment to
reinstate this program that was offered by the Senator from Washington,
Mrs. Murray, was defeated. I am baffled by the argument put forth by
some of our colleagues that smaller classes mean less to students than
the presence of a good teacher in the classroom. I would argue that
both are important. Of course, a good teacher makes a huge difference.
But even the best teacher in the country will have far better results
with 18 students instead of 50.
My home state of Wisconsin is a leader in the effort to reduce class
size in kindergarten through third grade. The Student Achievement
Guarantee in Education, SAGE, program is a statewide effort to reduce
class size to 15 students in kindergarten through third grade.
The SAGE program began during the 1996-1997 school year with 30
participating schools. Now in the program's fifth year, there are
nearly 600 participating schools.
According to the recently-released program evaluation for the 1999-
2000 school year, conducted by the SAGE Evaluation Team at the
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee:
``When adjusted for pre-existing differences in academic achievement,
attendance, socioeconomic status and race, SAGE students showed
significant improvement over their Comparison school counterparts from
the beginning of first grade to the end of third grade across all
academic areas.''
The study also found that ``teaching in reduced size classrooms is
characterized by more individualization, time spent on teaching rather
than disciplining, class discussion, hands on activities, content
coverage, and teacher enthusiasm.''
The results speak for themselves. Smaller classes translate to better
instruction and better achievement.
The education community in my State is also deeply concerned and I
share this concern about proposals that would shift scarce Federal tax
dollars away from the public schools they are intended to support.
I commend the work of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy,
and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and others who have worked
so diligently these past weeks to negotiate compromise language with
the Administration on many of the issues that remained outstanding
following the HELP Committee's mark-up of this legislation. I regret
that I am unable to support this compromise for a number of reasons.
I am troubled by language in this compromise that would require
school districts to use up to 15 percent of their Title I money to pay
for supplementary services or transportation for public school choice
for students in schools
[[Page S6294]]
that have failed to make adequate yearly progress for three years. This
provision would mean that a school that is already in trouble would
have as little as 85 percent of its Title I money available for school
programs. If Congress agrees to divert badly-needed Title I money for
supplemental services, it is all the more urgent that we fully fund the
Title I program.
I am also concerned about the so-called ``Straight A's'' performance
agreement pilot program that is included in the bill. This provision
would allow seven States and 25 districts in effect to block grant most
of their ESEA funding. I am pleased that this provision stipulates that
this funding cannot be used for private school vouchers and that it can
only be used for specified activities. I am also pleased that
individual school districts within the seven States that participate in
this program may apply to opt out of the State's performance agreement.
Supporters of this provision use terms like ``consolidation of
Federal funds'' and ``flexibility,'' but let's be honest. This is a
block grant. This new version of the Straight A's proposal is an
improvement over earlier versions, but I remain concerned about the
impact this consolidation of funds will have on proven programs such as
class size reduction, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and Safe
and Drug Free Schools; and on professional development for teachers and
other school professionals.
I regret that the Senate did not adopt an amendment offered by the
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to remove the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers from this block grant, an amendment which I
supported and which was supported by many of my constituents.
Another reason I will oppose this bill is the inclusion of an
amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, pertaining
to discipline procedures for special education students. This amendment
is a huge step backward in the fight to protect the civil rights of
disabled students, and I hope that the conferees on this bill will work
to improve this language to ensure that those rights continue to be
protected.
In closing, this debate gave us the opportunity to strengthen public
education in America. Unfortunately, many of the provisions contained
in this bill may, in fact, undermine public education by blurring the
lines between public and private, between church and State, and between
local control and Federal mandates. I must therefore oppose the bill,
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
in support of our nation's teachers
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise once again today in support of the
over 3,000,000 teachers in this country.
In the early days of the debate on this education bill, I, along with
Senator Collins, offered a Sense of the Senate amendment on May 8,
2001. This amendment, which passed by a vote of 95-3, stated:
the Senate should pass legislation providing elementary and
secondary level educators with additional tax relief in
recognition of the many out of pocket, unreimbursed expenses
educators incur to improve the education of our Nation's
students.
Later, on May 23, 2001, on the tax reconciliation bill of 2001, the
Senate passed a Collins-Warner amendment to provide teachers with such
tax relief. The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 98-2.
I worked with Senator Collins on this amendment because I recognize
that individuals do not pursue a career in the teaching profession for
the salary. People go into the teaching profession for different
personal commitments--to educate the next generation, to strengthen
America.
While many people spend their lives building careers, our teachers
spend their careers building lives.
Simply put, to teach is to touch a life forever.
How true that is. I venture to say that every one of us can remember
at least one teacher and the special influence he or she had on our
lives.
Even though we are all well aware of the important role our teachers
play, it goes without saying that our teachers are underpaid,
overworked, and all too often, underappreciated.
In addition to these factors, our teachers also expend significant
money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children.
Most typically, our teachers are spending money out of their own pocket
on: one, education expenses brought into the classroom--such as books,
supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment; and, two, professional
development expenses--such as tuition, fees, books, and supplies
associated with courses that help our teachers become even better
instructors.
These out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our
teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession.
Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.
Estimates are that 2.4 million new teachers will be needed by 2009
because of teacher attrition, teacher retirement and increased student
enrollment.
While the primary responsibility rests with the states, I believe the
Federal Government can and should play a role in helping to alleviate
the nation's teaching shortage.
Here is an example of such help. On a Federal level, we can encourage
individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain in the teaching
profession by reimbursing them for the costs that teachers voluntarily
incur as part of the profession. This incentive will help financially
strapped urban and rural school systems as they recruit new teachers
and struggle to keep those teachers that are currently in the system.
With these premises in mind, Senator Collins and I offered the
Collins-Warner amendment to the Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001.
This amendment which, again, passed the Senate in a vote of 98-2, had
two components. First, the legislation would have provided a $250 tax
credit to teachers for classroom supplies. This credit recognizes that
our teachers dip into their own pocket in significant amounts to bring
supplies into the classroom to better the education of our children.
Second, this legislation would have provided a $500 above the line
deduction for professional development costs that teachers incur. This
deduction would particularly help low-income school districts that
typically do not have the finances to pay for professional development
costs for their teachers.
Unfortunately, this important Collins-Warner amendment was not
included in the tax legislation that emerged from conference. Thus, the
tax relief measure signed into law by President Bush did not contain
the Collins-Warner amendment.
The education legislation that will pass the Senate today, the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act, the BEST Act, is based on a
principle put forth by President Bush entitled, ``No Child Left
Behind.''
As we move towards final passage of legislation that will implement
reforms to achieve the goal of ``Leaving No Child Behind,'' we must
keep in mind the other component in our education system--the teachers.
If we fail to accord equal recognition to our teachers, our children
will be left behind.
Therefore, let me be clear: Senator Collins and I will not forget our
teachers.
Senator Collins and I will continue to work hard to ensure that our
teachers receive recognition in the tax code for the many personal and
financial sacrifices they make to better the education of America's
youth.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the ``Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act.''
Education no longer simply involves students learning the
fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Rather, students must
possess the resources to compete and succeed as we proceed into the
new, highly technical millennium.
The computer and the Internet have become integrated into every
aspect of our lives, and are becoming essential teaching tools in our
schools and a basic component of any classroom. To meet this challenge,
we must strive for innovative ideas and to determine exactly how we can
maximize the Federal government's resources because: Even on its best
day the Federal Government can never be a replacement for local
administrators, educators, and parents.
Simply put, New Mexicans are in a far better position to know exactly
[[Page S6295]]
what our schools and students need than government officials here in
Washington.
Most Washingtonians probably do not know the Corona School District
has 82 students, the Deming School District has 5,300 students, and the
Albuquerque School District has 85,000 students. Additionally, the
Gallup School District encompasses nearly 5,000 square miles, an area
greater than Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
My point is simple, a one-size fits all approach cannot work in New
Mexico and will not work in many areas of our country. Consequently, we
must have solutions that are flexible and meet the diverse needs of our
States, school districts, and schools. I would like to take a couple of
minutes and provide my perspective on how we arrived at the point we
are today with the BEST Bill.
Not too long ago during the mid 1990's a number of us came to the
conclusion that the current K-12 education status quo could no longer
be maintained. I think this realization may have been spurred by
Senator Frist's excellent work as the chair of the Senate Budget
Committee Task Force on Education.
The Task Force produced: Prospects for Reform: The State of American
Education and the Federal Role. The report asked the simple question of
``how well are our children doing?''
The answer was mediocre at best because student achievement had
stagnated over the past two decades even though America had established
a record of near universal access and completion of high school. Thus,
the report concluded that we must address the issue of a quality
educational system. In other words the need for academic competence and
rigor.
Building upon the excellent work of the Task Force, Senator Frist
soon introduced the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999''
commonly referred to as ``Ed-Flex.''
