[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 77 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3957-S3960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Manchin, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Boozman):
S. 1089. A bill to provide for a prescription drug take-back program
for members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Servicemembers and Veterans Prescription Drug Safety Act of 2013, with
my colleagues Senators Blumenthal, Boxer, Manchin, Murkowski, and
Boozman. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish drug
take-back programs in coordination with both the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The number of reported suicide deaths in the U.S. military surged to
a record 349 in 2012, which is more than the number of servicemembers
who lost their lives in combat while serving our nation in Afghanistan
during the same period of time. According to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the number of suicides among veterans has reached an
astounding rate of 22 each day based on data collected from more than
21 states.
These losses are unacceptable. We are losing dozens of America's
finest each month, squandering precious talent that our nation needs
and depriving families of their loved ones. Today's soldiers are
tomorrow's veterans; their mental health needs must be met now to avoid
future suicides.
There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major
factor in military and veteran suicides. In its January 2012 report,
Army 2020: Generating Health and Discipline in the Force, the Army
found that 29 percent of suicides involved individuals with a known
history of psychotropic medication use, including anti-depressants,
anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and other controlled substances
such as opioids.
This report recommended the establishment of a military drug take-
back program to help combat prescription drug abuse in the ranks. Given
that more than 49,000 soldiers were issued three or more psychotropic
or controlled substance prescriptions last year, and an estimated 3,500
soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it is past time we act on
this recommendation and implement a military drug take-back program.
In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some
of the military's best minds to protect our soldiers and give them the
tools they need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise
attack. Unfortunately, we have not focused sufficient resources or
creativity to suicide prevention. While I applaud the military's, and
especially the Army's, and VA's efforts to address this threat
seriously, we must do more.
At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has the
inherent authority to conduct a drug take-back program. Three years
ago, the Congress passed the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act
of 2010, which provided the Attorney General the flexibility necessary
to delegate similar authority to other agencies for the collection and
disposal of controlled substances. Since that time, the Attorney
General has not sufficiently exercised his existing authority to
provide this much needed assistance to the Department of Defense and
the VA. The DEA recently proposed new regulations to expand the options
available to collect controlled substances for purposes of disposal.
Unfortunately, the proposed regulations fall short because they fail to
authorize the Department of Defense or the VA to collect controlled
substances through appropriate mechanisms.
DEA has concerns that DOD and VA cannot maintain the same strict
accountability of drugs to prevent the misuse, abuse, or sales in the
black market. I am confident, however, that the DOD--the institution
that has developed and implemented programs for the handling of nuclear
weapons and classified information--and the VA are capable of
conducting drug take-back programs with the utmost accountability and
highest of standards.
Excluding the DOD and VA from conducting drug take-back programs is
detrimental to efforts to reduce controlled substance abuse, decrease
non-medical use of prescription drugs, prevent diversion of controlled
substances, and limit the possibility for accidental overdose and death
for our servicemembers and veterans, or their family members. This
legislation will provide the necessary authority to give both
departments an effective drug-take back program that will help address
the scourge of suicide.
The loss of even one servicemember or veteran to a potentially
preventable suicide involving controlled substance abuse or misuse is
unacceptable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this
important, life-saving legislation.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Franken, Mr. Bennet, Mr.
Whitehouse, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Murphy, and Ms. Warren):
S. 1094. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I
have been committed to ensuring that all children in this country
receive a quality education. Today, I join my Democratic colleagues on
the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which I
chair, in introducing a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, ESEA, which has become better known in
recent years as the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. In my view, our
bill will appropriately redefine the Federal role in education in this
country and will focus our collective efforts to improve the lives of
our most vulnerable children.
I want to start with a few words about the Federal role in education,
since ESEA, in large measure, determines that role. While it is
certainly true that education is primarily a State and local function,
the Federal Government also plays an important role, and a well-
educated citizenry is clearly in the national interest. A cardinal
Federal role is to ensure all Americans, regardless of race, gender,
national origin, religion and disability have the same equal
opportunity to a good education. Likewise, the Constitution expressly
states that our national government was formed to ``promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.'' The general welfare is
greatly endangered when the populace is not adequately educated. And,
education is critical to liberty.
ESEA was first passed in 1965 in order to provide aid to States and
school districts to improve education for children from low-income
families. And in 1975, Congress passed the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, later renamed the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, to assist States and districts in educating
children with disabilities. For more than 40 years, the Federal
government has trained its focus on the mission that all children
should have the chance to fulfill their full potential.
