[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.

                          ____________________