The Bill simply said: one-size does not fit all and thus, States
should be allowed to waive-out of the regulations pertaining to certain
Federal K-12 Education programs. ``Ed-Flex already existed as part of a
demonstration program and Senator Frist's Bill merely sought to provide
all fifty states with that same flexibility.
The Senate passed the Bill overwhelmingly by a vote of 98-1 and
within a month the President had signed the measure into law.
Unfortunately, after the passage of ``Ed-Flex'' for a variety of
reasons there was not any further fundamental changes made to our K-12
system.
Instead, since the last reauthorization of the ESEA in 1994 there is
one approach that we learned is a complete failure: merely providing
more funding.
In 1996 the Federal Government spent about $23 billion on education
and within a few short years the number ballooned to over $42 billion
in FY 2001. The logical conclusion is that a near doubling of
educational funding would result in dramatic improvements in student
achievement.
Sadly, for all of our funding we simply do not have the matching
results.
For instance, in 1996 the average reading score for a 4th grader was
212 and the Federal Government spent about $11 billion on the ESEA.
Five years later, Federal spending on the ESEA had nearly doubled to
$20 billion, while the average reading score of a 4th grader remained
at 212.
In New Mexico, the number of 4th graders testing at or above
proficient in reading actually fell from 23 percent in 1992 to 22
percent in 1998. I would submit that we are not receiving a very good
return on our investment, a near doubling of funding with no
corresponding improvement.
Imagine saving a greater and greater portion of your paycheck each
week and after five years actually having less money. I think it is
fair to say that very few individuals would stand for these results, if
instead of students we were talking about our retirement savings.
Thus, we are now debating the BEST Bill because many of us believe we
simply must have a new approach to measuring academic success.
The Bill fundamentally alters the practice of Washington deciding the
best educational practices and then distributing increasingly greater
and greater sums of money without any accountability. Make no mistake,
we have not abandoned our commitment to providing the necessary
resources to our States and school districts.
In fiscal year 2001 ESEA spending totaled $18.4 billion. President
Bush's FY 2002 Budget proposal requested a $19.1 billion authorization
for ESEA for FY 2002, a nine percent increase.
Building upon the President's proposal, the FY 2002 Budget Resolution
includes the President's nine percent increase in federal education
spending for reading education, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA, and teacher training. I think it is also important
to note that on May 3 when the Senate began debate, the BEST Bill
already authorized $27.7 billion for ESEA in FY 2002, a 57-percent
increase over 2001 and nearly $190 billion over the authorization
period of FY 2002-2008.
If one does not believe that is enough then you will be interested to
hear how much spending we have added since May 3: $11 billion in ESEA
and other education spending for a total of $38.8 billion in FY 2002,
an increase of 120 percent over FY 2001; $211 billion in ESEA and other
education spending for a total of $416 billion over the seven year
authorization period of the Bill; and of that total, $112 billion is
mandatory spending under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, IDEA.
With the preceding as a backdrop, I believe the BEST Bill follows the
President's promise to ``Leave No Child Behind'' by ensuring academic
success through a fresh approach to education.
Our schools will be held accountable for their progress in educating
our children through high standards, testing, and consequences for
failure. Every child in grades 3-8 will be tested in reading and math
proficiency annually.
In New Mexico alone about 151,000 students will be tested. Also, the
State will receive an additional $4.5 million next year and more than
$33 million over the next seven years to offset any new costs.
Instead of simply continuing to receive increased Federal funding in
the face of failure, schools will now face consequences for persistent
failure. Schools failing to demonstrate improvement will face
corrective action, parents will be given the option of public school
choice and supplemental services for their children, and ultimately a
school's persistent failure could lead to reconstitution.
Consolidation of duplicative education programs will provide maximum
local flexibility to focus on improving student achievement. For
instance, Title II of the BEST Bill creates a new State Teacher
Development grant program with a substantially larger pot of money by
combining all of the current teacher funding.
States will have the option to use the funding for professional
development; teacher mentoring; merit pay; teacher testing; as well as
recruiting and training high quality teachers. For example, New Mexico
maintains a commendable student-teacher ratio of 15.2 and under the
Bill will no longer be required to use a portion of these funds for
class size reduction.
Instead, New Mexico will have the option to use that money for
teacher recruitment and retention programs or maybe additional
training.
The new accountability provisions will ensure that historic increases
in Federal education funding will be based upon school performance.
The Bill includes the President's ``Reading First'' initiative to
ensure all children in kindergarten through third grade become
proficient readers by the end of third grade. The Bill also includes
programs to create Math and Science Partnerships, Strengthen After-
School Care, and provide for Early Childhood Reading Instruction.
Parents and the public will be given detailed school-by-school Report
Cards on the performance of their schools. Parents will have the option
to transfer their child from a failing public school to an effective
public school with transportation provided or to redirect their child's
share of Federal funds toward tutoring or after-school academic
services.
Parents will be given the option to transfer their child out of a
persistently unsafe public school to another public school of their
choice. As Congress proceeds, one of its primary missions will be to
determine what is working, what is not working, and what can be
improved to give our children a better chance of succeeding in the
future.
[[Page S6296]]
Before I conclude, I would like to briefly talk about several
provisions that are of personal importance to me.
First, Senator Dodd and a bipartisan group of Senators joined me
earlier this year to introduce the ``Strong Character for Strong
Schools Act.''
I think it is important to note that reform does not only apply math,
science, and reading; instead we must also reform the culture of our
schools. Our Bill will be part of an amendment offered by Senator
Cochran and seeks to encourage the creation of character education
programs at the State and local level by providing grants to eligible
entities.
I believe our Bill builds upon the highly successful demonstration
program to increase character education that was contained in the last
ESEA Bill. Since 1994, the Department of Education has made $25 million
in ``seed money'' grants available to 28 states to develop character
education programs.
Currently, there are 36 States that have either received Federal
funding, or have enacted their own laws mandating or encouraging
character education. Thus, the time is now to ensure that there is a
permanent and dedicated funding source available for character
education programs.
I also believe schools must not only have the resources for core
missions like teaching reading, writing, math, and the sciences, but
the additional resources to face emerging challenges. Thus, I am
extremely pleased the Senate has accepted an amendment authored by
Senator Kennedy and I to increase student access to mental health
services by developing links between school districts and the local
mental health system.
School districts would partner with mental health agencies, juvenile
justice authorities, and any other relevant entities to better
coordinate mental health services by: improving preventive, diagnostic,
and treatment services available to students; providing crisis
intervention services and appropriate referrals for students in need of
mental health services and continuing mental health services; and
educating teachers, principals, administrators, and other school
personnel about the services.
Finally, we must provide our school districts and schools with the
resources to both recruit and retain the best available teachers for
our children.
Earlier this year I introduced the ``Teacher Recruitment,
Development, and Retention Act of 2001.''
I am very pleased to see elements of that Bill included in the
pending legislation. I am also grateful the Senate has accepted my
amendment that will allow States the option of using Teacher Quality
funds for the creation of Teacher Recruitment Centers.
Teacher Recruitment Centers will serve as statewide clearinghouses
for the recruitment and placement of K-12 teachers. The Centers would
also be responsible for creating programs to further teacher
recruitment and retention within the state.
Thank you and I look forward to the working with my colleagues on
this important issue and final passage of this Bill.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan bill that the Senate
has developed over the last 2 months makes major reforms in education
policy by focusing on student achievement and by making schools
accountable for results. California's public schools should be
strengthened by this bill.
This bill includes several important reforms.
The bill extends the current requirement that states must have
academic standards for reading and math and also requires states to
establish standards for science and history.
Students must reach a proficient level within ten years by making
continuous and substantial academic improvement.
To ensure that students are learning, states are required to test
every student in grades 3-8 annually in reading and math based on state
standards.
To ensure accountability, schools that fail for two consecutive years
to make adequate yearly progress must be identified for improvement and
also must identify specific steps to improve student performance.
Local school districts must correct failing schools and states must
correct failing districts either through new curriculum, restructuring
the school, or reconstituting the school staff.
In order to improve teacher quality, this bill authorizes grants to
states for teacher certification, recruitment, and retention services.
The bill enhances programs for limited English proficient children by
providing teacher training and funds for programs to improve the
English proficiency of these students.
The bill authorizes $1.5 billion for afterschool programs to help
struggling students get tutoring and other help.
There are many other important provisions.
It is my hope that this bill will offer opportunities for progress to
many California students, school officials, parents and the public.
California students perform very poorly compared to students in many
other states. Our schools are struggling on virtually every front.
California has some of the largest classes in the nation; California
has overcrowded and substandard facilities; California has 30,000
uncredentialed teachers and a projected enrollment rate triple that of
the national rate.
Here are some examples of how California's schools fall short:
Thirty-four percent of California's schools that participate in Title
I are identified for improvement compared to the national average of 19
percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education.
