[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7945-7968]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
       Kennedy (for Murray) amendment No. 378 (to amendment No. 
     358), to provide for class size reduction programs.
       Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No. 
     358), to remove the 21st century community learning center 
     program from the list of programs covered by performance 
     agreements.
       Cleland amendment No. 376 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     provide for school safety enhancement, including the 
     establishment of the National Center for School and Youth 
     Safety.
       Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       Specter modified amendment No. 388 (to amendment No. 378), 
     to provide for class size reduction.
       Voinovich amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     modify provisions relating to State applications and plans 
     and school improvement to provide for the input of the 
     Governor of the State involved.
       Carnahan amendment No. 374 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     improve the quality of education in our Nation's classrooms.
       Reed amendment No. 425 (to amendment No. 358), to revise 
     provisions regarding the Reading First Program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Nevada is recognized to call up his amendment No. 460.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time not 
run on this amendment. I will wait until the manager of the bill 
arrives. I ask unanimous consent that that be part of the order, and 
pending that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 460 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, pursuant to order, I send an amendment to 
the desk. It is at the desk. I ask the amendment be read at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 460.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide assistance to entities that emphasize language and 
     life skills programs for limited English proficient students)

       On page 254, line 21, insert before the period the 
     following: ``(including organizations and entities that carry 
     out projects described in section 1609(d))''.
       On page 257, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(d) After School Services.--Grant funds awarded under 
     this part may be used by organizations or entities to 
     implement programs to provide after school services for 
     limited English proficient students that emphasize language 
     and life skills.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the State of Nevada in Las Vegas, there 
is a very innovative teacher. Her name is Priscilla Rocha. She is a 
wonderful woman who has been a friend of mine for many years. She is 
also a member of the State board of education. She teaches the fourth 
grade, and she has had almost 20 years of experience. She has taught in 
Texas. As I indicated, she now teaches in Las Vegas.
  About 3 years ago, she started an afterschool program in her 
classroom in response to the many struggles she saw with children who 
had limited English proficiency. She observed that the parents were not 
equipped with English skills or the academic background to help these 
children with their homework. Children were going home in some 
instances with no supervision because both parents worked. She found 
that these children kept falling further and further behind in their 
academic work, and she recognized that it was only a matter of time 
until the children dropped out of school.
  What she calls her homework center operates as follows: Children in 
grades 1-5 are referred to the program by teachers and school 
counselors. Parents are first notified, and they have to sign a consent 
that the children can enter into this afterschool homework program. She 
has found it easy to get college students to help by tutoring the 
children on a one-to-one basis. She has also found that some children 
need to stay in the program only for a matter of weeks. Others need to 
spend a matter of years in the program.

[[Page 7946]]

  Currently, the Las Vegas program is funded through a HUD community 
block grant from Clark County and the city of Las Vegas. This is held 
in a school classroom, but direct funding does not come from the school 
district. The funding goes to a community-based organization that Ms. 
Rocha helped found in 1992 called Hispanic Association for Bilingual 
Literacy in Education, or HABLE. Ms. Rocha is the Executive Director of 
HABLE. This program has been a remarkable success. Starting with six 
students in 1993, she has worked with about 250 students since then. 
Most of these children do not speak and did not speak a single word of 
English when they came to Ms. Rocha. Now almost 100 of these kids have 
graduated from high school, and a like number, almost another hundred, 
are on the way to successfully completing high school in the next few 
years.
  It was hard to find examples that I should bring to the Chamber today 
because there are really so many, but I have chosen a few with the help 
of Ms. Rocha. For instance, Evilia Gomez was one of the original fourth 
graders to start with Ms. Rocha in 1993. While she has always been a 
bright girl and had been a good student in Mexico, when she came to 
America, she didn't speak a word of English. We find that far too often 
students like Evilia simply are put in a special education program. 
``They can't read; they must be dumb if they can't read.''
  Well, this little girl wasn't dumb. The fact that she couldn't speak 
did not mean that she was slow or learning disabled. With the extra 
attention she was given, she rapidly learned English and quickly 
transitioned to regular classes. She did so much extra course work that 
she graduated from Las Vegas High School 2 years early as valedictorian 
of the class. Of all the students who graduated from Las Vegas High 
School in the class of 1999, a girl who didn't speak a single word of 
English 6 years earlier ended up with the highest grade point average 
of any student in that very large high school. Not only is this a 
special child, this is a special program, and we need to replicate it.
  Another girl in Las Vegas, Johanna Rangel, has a similar success 
story. She didn't graduate as valedictorian, but she did extremely 
well. She is one of the original six who worked with Priscilla when 
this program started. When she came to this program, she didn't speak a 
single word of English. Now she is President of a Latino students' 
organization at Desert Pines High School and is involved in many extra 
curricular activities. She will graduate in a month. She did extremely 
well in school, and she plans to attend college this fall.
  She is quick to point out that her success is due to her being able 
to come to the program Priscilla Rocha developed, and she believes the 
program is the reason she was able to graduate from high school. In 
fact, she said, when she invited Ms. Rocha to her graduation:

       This would not have been possible without you. I wouldn't 
     be graduating without your help.

  There are many others. You have to understand that Johanna's parents 
didn't speak a word of English when they brought her from Mexico to the 
United States. They couldn't help with her homework; no matter how 
badly they wanted to help, they couldn't. They didn't speak English. 
Her risk of failure and thus dropping out, was dramatic, but this 
program turned things around for her.
  Children want to learn. They want to be productive. There is a lot 
going on in America today about English as an only language. States are 
passing, have passed, and are trying to pass laws saying that there 
should only be one language.
  Mr. President, there is only one language anyway. If you want to 
succeed in America, you don't need to pass a law saying English is the 
only language. It is the only language. If you want to succeed, you 
have to speak English. It used to be if you wanted to be a diplomat, 
you had to speak French. Not anymore. The language of diplomacy is 
English. If you want to fly an airplane anyplace in the world, the air 
traffic controllers' language is English.
  So not only did Johanna want to succeed, she wanted to learn to speak 
English. She needed help. Her parents could not help in that regard. So 
I am excited about this program. We have all kinds of success stories.
  Alvaro Rodriguez is a 10-year-old fourth grader who began Ms. Rocha's 
program at the start of this school year. He and his family came 
straight from Mexico. None of them were able to speak a single word of 
English. By the end of this school year, Alvaro will start 
transitioning into regular reading and writing programs in English. 
Next year, he won't be in a special program. He will be a fifth grader 
and he will be mainstreamed.
  Carla Rojas, another 10-year-old, is benefitting from this program. 
She came to Las Vegas from Mexico in the middle of this school year. It 
is hard enough for a 10-year-old to change schools in the middle of the 
year, but Carla was put into a school where she didn't understand a 
single word of what the teacher or the kids were saying. This program 
has helped her so much that by the end of this year it is believed that 
she will be adapted so well that she will be able to take classes with 
everybody else this coming year.
  Priscilla Rocha says of Carla: ``She is a very smart and energetic 
girl. All we have to do is give her the little push she needs.''
  So these programs work well, as they should work well. The increasing 
diversity of our Nation enriches our communities. It also challenges 
our public schools to meet both the English language and literacy needs 
of our expanding limited English proficient student populations. The 
families of these students speak their native languages at home and 
often have limited English skills, making it difficult for parents and 
family members to help children with their unique academic language 
struggles.
  Think about it. You go to school and they are speaking one language 
there, and you go home and they are speaking a different language. How 
do you improve upon what you don't know? It is hard to do.
  That is why programs such as the one I have outlined are so 
important. To address the need for literacy for these students, my 
amendment expands the current 21st century learning centers in this 
bill to include programs for limited English proficient students.
  I have talked about the Homework Center in Las Vegas. It is vital to 
the education of these limited English proficient students who don't 
have the resources at home to support them. These programs need to have 
the support of the entire education system. Why? Because it means 
economic security and quality of life. We can't ignore the fact that 
across this country the dropout rate for limited English proficient 
youth remains chronically and unacceptably high at almost 45 percent. 
Almost half the kids who have trouble with their language skills drop 
out of school.
  Over half a million students drop out of school every year; 3,000 
students drop out of school every day in America. Every child who drops 
out is less than they can be. It puts a burden on the criminal justice 
system and our welfare system. It is something with which we certainly 
need to do better. We have about 5 million Americans who lack a high 
school degree and are not in the process of getting one. In our prisons 
in America today, line them all up; 82 percent of them have no high 
school education. Is there a correlation between education and getting 
in trouble? Of course. I didn't speak improperly. I said 82 percent of 
the people in our prisons have not graduated from high school. Does 
that mean that the 82 percent who haven't graduated are a bunch of 
dopes? The answer is no. The vast majority of those students, for one 
reason or another, didn't keep up, or could not keep up; they didn't 
have the incentives, and many of them have language problems. This 
amendment will help with those language problems.
  The primary reason children drop out of school is a lack of success 
in school. They believe they can be a bigger hit

