[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 111 (Thursday, September 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8302-S8311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. 2903. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
a guaranteed adequate level of funding for veterans health care; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans
Health Care Funding Guarantee Act.
I am introducing the legislation because I believe the VA health case
system is on the brink of crisis. While the number of veterans in the
United States has decreased over the years, the number of veterans
utilizing the VA health care system has increased exponentially. This
is due in large part to the availability of Community-Based Outpatient
Clinics and the prescription drug benefits available through the VA.
The VA estimates that it will see an additional 1.2 million patients
over the next fiscal year. This would bring the number of veterans
served through the VA up to 4.9 million, a 31 percent increase in one
year.
While the VA has become the health care system of choice for many
veterans, the system is simply not equipped to handle this kind of
patient influx at the current funding level. According to the VA,
300,000 veterans are waiting for appointments, half of them will end up
waiting six months or more. I know this to be the case in my own State.
In Sioux Falls, veterans are currently being given appointment dates
for November of 2003. Furthermore, recent articles in the Aberdeen
American News and the Argus Leader reported that the VA has been
instructed not to recruit veterans into the health care system any more
because of lack of resources.
This is despite the fact that for the past several years Congress has
provided funding for veterans health care in excess of the VA's
request. Two years ago, I helped fight for a $1.4 billion increase in
veterans health care funding over the Administration's initial request.
Last year, we succeeded in adding an additional $1.1 billion. During
Senate consideration of the Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations bill, I was pleased to work with my fellow members of
the Appropriations Committee to ensure that $417 million in additional
funding for veterans health care was included in the bill. Given the
current problems within the VA health care system, I was disappointed
that President refused to spend $275 million of the emergency funding
that was earmarked for veterans health care. According to the
Independent Budget, which is prepared by the Disabled American
Veterans, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans
of Foreign Wars, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2003 request for VA
health care is $1.7 billion less than what is needed to fully fund our
veterans' health care needs.
We need a new approach to veterans health care. The Veterans Health
Care Funding Guarantee Act that I am introducing today would change the
way in which the VA health care system is funded by moving it from
discretionary to mandatory spending. The bill would establish a base-
line funding year and calculate the average cost of a veteran using the
VA health care system. The bill would them provide funding for the
total number of veterans who participate in the VA health care system.
That would be indexed annually for inflation.
In my opinion, the men and women who put their lives on the line in
defense of this Nation should not be told that they need to wait up to
a year before someone can assess their medical needs. I believe that
the Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act is an important starting
point to begin a discussion about maintaining our commitments to our
Nation's veterans. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in
examining new ways to provide our veterans with the high-quality health
care they deserve.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 2905. A bill to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the elimination of
the 60-month limit and an increase in the income limitation on the
student loan interest deduction; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will
repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 with respect to student loan interest deduction. My bill
will make permanent the provisions that are set to expire under current
law on December 31, 2010. The affected provisions include the
elimination of the 60-month limit on deductibility of interest paid on
a qualified education loan and clarify that voluntary payments of
interests are deductible, as well as the adjustment to the phase out
range for eligibility for loan interest deduction up to $50,000 through
$65,000 for single taxpayers and $100,000 to $130,000 for joint
returns.
Making these provisions permanent will be good for taxpayers because
borrowers will benefit from added tax relief when they voluntarily pay
back
[[Page S8303]]
higher amounts of their student loans each month. More people will also
benefit from the adjustment of the phase out range to a higher income
bracket for both single and joint tax returns.
In my home State of Colorado over 40 percent of the adult residents
have at least a Bachelor's degree, thus repealing the sunset date of
these provisions will have a positive long term effect on my
constituents. The current law is already helping many people and we can
continue to help Americans keep more of their money by repealing the
sunset date of these provisions.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF
2001 WITH RESPECT TO ELIMINATION OF 60-MONTH
LIMIT AND INCREASE IN INCOME LIMITATION ON
STUDENT LOAN INTEREST DEDUCTION.
Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
amendments made by section 412 (relating to elimination of
60-month limit and increase in income limitation on student
loan interest deduction).''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2906. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a
program to make allocations to States for projects to expand 2-lane
highways in rural areas to 4-lane highways; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural
Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2002. The purpose of
this legislation is to ensure that States have the resources they need
to upgrade major two-lane roads across the Nation to high-quality four-
lane divided highways. The goals of this bill are to improve the safety
of our most dangerous highways and to stimulate economic development in
rural areas.
I think most Senators would agree that the Dwight D. Eisenhower
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is one of the
transportation marvels of the 20th century. The system's 46,000 miles
of divided highways interconnect virtually every major urban areas in
the Nation. The system represents one of the most efficient and safest
highway systems in the world.
Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was planned it left many
rural communities and smaller urban areas without direct links to the
high-quality transportation network that the interstate highways
provide. Many of these smaller and rural communities continue to suffer
economically because of the lack of high-quality four-lane highways.
To address this issue, in 1995 Congress developed the concept of a
National Highway System as a way of extending the benefits of an
efficient highway network to all areas of the country. Congress
designated the National Highway System to help focus federal resources
on the nation's most important roads.
Today there are about 160,000 miles on the National Highway System
including all of the interstate highways and all other routes that are
important to the nation's economy, defense, and general mobility. The
NHS comprises only 4 percent of the nation's roads, but carries more
than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck
traffic and 90 percent of tourist traffic.
The NHS reaches nearly every part of the nation. According to the
Federal Highway Administration, about 90 percent of American's
population lives within 5 miles of an NHS route. All urban areas with a
population of more than 50,000 and 93 percent with a population of
between 5,000 and 50,000 are within 5 mile;s of the NHS. Counties with
NHS highways have 99 percent of all jobs, including 99 percent of all
manufacturing jobs, 90 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of
agricultural jobs.
The NHS is the critical transportation link of most of our Nation's
rural areas. According the Federal Highway Adminstration, of the
160,000 miles now on the National Highway System, fully 75 percent, or
119,000 miles, are in rural areas. Of the 1.2 trillion vehicle miles
traveled in 2000 on NHS roads, about 60 percent were in rural areas.
I hope all senators will agree that improving highway safety should
be our top priority. When it comes to highway safety, the fact that
travel on four-lane roads is safer than two-lane roads. This is
especially true in rural areas. According to the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, in 1998 the rate of traffic fatalities on
all rural roads was 2.39 per 100-million vehicle miles; however, the
rate of rural interstate highways was half as high, only 1.23 per 100
million vehicle-miles.
The reason for the lower fatality rate on rural interstate highways
should be obvious. When a road has only one lane in each direction,
trucks and other slow-moving vehicles increase the hazard of passing.
Vehicles turning on or off a two-lane road can also increase risk. A
divided four-lane highway greatly reduces these perils.
Of the 119,000 miles of rural NHS roads, about 33,000 miles are
interstates and another 28,000 miles have been upgraded to four or more
lanes. The remaining 58,000 miles, more than half of this rural highway
network--are stil only two-lane roads with no central divider. These
are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System.
Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade
the most dangerous two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways.
According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all federal
highways funding between 1992 and 200 has gone either to roads in urban
areas or to interstate highways. Consequently, there is a continuing
shortfall in Federal highway funding needed to upgrade the most
important rural two-lane highways. My bill will help address the
shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be upgraded to
four-lane divided highways.