The No Child Left Behind Act represented a departure from previous
reauthorizations of ESEA. Lawmakers felt compelled to be more
prescriptive with States to ensure that they improved their low-
performing schools and focused on closing pernicious student
achievement gaps. NCLB defined ``adequate yearly progress'' for schools
and districts; it required districts to put aside money to implement
public school choice and tutoring in schools identified for
improvement; it included a list of rigorous interventions for low-
performing schools and an additional category of ``restructuring'' for
the most chronically low-performing schools with even more severe
consequences. NCLB reflected good intentions. However, as we have seen
over the course of the past 12 years, those good intentions did not
translate to good policy on-the-ground. Many States lowered
expectations for students with the standards and assessments they
developed. Many local
[[Page S3958]]
schools and teachers were branded failing when some of their students
did not meet the rigid benchmarks the Federal Government had set--even
though in many instances students had made substantial progress.
Districts felt hamstrung by the requirement to spend money on reforms
that simply did not meet the needs of many students.
The Secretary of Education has given schools a reprieve from these
onerous requirements through a flexibility agreement that States have
undertaken voluntarily. While this reflects a positive change for the
time being, it is no substitute for a new law. The actions of the
Secretary, while laudable, may only last as long as this
administration. What will happen in 2016? Will the flexibility
agreements stay in place or will States be forced to revert to the
requirements of what will then be a 15-year-old law that reflects old
thinking?
The bill I am introducing along with HELP Committee Democrats follows
a different course than NCLB, and one similar to the flexibility
agreements instituted by the U.S. Department of Education. We ask for a
system of shared responsibility with States and school districts. I
believe that we are entering an era in which the Federal Government can
work in partnership with States to improve our Nation's schools, while
continuing to provide a backstop to avoid returning to old ways. Our
bill gets rid of AYP, but sets Federal parameters for State-and
locally-designed accountability systems. These systems must: cover all
students, including students with disabilities and English learners;
continue to measure and report on the performance of all schools;
expect sufficient progress for all schools and subgroups of students;
and provide for local interventions in low-performing schools or
schools with low-achieving student subgroups beyond the lowest
performing 5 percent. States that have received a waiver from the
Secretary in the past two years can continue to operate under the
agreements they made. States without a waiver will develop
accountability plans that set schools on a path to attain the same
levels of student achievement as the top 10 percent of schools in their
State. However, if States have a different accountability system in
mind, they can develop one that is equally ambitious to the ones above,
subject to approval by the Secretary of Education, an important
safeguard on the quality and integrity of these systems.
Our bill sets the high bar of ensuring that students who graduate
from high school are college- and career-ready. It narrows the Federal
focus to turning around persistently low-achieving schools and our
Nation's dropout factories--those schools that graduate less than 60
percent of their students--as well as schools with significant student
achievement gaps.
Our bill also asks States to put greater emphasis on the learning of
children in the early years because we know that so many of our
children, particularly children from low-income families, have gaps in
learning before they even enter the school door. I have often said that
learning begins at birth and the preparation for learning begins before
birth. For the first time in the law's history, it is a purpose of
Title I to provide children access to high-quality early learning
experiences so that they come to school ready to learn. Our bill also
encourages States to begin providing full-day kindergarten if they do
not do so already. It also asks States to have, or establish, early
learning and development guidelines that describe what children should
know and be able to do before they enter kindergarten so that States
can address gaps in learning as early as possible.
Our bill also takes the significant step of closing the
``comparability loophole'' so that funds provided through Title I of
ESEA will finally serve as additional dollars for our neediest
students, and Title I schools will get their fair share of Federal
resources. It also provides districts with more flexibility in how
States and districts spend their Federal funds while ensuring that the
resources designated to serve our most disadvantaged students get to
those students. The bill creates a Professional Growth and Improvement
System that requires the development of rigorous and fair teacher and
principal evaluations, and provides these critical school staff with
the support they need to continually improve teaching and learning. It
also leverages opportunities for more children to access high quality
early learning programs and adds new protections for some of our most
vulnerable children--homeless students and students in foster care--so
that they will be better served by schools.
Our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds
on a smaller number of programs to allow for greater flexibility, and
supports districts in extending the school day and year, strengthening
their literacy, science, math or technology programs, fostering safe
and healthy students, and offering a more well-rounded curriculum that
includes the arts and physical education. It invests in effective
programs to train and support principals and teachers for high-need
schools. And, it fosters innovation through new programs like Race to
the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhoods.