[[Page 7947]]

out on the street beating up on somebody or selling dope. They don't 
understand the importance of an education. If they do understand the 
importance of an education, they have dropped back so far that they 
know they can never catch up. They can catch up, but they think that 
they can never catch up.
  This is not just a problem of a few kids not getting an education. A 
high school dropout rate impacts the economy and quality of life, not 
only for the children that drop out, as I have mentioned, but their 
families and for each and every one of us.
  Every time a child drops out of school, we have failed a little bit. 
It hurts us. It hurts us because it doesn't sound right morally, but it 
hurts us economically, and it hurts the social fabric of our country.
  We need an educated workforce. If this continues, we will have 
increased unemployment rates and increased prison incarceration, people 
on welfare and other Federal programs, and unemployment rates of high 
school dropouts are more than twice that of high school graduates. 
Remember, we are pushing kids to go beyond high school--maybe not to 
college, but the unemployment rates of high school dropouts are more 
than twice those of high school graduates.
  The probability of falling into poverty is three times higher for 
high school dropouts than for those who finish high school. That is 300 
percent higher.
  The median personal income of high school graduates, during the prime 
earning years, ages 25 to 54, is 200 percent that of high school 
dropouts.
  The median personal income of college graduates is more than three 
times that of high school dropouts.
  The children, sadly, of high school dropouts have a much greater 
chance of dropping out of school. It becomes a pattern.
  The problem is worse for America's Hispanics--a growing segment of 
our population. Hispanics students have a dropout rate of more than 30 
percent--three times compared to the overall rate of 11 percent.
  Afterschool programs tailored for limited English proficient students 
will go a long way toward helping to keep these fine young people in 
school.
  There is an increasing need all over America for language services. 
Nearly 20 percent of the students in U.S. schools speak a foreign 
language at home. According to the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual 
Education, that figure will grow.
  In some parts of the country, non-English speakers are referred to 
special education, as I have indicated, based solely on their inability 
to speak English the way teachers and others believe they should. Some 
may think if they don't speak English correctly, they must be dumb. Not 
so. Some school systems--and I believe this may be in violation of the 
civil rights laws of our country--continue to assign students to 
special education programs on the basis of criteria that essentially 
measures and evaluates English skills of students.
  Currently, students fail to receive the right programs because the 
guidance and funding districts receive is inadequate to develop 
comprehensive programs for limited English proficiency students.
  I say to my friend, the Senator from Vermont, who is managing this 
bill, I have always appreciated his forceful advocacy of fully funding 
IDEA--programs for those with special needs. The reason I do that is, 
it is the right thing to do for the children, and it is the right thing 
to do for the school districts because it leaves them money to do 
things like this--special programs, such as helping a kid who doesn't 
speak English. The way it is now, they are so strapped for money, all 
they are able to do is the basics. If we fully fund the IDEA program, 
as we should do, it will allow some money for these programs that will 
make a difference in kids' lives.
  More funding is needed to develop effective special education 
programs for diverse students to meet the many challenges that they 
face.
  Funding would provide schools with the support they need to devise 
language programs that fit the needs of the districts.
  School districts all over America are scrambling to meet the basics. 
Some have more problems than others. Some have problems with crumbling 
schools. In Nevada, especially in southern Nevada where 70 percent of 
the people live, we have problems with the inability to build enough 
new schools.
  We need to build one new school in the Clark County school district 
every month to keep up with the growth. We hold the record. One year we 
dedicated 18 new schools in the Clark County School Districts.
  Schools have problems for various reasons. We in southern Nevada have 
the problem of not being able to keep up with the growth. We need help 
with construction. We need help with class size reduction. I am 
speaking today about the need to fully fund IDEA and to also allow this 
amendment to be adopted so that we have the ability, within this new 
education bill we are going to pass, to fund programs for kids who do 
not speak English as well as they would be able to with a little bit of 
direction.
  I appreciate President Bush focusing on education, but we cannot 
educate kids on the cheap. It costs money to educate kids. Most of the 
controversy in the school choice debate attached to the President's 
proposal is to let low-income parents use Federal aid to apply to 
private school alternatives when their children are in public schools 
and they believe the schools do not provide services for their 
children's needs.
  I believe a better approach is to look at something that Priscilla 
Rocha has done in Las Vegas. We do not need to take these kids out of 
public schools. What we need to do is take care of funding, let people 
like Priscilla Rocha be inventive, give her the resources so she, and 
other educators like her, can have afterschool programs that are 
important and help the limited English proficient student. I believe a 
broader approach to the President's parental choice option is 
necessary, one that calls for a revamping of a 30-year-old underfunded 
policy for limited English proficiency education.
  The principles behind properly funding these programs are simple. For 
one, the millions of American children with limited proficiency in 
English should not be consigned to years of classes that avoid helping 
them gain rapid English proficiency. For that, increased funding is 
necessary.
  If one of these children is put in a special education class, think 
what that does to that child. They know they are as smart as the kid 
next to them, they just cannot talk, or maybe they do not know they are 
as smart as the kid next to them. That is even more sad.
  I think of literacy as an empowerment issue. I think that education 
empowers us, and that education does not mean you have to be a doctor, 
lawyer, or college professor. It means being able to read and write. It 
means having an opportunity to go to a technical school to be an 
automobile mechanic.
  Mr. President, when you and I graduated from high school, if we 
wanted to be an automobile mechanic, we got out of high school and 
started working on cars. Students cannot do that anymore. They have to 
be able to read manuals. They have to attend classes and get a 
certificate before anyone will hire them.
  Automobile agencies in Las Vegas for a number of years--I did not 
realize this--imported people to work on these cars from Utah because 
Utah issued certificates. Our community colleges in southern Nevada 
offer training and a degree in the automotive field. A student can then 
go to Pete Findley Oldsmobile or Fletcher Jones Chevrolet or any of the 
automobile dealerships, and they will hire them. It takes an education.
  Literacy is an empowerment issue. While these children are in 
America, we want them to have the very best, and having the very best 
is not an act of generosity on our part. It is an act of doing the 
right thing, not only for them but for us. Every child who drops out of 
school not only hurts himself or herself and his family, but hurts us. 
We