In my State of New Mexico, we have made some progress toward
upgrading our rural two-lane highways to four lanes. In recent years,
US550 from Bernalillo to Farmington and US285 from Interstate 40 to
Carlsbad have been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of
US70 from Las Cruces to Clovis and a key segment of US54 from El Paso
to Alamogordo are nearly completed. But much more remains to be done.
New Mexico has 2,935 miles of rural roads in the NHS. One thousand of
these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of New Mexico NHS
highways, 1,755 miles are in the rural parts of my state, especially
Chaves, Colfax, Eddy, Lincoln, Guadalupe, Otero, Quay, San Juan, and
Union Counties. And almost 70 percent--1,217 miles, of New Mexico's
rural NHS highways remain only two-lane roads. These two-lane roads are
major transportation routes with heavy truck and commercial traffic. In
2000, a total of 10.3 billion vehicle miles were traveled on New
Mexico's NHS highways, and about one quarter, or 2.7 billion miles,
were traveled on these rural NHS roads.
As in many States, New Mexico's rural counties strongly believe their
economic future depends on access to safe and efficient four-lane
highways. Basic transportation infrastructure is one of the critical
elements companies look for when choosing where to locate. Truck
drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety and efficiency of a
four-lane divided highway.
Thus one of the top priorities for rural cities and counties in my
State is to complete the four-lane upgrade of such key routes as US54
from Tularosa to Nara Vista, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas State
line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, US 666 from north to Gallup to
Shiprock, US285 from Clines Corners to Lamy, and US180 from Deming to
Silver City. These two-lane rural routes in New Mexico not only bear
some of the State's heaviest truck and automobile traffic, but also are
some of the state's most dangerous. In fact, US 666 is considered one
of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation.
I ask unanimous consent that a table showing recent accident,
fatality and injury rates for these major two-lane highways in New
Mexico be printed in the Record.
[[Page S8304]]
EXHIBIT 1.--MAJOR TWO-LANE NHS HIGHWAYS IN NEW MEXICO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashes Fatalities Injuries
Two-lane NHS routes in New Mexico 1998-2000 1998-2000 1998-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US 62/180 Carlsbad to Texas State 55 2 34
Line 30 miles......................
US 54, Tularosa to Texas State Line 364 12 217
SPIRIT High Priority Corridor 214
miles..............................
US 64/87 Raton to Clayton Ports-to- 163 5 157
Plains High Priority Corridor 74
miles..............................
US 666 North of Gallup to Shiprock 148 12 166
59 miles...........................
US 180 Deming to Silver City 40.5 60 3 50
miles..............................
US 285 Clines Corners to Lamy 37 42 0 26
miles..............................
US 60/84 Santa Rosa to Ft. Sumner to 97 6 54
Clovis 89 miles....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, New Mexico is not alone in needing to
upgrade two-lane roads on the National Highway System. Just last month
my good friend Senator Reid of Nevada, chaired a hearing of the
Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee of the
Environment and Public Works Committee on the topic of western
transportation issues. One of the witnesses, Tom Stephens, Director of
Nevada's Department of Transportation, testified that rural two-lane
highways are of special concern in Nevada. He indicated that the number
of head-on accidents, which almost always include at least on vehicle
with no fault, were especially troublesome in his state. I would note
that Nevada has about 1,300 miles of rural two-lane NHS highways.
Excluding interstates, 92 percent of the rural NHS miles in Nevada are
still only two-lane roads.
Along with Nevada, many other States have long stretches of two-lane
NHS roads. For example, Texas has over 3,400 miles of rural two-lane
NHS roads. In Montana, 95 percent of all rural NHS roads are still only
two lanes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing
the number of miles of rural two-lane highways in selected States be
printed at this point in the Record.
EXHIBIT 2.--RURAL TWO- AND FOUR-LANE ROADS ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM FOR SELECTED STATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total rural NHS Rural Interstate All other rural Two-lane rural NHS Percent Rural Two
State miles NHS miles NHS miles miles Lane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas............................................ 2,253 467 1,786 1,465 83%
California.......................................... 5,031 1,357 3,674 2,433 66%
Colorado............................................ 2,598 767 1,831 1,286 70%
Idaho............................................... 2,188 526 1,662 1,471 89%
Illinois............................................ 3,358 1,515 1,843 1,407 76%
Iowa................................................ 2,672 635 2,037 1,547 76%
Kansas.............................................. 3,352 694 2,658 2,293 86%
Michigan............................................ 3,048 741 2,307 1,753 76%
Minnesota........................................... 2,213 557 2,581 1,897 73%
Missouri............................................ 3,385 806 2,579 1,853 72%
Montana............................................. 3,739 1,134 2,605 2,469 95%
Nebraska............................................ 2,686 437 2,249 1,964 87%
Nevada.............................................. 1,921 480 1,441 1,317 92%
New Mexico.......................................... 2,647 892 1,775 1,217 69%
North Dakota........................................ 2,619 531 2,088 1,659 79%
Oklahoma............................................ 2,836 721 2,115 1,105 52%
Oregon.............................................. 3,259 581 2,678 2,197 82%
Pennylvania......................................... 3,459 1,207 2,252 1,426 63%
South Dakota........................................ 2,822 629 2,193 1,938 88%
Texas............................................... 8,736 2,213 6,523 3,465 53%
Wisconsin........................................... 3,240 580 2,660 1,702 64%
Wyoming............................................. 2,784 826 1,958 1,924 98%
U.S. total.......................................... 118,878 33,048 85,830 58,444 68%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FHWA, Highway Statistics 2000, Tables HM-15 and HM-35
Mr. BINGAMAN. Of course, two-lane rural NHS roads are not unique to
the large western states. Even in the East, where states are smaller,
many NHS routes remain only two lanes. In Vermont, 78 percent of rural
NHS roads are only two lanes, in New Hampshire it's 84 percent and 99
percent in Maine.
Mr. President, I do believe it is time Congress took action to
improve the safety of cars and trucks on these important two-lanes
roads. This year, I secured $1 million in federal funding to begin the
upgrade of US64/87 between Clayton and Raton, which is part of the
Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System.
In addition, Senator Roberts and I have introduced legislation to
designate US Highway 54 from El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, Texas,
and Oklahoma to Wichita, Kansas as the SPIRIT High Priority Corridor.
Our bipartisan bill has three cosponsors. A high-priority corridor
designation provides no additional federal funding, but helps focus
attention on the need to upgrade the nation's major two-lanes routes.
The sponsors of the bill have joined me in urging the Environment and
Public Works Committee to act promptly on our bill.
Mr. President, the purpose of the bill I am introducing today, the
Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2002, is to
provide direct federal funding to states to upgrade existing two-lane
roads in rural areas to safe and efficient four-lane divided highways.
The states would determine which two-lane roads they wanted to upgrade.
To be eligible for funding, the highway must be on the National Highway
System or a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor. In my
bill, priority for funding is given to upgrading the most dangerous
two-lane highways, routes most affected by increased traffic as a
result of NAFTA, highways that have high levels of commercial traffic,
and projects that will help stimulate regional economic growth. Total
funding for six years is $1.8 billion from the highway trust fund.