Only 20 percent of California's fourth grade students are proficient
in reading, ranking thirty-six out of thirty-nine states. California
ranks thirty-two out of thirty-six states for proficient eight graders
in reading, at twenty-two percent, according to Education Weekly
Quarterly Report, January 2001.
California is ranked seventh in the Nation for the highest number of
Level I Literacy citizens, the worst level possible, according to the
National Institute for Literacy.
California spent $5,462 per student in 1999, approximately $1,500
less than the U.S. average, ranking 42nd out of 50 states, according to
Rankings and Estimates; NEA Research, October 1999.
Now let's compare U.S. students to students in other countries.
Students in the United States also perform poorly compared to their
international counterparts.
In literacy, 58 percent of United States high school graduates rank
below an international literacy standard, dead last among the twenty-
nine countries that participated, according to Education Week, April 4,
2001.
U.S. eighth graders scored significantly lower in mathematics and
science than their peers in fourteen of the thirty-eight participating
countries, according to 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study.
The percentage of teachers in the United States that feel they are
``very well prepared'' to teach science in the classroom is 27 percent.
The international average is twice that, peaking at 56 percent,
according to 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study.
U.S. students' knowledge of civic activities ranked third out of the
28 countries that participated. However, those same students have been
slipping in scores relating to math and science. Source: Civic Know-
How: U.S. Students Rise to Test, International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
I am very pleased that the Senate approved several amendments that I
suggested.
One, title I funding: The bill revises the funding formula for title
I, Education of Disadvantaged Children, to better reflect the growth in
poor students for States with growing student populations, giving
California an increase of $98 million over fiscal year 2001, at the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request level.
Two, title I use of funds: In an effort to better focus title I funds
on academic instruction, the bill prohibits school districts from using
funds for the purchase or lease of privately-owned facilities,
facilities maintenance, gardening, landscaping, janitorial services,
payment of utility costs, construction of facilities, acquisition of
real property, payment of travel and attendance costs at conferences or
other meetings, other than travel and attendance for professional
[[Page S6297]]
development. This is similar to the bill I introduced, S. 309.
Three, title I audit: The bill requires the Inspector General to
conduct of audit to determine how title I funds are used and the degree
to which they are used for academic instruction.
Four, master teachers: The bill includes my amendment to allow use of
the teacher training funds in the bill for school districts to create
master teacher positions so school districts can increase teacher
salaries for excellent teachers to mentor and supervise other teachers,
in an effort to keep new teachers in teaching. This is an outgrowth of
a bill I introduced on January 22, S. 120.
Five, small schools: The bill allows the use of Innovative Education
funds, title V, for States and districts to build smaller schools. The
upper limits on the number of students would be for elementary schools,
500 students; middle schools, 750 students; and high schools, 1,000.
This parallels my bill, S. 308.
Six, HeadStart teachers: The bill allows forgiveness of up to $5,000
of federal student loans for college graduates who agree to teach in
Head Start programs, in an effort to put more trained teachers in pre-
school programs, similar to S. 123, which I introduced on January 22.
Seven, gun-free schools clarification: The bill includes several
clarifications of the current Gun-Free Schools Act, the law which
requires a one-year expulsion for students who ``bring'' a gun to
school. This bill (1) includes students who ``possess'' a gun at
school; and (2) clarifies that the term ``school'' means the entire
school campus, any setting under the control and supervision of the
local school district; and (3) requires that all modifications of
expulsions be put in writing.
It is a good bill. American education should benefit immensely from
this bill. Now the task is to provide sufficient funding and other
resources to our schools to implement the reforms we are passing.
I look forward to working for the bill's final enactment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1, the
Better Education for Students and Teachers, or BEST Act. Debate on this
bill has provided the Senate with an important opportunity to assess
the Federal Government's role in educating our children. It has given
us the chance to strengthen the programs which are working and to
reform those that are not. Most importantly the Senate has taken this
opportunity to empower parents, teachers and local administrators with
new flexibility and resources, so that we can achieve the fundamental
goal of our schools: helping every student learn.
America's continued prosperity demands a well-educated workforce. In
their lifetimes, our children and grandchildren will witness scientific
and technological advances which are unimaginable today. Yet, their
ability to take advantage of these marvels will be dependent upon a
strong foundation in the fundamentals of learning--reading, writing,
math, and science. After all, a computer is nothing but a useless
plastic and metal box, if a student doesn't know how to use it.
Likewise, the Internet, with all its possibilities, is meaningless if a
child can't read the words on the screen.
Over the course of this debate, the American people have had the
opportunity to view two contrasting visions for our Nation's schools.
For far too long, the vision of too many has been based on the
Washington-knows-best philosophy of the last 35 years. Under this mind
set, for every possible problem in our schools, the Federal Government
should design a new Government program with new government regulations
and a new government bureaucracy. For instance, the Federal Government
provides only seven percent of total spending on education yet demands
50 percent of all school paperwork. This requires 25,000 education
professionals struggling to fill out forms in order to comply with
Washington's onerous regulations rather than teaching students. What
folly and what a colossal waste of time, talent, and resources.
Under this flawed approach, a program is accountable if its
triplicate forms' are turned in on time and all the ``I's'' are dotted
and their ``T's'' are crossed. Whether the program actually helps
students learn has too often been an afterthought. Simply put, school
districts are told to make their problems fit the federal government's
so-called ``solutions'' rather than allowing schools the flexibility to
design their own appropriate solutions.
This leads one to the question ``Has this approach worked?'' Not
surprisingly, it hasn't.
Unfortunately, too many American children are falling behind. A
recent study found that U.S. fourth graders are ranked third in the
world in science and compete favorably against their international
counterparts in math. This same study shows that by the time these kids
reach middle school, they finish near the middle of the pack in math
and science. Worse still by high school, U.S. students rank 19th among
21 industrial nations in Mathematics and 16th in Applied Sciences,
Third International Mathematics and Sciences Study. These results are
unacceptable. How can we tolerate a system in which the longer American
students spend in school, the further they fall behind? We should not
fool ourselves into thinking that America's international competitors
will sit idly by as we struggle to catch up. We must improve our
schools now in order to ensure that America's students are prepared to
compete and succeed at the highest levels.
Another failing of this Washington-knows-best vision is the belief
that more money will magically solve all that ails our nation's
schools. Let there be no doubt, resources are important and I am
committed to providing substantial increases in education funding. In
each of the past 2 years, Republicans in the Senate not only met
President Clinton's education funding requests, but exceeded them by
billions of dollars. However, money is only part of the answer. The
title I program was enacted in 1965, in an attempt to close the
achievement gap between poor students and their wealthier counterparts.
Thirty-five years and $165 billion later, poor students still lag far
behind their wealthier peers by an average of 20 points on national
achievement tests. Worse yet, a recent appraisal by the National
Assessment of Education Progress found that the achievement gap among
fourth grade students is growing even wider--NAEP, 4/6/2001.
I am proud to say that President Bush, through his ``no child left
behind'' blueprint, has offered us a better vision. This legislation
expresses the obvious truth that parents, teachers, principals, and
administrators have a better understanding of the needs of their
students than the Washington bureaucrats who will never meet these
children, never learn their names, and never come to understand their
hopes and aspirations. This legislation provides States and local
schools unprecedented flexibility to design and implement programs
tailored to their needs with one requirement: results.
For the first time in history, we will establish a blueprint for
holding schools accountable for producing results. States will be
required to set high standards and demonstrate progress as measured by
annual assessments. Now I recognize that annual testing is not the cure
for poor performing schools, much the same way that an x-ray cannot
heal a broken bone. But the x-ray will allow us to better understand
the problems and more importantly, better develop the solutions.
Testing will help parents and teachers evaluate their students and
schools, determine which are struggling and why, and then ensure they
receive the help they need to meet high academic standards.
In a perfect world, these assessments would show that all of our
children are learning and that all of our schools are preparing them
for the future. Unfortunately, experience tells us otherwise.
Therefore, we must be prepared to provide both the resources to help
those schools which are committed to change and consequences for those
which refuse. For those schools that spurn reform and chronically
underperform, I believe we must allow parents choices--whether that be
public school choice, supplementary tutoring services, or a private
institution. I believe this point was best expressed by the editorial
board of one of my home state newspapers, The Paducah Sun, when it
encouraged the President and Congress to ``change the formula for
reform by putting power in the hands of parents--not education
bureaucrats who have a
[[Page S6298]]
vested interest in protecting the status quo.'' I am pleased this bill
takes some positive, first steps in that direction by providing low-
income children with expanded access to charter schools, other public
schools, and private tutors. I am deeply disappointed, however, the
Senate rejected Senator Gregg's very modest proposal to provide these
same children in chronically poor performing schools with the option of
attending a private school.