[[Page 7948]]

have to recognize that making programs available to help these kids 
through school is good for all of us.
  Look at the practicality of literacy as an empowerment issue. It is 
not a question of picking one method or another. It has more to do with 
the idea that we have millions of children with limited proficiency in 
English. These children should be equipped with the necessary tools to 
prosper in America.
  The sooner you speak English, the sooner you are a fully functioning 
citizen who can participate in society.
  I have given the example of Priscilla Rocha's program, but I am sure 
there are many others around the country that work. I am familiar with 
Ms. Rocha's program because she has been a friend of mine for many 
years. I know what a caring individual she is.
  I am not advocating a set program. I am advocating that we make sure 
this education bill allows us to do what, in my opinion, the country 
needs.
  The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program in this 
legislation expands eligibility to include programs that emphasize 
language support for limited English proficient students.
  There are all kinds of afterschool programs around the country that 
work. For example, there is a program in Madison, WI. The city operates 
a safe haven afterschool program for more than 200 children at three 
elementary schools in communities with high crime and poverty rates.
  The program activities include homework help, academic enrichment, 
arts and crafts, supervised games and physical education, and field 
trips. As the program enters its third year, the schools report 
improved attendance and reduced conflicts during afterschool hours. 
Children in the program also show greater interest in completing their 
homework.
  Another example can be found in New York City where the YMCA of 
Greater New York, in partnership with the New York City Board of 
Education, is working to bring extended school services to 10,000 
public school children by turning 200 of the city's underserved public 
schools into virtual Y's from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. after school each day.
  There are all kinds of programs. Second, third, and fourth graders 
take part in these programs.
  A program in Charleston, WV, helps 60 students who live in a 
community plagued by crime and drugs attend a summer camp operated by 
Chandler Elementary School.
  I have given examples of programs that help 10,000 schoolchildren, 
and one that helps 60 schoolchildren. Is one any better than the other? 
Probably not, but they both work.
  Finally, a program in Waco, TX, the Lighted School Program, has kept 
middle schools open after school until 7 p.m. at night Monday through 
Thursday for activities and services to approximately 200 students who 
attend regularly. Nineteen local organizations provide activities and 
services. Baylor University contributes 115 college students as 
mentors. Each works with one child for a full school year.
  The recreation department of that city leads supervised field trips 
and games. Two art centers send instructors to the schools to lead 
hands-on activities, and library staff help children read and act out 
stories.
  Children who participated in the Lighted School Program say they 
appreciate having a safe place to go after school, that it keeps them 
off the streets and it is more fun, they say, than sitting at home in 
front of the television. Several say if the program did not exist, they 
would be in big trouble.
  There are programs that do help. My afterschool literacy amendment 
will not substitute for school-based academic instruction but will 
complement it.
  My amendment expands the existing 21st Century Community Learning 
Centers Program. This program helps fund a variety of valuable 
programs. This grant program is directed at inner-city and rural 
schools that are working in partnership with community organizations to 
provide learning and enrichment programs outside of regular school 
hours for children and adults.
  A community learning center is an entity within a public elementary, 
middle, or secondary school building that provides educational, 
recreational, health, and social service programs for residents of all 
ages within a local community. It is generally operated by a school 
district which is legally responsible within a State for providing the 
public education for these students.
  There are many examples of afterschool programs including: literacy 
programs; senior citizen programs; children's daycare services; summer 
and weekend school programs; nutrition and health programs; expanded 
library services; telecommunications and technology education programs; 
parenting skills; employment counseling, training, and placement; and 
services for individuals with disabilities. These are already included 
in the bill. I want to make sure there is no confusion, that everyone 
understands we need to make sure the 21st Century Community Learning 
Center also includes school-based instruction for children who have 
limited English skills.
  It is important we do that. These programs, I believe, are essential 