Mr. President, I continue to believe strongly in the important role
of highway infrastructure to economic development. Even in this age of
the so-called ``new'' economy and high-speed digital communications,
roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the
commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient
highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of our
country.
I recognize that the funding level in this bill is not large enough
to upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the
course of the next six years. Upgrading an existing two-lane road to a
full four-lane divided highway can cost upward of one million dollars
per mile.
Moreover, some of the existing two-lane roads probably don't have
sufficient traffic to justify upgrading at this time. In addition, some
two-lane NHS routes pass through scenic areas where it may not be
appropriate to upgrade to four lanes. However, I do believe the funding
in this bill will take us a long way toward ensuring the most critical
projects are completed in the next six years.
Mr. President, next year Congress must take up the reauthorization of
the comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. I am
introducing this bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety
of rural two-lane NHS routes will receive the attention it deserves in
the debate on reauthorization. I look forward to working with the
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator
Jeffords, and Senator Smith, the ranking member, as well as Senators
Reid and Inhofe of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear
Safety Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal
resources are in place to begin the work of upgrading existing two-lane
NHS roads to safe, efficient four-lane divided highways.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S8305]]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Four-Lane Highway
Safety and Development Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. RURAL 4-LANE HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Title 23, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after section 138 the following:
``Sec. 139. Rural 4-lane highway development program
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) 2-lane highway.--The term `2-lane highway' means a
highway that has not more than 1 lane of traffic in each
direction.
``(2) 4-lane highway.--The term `4-lane highway' means a
highway that has 2 lanes of traffic in each direction.
``(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
establish and carry out a program to make allocations to
States for projects, consisting of planning, design,
environmental review, and construction, to expand eligible 2-
lane highways in rural areas to 4-lane highways.
``(c) Applications.--To be eligible to receive an
allocation under this section, a State shall submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such form, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Eligible Highways.--The Secretary may make
allocations under this section only for projects to expand 2-
lane highways that are on--
``(1) the National Highway System; or
``(2) a high priority corridor identified under section
1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032).
``(e) Priority in Selection.--In making allocations under
this section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
``(1) projects to improve highway safety on the most
dangerous rural 2-lane highways on the National Highway
System;
``(2) projects carried out on rural highways with respect
to which the annual volume of commercial vehicle traffic--
``(A) has increased since the date of enactment of the
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (107
Stat. 2057); or
``(B) is expected to increase after the date of enactment
of this section;
``(3) projects carried out on rural highways with high
levels of commercial truck traffic; and
``(4) projects on highway corridors that will help
stimulate regional economic growth and development in rural
areas.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section
$300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 138 the following:
``139. Rural 4-lane highway development program.''.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Torricelli,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 2907. A bill to redesignate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 900 Brentwood Road, NE, in Washington, D.C.,
as the ``Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. Processing and
Distribution Center''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
rename the Brentwood Postal Facility after Joseph Curseen, Jr. and
Thomas Morris, Jr., the two postal workers who died in last year's
anthrax attack.
I have expressed my deepest condolences to the families of these two
men, both residents of my State of Maryland. They were true public
servants. They were patriots. They died in service to their country. I
want to you to know that I will be standing sentry to make sure that we
do not forget Joe Curseen and Tom Morris.
America must remember the sacrifices they made, the pain felt by
their families, and everyone affected by the anthrax attacks. All of
our Nation's postal workers deserve our attention and our gratitude for
their bravery, steadfastness and dedication to duty. The lives of
Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. truly exemplify the best
qualities of our Nation's postal workers.
Joseph Curseen was a native of Washington, DC and a long-time
resident of Prince George's County, MD. Mr. Curseen began and ended
each day at his job with a handshake and a smile for his colleagues. He
enjoyed his job at the postal service so much that he never called in
sick during his 15 years there.
He was also a leader in his community and in his church. As President
of his neighborhood association, he and his wife of 16 years,
Celestine, helped build a playground and a park for local children. He
was also active in his local church and led a bible study group for his
fellow postal workers. He will be missed by many.
Mr. Morris, who known as ``Moe'' by his friends at the Brentwood
facility, was also a Washington, DC native and long-time resident of
Maryland's Prince George's County. He was a veteran, serving over four
years in the Air Force. He continued his public service with 23 years
at the U.S. Postal Service.
His wife Mary says he was a quiet and deeply religious man who led by
example. In her eulogy, she said that he was true to others and true to
himself. Mr. Morris was a beloved husband, grandfather, father, and
stepfather as well as president of his local bowling league. He will
also be deeply missed.
By renaming Brentwood in their honor, America will pay tribute to
their commitment to public service, their families and their
communities.
At their funeral, these two dedicated public servants were awarded
the Postmaster General's Medal of Freedom. Yesterday, Representatives
Wynn, Norton and the rest of the Maryland delegation led the charge to
pass a bill to rename the Brentwood facility for these two fallen
heroes. Today, the Senate takes the next step to make sure that the
Brentwood facility is renamed in honor of these fallen heroes.
On Friday, I will be going to New York to commemorate last year's
terrorists attacks, to honor our public servants, our firemen, postal
workers, port authority workers, EMTs, policemen, and all those who
assisted in the rescues.
I want all postal workers to know that I am on their side. I will not
forget how deeply they have suffered. I will continue to fight for them
in Congress and make sure that their voice is heard.
It is our responsibility as United States Senators to ensure the
right people are asking the right questions to protect all Americans
from the risks of terrorism, and to ensure that all Americans who are
victims of terrorist attacks are treated equally.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JOSEPH CURSEEN, JR. AND THOMAS MORRIS, JR.
PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
(a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 900 Brentwood Road, NE, in
Washington, D.C., and known as the Brentwood Processing and
Distribution Center, shall be known and designated as the
``Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. Processing and
Distribution Center''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr.
Processing and Distribution Center.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kohl,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2908. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to establish at
least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team in each State,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Weapons of
Mass Destruction Civil Support Act of 2002. This bill would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish at least one Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Team, WMD-CST, in each State by September 30,
2003. The cost of establishing, training, equipping, and operating
these new teams would be paid for from existing fiscal year 2003
resources, thus requiring no additional spending.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Leahy,
Lieberman, Kohl, Reid of Nevada, Sarbanes, Torricelli, and Jeffords.
WMD-CSTs are comprised of 22 full-time National Guard personnel who
are specially trained and equipped to deploy and assess suspected
nuclear, chemical, biological, or other threats
[[Page S8306]]
in support of local first responders. There are currently 32 full-time
and 23 part-time WMD-CSTs across the country.
The emerging chemical, biological, and other threats of the 21st
century present new challenges to our military and to local first
responders. The WMD-CSTs play a vital role in assisting local first
responders in investigating and combating these new threats. The
September 11 terrorist attacks emphasize the need to have full-time
WMD-CSTs in each State. As the events of that day so clearly and
tragically demonstrated, local first responders are on the front lines
of combating terrorism and responding to other large-scale incidents.
As we rethink the security needs of our country, we should support the
creation of an additional 23 full-time WMD-CSTs as soon as possible.