I believe this is a very good bill and I am proud of our efforts. We
owe it to our kids and our nation to produce a law that provides States
and districts with the certainty, support and resources they need to
make meaningful strides in improving our educational system. To that
end, I would note that historically, education policy in Congress has
been done in a bipartisan fashion. I want to give appropriate credit to
the Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, the distinguished senior
Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. We worked in good faith for
many months to attempt to forge an agreement on a path forward.
However, in the end, there were certain fundamental issues on which we
could not agree. That is why, along with other HELP Committee
Democrats, I have decided to move forward with a Democratic bill. It is
my strong hope that Senate Republicans will recognize the significant
changes that we have made in this bill to address their concerns, and
will work with us to reconcile remaining disagreements so that together
we can pass a law that provides children with a greater chance at
reaching their full potential. It is the duty and responsibility of
members of Congress in both houses to replace the No Child Left Behind
Act with a new and better law.
This bill represents significant change, and change is difficult. We
must work to together to move from a culture of minimal compliance with
Federal requirements to one of shared innovation, shared responsibility
and success for all students. I look forward to working towards this
new partnership and to the next chapter of an effective Federal role in
promoting educational excellence and equity.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Ms. Collins):
S. 1096. A bill to establish an Office of Rural Education Policy in
the Department of Education; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1865, Horace Greeley wrote in the New
York Tribune, ``Go West, young man, and grow up with the country.''
For decades, Greeley's words captured the imagination of a country,
and millions of families flocked to the West for a glimpse of the
American dream. Rural America continues to thrive, and places like my
home State of Montana offer an excellent place to raise a family. But
there is a no question that rural and frontier America present unique
circumstances that differ substantially from our more urban neighbors.
While rural education is becoming an increasingly large and important
part of the U.S. public school system, the unique challenges and
opportunities within rural communities are often misunderstood or
overlooked. According to the Digest of Education Statistics reported
annually by the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of
students attending rural schools increased by over 11 percent, from
10.5 million in 2004 to nearly 11.7 million by 2008. Rural students now
comprise almost one fourth of the Nation's public school enrollment.
And nearly one-third of all schools in the nation are located in rural
areas.
Yet despite the significant percentage enrolled in rural schools, the
importance of rural education is often obscured by the fact that rural
students
[[Page S3959]]
are--naturally--widely-dispersed, located in small, geographically
isolated school districts. The size, diversity, and complexity of rural
education support a greater policy focus on the unique challenges and
solutions for rural education.
Montana is the fourth largest State by land mass, totaling over
147,000 square miles. More than half of Montana's 830 schools enroll
less than 100 students. From Eureka to Ekalaka, from Scobey to Darby,
these small schools dot the landscape, providing not only a learning
environment but often a thriving community center.
Montana's rural communities are doing an excellent job educating our
next generation. Overall, Montana graduation rates are higher than the
national average. Montana students taking the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, NAEP, in 2011 scored higher than the national
average in both reading and math.
But despite the success of Montana's rural schools, they also face a
unique set of challenges that their urban-centric peers may not even
comprehend.
For example, rural schools report greater difficulties in recruiting
and retaining qualified teachers, due to inability to offer competitive
salaries, geographic isolation, and for some, severe weather. Rural
districts often have fewer personnel. The district superintendent is
often also the high school principal. He or she may also be the Title I
coordinator, the math curriculum specialist, and sometimes also the bus
driver. In isolated areas, schools face challenges in providing
professional development and training for teachers and principals.
Small rural districts are often located long distances from other
districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing opportunities
to partner or collaborate. Additionally, the long distances students
must travel between school and home make it more difficult to
participate in traditional remedial services, mentoring, and after-
school programs.
And while Horace Greeley encouraged us to ``Go West'', many of the
Department of Education's recent initiatives have failed to do just
that. In the first two rounds of the Race to the Top competitive grant,
only one State west of the Mississippi received funding.
And in some cases, even good intentions have created adverse
consequences. The first round of the Investing in Innovation, i3,
competitive grant program provided ``competitive preference points''
for applicants serving at least one rural district, in an effort to
encourage and support rural applicants. However, the Department's lack
of guidance and independent scorers' lack of understanding of rural
areas still left authentically rural programs at a clear disadvantage.
The Rural School & Community Trust highlighted in its report Taking
Advantage that this ``rural preference'' instead had the effect of
inducing urban applicants to include minimal rural participation merely
in order to gain the additional scoring points for primarily urban
projects. While the Department has made strides to improve the
competitive chances of rural applicants, funding under the I3 grant
continues to be directed to more urban school districts.