to decreasing the number of students who dropout of school. Just think, 
instead of having 3,000 children dropping out of school, let's say we 
have 2,500, if there are 500 kids we can keep in school, I think it 
will be well worth it.
  I hope we send a message by voting unanimously as a Senate for this 
legislation. I hope it has a strong vote. It is something that is 
important to the country. I think it is important to this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for his excellent 
presentation. He has put his finger on one of the most serious problems 
we have in this Nation, and that is the dropout problem.
  We have to be very careful when we find somebody is proud of their 
record because their averages have improved, because then we find out 
the reason they have improved is so many kids dropped out of school 
that the ones who are left average a higher percentage of successful 
students. So we have to be very careful when we examine these matters.
  Also, the Senator did a very excellent job pointing out the group of 
students who have the most difficult problems staying in school are 
those with language difficulties, Hispanics in particular.
  His amendment is an excellent one. I would love to accept it, but I 
understand it can further serve another purpose, which, as we are 
aware, happens on Mondays. So I ask at some point, when the Senator is 
ready, we call for a vote.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield my time if there is any.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back my time.
  Mr. REID. I ask the amendment be set aside for further business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we begin this critical week with debate 
on the education bill, I wanted to make some points that I think apply 
throughout the debate on education, and I wanted to share with my 
colleagues some of my hopes, aspirations, and concerns. I thank the 
manager on the minority side for allowing us to do so.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator coming. I know 
he has an important message. I look forward to listening to him.

[[Page 7949]]


  Mr. BOND. I thank the manager.
  Mr. President, there have been numerous times that I have come to the 
Senate floor to say--and I come, once again, to repeat--that education 
is a national priority, but it is an obligation and responsibility of 
those at the State and local level. The education of our children has 
traditionally been--and ought to be in the future--carried out and 
implemented at the local level.
  I remember a couple of years ago when we were talking about Federal 
control that one of my colleagues, who is now no longer with us, was in 
a debate with a representative in the Department of Education. The 
Department of Education person said: I care just as much about your 
children and their needs and their operations in school and their 
success as you do, to which he replied: Well, that's great. Do you know 
their names? No. Do you know what their scores are? No. Do you know 
what their challenges are? No. Do you know where their schools are? No.
  The simple fact is that none of us here in Washington, no matter how 
much we are concerned about education in general and children in 
general, can know what the problems are and what the challenges are and 
how best to meet those challenges for students in each local school 
district throughout this Nation.
  I think we would all say that each child is different. Each school 
district is different. Each school is different. I think for that and 
other good reasons the Federal role in education has been a limited 
one, and I believe it should be.
  The underlying bill before us--S. 1--recognizes the nature and the 
scope of this role. The legislation creates a leadership role for the 
Federal Government in encouraging States to adopt commonsense systems 
based upon standards, measurements, and accountability. The underlying 
bill as reported out of our committee did not attempt to micromanage 
the local schools and classrooms.
  S. 1 also would give us the opportunity to redefine how we measure 
success. For too long, many of my colleagues here have supported 
throwing more and more money at education. And the Washington-based 
education establishment generally has determined our success in 
education programs based on the dollars spent--not on the academic 
achievements, not on the progress, and not on what our children are 
learning in school to be better prepared for their role in this 
increasingly complex and competitive society.
  If more money were the answer, we wouldn't be debating this bill 
because we wouldn't have the problem. We have poured more and more 
Federal money into education, and the academic achievement of our 
students has been level or in some cases it has fallen behind.
  In pouring more money into public education, we have gone to great 
lengths to detail precisely how those teachers--the men and women who 
know the names of the child in their classroom, and know what his or 
her problems are, more and more they are being told what to do by 
Washington.
  According to the Education Commission of the States:

       In the 1999-2000 budget, the federal government spent 
     almost $44 billion on elementary and secondary education 
     programs. This funding was spread across 35 different 
     education programs in 15 different federal departments.

  We did a little research a couple years ago and found out there are 
over 760 education programs. It was that proliferation of good ideas 
from Washington that led me at the time to propose what we call the 
Direct Check For Education, to combine some of those biggest programs, 
cut the redtape, send it back to the school districts, and tell the 
school districts these are all things we think you ought to consider 
but do not require them to dot every i and cross every t, jump through 
the hoops, and fill out forms and fill out reports and play ``Mother 
May I'' with the Federal Government.
  All of these programs that exist today were started with good 
intentions, and they have gotten more money. Look at the money. Shown 
on this chart are the appropriations for ESEA programs in billions of 
dollars. Starting in 1990, it looks as if, oh, around $7 billion was 
spent, and now it has gone up to, oh, I would say close to $380 
billion.
  This shows what has happened in the average national scale math 
scores for 9-year-olds. That is measured on the chart with the green 
line. It is a flat line. If that were a line on a key chart in a 
hospital measuring the heartbeat of the patient, it would say the 
patient is dead. All the money has produced no appreciable benefits. 
That is the math scores.
  Maybe we can look at another chart to see if we got any better 
results. How have we done in reading? This chart has the appropriations 
for ESEA programs in billions of dollars. It is the same type of chart 
as the last one. It shows the national 4th grade reading scores: a flat 
line, no life in the patient. We are not getting any better. We are 
spending more money to do no better.
  I am afraid we are about to hijack S. 1 and turn it into a replay of 
the same kind of Federal micromanagement and Federal direction of 
education that has managed to use a whole lot of money without getting 
any results.
  These Federal programs--the Education Commission of the States says 
35; I say over 760--have gotten us burdensome regulations, unfunded 
mandates, and unwanted meddling. The folks at the local level--whether 
they be parents or teachers or school board members or administrators--
say they have less and less control. Jobs of our teachers and 
administrators are harder than they should be. We have eroded the 
opportunity for creativity and motivation.
  I don't know how many of you have taken the opportunity to do what I 
have done in Missouri. Over the last 3 years, I have traveled 
throughout the State--in the metropolitan areas, the suburban areas, 
the rural areas--and I have met with representatives of teachers, of 
school board members, of administrators. I have asked: What is the 
problem here? And too many of them have come back to say: We are 
spending our time as glorified grantsmen, trying to get more money from 
the Federal Government, trying to jump through the hoops, trying to do 
what the Federal Government wants us to do. We don't have the time to 
prepare our lessons and to prepare our students for the education they 
need for a lifetime.
  This is a serious problem. This is what the teachers, the 
administrators, the school board members are telling us throughout my 
State. It comes through loud and clear, and it is on a bipartisan 
basis. From the most conservative Republicans to the most liberal 
Democrats, the people in Missouri, who are involved at the local school 
level, tell us there is far too much time, effort, and energy wasted on 
complying with Federal dictates, Federal mandates.
  Some of our schools say that, although the Federal Government only 
provides an average of about 5 percent--I guess in Missouri it is a 
little less than the national average of the dollars going to 
education--it, in effect, controls about 50 percent of what is done 
because these Federal mandates and these Federal dictates--all these 
good ideas that went into these programs--tell the local schools how 
they ought to handle the programs they would otherwise be doing to 
educate their kids. And most of them say, well over 50 percent of the 
redtape and the headache and the requirements and the hassle they go 
through comes from the Federal Government.
  How can we afford to keep spending Federal education dollars in the 
same way we have been doing it for years if it is not achieving any 
success? I do not think we can. I do not think we should stand for it. 
I have talked to too many parents and teachers, school board members, 
community and business leaders who say: Our children deserve better. 
This country deserves better.
  Over the past several years, I have opposed the creation of specific 
new programs and their dictates on the style of their education, even 
these amendments that have been offered in good faith. These amendments 
were