Establishing these additional full-time teams will improve the overall
capability of Wisconsin and the other 18 States with part-time teams to
prepare for and respond to potential threats in the future.
According to the National Guard Bureau, WMD-CSTs performed 694
operational missions between September 11, 2001, and August 26, 2002.
These missions fall into three categories: ``response,'' ``standby,''
and ``assist.''
Response missions occur when a team is deployed to sample a suspected
or known hazardous substance. Since September 11, WMD-CSTs have
deployed on 151 response missions, most of which were to investigate
reports of suspicious white powder in the wake of the anthrax attacks
of last fall. Other response missions included reports of the presence
of unknown liquids or of suspicious pieces of mail.
There have been 74 standby missions during this same time frame. On
these missions, WMD-CSTs deploy to provide expertise to a specific
community for the visit of a dignitary such as the President or a
Governor, or for a large-scale event. In the past year, WMD-CSTs have
been on standby for events including the Major League Baseball All-Star
Game in Milwaukee, the 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Salt
Lake City, the World Series, the Super Bowl, and Mardi Gras.
Assist missions give WMD-CST members the opportunity to use their
technical expertise to assist or provide advice to local first
responders or other organizations and to participate in conferences and
other events that focus on how to respond to attacks. In the past year,
CSTs have performed 469 assist missions in support of local, State, and
Federal agencies including law enforcement, hospitals, health
departments, state emergency management agencies, the American Red
Cross, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the United States Navy.
As I noted earlier, a WMD-CST was deployed to be on standby during
this year's baseball All-Star game, which took place in my home State.
Because Wisconsin has only a part-time WMD-CST, the Minnesota team was
deployed on a standby mission to Milwaukee for this event. The members
of Wisconsin's part-time WMD-CST also participated in this deployment.
According to the Wisconsin National Guard, if Wisconsin had a full-time
team, deployment of the Minnesota team would not have been necessary.
In light of the tragic events of September 11, the presence of at
least one WMD-CST in each State is all the more imperative. These
terrorist attacks, and the subsequent mobilization of tens of thousands
of National Guardsmen and Reservists, also underscore the need to
provide adequate resources for and to ensure full-time manning of the
National Guard. As we move to establish at least one 22-member WMD-CST
in each State, I call on the Pentagon to allocate the necessary
resources to ensure adequate National Guard personnel end-strengths to
provide for full-time manning and for the additional personnel
necessary for these new teams.
I am pleased that this bill is supported by the Wisconsin National
Guard and by the National Guard Association of the United States.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Weapons of Mass Destruction
Civil Support Team Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF AT LEAST ONE WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM IN EACH STATE.
(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure
that there is established, by not later than September 30,
2003, at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support
Team in each State.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support
Team'' means a team that--
(A) provides support for emergency preparedness programs to
prepare for or to respond to any emergency involving the use
of a weapon of mass destruction (as defined in section 1403
of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of
1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302)); and
(B) is composed of members of National Guard who are
performing duties as members of the team under the authority
of subsection (c) of section 12310 of title 10, United States
Code, while serving on active duty as described in subsection
(a) of such section or on full-time National Guard duty under
section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code.
(2) The term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(c) Funding.--The costs of establishing Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams to comply with the
requirement in subsection (a), and the costs of training and
equipping the teams established to comply with such
requirement, may be paid (to the extent properly allocable on
the bases of purpose and period of availability) out of funds
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for
purposes as follows:
(1) For the Army, for--
(A) military personnel;
(B) operation and maintenance;
(C) other procurement; or
(D) military construction.
(2) For the Air Force for military personnel.
(3) For the Department of Defense for the chemical and
biological defense program.
______
By Mr. Smith of Oregon:
S. 2909. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
permanent the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses and
to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to such deduction and the
extension of the exclusion for employer-provided education assistance;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to
introduce the College Tuition Relief Act of 2002, a bill that will go a
long way toward easing the burden of college tuition fees for parents
and students across the country.
When President Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act last year, millions of hard working Americans
finally got to keep more of their own money so that they could spend it
in ways that helped their families most. Too often forgotten, though,
is the fact that none of the provisions in that important tax relief
bill is permanent. All will expire in a few short years, and, unless we
act soon, the American taxpayers will have to adjust their budgets to
account for higher taxes once again.
Included in last year's tax relief legislation were two provisions
that are of the utmost importance to families and young students
struggling to pay the ever-increasing costs of higher education. The
first allows taxpayers to deduct as much as $4000 of their college
tuition expenses from their taxes every year; the second allows
individuals to exclude as much as $5250 in employer-provided education
assistance from their taxes, a critically important benefit for a great
many Americans attempting to balance school with work, family, and
limited budgets.
Because of an unfortunate quirk in the law, both of these provisions
will expire after only a few years, and future generations of young
people will not receive the benefits of a more affordable education.
The solution to this problem is simple: we should make these provisions
permanent. My bill does just that. The College Tuition Relief Act of
2002 will simply ensure that future college students will be able to
count on their government to support them as they work towards
attaining a good education.
The two provisions that this bill will make a permanent part of our
tax law have always received broad bipartisan support, and I am
confident that none of us wants to take back the help we are currently
giving to college students
[[Page S8307]]
and the families who so often contribute to their tuition. Even my
colleagues who did not vote for last year's tax relief should find it
easy to support this bill and, along with it, our Nation's college
students.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``College Tuition Relief Act
of 2002''.
SEC. 2. PERMANENT DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED
EXPENSES.
(a) Permanent Deduction.--
(1) In general.--Section 222 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to qualified tuition and related expenses)
is amended by striking subsection (e).
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section
222(b)(2) of such Code (relating to applicable dollar limit)
is amended by striking ``2004 and 2005.--In the case of a
taxable year beginning in 2004 or 2005,'' and inserting
``2004 and thereafter.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning after 2003,''.
(b) Repeal of Suspension.--Section 901 of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
amendments made by section 431 (relating to qualified tuition
and related expenses).''.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF
2001 WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FOR
EMPLOYER-PROVIDED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
amendments made by section 411 (relating to modifications to
extension of exclusion for employer-provided educational
assistance).''.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Allard, and Mr. McCain):
S. 2911. A bill to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the modifications to
education individual retirement accounts; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to make
permanent a provision included in last year's tax bill, the Coverdell
education savings accounts. Congress took an important step last year
in providing real options for parents to save for their children's
elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educations. It is important
now that we ensure that these options do not disappear in the future.
Coverdell education savings accounts provided a new way for parents
to save for their child's education. Accounts were increased to a
maximum of $2,000, and parents can now use the tax-free savings for not
only a college education, but also for elementary and secondary school
expenses, including tuition, books, computers, and tutoring. Earnings
on contributions to this plan are tax-free due to the tax bill that was
passed last year. Now, it is time to continue this commitment to our
children.
Parents who want to open an education savings account this year for
their child who is five years old have no guarantee that those accounts
will exist beyond 2010. Last year's tax bill, as we know, sunsets in
2010. But for this program, parents need to be assured that money they
are saving now will be available for college tuitions in 2011 and
beyond. With the cost of higher education rising faster than family
income, we need to ensure that these saving tools will be available for
years to come for families who are preparing for their future and being
smart about their money. The average cost of tuition and fees between
the 1989-1990 and 2001-2002 school years rose by 8 percent a year at 4-
year private colleges and 10 percent a year at 4-year public colleges,
while family income rose by only 5 percent annually during that same
time period.