While the President's accountability and assessment provisions are
clearly the hallmark of the BEST Act, one should not overlook several
of the other key provisions included the bill. The President has stated
that every child should read by the third grade and the BEST Act
incorporates his ambitious ``Reading First'' initiative to meet that
goal.
It also includes a new teacher empowerment initiative which allows
school districts increased flexibility in solving their unique
professional development problems: whether that is through hiring new
teachers, retraining current ones, instituting professional development
programs, recruiting other mid-career professionals, or reducing class
size.
I am also pleased that the BEST Act includes the Straight A's
Demonstration championed by my colleagues, Senator Gregg and Senator
Frist. Straight A's is the embodiment of local control. This
demonstration project would allow seven States, and up to 25 local
school districts, to receive most of their Federal funds in the form of
a single federal grant. In exchange for this unprecedented flexibility,
the participating school systems would be required to meet even higher
standards of academic achievement than already required in the BEST
Act. Jefferson County Public Schools, the largest school district in
Kentucky, has expressed an interest in securing one of these Straight
A's waivers and I hope this fine school system is given full
consideration.
Over the past several weeks, the Senate has engaged in an earnest and
lively debate. I am particularly proud of an amendment I authored which
the Senate adopted ``The Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act.''
This legislation builds upon the work of our colleague, Senator
Coverdell, by extending liability protections to teachers, principals,
administrators who act in a reasonable manner to maintain order in the
classroom. I am honored that the Senate adopted this amendment in an
overwhelming 98-1 vote, and I look forward to working with the BEST
Act's conferees to ensure that it is included in the final conference
report.
This is not a perfect bill. At times during this debate, the Senate
has succumbed to the easy temptation to create more of the narrowly
targeted Government programs designed to satisfy needs of one interest
group or another. I believe the Senate could have better served
America's local schools by simply providing them the necessary
resources and allowing them the flexibility to design solutions which
will meet their particular needs.
However, while I may not agree with every amendment the Senate has
adopted, I believe that on balance this legislation will empower
parents, teachers, and local administrators with new flexibility and
resources, so that we can achieve the fundamental goal of our schools:
helping every child learn.
DIAGNOSIS AND PARTNERSHIP
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, two of the concepts that I am pleased to
have included in this legislation are the principles of ``diagnosis''
and ``partnership.''
I would like to thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg for their assistance
in including this amendment in this legislation.
I am also very happy to be joined by my colleague George Allen of
Virginia as the lead Republican sponsor of this amendment.
I can put a human face on this.
I have done several workdays in schools facing this situation in
throughout Florida.
These workday experiences taught me that when students struggle to
meet performance standards, there is not one uniform cause of failure.
Because of that, there cannot be one uniform remedy to turn a school
around.
School ``A'' may need a revised curriculum, or better qualified
teachers.
While school ``B'', whose students are scoring at the exact same
level as school ``A'' may need English-language tutors and eyesight
screening for poor children who may not have had a vision test in their
lives.
Perhaps the single most important action a school or a school
district, can take at the first sign that students are struggling is a
thorough analysis of circumstances and conditions that are impacting
student achievement.
It's my belief that this analysis should not only encompass factors
that are within the school walls, but outside the school walls, in the
community, as well.
Before we start applying remedies to a struggling school from a menu
of options--let's take the first step and understand what the specific
challenges this particular school faces are.
It's common sense.
I use an analogy of a physician: she must first diagnose the specific
ailment, then she can prescribe the proper treatment.
It's important that this same ``diagnosis'' step be included in each
and every State education plan in America.
This leads to part two: Encouraging partnerships.
In the course of identifying the particular challenges facing a
struggling public school, what happens if one or more of the factors
impacting student performance are outside the school?
What if one of the reasons that third graders are struggling to read
is a very high percentage of adult illiteracy in the school district?
What if one of the reasons 8th graders are failing at math turns out
to be a high absenteeism rate because of safety concerns on the walk to
school?
Such a finding needs be made public--and the school, county, State
and Federal Government, along with community-based groups, should be
encouraged to creatively build appropriate partnerships.
These partnerships can then get to work and try to mitigate outside-
the-school concerns.
My wife Adele brought to my attention a school in North Florida,
Andrew Robinson Elementary in Jacksonville.
Principal Erdine Johnson, of Andrew Robinson Elementary school,
realized that many of her students could not do their best in the
classroom because of a wide range of health concerns.
Instead of just declaring that ``this was a `health' not an
`education' issue'' the North Florida community sprung into action, and
we have a success story today.
In 1995, the University of Florida worked with Andrew Robinson to
open a pediatric health center on-site.
This pediatric center at Andrew Robinson offers services to the
elementary school students, and provides health outreach to the
community.
The staff members at the Center are a vital link between a child's
home environment and their ability to learn in the classroom.
The Center works with parents on nutrition and wellness issues, and
provides preventative screenings for the children.
Children living in healthy environments are more ready to learn, and
that has meant better test scores, and better lives.
This is an example of what our amendment encourages--if a problem
outside the schools is identified--we encourage creative community
partnerships to help solve it.
Several organizations have joined Senator Allen and me in support of
our amendment.
I would like to include for the Record a letter of support from
Daniel Merenda, the President and CEO of the National Association of
Partners in Education.
He says, ``Many of the problems facing our students are not because
of the schools. These problems are created by circumstances and
conditions found beyond the school.''
Once the information is made public about specific concerns outside
the school walls, Mr. Merenda predicts the creation of new partnerships
and the strengthening of existing partnerships.
I agree with his assessment.
I also have a letter of support from the education organization
Communities in Schools, headquartered in Senator Allen's state of
Virginia.
[[Page S6299]]
And the Points Of Light Foundation also endorses this amendment in a
letter I would like to submit for the Record.
I want to again thank Senator Allen for working with me on this
issue, and offer thanks to my colleagues for accepting this amendment
by voice vote.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Partners in Education,
Alexandria, VA, April 26, 2001.
Hon. Bob Graham,
Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham, I write to support your suggested
``Diagnosis'' language for the ESEA Reauthorization. As you
know the National Association of Partners in Education
represents thousands of schools, communities and businesses
throughout America who form effective partnerships to support
student success in and out of school. Our national network of
7,500 members coordinates the work of millions of volunteers
in schools.
We recently completed Partnership 2000: A Decade of Growth
and Change, a national survey of school districts in the
United States. The study examines school partnerships in a
decade during which education topped America's national
agenda. This survey of school partnerships provides a ``next
chapter'' to the baseline data we collected in 1990. The
survey shows that schools in 69% of districts nationwide are
now engaged in partnership activities compared to 51% in
1990. Over 35 million students benefit from school
partnerships today, 5.3 million more than in 1990. Nearly 3.4
million volunteers serve in America's school partnerships,
roughly one for every 14 children in our schools. Volunteers
log approximately 109 million hours of work in and out of
schools, roughly equivalent to 52,000 full-time staff.
In light of these data, your suggested ``diagnosis''
language makes sense. If community and business partners were
aware of the specific problems facing a school and causing
students to struggle, they could direct their energy and
attention to ``fixing'' the problem in and around the
schools. Schools can not do it alone.
Many of the problems facing our students are not because of
schools. These problems are created by circumstances and
conditions found beyond the school. Partnerships are an ideal
mechanism to address and resolve these problems. Your
suggested language for the reauthorization of ESEA will
require that schools or school districts take appropriate
steps to partner with community groups to mitigate the
problem.
Senator Graham, the data we have collected indicates
community partners are contributing time equivalent to 52,000
full time staff to our schools . . . at no additional cost.
Can you imagine what this force could do if schools facing
problems were to ask for help? Your suggested language added
to the reauthorization of the ESEA could make a significant
and real contribution to the thousands of students who are in
failing schools.
Let me know how we can help. We need the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to truly help
America's school children. Your amendment does exactly that.
Sincerely,
Daniel W. Merenda,
President and CEO.
____
Communities In Schools,
Alexandria, VA, May 3, 2001.
Hon. Bob Graham,
Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to support your suggested
``diagnosis'' language for the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act reauthorization. I have served for 25 years as
president of Communities In Schools, the nation's leading
community-based organization helping young people stay in
school and prepare for life. Our network has grown to serve
more than 2,300 schools, providing access to community
resources for over 1.3 million students. Based on our
experience, I am completely convinced that school/community
partnerships are the most effective way to support student
success when non-academic factors must be addressed.
If schools and students do not perform well, the community
stands ready to help. A careful diagnosis of the reasons
behind poor performance, followed by a strong partnership-
building effort with community stakeholders, will turn around
an ailing school. I have seen it happen time and again.
Please let me know if I can be of help to you. Your
amendment to the ESEA is critically important to our nation's
children.
Most sincerely,
William E. Milliken,
President.
____
Points of Light,
May 4, 2001.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham, I would like to take this opportunity
to lend our support to your ``Diagnosis'' language for the
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). The Points of Light Foundation was founded in 1990
with the mission to engage more people, more effectively in
volunteer service to help serious social problems.