I am joined today by my colleagues Senator Rockefeller of West
Virginia and Senator Collins of Maine in reintroducing the Office of
Rural Education Policy Act. This bipartisan bill will establish the
Office of Rural Education Policy, housed at the Department of
Education's Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. This Office and
its Director will be tasked with coordinating the activities related to
rural education and advising the Secretary on issues important to rural
schools and districts. The legislation requires the Department to
consider the impact of proposed rules and regulations on rural
education and to produce an annual report on the condition of rural
education. The goal of this bill is to allow rural schools to focus
their time and resources on students in the classroom rather than red
tape in the bureaucracy.
The Office of Rural Education Policy will be tasked with establishing
a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information related to
the unique challenges of rural areas, as well as, the innovative
efforts underway in rural schools to tackle these challenges.
We have received strong support from dozens of organizations,
including: American Association of Community Colleges, American
Association of School Administrators, Alliance for Excellent Education,
Center for Rural Affairs, Coalition for Community Schools, Council for
Opportunity in Education, Montana School Board Association, Montana
State Superintendents Association, Montana Rural Education Association,
National Association of Development Organizations, National Education
Association, National Farmers Union, National School Board Association,
Organizations Concerned about Rural Education, Rural School and
Community Trust, and Save the Children. I want to thank all the
supporters of the bill, and want to particularly thank the efforts of
the Rural School and Community Trust for its steadfast commitment to
this proposal.
I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to
move this legislation, to ensure our rural students and schools across
the country are given a fair shake.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1096
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 ``Office of Rural Education
Policy Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Secretary of Education has recognized that
``[r]ural schools have unique challenges and benefits'', but
a recent report by the Rural School and Community Trust
refers to the ``paucity of rural education research in the
United States''.
(2) Rural education is becoming an increasingly large and
important part of the United States public school system.
According to the Digest of Education Statistics reported
annually by the National Center for Education Statistics, the
number of students attending rural schools increased by more
than 11 percent, from 10,500,000 to nearly 11,700,000,
between the 2004-2005 and 2008-2009 school years. The share
of the Nation's public school enrollment attending rural
schools increased from 21.6 percent to 23.8 percent. In
school year 2008-2009, these students attended 31,635 rural
schools, nearly one-third of all schools in the United
States.
(3) Despite the overall growth of rural education, rural
students represent a demographic minority in all but 3
States, according to the National Center for Education
Statistics.
(4) Rural education is becoming increasingly diverse.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
the increase in rural enrollment between the 2004-2005 and
2008-2009 school years was disproportionally among students
of color. Enrollment of children of color in rural schools
increased by 31 percent, and the proportion of students
enrolled in rural schools who are children of color increased
from 23.0 to 26.5 percent. More than one-third of rural
students in 12 States are children of color, according to
research by the Rural School and Community Trust (Why Rural
Matters 2009).
(5) Rural education is varied and diverse across the
Nation. In school year 2007-2008, the national average rate
of student poverty in rural school districts, as measured by
the rate of participation in federally subsidized meals
programs, was 39.1 percent, but ranged from 9.7 percent in
Connecticut to 71.9 percent in New Mexico, according to the
National Center for Education Statistics.
(6) Even policy measures intended to help rural schools can
have unintended consequences. In awarding competitive grants
under the Investing in Innovation Fund program under section
14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-5), the Secretary of Education attempted to
encourage and support rural applicants by providing
additional points for proposals to serve at least 1 rural
local educational agency. But according to research by the
Rural School and Community Trust (Taking Advantage, 2010),
this ``rural preference'' mainly had the effect of inducing
urban applicants to include rural participation merely in
order to gain additional scoring points for primarily urban
projects.
(7) Rural schools generally utilize distance education more
often for both students and teachers. A fall 2008 survey of
public schools by the National Center for Education
Statistics found that rural schools were 1\1/2\ times more
likely to provide students access for online distance
learning than schools in cities. A September 2004 study from
the Government Accountability Office reported that rural
school districts used distance learning for teacher training
more often than non-rural school districts.
(8) The National Center for Education Statistics reports
that base salaries of both the lowest and highest paid
teachers are lower in
[[Page S3960]]
rural schools than any other community type.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish an Office of Rural Education Policy in the
Department of Education; and
(2) to provide input to the Secretary of Education
regarding the impact of proposed changes in law, regulations,
policies, rules, and budgets on rural schools and
communities.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF RURAL EDUCATION POLICY.