Parents should have the assurance that accounts that are started now,
and that would not be tapped into for ten to fifteen years, would still
be around at that time.
I have started education savings accounts for my grandchildren, who
are all infants and toddlers, and I want to know that they will be able
to use this money years down the road for elementary or secondary
schools or for their college education.
We need to make this benefit permanent now to ensure savings
incentives for years to come.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF
2001 WITH RESPECT TO MODIFICATIONS TO EDUCATION
INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS.
Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
amendments made by section 401 (relating to modifications to
education individual retirement accounts).''.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Reed):
S. 2912. A bill to provide for educational opportunities for all
students in State public school systems, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Student Bill of
Rights. This bill is critical to ensuring that every child in America
receives the educational opportunity that is the foundation of
America's promise of equal opportunity for all.
This bill would hold States accountable for providing the
fundamentals of education--including highly qualified teachers,
principals, and academic support personnel, challenging curricula,
small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, up-to-date
facilities and technology, and capable guidance counselors to students
at all schools in the State. Current law requires that schools within
the same district provide comparable educational services. This bill
would extend that basic protection to the State level by requiring
comparability across school districts. And, this bill would help ensure
that states comply with State or Federal court orders concerning the
fairness of their public school systems.
I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Wellstone, and Reed for joining me
in introducing this bill and for their longstanding commitment to this
issue. I also want to thank Representative Chaka Fattah, of
Philadelphia. Representative Fattah is a leader in the fight for
educational opportunity for all. He and I have worked together closely
on this issue, and he is introducing a similar Student Bill of Rights
in the other body today.
Nearly 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, our educational
system remains largely separate and unequal. Whether an American child
is taught by a high quality teacher in a small class, has access to the
best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new,
modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that
have been shown to be essential to a quality education, still depends
on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United
States ranks last among developed countries in the difference in the
quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children.
This is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights
is so important to our children's ability to achieve academically, to
gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in
our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global
economy.
Last year, Democrats and Republicans worked closely with President
Bush to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, to hold schools accountable
for closing the achievement gap for low-income students, minority
students, limited-English proficient students, and students with
disabilities and to hold them accountable for all students performing
at a high level.
I commend the President for his interest in education. Holding
schools to high standards of student achievement is critical. But, it's
not the same as reaching those standards. If we don't
[[Page S8308]]
make sure that every school has the tools it needs, we will be like
parents with two children telling them that they expect both children
to work hard and do well in school, but that they will only help one of
them with their homework, will only allow one of them to use the
family's encyclopedia or computer, and will only allow one of them to
study in their warm room, while the other must study in the unheated
basement.
I know that States have made some progress over the years in leveling
the playing field, and that they are facing terrific budgetary
pressures. And, I know that the Federal Government is facing budget
deficits instead of surpluses, but providing enough resources for
education shouldn't be a choice. We don't, and we shouldn't, say that
``We'd like to do more about national security, but times are tough.''
We can't accept that argument for education, either.
This bill does not represent a radical notion. This Congress and
last, 42 Senators and 183 Representatives voted for similar legislation
that Mr. Fattah and I offered. A radical notion is the idea that a
country founded on the principal of equal opportunity for all can
continue to accept an educational system that provides real educational
opportunity for just a select few.
That's not to say that only states have to do better. The No Child
Left Behind Act rightly requires school districts and schools to do
more, and we need to do much, much more in Washington to fulfill our
role in this process. More than 90 percent of America's children rely
upon public schools, yet less than 2 percent of our entire federal
budget is spent on helping our grade schools and high schools. That's
only about 7 percent of all education spending.
When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act this January, President
Bush promised that the Federal Government would make sure schools have
the resources necessary to meet the new law's requirements. But, in
February, with the ink on the new law not yet dry, the President sent
his education budget to Congress and the resources were not there. In
fact, the President took an enormous step backward by proposing to cut
Federal support for the No Child Left Behind Act.
For example, more than ten million low-income children attend schools
in areas that are eligible for Federal assistance to hire and train
teachers and buy textbooks, computers, and other school necessities.
The President's education budget would provide only 40 percent of the
assistance that these schools need, leaving more than six million
children behind. The President's budget also fails to even come close
to fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to special
education, leaving families and local communities struggling to make up
the difference. We will never close the achievement gap as long as our
Nation's most disadvantaged students in the neediest schools are forced
to make do with far less than other students.
At the same time, the President wants to take nearly $4 billion away
from these students and these schools to fund private school vouchers.
Private schools provide many children with a good education, but for
America to continue to succeed as a Nation, our public schools must
also succeed.
And, the way to help them succeed is not to drain resources from them
in the vain hope that the answer lies elsewhere, but by making sure
that every public school has the resources to provide our children with
the education they need and deserve, through measures such as the
Student Bill of Rights, fully funding Title I and special education,
and others.
In the end, this is about the simple fact that the quality of a
child's education shouldn't be determined by the digits of their zip
code. This measure corrects that inequity by ensuring that each and
every child's school has the resources to provide them with a decent
education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future.
And so, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student
Bill of Rights.
I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Student Bill of Rights''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Findings and purposes.
TITLE I--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS
Subtitle A--Access to Educational Opportunity
Sec. 101. State public school systems.
Sec. 102. Fundamentals of educational opportunity.
Subtitle B--State Accountability
Sec. 111. State accountability plan.
Sec. 112. Consequences of failure to meet requirements.
Subtitle C--Report to Congress and the Public
Sec. 121. Annual report on State public school systems.
Subtitle D--Remedy
Sec. 131. Civil action for enforcement.
TITLE II--EFFECTS OF EDUCATIONAL DISPARITIES ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
NATIONAL DEFENSE
Sec. 201. Effects on economic growth and productivity.
Sec. 202. Effects on national defense.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Rulemaking.
Sec. 303. Construction.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) A high-quality, highly competitive education for all
students is imperative for the economic growth and
productivity of the United States, for its effective national
defense, and to achieve the historical aspiration to be one
Nation of equal citizens. It is therefore necessary and
proper to overcome the nationwide phenomenon of State public
school systems that do not meet the requirements of section
101(a), in which high-quality public schools typically serve
high-income communities and poor-quality schools typically
serve low-income, urban, rural, and minority communities.
(2) There exists in the States a significant educational
opportunity gap for low-income, urban, rural, and minority
students characterized by the following:
(A) Continuing disparities within States in students'
access to the fundamentals of educational opportunity
described in section 102.
(B) Highly differential educational expenditures (adjusted
for cost and need) among school districts within States.
(C) Radically differential educational achievement among
students in school districts within States as measured by the
following:
(i) Achievement in mathematics, reading or language arts,
and science on State academic assessments required under
section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) and on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress.
(ii) Advanced placement courses taken.
(iii) SAT and ACT test scores.
(iv) Dropout rates and graduation rates.
(v) College-going and college-completion rates.
(vi) Job placement and retention rates and indices of job
quality.