The Foundation works in conjunction with over 470 Volunteer
Centers cross the nation in building a grassroots service
infrastructure in order to address each community's most
pressing social dilemmas. As you know, all to often, youth
are disproportionately affected by negative societal forces.
We have found that the building of diverse, multi-sector
community coalitions, in addressing youth issues, is one of
the most effective protective factors. Your amendment
directly facilitates the creation and implementation of such
coalitions.
In closing I would like to commend you on your proactive
approach to ESEA Reauthorization and wish you the very best
success in mitigating those negative forces impacting our
nation's youth.
Sincerely,
Robert K. Goodwin,
President and CEO.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we come to the end of the debate on the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, reauthorization bill, I
would like to share my thoughts on the bill. I plan to support S. 1,
the Better Education for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act, but not
without serious reservations.
We have been working on this legislation for 3 years now, and we
certainly have made some needed improvements over current law. The bill
contains tougher accountability, more along the lines of what Senator
Bingaman and I pressed for back in 1994. For the first time, States,
districts, and schools will be held accountable for improving the
academic performance of all students. Moreover, the bill requires the
timely identification of failing schools so additional resources and
support can be supplied to help those schools turn around, coupled with
real consequences if that failure continues. We will have to be
vigilant, however, to ensure that the accountability system is
workable, and not weakened, during Conference.
Over the past few weeks of debate, key amendments have passed, adding
further value to the legislation. One such amendment was offered by
Senators Harkin and Hagel to increase funding for IDEA by annual
increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of funding
is reached in fiscal year 2007. This amendment also frees up at least
$28.9 billion, and up to $52.5 billion, in education funds by shifting
IDEA funding from discretionary to mandatory funding. This amendment
serves two worthy and important goals: meeting our commitment to fully
fund IDEA and by doing so, freeing up some of the needed resources for
title I and other elementary and secondary education programs.
I was pleased to support this extremely important amendment, as well
as two amendments by Senator Wellstone to improve the testing regime in
the bill. The first amendment ensures that the assessments meet
relevant national testing standards and are of adequate technical
quality for each purpose for which they are used. The Wellstone
amendment also provides grants to States to enter into partnerships to
research and develop the highest quality assessments possible so they
can most accurately and fairly measure student achievement. The second
amendment makes the quality of the test, rather than speed in
developing the test, the factor for determining bonuses for states.
As my colleagues know, I have made improving our Nation's school
libraries a top priority in the Senate and during my time in the other
chamber. Our school libraries have wasted away since dedicated Federal
funding was eliminated in 1981, and, as a result, too many students
lack access to up-to-date, enriching books and other reading material.
Given the direct correlation between well-stocked, well-staffed school
libraries and literacy and overall student achievement, my amendment,
which passed on an overwhelming 69 to 30 vote, authorizes $500 million
for up-to-date books and technology and other needed improvements for
our Nation's school libraries. Moreover, it rightfully makes school
libraries a key component of our effort to increase literacy, as
embodied by the President's Reading First initiative included in the
bill.
I have also worked to bolster current law's parental involvement
provisions based on the simple fact that parental
[[Page S6300]]
involvement is a major factor in determining a child's academic
success. Parental involvement contributes to better grades and test
scores, higher homework completion rates, better attendance, and
greater discipline. The bill already contained provisions I had pressed
for, including ensuring title I families can access information on
their children's progress in terms they can understand; involving
parents in school support teams that help turn around failing schools;
requiring technical assistance for title I schools and districts that
are having problems implementing parental involvement programs; having
States collect and disseminate information about effective parental
involvement practices to ensure schools have information on how to
encourage and expand parental involvement; ensuring parents are
involved in violence and drug prevention programs so parents can
reinforce the safe and drug-free message at home; requiring States and
districts to annually review parental involvement and professional
development activities of districts and schools to ensure the
activities are effective; and requiring each local educational agency
to make available to parents an annual report card which explains how a
school is performing.
In addition, this week, several amendments I offered to further
strengthen parental involvement were adopted. Key provisions were added
to ensure that teachers will receive training on how to work with and
involve parents in their child's education and to allow the use of
technology to promote parental involvement. Most importantly, a grant
fund of $100 million will be established to help districts implement
effective parental involvement policies and practices. All of these
changes go a long way to ensuring a coordinated focus on bringing
schools and parents together in the effort to increase student
achievement, something that is particularly needed in light of the
bill's annual testing requirement and other accountability mechanisms.
Also, I am pleased that this bill contains important provisions from
my Child Opportunity Zone Family Center legislation to foster the
coordination and integration of key services to improve student
learning.
In addition, I am pleased that the Senate handily rejected vouchers,
which would have been the wrong approach to helping our public schools.
In the midst of all of these improvements, however, there are some
troubling aspects to this legislation--the lack of guaranteed
resources, the testing regime, and the Performance Agreement block
grant.
While every Senator recognizes that historically, constitutionally
and culturally, educational policy is the province of State and local
governments, the Federal Government does play a role. And, we have
played this role quite robustly since 1965. The role may be described
as encouraging innovation and overcoming inertia at the local level so
that every student in America, particularly students from disadvantaged
backgrounds, has the opportunity to seize all the opportunities of this
great country.
We have an obligation to continue to work with the States and
localities, in a sense as their junior partner, but as an important
partner, to ensure that every child in this country will have the
ability to achieve and obtain a quality public education.
President Bush and our Republican colleagues claim that this bill
will leave no child behind, but simply adding testing and flexibility
to our elementary and secondary schools without providing adequate
resources will not do the job.
I have had many opportunities to talk with the Secretary of Education
and other leaders in this administration with respect to their
education goals. They talk a good game. They talk about accountability;
they talk about standards. But then when you ask them: Where are the
resources? They say: Well, we really don't need resources.
That is just not the case. Every American understands that education
is worthwhile and that we must invest in education, not just with words
but with dollars, to make a high quality education a reality in the
life of every child.
Access to increased resources and funding plays a crucial role in
improving student achievement and turning around failing schools. For
example, recent changes in the Texas public school financing system
that preceded President Bush's terms as Governor of Texas have led to
substantially equalized access to revenue for low and high income
school districts. Accordingly, reports indicate that test scores in
Texas have risen markedly in those poorest districts that received
additional money under the new financing plan. This has been the case
especially in Houston, the home of Secretary Paige.
Now, for the first time, these local school systems are getting the
needed funding to repair and modernize their schools, reduce class
size, improve professional development, and increase parental
involvement--conduct the kinds of programs that really help children
succeed. A school district cannot pay for these programs with
accountability; real resources are necessary. In addition to the lack
of a real commitment of resources beyond Senator Harkin's IDEA
amendment, I am also particularly disappointed that both Senator
Harkin's school construction amendment and Senator Murray's class size
reduction amendment failed.
Another troubling aspect of this bill is structure of the mandate
that States test each student from grades 3 to 8 in order to receive
Federal education funding. We all recognize that testing is an
essential part of education, but this mandate puts a lot of practical
pressure on the States to harmonize their standards with their
evaluations. Some States have found out it is not practical to give a
test to every child every year because the tests have to be very
individualized to capture all the nuances of those standards.
My sense is, and I have talked to educational experts in the States,
the sheer requirement to test every child every year for grades 3
through 8 will inexorably lead the States to adopt standardized testing
which may or may not capture the standards in that particular State. So
this testing regime could unwittingly move away from one of the central
elements we all agree on, carefully thought out standards and
evaluations that measure those standards. And that is why I supported
Senator Hollings amendment to give States flexibility to waive the
mandate of annual testing if circumstances warrant. I am disappointed
the amendment failed.
I hope we all recognize that testing alone is not sufficient to
improve our schools. Identifying children who are falling behind and
schools that are failing is just the first step. But, the hardest step
is fixing the problem.
As we proceed to Conference, we need to ask ourselves: What are we
really doing to our kids? I believe we are imposing very strict testing
regimes upon our children. Yet if we don't provide adequate resources
to support improvement, such as smaller class sizes and quality
teachers, we will just be setting them up for failure. We will be
turning our backs on the children of this country, and I am sure that
is no one's intention. That is why I will continue to fight for
adequate resources to make sure that every child truly has the
opportunity to achieve.
Another aspect of this bill that is of great concern to me is the
Performance Agreements demonstration program.
Otherwise known as Straight A's, this block grant has the potential
to undermine the continued viability of important Federal standards,
such as targeting funds to schools and children with the greatest
needs, improving teacher quality, strengthening parental involvement,
and providing children with safe and drug free schools.
We have a longstanding commitment to the children of this country to
address the needs that the states and localities cannot. By placing
Federal dollars into state and local block grants, without targeting
the Federal dollars on programs identified to be of great national
concern or ensuring compliance with Federal requirements and basic
commonsense guidelines, we may be abandoning the neediest children of
this country, denigrating parents' rights, and abrogating our
commitment to ensure that every child has the opportunity to obtain a
quality education.