(a) In General.--Title II of the Department of Education
Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3411 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 221. OFFICE OF RURAL EDUCATION POLICY.
``(a) In General.--There shall be, in the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education of the Department, an
Office of Rural Education Policy (referred to in this section
as the `Office').
``(b) Director; Duties.--
``(1) In general.--The Office shall be headed by a
Director, who shall advise the Secretary on the
characteristics and needs of rural schools and the effects of
current policies and proposed statutory, regulatory,
administrative, and budgetary changes on State educational
agencies, and local educational agencies, that serve schools
with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by
the Secretary.
``(2) Additional duties of the director.--In addition to
advising the Secretary with respect to the matters described
in paragraph (1), the Director of the Office of Rural
Education Policy (referred to in this section as the
`Director'), through the Office, shall--
``(A) establish and maintain a clearinghouse for collecting
and disseminating information on--
``(i) teacher and principal recruitment and retention at
rural elementary schools and rural secondary schools;
``(ii) access to, and implementation and use of, technology
and distance learning at such schools;
``(iii) rigorous coursework delivery through distance
learning at such schools;
``(iv) student achievement at such schools, including the
achievement of low-income and minority students;
``(v) innovative approaches in rural education to increase
student achievement;
``(vi) higher education and career readiness and secondary
school completion of students enrolled in such schools;
``(vii) access to, and quality of, early childhood
development for children located in rural areas;
``(viii) access to, or partnerships with, community-based
organizations in rural areas;
``(ix) the availability of professional development
opportunities for rural teachers and principals;
``(x) the availability of Federal and other grants and
assistance that are specifically geared or applicable to
rural schools; and
``(xi) the financing of such schools;
``(B) identify innovative research and demonstration
projects on topics of importance to rural elementary schools
and rural secondary schools, including gaps in such research,
and recommend such topics for study by the Institute of
Education Sciences and other research agencies;
``(C) coordinate the activities within the Department that
relate to rural education;
``(D) provide information to the Secretary and others in
the Department with respect to the activities of other
Federal departments and agencies that relate to rural
education, including activities relating to rural housing,
rural agricultural services, rural transportation, rural
economic development, rural career and technical training,
rural health care, rural disability services, and rural
mental health;
``(E) coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Education, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior, and
the schools administered by such agencies regarding rural
education;
``(F) provide, directly or through grants, cooperative
agreements, or contracts, technical assistance and other
activities as necessary to support activities related to
improving education in rural areas; and
``(G) produce an annual report on the condition of rural
education that is delivered to the members of the Education
and the Workforce Committee of the House of Representatives
and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of
the Senate and published on the Department's Web site.
``(c) Impact Analyses of Rules and Regulations on Rural
Schools.--
``(1) Proposed rulemaking.--Whenever the Secretary
publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any
rule or regulation that may have a significant impact on
State educational agencies or local educational agencies
serving schools with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43,
as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary (acting through
the Director) shall prepare and make available for public
comment an initial regulatory impact analysis. Such analysis
shall describe the impact of the proposed rule or regulation
on such State educational agencies and local educational
agencies and shall set forth, with respect to such agencies,
the matters required under section 603 of title 5, United
States Code, to be set forth with respect to small entities.
The initial regulatory impact analysis (or a summary) shall
be published in the Federal Register at the time of the
publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for the
rule or regulation.
``(2) Final rule.--Whenever the Secretary promulgates a
final version of a rule or regulation with respect to which
an initial regulatory impact analysis is required by
paragraph (1), the Secretary (acting through the Director)
shall prepare a final regulatory impact analysis with respect
to the final version of such rule or regulation. Such
analysis shall set forth, with respect to State educational
agencies and local educational agencies serving schools with
a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the
Secretary, the matters required under section 604 of title 5,
United States Code, to be set forth with respect to small
entities. The Secretary shall make copies of the final
regulatory impact analysis available to the public and shall
publish, in the Federal Register at the time of publication
of the final version of the rule or regulation, a statement
describing how a member of the public may obtain a copy of
such analysis.
``(3) Regulatory flexibility analysis.--If a regulatory
flexibility analysis is required by chapter 6 of title 5,
United States Code, for a rule or regulation to which this
subsection applies, such analysis shall specifically address
the impact of the rule or regulation on State educational
agencies and local educational agencies serving schools with
a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the
Secretary.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 221(c) of the Department of
Education Organization Act, as added by subsection (a), shall
apply to regulations proposed more than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
____________________