(3) As a consequence of this educational opportunity gap,
the quality of a child's education depends largely upon where
the child's family can afford to live, and the detriments of
lower quality education are imposed particularly on--
(A) children from low-income families;
(B) children living in urban and rural areas; and
(C) minority children.
(4) Since 1785, Congress, exercising the power to admit new
States under section 3 of article IV of the Constitution (and
previously, the Congress of the Confederation of States under
the Articles of Confederation), has imposed upon every State,
as a fundamental condition of the State's admission, that the
State provide for the establishment and maintenance of
systems of public schools open to all children in such State.
(5) Over the years since the landmark ruling in Brown v.
Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954), when a
unanimous Supreme Court held that ``the opportunity of an
education . . . , where the State has undertaken to provide
it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal
terms'', courts in 44 States have heard challenges to the
establishment, maintenance, and operation of State public
school systems that are separate and not educationally
adequate.
(6) In 1970, the Presidential Commission on School Finance
found that significant disparities in the distribution of
educational resources existed among school districts within
States because the States relied too significantly on local
district financing for educational revenues, and that reforms
in systems of school financing would increase the Nation's
ability to serve the educational needs of all children.
(7) In 1999, the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences published a report entitled ``Making
Money Matter, Financing America's Schools'', which found that
the concept of funding adequacy,
[[Page S8309]]
which moves beyond the more traditional concepts of finance
equity to focus attention on the sufficiency of funding for
desired educational outcomes, is an important step in
developing a fair and productive educational system.
(8) In 2001, the Executive Order establishing the
President's Commission on Educational Resource Equity
declared, ``A quality education is essential to the success
of every child in the 21st century and to the continued
strength and prosperity of our Nation. . . . [L]ong-standing
gaps in access to educational resources exist, including
disparities based on race and ethnicity.'' (Exec. Order No.
13190, 66 Fed. Reg. 5424 (2001))
(9) According to the Secretary of Education, as stated in a
letter (with enclosures) from the Secretary to States dated
January 19, 2001--
(A) racial and ethnic minorities continue to suffer from
lack of access to educational resources, including
``experienced and qualified teachers, adequate facilities,
and instructional programs and support, including technology,
as well as . . . the funding necessary to secure these
resources''; and
(B) these inadequacies are ``particularly acute in high-
poverty schools, including urban schools, where many students
of color are isolated and where the effect of the resource
gaps may be cumulative. In other words, students who need the
most may often receive the least, and these students often
are students of color.''.
(10) In the amendments made by the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001, Congress--
(A)(i) required each State to establish standards and
assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and
science; and
(ii) required schools to ensure that all students are
proficient in mathematics, reading or language arts, and
science not later than 12 years after the end of the 2001-
2002 school year, and held schools accountable for the
students' progress; and
(B) required each State to describe how the State will help
local educational agencies and schools to develop the
capacity to improve student academic achievement.
(11) The standards and accountability movement will succeed
only if, in addition to standards and accountability, all
schools have access to the educational resources necessary to
enable students to achieve.
(12) Raising standards without ensuring access to
educational resources may in fact exacerbate achievement gaps
and set children up for failure.
(13) According to the World Economic Forum's Global
Competitiveness Report 2001-2002, the United States ranks
last among developed countries in the difference in the
quality of schools available to rich and poor children.
(14) The persistence of pervasive inadequacies in the
quality of education provided by State public school systems
effectively deprives millions of children throughout the
United States of the opportunity for an education adequate to
enable the children to--
(A) acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for
responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the
ability to participate fully in the political process through
informed electoral choice;
(B) meet challenging student academic achievement
standards; and
(C) be able to compete and succeed in a global economy.
(15) Each State government has ultimate authority to
determine every important aspect and priority of the public
school system that provides elementary and secondary
education to children in the State, including whether
students throughout the State have access to the fundamentals
of educational opportunity described in section 102.
(16) Because a well educated populace is critical to the
Nation's political and economic well-being and national
security, the Federal Government has a substantial interest
in ensuring that States provide a high-quality education by
ensuring that all students have access to the fundamentals of
educational opportunity described in section 102 to enable
the students to succeed academically and in life.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To further the goals of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (as amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001), by holding States accountable for providing all
students with access to the fundamentals of educational
opportunity described in section 102.
(2) To ensure that all students in public elementary
schools and secondary schools receive educational
opportunities that enable such students to--
(A) acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for
responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the
ability to participate fully in the political process through
informed electoral choice;
(B) meet challenging student academic achievement
standards; and
(C) be able to compete and succeed in a global economy.
(3) To end the pervasive pattern of States maintaining
public school systems that do not meet the requirements of
section 101(a).
TITLE I--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS
Subtitle A--Access to Educational Opportunity
SEC. 101. STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
(a) Requirements.--Each State receiving Federal financial
assistance for elementary or secondary education shall ensure
that the State's public school system provides all students
within the State with an education that enables the students
to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for responsible
citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the ability to
participate fully in the political process through informed
electoral choice, to meet challenging student academic
achievement standards, and to be able to compete and succeed
in a global economy, through--
(1) the provision of fundamentals of educational
opportunity described in section 102, at adequate or ideal
levels as defined by the State under section 111(a)(1)(A) to
students at each public elementary school and secondary
school in the State;
(2) the provision of educational services in school
districts that receive funds under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311 et seq.) that are, taken as a whole, at least comparable
to educational services provided in school districts not
receiving such funds; and
(3) compliance with any final Federal or State court order
in any matter concerning the adequacy or equitableness of the
State's public school system.
(b) Determinations Concerning State Public School
Systems.--Not later than October 1 of each year, the
Secretary shall determine whether each State maintains a
public school system that meets the requirements of
subsection (a). The Secretary may make a determination that a
State public school system does not meet such requirements
only after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
(c) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish and make
available to the general public (including by means of the
Internet) the determinations made under subsection (b).
SEC. 102. FUNDAMENTALS OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.
The fundamentals of educational opportunity are the
following:
(1) Highly qualified teachers, principals, and academic
support personnel.--
(A) Highly qualified teachers.--Instruction from highly
qualified teachers in core academic subjects.
(B) Highly qualified principals.--Leadership, management,
and guidance from principals who meet State certification
standards.
(C) Highly qualified academic support personnel.--Necessary
additional academic support in reading or language arts,
mathematics, and other core academic subjects from personnel
who meet applicable State standards.
(2) Rigorous academic standards, curricula, and methods of
instruction.--Rigorous academic standards, curricula, and
methods of instruction, as measured by the extent to which
each school district succeeds in providing high-quality
academic standards, curricula, and methods of instruction to
students in each public elementary school and secondary
school within the district.
(3) Small class sizes.--Small class sizes, as measured by--
(A) the average class size and the range of class sizes;
and
(B) the percentage of classes with 17 or fewer students.
(4) Textbooks, instructional materials, and supplies.--
Textbooks, instructional materials, and supplies, as measured
by--
(A) the average age and quality of textbooks, instructional
materials, and supplies used in core academic subjects; and
(B) the percentage of students who begin the school year
with school-issued textbooks, instructional materials, and
supplies.