In fact, the States' track record in ensuring that low-income
students get their fair share of education funds is less than
commendable. A March 2001
[[Page S6301]]
Education Trust study of education finance equity found that in 42 of
49 states there are substantial funding gaps between high and low-
poverty school districts. The average gap for the Nation was $1,139 per
year per student. That translates into a total of $455,600 for a
typical elementary school of 400 students.
The Performance Agreement pilot is also not a benign, limited
demonstration project by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, if the
Secretary selects the 7 most populous States and the 25 largest school
districts, the number of students subject to Straight A's would be as
high as 51 percent of the Nation's student population.
For example, if the Secretary selects California, Texas, New York,
Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to participate in Straight
A's, then, based on 1998 figures, approximately 23 million children
would be subject to Straight A's. If the Secretary then chooses the 25
largest school districts in states other than those 7 states, then over
26 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 would be subject to
Straight A's.
Earlier this week I discussed this issue and my amendment, No. 537,
which sought to limit this unproven, Straight A's experiment to States
and districts that serve a combined student population of 10 percent of
the total national student population.
I believe we must have ample opportunity to review and analyze data
regarding this program's effect and its impact on student achievement
before we consider subjecting more than half of our Nation's children
to this new and unproven initiative, and I will continue to pursue this
issue of the scope and consequences of this ``demonstration project''
as we move forward into Conference.
Another problem with this program is its impact on key existing and
new parental involvement protections.
During negotiations on the Performance Agreements, protections were
added to ensure that some of the parental involvement requirements of
title I would have to be followed. Unfortunately, those protections
don't go far enough. Left unchanged, the bill would void large parts of
the title I parent involvement requirements and other key parental
involvement provisions that I, along with the National PTA, Chairman
Kennedy, and others worked to include in this bill.
The last thing we should do is adopt an education bill that reduces
parent involvement and family rights. We should not put families in a
position where they find themselves with fewer rights by virtue of the
fact that the State or district in which they live has chosen to
participate in this program.
Every other initiative to provide flexibility to States and
districts, including Ed-Flex, has put parent involvement provisions off
limits, and this bill should too, and I will continue efforts to
address this issue to ensure that we protect, rather than weaken,
parental involvement as S. 1 moves to Conference. Our Nation's parents
deserve nothing less.
Today, we live in a challenging, international economic order, and
students from Rhode Island are not just competing with students from
Mississippi and California; they are all competing against the very
best and brightest around the globe. That requires investment. It
requires raising our standards and giving every child a chance to reach
those standards to ensure that we have the best-educated workforce that
is competitive in a global economy.
If the education of our young people is truly the No. 1 domestic
priority in the United States, as the President claims, then we must
put our money where our mouth is. Unfortunately, we have not seen the
administration come forward and pledge the kind of resources necessary
to achieve any real reform. Instead, we are in danger of having a risky
testing scheme and no accountability without the resources to make it
all work.
While I support this bill and the significant reforms we have passed,
I will continue to work vigorously to ensure that we provide every
child with the opportunity to achieve a world-class education.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I would like to express my
support for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Although my
support is not without reservation, I believe that the bill before us
today contains much that will ultimately benefit America's schools and
the children who attend them. The legislation's intent--increasing
student achievement, narrowing the achievement gap among minority and
disadvantaged students, strengthening accountability, and increasing
local flexibility--are important goals. Commitments in this bill to
improve school safety, to improve bilingual education, and to fully
fund title I and IDEA were critical factors in my decision to cast an
affirmative vote. Were it not for the inclusion of such key components,
I would be less inclined to support this bill today.
The issue of education itself is non-controversial; the way in which
we educate our children, however, is. Because we are trying to define
the way in which we can improve education and the way that can best be
accomplished, this bill deserves serious debate.
Personally, I have always believed that the Federal Government has a
role as a junior partner in crafting education policy. The U.S.
government in that role, though, should not usurp the State and local
governments' power to make education decisions that are more
appropriately handled at the State and local level. The line between
the Federal Government's role in education and the State's role is a
delicate one, and it should be respected.
One area where I believe this bill treads dangerously close to
crossing that line is with respect to the issue of unfunded mandates.
Specifically, as a former governor, I am concerned by the inclusion of
language in this bill that requires States to conduct assessments and
meet Federal standards of progress under threat of financial penalty,
yet refuses to provide the resources local communities need to meet the
often expensive requirements. This bill mandates 316 new tests
nationwide, but it does not provide the funding to the States to
implement them. Such mandates are irresponsible and burdensome for
State and local governments, and will force them to short change other
priorities or raise local taxes. In my State of Nebraska, rigorous
standards and assessments are in place; the additional tests mandated
by this legislation are not critical to improving our schools.
This issue aside, I am encouraged by the programs and the commitment
to education quality improvement included in this legislation. The
adoption and inclusion of the Mentoring for Success Act in ESEA is a
victory for children throughout the country who need the benefit of a
stable and caring role model. Programs like this one, which seek to
narrow the gap between the have's and the have-nots, are vital. If no
child is truly going to be left behind by our education system, it is
imperative that we fund initiatives like this mentoring program, as
well as other programs like the President's literary initiative,
Reading First. This bill contains these initiatives, and they are one
of the reasons why I will support it.
Overall, this legislation makes great strides toward improving our
educational system. It will help ensure that all children, especially
the neediest, will have access to the quality education they deserve.
Measures like loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers and efforts to
improve teacher quality, will assist in making certain that all
children have access not to just any education, but access to a quality
education. As I previously indicated, this bill is headed in the right
direction, but it is not without flaws. I am hopeful that in the
conference report critical funding issues will be addressed. While the
initiatives the Senate has approved are well intentioned, they will not
be worth the paper they are printed on if we cannot fully fund them. If
education is truly a priority for this Administration and for this
Congress, the reality of funding levels in this bill must be carefully
considered. It is with confidence that I will support this bill,
however, in anticipation that the conferees will work together
diligently to author a conference report that is sensible, balanced,
and fiscally responsible. Our children deserve nothing less; it is
Congress' duty to make good on our promises to leave no child behind.
IMPROVING MATH, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in our efforts to ensure that the United
[[Page S6302]]
States remains an economic and military superpower in the 21st century,
we must strive to improve the quality of math and science education in
this country.
Unfortunately, our schools today need more support in preparing
students--in sufficient numbers--to meet the needs of our country. The
statistics are alarming, as reported by the National Commission on
Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, The Glenn
Commission, and by the National Assessment of Education Progress, NAEP.
Less than one-third of all U.S. students in grades 4, 8, and 12
perform at or above the ``proficient'' achievement level in mathematics
and science on national tests.
More than one-third of such students score below the basic level in
these subjects.
And, among 20 nations assessed in advanced mathematics and physics,
none scored significantly lower than U.S. students in advanced math,
and only one scored lower in physics. Our students can and must do
better.
In an effort to improve math and science education, I have joined
with Senators Roberts, Frist, Collins, and others in supporting much
needed legislation to help improve math and science education in
elementary and secondary schools. This legislation is now part of S. 1,
the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, the BEST Act.
Not only will the math and science provisions in the BEST Act help
improve math and science curriculum in our elementary and secondary
schools, they will help our schools recruit even better math and
science educators, and make available additional professional
development to these educators.
While I wholeheartedly support these provisions, I believe we must go
one step further. Not only should we improve math and science education
at the K-12 level, we must do something to encourage more individuals
to enter vocational schools and colleges and universities in pursuit of
programs of study in math, science, and engineering.
It is estimated that the technology driven economy of the 21st
century will add approximately 2 million science and engineering jobs
to the American economy between today and 2008.
For example, in one sector of America today, in Northern Virginia,
there are over 20,000 high-tech jobs going unfilled month to month.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has issued a report that clearly
demonstrates America's crisis in meeting the demand in our economy for
persons trained in the high-tech field. The report quotes Cato
Institute economist Daniel Griswold stating that, ``Americans are not
earning specialized degrees fast enough to fill the 1.3 million high-
tech jobs the Labor Department estimates will be created during the
next decade.''
In addition, the Judiciary Committee report refers to a Hudson
Institute estimate that states that the unaddressed shortage of skilled
workers throughout the U.S. economy could result in a 5 percent drop in
the growth of the GDP. That translates into approximately $200 billion
in lost output, nearly $1,000 for every American.
In both the 105th Congress and the 106th Congress, we addressed the
high-tech labor shortage by passing legislation to increase the ceiling
on the number of H-1B visas--a visa for highly trained foreign workers
coming to the United States to work in a high-tech position.
America was forced to do this because our educational institutions
are simply not producing the number of personnel needed in the high-
tech sector.