(5) Library resources.--Library resources, as measured by--
(A) the size and qualifications of the library's staff,
including whether the library is staffed by a full-time
librarian certified under applicable State standards;
(B) the size (relative to the number of students) and
quality (including age) of the library's collection of books
and periodicals; and
(C) the library's hours of operation.
(6) School facilities and computer technology.--
(A) Quality school facilities.--Quality school facilities,
as measured by--
(i) the physical condition of school buildings and major
school building features;
(ii) environmental conditions in school buildings; and
(iii) the quality of instructional space.
(B) Computer technology.--Computer technology, as measured
by--
(i) the ratio of computers to students;
(ii) the quality of computers and software available to
students;
(iii) Internet access;
(iv) the quality of system maintenance and technical
assistance for the computers; and
(v) the number of computer laboratory courses taught by
qualified computer instructors.
(7) Quality guidance counseling.--Qualified guidance
counselors, as measured by the ratio of students to qualified
guidance counselors who have been certified under an
applicable State or national program.
Subtitle B--State Accountability
SEC. 111. STATE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN.
(a) General Plan.--
(1) Contents.--Each State receiving Federal financial
assistance for elementary and secondary education shall
annually submit to the Secretary a plan, developed by the
State educational agency, in consultation
[[Page S8310]]
with local educational agencies, teachers, principals, pupil
services personnel, administrators, other staff, and parents,
that contains the following:
(A) A description of 2 levels of high access (adequate and
ideal) to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity
described in section 102 that measure how well the State,
through school districts, public elementary schools, and
public secondary schools, is achieving the purposes of this
Act by providing children with the resources they need to
succeed academically and in life.
(B) A description of a third level of access (basic) to
each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity described
in section 102 that measures how well the State, through
school districts, public elementary schools, and public
secondary schools, is achieving the purposes of this Act by
providing children with the resources they need to succeed
academically and in life.
(C) A description of the level of access of each school
district, public elementary school, and public secondary
school in the State to each of the fundamentals of
educational opportunity described in section 102, including
identification of any such schools that lack high access (as
described in subparagraph (A)) to any of the fundamentals.
(D) An estimate of the additional cost, if any, of ensuring
that the system meets the requirements of section 101(a).
(E) Information stating the percentage of students in each
school district, public elementary school, and public
secondary school in the State that are proficient in
mathematics, reading or language arts, and science, as
measured through assessments administered as described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(v) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(v)).
(F) Information stating whether each school district,
public elementary school, and public secondary school in the
State is making adequate yearly progress, as defined under
section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)).
(G)(i) For each school district, public elementary school,
and public secondary school in the State, information
stating--
(I) the number and percentage of children counted under
section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
(II) the number and percentage of students described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(xiii)).
(ii) For each such school district, information stating
whether the district is an urban, mixed, or rural district
(as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics).
(2) Levels of access.--For purposes of the plan submitted
under paragraph (1)--
(A) in defining basic, adequate, and ideal levels of access
to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity, each
State shall consider, in addition to the factors described in
section 102, the access available to students in the highest-
achieving decile of public elementary schools and secondary
schools, the unique needs of low-income, urban and rural, and
minority students, and other educationally appropriate
factors; and
(B) the levels of access described in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (1) shall be aligned with the challenging
academic content standards, challenging student academic
achievement standards, and high-quality academic assessments
required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).
(3) Information.--The State shall annually disseminate to
parents, in an understandable and uniform format, the
descriptions, estimate, and information described in
paragraph (1).
(b) Accountability and Remediation.--
(1) Accountability.--If the Secretary determines under
section 101(b) that a State maintains a public school system
that fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a)(1), the
plan submitted under subsection (a)(1) shall--
(A) demonstrate that the State has developed and is
implementing a single, statewide State accountability system
that will be effective in ensuring that the State makes
adequate yearly progress under this Act (as defined by the
State in a manner that annually reduces the number of public
elementary schools and secondary schools in the State without
high access (as described in subsection (a)(1)(A)) to each of
the fundamentals of educational opportunity described in
section 102);
(B) demonstrate, based on the levels of access described in
paragraph (1) what constitutes adequate yearly progress of
the State under this Act toward providing all students with
high access to the fundamentals of educational opportunity
described in section 102; and
(C) ensure--
(i) the establishment of a timeline for that adequate
yearly progress that includes interim yearly goals for the
reduction of the number of public elementary schools and
secondary schools in the State without high access to each of
the fundamentals of educational opportunity described in
section 102; and
(ii) that not later than 12 years after the end of the
2001-2002 school year, each public elementary or secondary
school in the State shall have high access to each of the
fundamentals of educational opportunity described in section
102.
(2) Remediation.--If the Secretary determines under section
101(b) that a State maintains a public school system that
fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a)(2), not
later than 1 year after the Secretary makes the
determination, the State shall include in the plan submitted
under subsection (a)(1) a strategy to remediate the
conditions that caused the Secretary to make such
determination, not later than the end of the second school
year beginning after submission of the plan.
(c) Amendments.--A State may amend the plan submitted under
subsection (a)(1) to improve the plan or to take into account
significantly changed circumstances.
(d) Disapproval.--The Secretary may disapprove the plan
submitted under subsection (a)(1) (or an amendment to such a
plan) if the Secretary determines, after notice and
opportunity for hearing, that the plan (or amendment) is
inadequate to meet the requirements described in subsections
(a) and (b).
(e) Waiver.--
(1) In general.--A State may request, and the Secretary may
grant, a waiver of the requirements of subsections (a) and
(b) for 1 year for exceptional circumstances, such as a
precipitous decrease in State revenues, or another
circumstance that the Secretary determines to be exceptional,
that prevents a State from complying with the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b).
(2) Contents of waiver request.--A State that requests a
waiver under paragraph (1) shall include in the request--
(A) a description of the exceptional circumstance that
prevents the State from complying with the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b); and
(B) a plan that details the manner in which the State will
comply with such requirements by the end of the waiver
period.
SEC. 112. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Interim Yearly Goals.--
(1) In general.--For a fiscal year and a State described in
section 111(b)(1), the Secretary shall withhold from the
State 2.75 percent of funds otherwise available to the State
for the administration of Federal elementary and secondary
education programs, for each covered goal that the Secretary
determines the State is not meeting during that year.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered
goal'', used with respect to a fiscal year, means an interim
yearly goal described in section 111(b)(1)(C)(i) that is
applicable to that year or a prior fiscal year.
(b) Consequences of Nonremediation.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, if the Secretary determines that a
State required to include a strategy under section 111(b)(2)
continues to maintain a public school system that does not
meet the requirements of section 101(a)(2) at the end of the
second school year described in section 111(b)(2), the
Secretary shall withhold from the State not more than 33 \1/
3\ percent of funds otherwise available to the State for the
administration of Federal elementary and secondary education
programs until the Secretary determines that the State
maintains a public school system that meets the requirements
of section 101(a)(2).
(c) Consequences of Noncompliance with Court Orders.--If
the Secretary determines under section 101(b) that a State
maintains a public school system that fails to meet the
requirements of section 101(a)(3), the Secretary shall
withhold from the State not more than 33 \1/3\ percent of
funds otherwise available to the State for the administration
of Federal elementary and secondary education programs.