In an effort to provide incentives for Americans to pursue a high-
tech education, the H-1B visa legislation contained very important
provisions that impose a $500 fee per H-1B visa petition that will be
used to fund scholarships for Americans who choose to pursue education
in these important fields. It is estimated that this fee will raise
roughly $450 million over 3 years to create 40,000 scholarships for
U.S. workers and U.S. students.
Once again, I whole heartedly support the H-1B scholarship fund.
Nevertheless, I believe that we in Congress must do more.
For the past several weeks, we have been discussing education reform
in the Senate. However, during this debate we have failed to address
the question of whether our educational system is meeting our Nation's
vital economic and national security needs.
Our national security is becoming more and more dependent on minds
trained in math, science, computer science, and engineering to survive.
To ensure our country's prominent role in the future, we must look
within our borders to meet these needs.
Unfortunately, today, a look inside our borders shows that this
country is facing a dire shortage of math, science, and engineering
students. According to the National Science Foundation, NSF, the
engineering, mathematics, and science fields show declining numbers of
degrees in the late 1980s and the 1990s:
From 1985 to 1998 there has been a 20 percent decrease in the number
of people receiving bachelor's degrees in engineering, from 77,572 to
60,914.
In the last 10 years, the number of students graduating with
bachelor's in physics has dropped by nearly 20 percent, from 4,347 in
1989 to 3,455 in 1998.
From 1986 to 1998 the number of students receiving bachelor's degrees
in mathematics has decreased greater than 25 percent, 16,531 to 12,094.
From 1986 to 1998 the number of students receiving Bachelors in
Computer Science dropped more than 30 percent, from 42,195 to 27,674.
While the U.S. produces fewer and fewer mathematicians, scientists,
and engineers, the rest of the world is making up the difference.
America is importing them.
In several large countries--Japan, Russia, China, and Brazil--more
than 60 percent of students earn their first university degrees in the
science and engineering fields. In contrast, in the U.S., students earn
about one-third of their bachelor-level degrees in science and
engineering fields, and this includes social sciences.
Engineering represents 46 percent of the earned bachelor's degrees in
China, about 30 percent in Sweden and Russia, and about 20 percent in
Japan and South Korea. In contrast, engineering students in the United
States earn about 5 percent of all bachelor-level degrees earned in
this country.
The demand for science and engineering degrees will only increase.
According to the National Science Foundation, during the 1998-2008
period, employment in science and engineering occupations is expected
to increase at almost four times the rate for all occupations. Though
the economy as a whole is anticipated to provide approximately 14
percent more jobs over this decade, employment opportunities for
science and engineering jobs are expected to increase by about 51
percent, or about 2 million jobs.
America must now take steps to encourage, at all levels of our
educational process, young people to undertake the training necessary
to meet our Nation's demands.
We in the Congress must help in every way to redirect these students
from other pursuits into curricula which will train them. This is an
absolute necessity if America is to remain secure economically in this
one world market and militarily with our national security commitments.
Accordingly, I offered an amendment to this education bill to
encourage individuals to pursue programs of study in math, science, and
engineering. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Gordon Smith,
Allard, and Allen.
The Pell Grant program is one of the most successful and respected
educational initiatives taken by the Congress. The concept behind the
Pell Grant properly recognizes the needs of young people coming from
economic backgrounds which make it difficult for them to acquire higher
education.
I have in the past, and always will be in the future, a strong
supporter of the Pell Grant program.
Nevertheless, we in the Congress have an obligation when expending
taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. Our
Nation desperately needs more trained students in math, science, and
engineering. That is an indisputable objective.
The Pell Grant program, in my judgment, offers Congress the
opportunity to provide incentives for student recipients to pursue
curricula in math, science, and engineering.
My amendment provides a 50 percent greater award to Pell Grant
recipients
[[Page S6303]]
who pursue a program of study in math, science, and engineering.
The amendment is as simple as that.
My Pell Grant amendment is one idea, but I am certain it is not the
only idea. As a member of the Senate's Education Committee, I hope that
my chairman, Chairman Kennedy, will schedule hearings to look into our
system of higher education and whether this country is on track to
produce graduates who meet the current and projected needs of this
country.
At this time, I withdraw my amendment in order to give the Education
Committee a sufficient opportunity to address this issue.
At some time in this Congress, I fully intend to reintroduce an
amendment along these lines after the committee has reviewed the
issues, after I get the views of the administration, and after the wide
range of people who on a daily basis review the Pell Grant program have
an opportunity to share their views as well.
amendment no. 443
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify why I voted
against the Voinvich amendment No. 443 to the ESEA reauthorization bill
dealing with loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers. It amends the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan forgiveness for certain
loans to Head Start teachers. I thoroughly agree with the ideas
expressed in this amendment and have supported incentives for teachers
in the past. However, I could not support the amendment because it was
not germane to the ESEA reauthorization. I would have supported such an
amendment in the context of the Higher Education Act. The amendment
provided a tax credit for those individuals who agree to be employed as
a Head Start teacher for 5 consecutive years and have demonstrated
knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, and early childhood
development. I strongly believe that it is essential that we have
qualified individuals employed in our Head Start programs and working
with our youngest children. However, I voted against the amendment,
because it was not germane to the ESEA legislation. I did so because
together with other leaders on the bipartisan negotiated education
compromise bill, I have agreed to vote against non germane amendments
so that we will have a better chance to complete and pass this all-
important ESEA reauthorization. The amendment passed 76-24 and I am
happy with the results.
EDUCATION PROGRAMS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ACT
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my amendment, the Education Programs of
National Significance Act, would reauthorize several elementary and
secondary education programs that have been effective in improving the
education opportunities of students throughout the country.
One example is the National Writing Project which as first authorized
10 years ago and for the current fiscal year is funded at $10 million.
The National Writing Project has 169 sites in 49 States, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It provides training for 1 out of every
34 teachers across the country. In addition, the National Writing
Project raises $6 in local funding for every $1 in Federal funding it
receives, and has become a model program for improving teaching in
other academic fields such as math, science, and reading.
Last fall, the Academy for Educational Development completed a study
which shows the improvement of student writing achievement as a result
of their teachers' involvement in the National Writing Project. The
study evaluated the writing skills of 583 third- and fourth-grade
students. The executive summary of the study states:
Overall, these findings show that students in classrooms
taught by NWP teachers made significant progress over the
course of the school year.
Last month, I held a Senate hearing in Bay St. Louis, MS which
examined the effectiveness of the National Writing Project in my State.
I heard from teachers and school administrators who gave compelling
testimony about the positive results in their classrooms and the
improvement of their teaching skills attributed to participation in
National Writing Project training.
The amendment authorizes the continuation, subject to annual
appropriations, of the National Writing Project.
The amendment also reauthorizes research based educational material
delivered by public broadcasting television stations under the Ready To
Learn Television Act of 1992. The objective was to utilize the time
children spend watching television to prepare them for the first year
of school. Today we know this program has resulted in improved learning
skills for the children.
Recent research from the University of Alabama and the University of
Kansas tells us that Ready to Learn is having a positive impact on
children and their parents. The University of Alabama study found that
Ready to Learn families read books together more often and for longer
periods than nonparticipants. And, this is a fact that surprises many,
Ready to Learn children watch 40 percent less television and are more
likely to choose educational programs when they do watch.
Using the best research tested information available, Ready To Learn
supports the development of educational, commercial-free television
shows for young children. Between the Lions, is the first television
series to offer educationally valid reading instruction which has been
endorsed by the professional organizations that represent librarians,
teachers and school principals. Its partners also include: The Center
for the Book at the Library of Congress; the National Center for Family
Literacy; the National Coalition for Literacy and the Home Instruction
Program for Preschool Youngsters. This broad-based support is
unprecedented for a children's television show. It is well deserved
affirmation of the Ready to Learn mission.
A recent study from the University of Kansas showed that children who
watched Between the Lions a few hours per week, increased their
knowledge of letter-sound correspondence by 64 percent compared to a 25
percent increase by those who did not watch it. The parents and other
care givers of more than six million children have participated in the
local workshops and other services provided by 133 public broadcasting
stations.
I am encouraged by the success of Ready to Learn and look forward to
a new generation of children whose families will have access to the
information needed to develop a learning environment before they are
enrolled in school.
These are two of the Educational Programs of National Significance
that I have been personally involved in starting. The others that are
included in this amendment are also proven examples of federally funded
education programs that will help us have a better educated student
population throughout the Nation.
I urge Senators to support the amendment.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, throughout this debate, we have wrestled
with how we best improve education for all of our children; whether it
is more money, more flexibility, more accountability, higher standards,
less bureaucracy, more choice. All of these considerations and goals
are worthy and certainly play an important role in ensuring that our
children receive the best education possible.
But, there is one ingredient--one factor--that without fail, is the
most essential to a child's education and that is a parent. I submit
that there is no school building, no computer, no TV, no textbook that
can replace the role of a parent when it comes to educating a child.