(d) Disposition of Funds Withheld.--
(1) Determination.--Not later than 1 year after the
Secretary withholds funds from a State under this section,
the Secretary shall determine whether the State has corrected
the condition that led to the withholding.
(2) Disposition.--
(A) Correction.--If the Secretary determines under
paragraph (1), that the State has corrected the condition
that led to the withholding, the Secretary shall make the
withheld funds available to the State to use for the original
purpose of the funds during 1 or more fiscal years specified
by the Secretary.
(B) Noncorrection.--If the Secretary determines under
paragraph (1), that the State has not corrected the condition
that led to the withholding, the Secretary shall allocate the
withheld funds to public school districts, public elementary
schools, or public secondary schools in the State that are
most adversely affected by the condition that led to the
withholding, to enable the districts or schools to correct
the condition during 1 or more fiscal years specified by the
Secretary.
(3) Availability.--Amounts made available or allocated
under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) shall remain
available during the fiscal years specified by the Secretary
under that subparagraph.
Subtitle C--Report to Congress and the Public
SEC. 121. ANNUAL REPORT ON STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
(a) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than October 1 of
each year, beginning the year after completion of the first
full school year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that includes a
full and complete analysis of the public school system of
each State.
(b) Contents of Report.--The analysis conducted under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
[[Page S8311]]
(1) Public school system information.--The following
information related to the public school system of each
State:
(A) The number of school districts, public elementary
schools, public secondary schools, and students in the
system.
(B)(i) For each such school district and school--
(I) information stating the number and percentage of
children counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
(II) the number and percentage of students, disaggregated
by groups described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(3)(C)(xiii)).
(ii) For each such district, information stating whether
the district is an urban, mixed, or rural district (as
defined by the National Center for Education Statistics).
(C) The average per-pupil expenditure (both in actual
dollars and adjusted for cost and need) for the State and for
each school district in the State.
(D) Each school district's decile ranking as measured by
achievement in mathematics, reading or language arts, and
science on State academic assessments required under section
1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) and on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress.
(E) For each school district, public elementary school, and
public secondary school--
(i) the level of access (as described in section 111(a)(1))
to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity
described in section 102;
(ii) the percentage of students that are proficient in
mathematics, reading or language arts, and science, as
measured through assessments administered as described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(v) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(v)); and
(iii) whether the school district or school is making
adequate yearly progress--
(I) as defined under section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2));
and
(II) as defined by the State under section 111(b)(1)(A).
(F) For each State, the number of public elementary schools
and secondary schools that lack, and names of each such
school that lacks, high access (as described in section
111(a)(1)(A)) to any of the fundamentals of educational
opportunity described in section 102.
(G) For the year covered by the report, a summary of any
changes in the data required in subparagraphs (A) through (F)
for each of the preceding 3 years (which may be based on such
data as are available, for the first 3 reports submitted
under subsection (a)).
(H) Such other information as the Secretary considers
useful and appropriate.
(2) State actions.--For each State that the Secretary
determines under section 101(b) maintains a public school
system that fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a),
a detailed description and evaluation of the success of any
actions taken by the State, and measures proposed to be taken
by the State, to meet the requirements.
(3) State plans.--A copy of each State's most recent plan
submitted under section 111(a)(1).
(4) Relationship between compliance and achievement.--An
analysis of the relationship between meeting the requirements
of section 101(a) and improving student academic achievement,
as measured on State academic assessments required under
section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)).
(c) Scope of Report.--The report required under subsection
(a) shall cover the school year ending in the calendar year
in which the report is required to be submitted.
(d) Submission of Data to Secretary.--Each State receiving
Federal financial assistance for elementary and secondary
education shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in
such manner as the Secretary may reasonably require, such
data as the Secretary determines to be necessary to make a
determination under section 101(b) and to submit the report
under this section. Such data shall include the information
used to measure the State's success in providing the
fundamentals of educational opportunity described in section
102.
(e) Failure To Submit Data.--If a State fails to submit the
data that the Secretary determines to be necessary to make a
determination under section 101(b) regarding whether the
State maintains a public school system that meets the
requirements of section 101(a)--
(1) such State's public school system shall be deemed not
to have met the applicable requirements until the State
submits such data and the Secretary is able to make such
determination under section 101(b); and
(2) the Secretary shall provide, to the extent practicable,
the analysis required in subsection (a) for the State based
on the best data available to the Secretary.
(f) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish and make
available to the general public (including by means of the
Internet) the report required under subsection (a).
Subtitle D--Remedy
SEC. 131. CIVIL ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT.
A student or parent of a student aggrieved by a violation
of this Act may bring a civil action against the appropriate
official in an appropriate Federal district court seeking
declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce the requirements
of this Act, together with reasonable attorney's fees and the
costs of the action.
TITLE II--EFFECTS OF EDUCATIONAL DISPARITIES ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
NATIONAL DEFENSE
SEC. 201. EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY.
(a) Study.--The Commissioner of Education Statistics, in
consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of
Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, and the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences, shall conduct a
comprehensive study concerning the effects on economic growth
and productivity of ensuring that each State public school
system meets the requirements of section 101(a). Such study
shall include assessments of--
(1) the economic costs to the Nation resulting from the
maintenance by States of public school systems that do not
meet the requirements of section 101(a);
(2) the economic gains to be expected from States'
compliance with the requirements of section 101(a); and
(3) the costs, if any, of ensuring that each State
maintains a public school system that meets the requirements
of section 101(a).
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Education
Statistics shall submit to Congress a final report detailing
the results of the study required under subsection (a).
SEC. 202. EFFECTS ON NATIONAL DEFENSE.
(a) Study.--The Commissioner of Education Statistics, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall conduct a
comprehensive study concerning the effects on national
defense of ensuring that each State public school system
meets the requirements of section 101(a). Such study shall
include assessments of--
(1) the detriments to national defense resulting from the
maintenance by States of public school systems that do not
meet the requirements of section 101(a), including the
effects on--
(A) knowledge and skills necessary for the effective
functioning of the Armed Forces;
(B) the costs to the Armed Forces of training; and
(C) efficiency resulting from the use of sophisticated
equipment and information technology; and
(2) the gains to national defense to be expected from
ensuring that each State public school system meets the
requirements of section 101(a).
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Education
Statistics shall submit to Congress a final report detailing
the results of the study required under subsection (a).
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Referenced terms.--The terms ``elementary school'',
``secondary school'', ``local educational agency'', ``highly
qualified'', ``core academic subjects'', ``parent'', and
``average per-pupil expenditure'' have the meanings given
those terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(2) Federal elementary and secondary education programs.--
The term ``Federal elementary and secondary education
programs'' means programs providing Federal financial
assistance for elementary or secondary education, other than
programs under the following provisions of law:
(A) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
(B) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.).
(C) The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
(D) The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et
seq.).
(3) Public school system.--The term ``public school
system'' means a State's system of public elementary and
secondary education.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
SEC. 302. RULEMAKING.
The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out this
Act.
SEC. 303. CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a
jurisdiction to increase its property tax or other tax rates
or to redistribute revenues from such taxes.
____________________