And accordingly, no government official or school official shares the
same interest as a parent in protecting and raising their child. I say
this because the amendment Senator Dodd and I are offering today is
about ensuring the rights and responsibilities of parents in raising
and educating their children.
As parents, we entrust schools with our children in the hope and
belief that they will receive a strong education that will prepare them
for the future--that they will be taught and learn the basic
foundations for success--reading and writing, math and science. Parents
expect this.
What they don't expect and what many of them aren't even aware of is
that their children will be used as captive focus groups for marketers
during the school day. That is not part of the bargain and, I submit,
it shouldn't be.
[[Page S6304]]
Last year a GAO study found that marketers and advertisers are
increasingly targeting our children in the school setting. This is not
some freak occurrence. It is a calculated marketing strategy that is
intended to get around parents and reach kids directly in a way they
could not normally. In a recent column raising concerns about this
phenomenon, George Will notes how marketers now study ``marketing
practices that drive loyalty in the preschool market'' and ``the
desires of toddler-age consumers.'' In addition, marketers advise that
``School is. . .the ideal time to influence attitudes.''
There is no question that there is a lot of money to be made in
marketing to children. According to a report by the Motherhood Project
at the Institute for American Values, in 1998 alone, children ages 4 to
12 spent nearly $27 billion of their own money and influenced nearly
$500 billion in purchases by their parents. As parents, many of us have
probably felt like it was a lot more than $500 billion at times.
I am all for free enterprise. But, there are boundaries. And,
marketers are crossing those boundaries when they seek to go into
public schools and collect marketing information on children without
parental consent. A recent editorial in the Christian Science Monitor
echoes this sentiment.
Schools are for learning, not market research . . .
Businesses do have a role in education. They can lend
financial and other kinds of support, and be recognized for
such. But educators and businesses also need to recognize
boundaries--and stay within them.
Congress has acted in the past to provide some boundaries to schools
and protect parental rights and children's privacy. The Family
Education Rights Protection Act, the Protection of Pupil's Rights Act
and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act all provide parents
with some ability to protect how information is collected and shared on
their children. None of these laws, however, protect parents' rights
when third party marketers seek to collect similar information from
their children in the classroom.
Our amendment seeks to address this gap in the law and reenforce
these boundaries by ensuring that when third parties want to come in to
the classroom and conduct market research and collect information on
our children for strictly commercial purposes, they have to ask the
parent.
We are not breaking new ground here other than filling in gaps in
existing law. In addition, parental consent is already required for
many other activities that occur in the schools, including
extracurricular activities, field trips, and internet access. Indeed,
parental consent is required before students may participate in the
Everybody Wins Program that many Members and staff of this body
participate in.
I know there have been concerns and questions raised about our
amendment and active lobbying against our efforts.
However, in working with the White House, I believe we have addressed
most of the these concerns as reflected in our modified amendment. We
have sought to minimize concerns over ``burden'' by requiring parental
consent for only those commercial/marketing activities that seek to
collect information on children.
In addition, we have attempted to provide local flexibility --while
ensuring parental involvement--by allowing local school boards to
provide additional exceptions to the consent requirements so long as
the information they seek to collect is not personally identifiable and
the school notifies the parents of their policy on these data
collection activities.
Despite our good-faith efforts to address legitimate concerns, I
understand that some financial interests may oppose parental consent no
matter what. They are willing to argue that requiring parental consent
imposes a burden on local schools.
I fundamentally disagree and submit that if we have come to the point
where we consider parents a burden and parental consent a mandate--then
we have a bigger problem in this country. Parents a burden? I say we
need more such local burdens in our schools, not less. You simply can't
get more ``local'' than a parent.
And as a corollary to this, I would suggest that these interests have
it backwards. It is rather the local schools that are interfering in
the rights of parents. Schools exceed their authority when they allow
third parties to come in to the classroom and collect information on
children for strictly commercial purposes.
We have tried to focus this amendment on those non-educational
activities that parents traditionally maintain authority over. Parents
have a tough enough time trying to raise and instill certain values in
their children. Schools should not be a parent-free zone where
marketers get unfettered access to children that they would not
otherwise be able to achieve anywhere else.
There is nothing intended in this amendment to disadvantage public-
private partnerships in our schools. And, in fact, most public-private
partnerships have nothing to do with collecting personal information on
children. Indeed, I continue to believe that many of these
relationships can be very positive for schools and students. We want to
encourage, not discourage many of these relationships.
But, I submit that these public-private partnerships should be able
to withstand the scrutiny of parents when they seek to collect
information on their children. If it is in their child's interest--you
can be sure a parent will give their permission. I don't know of any
reputable company whose business model would be based on intentionally
skirting parental rights and targeting children directly in the
schools. And, I doubt, that any business that relied on such a tactic
would be around very long.
I do, however, believe that the amount of interest and extensive
lobbying that has been shown on our little amendment is a strong
indication of how much money is being made on targeting kids in the
schools and how important it is to some marketers to get around parents
and get access to our children directly.
Our modified amendment was crafted in consultation with the
Administration, and is supported by the National Parent Teacher
Association, Commercial Alert, the Eagle Forum, the American
Conservative Union, Focus on the Family, and the Motherhood Project at
the Institute for American Values, among other groups.
I am pleased with the acceptance of this amendment by the Senate and
thank the managers for their work on this bill and on our amendment.
I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill is
considered in conference.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the
consideration of House companion H.R. 1; that all after the enacting
clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1, as amended, be substituted in
lieu thereof, and the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the
bill; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference
with the House--
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, I believe there has been a
modification.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I could restate it: I ask consent that the Senate
proceed to consideration of the House companion, H.R. 1; that all after
the enacting clause be stricken, and the Text of S. 1, as amended, be
substituted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time, and that
the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the bill.
I further ask consent S. 1 be returned to the calendar.
Mr. REID. 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. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The foregoing request is agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. We are about to go to final passage. I wanted to thank
staff on both sides. This bill has been on the floor for 7 weeks. Their
tireless efforts, literally hours, days, nights, and weekends, on
behalf of moving this bill along have been extraordinary.
On my staff, of course, Denzel McGuire led the effort and did an
exceptional job. Jamie Burnett, Rebecca Liston and other folks, so many
it is hard to mention, as well as John Mashburn, Andrea Becker, Holly
Kuzmich, and Raissa Geary on our side have all worked extraordinary
hours to make this work.
[[Page S6305]]
We also thank the professional staff of Senator Kennedy, led by
Danica and other members of their staff.
Mr. KENNEDY. I express my thanks now, and I will do so at the
conclusion and hope they understand we appreciate this.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will suspend, on behalf of Senator Warner,
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw his previously submitted amendment
No. 792.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this will be the last vote of the week.
There will be no session tomorrow. We begin again on Monday. There will
be no votes on Monday. For the information of all Senators, the first
vote will occur sometime on Tuesday, but we will be in session on
Monday.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the
previous order, the bill will be read the third time.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]
YEAS--91
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--8
Bennett
Feingold
Helms
Hollings
Inhofe
Kyl
Nickles
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--1
Inouye
The bill (H.R. 1), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. KENNEDY. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for the clerk to make technical and conforming changes to any
previously agreed to amendments with respect to the ESEA bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 441, As Further Modified
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lugar
amendment No. 441 be further modified with the technical change that I
now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The modification is as follows:
On page 265, line 25 strike ``identified'' and all that
follows through ``Secretary'' on line 1 of page 266, and
insert ``nationally available''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, before we turn to morning business, there
is one thing I would like to say. I have been on the floor during the
entire 8 weeks of this debate on the education bill. A great deal of
that time--about 6 of the weeks--I spent with Senator Jeffords as a
manager of this bill. I just want to make sure everyone understands his
contribution to this piece of legislation.
He was chairman of this committee. His substitute is what we
accepted. In the kind of glow of having finished this legislation--we
are all happy to finish a major piece of legislation; the President
should be happy--I just want to make sure everyone understands the
great contribution to this piece of legislation made by the junior
Senator from the State of Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join my friend and colleague, Senator
Reid, in paying tribute to Jim Jeffords at the time of the completion
of this legislation. As the Senator rightfully pointed out, Senator
Jeffords was really the architect of the development of the core
aspects of this legislation and presided over a very extensive markup.
He was able to bring the committee to a unanimous vote of support for
that legislation even though there were a good many differences that
were expressed. It does not surprise any of us who are on that
committee because he has been a leader in the area of education over
his entire career in the Senate as well as in the House of
Representatives.
There are many features in this legislation that have been included
of which he was really the architect many years ago. So I think all of
us who are mindful of the progress that has been made join in paying
tribute to Senator Jeffords for his remarkable leadership. I think this
body will continue to benefit from his continued involvement. We
certainly depend upon it, and I know America's children depend upon it
as well.
I thank Senator Jeffords for all of his good work.
____________________