[[Page 7950]]

good ideas, if we had taken our good ideas and ran for membership on a 
school board. I am sure many of my colleagues could make great 
contributions if they were on the school board in Mexico, MO, or the R-
6 school district or the St. Louis city school board or the Jefferson 
City school board, but we are not.
  The problem is, there are different needs and different challenges in 
Missouri, in Washington, in Arizona, in Maine, or in Florida. When we 
pass a law, when we pass a dictate or a requirement, we do not know how 
that is going to impact the kids who are the ones who have to be 
taught. We may understand education in general, but there are 
educational needs that are specific and direct in each school district 
as the individual student involved.
  I cannot believe, if my colleagues went back home, spent some time, 
saddled up the horses, went out and just rode the circuit, that you 
wouldn't hear the same things. I know, first hand. Our State has some 
of the best teachers, the best principals, superintendents, and school 
board members in the country. They are outstanding people. They are 
really concerned.
  You think we are concerned about education. Well, we were concerned 
about education last week and will be this week, but we have to be 
concerned about the budget, we have to be concerned about tax policy, 
and we are going to be concerned about energy policy.
  These dedicated men and women are spending their lifetime dedicated 
to one thing; that is, teaching our children. What do the people who 
are actually involved in education have to say?
  The superintendent of Springfield, MO, public schools said:

       . . . the amount of paperwork that the federal government 
     causes local school districts to engage in is often 
     overwhelming. The extra effort and time often reduces 
     productive classroom time and energy that could better be 
     spent working directly with children.

  Mr. Berrey of the Wentzville R-IV school said:

       Limiting federal intrusion into decisions best left to 
     local communities is what I believe our founding fathers had 
     in mind.

  From the Neosho, MO, R-5 school district:

       The individuals who are working most closely with the 
     students are indeed the ones who can best decide how this 
     money can be spent for the benefit of students' education.

  The superintendent of the Special School District of St. Louis County 
said:

       As head of a school district specializing in special 
     education, I fully understand how my district's financial 
     needs differ from other school district's needs. In order to 
     best utilize the limited funds that are at my disposal, I 
     need maximum flexibility in determining how to put those 
     funds to the best use.

  The president of the board of education of the Blue Springs, MO, 
school district said:

       Without local control, the focus is taken away from the 
     needs specific to the children in each school system.

  But I think maybe the superintendent of the Taneyville, MO, R-II 
school district sums it up well:

       I feel that State and Federal government has tied our 
     school's hands with mandated programs and mandated uses for 
     the monies we are receiving. The schools are likened to 
     puppets on a string. Pull this string this way and the school 
     does this; pull it another way and the school does that. 
     School systems and communities are as different from one 
     another as individual people are different. What works for 
     one will not work for another.

  I offer those because that is the kind of information all of us need 
as we move forward on any kind of education bill, certainly one as 
important as the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. My colleagues haven't been in a position to listen to 
those people and ask them questions directly, but I suggest to them, if 
they go home and ask questions, they will hear the same, with similar 
eloquence and similar heartfelt concern, in their States.
  To me the issue is simple: We must give our States and localities the 
flexibility to utilize the limited amount of Federal resources as they 
see fit and hold them accountable in the form of academic achievement. 
We must recognize and reward States and localities that succeed in 
improving academic achievement. There also should be consequences for 
States and localities that fail.
  We have a choice between having Washington, DC, control our schools 
and the local level. Who is most likely to waste money? There is no 
contest there. Unfortunately, we have demonstrated in Washington 
collectively that no matter how good our ideas, how well intentioned 
our efforts are to provide direction and counseling and hope for 
schools, we may not be doing the right job; we may be causing them more 
problem.
  A little girl hustling to school--she was late for school--said a 
little prayer that she would get to school on time. She went about 
another half block and got going too fast and fell down on her face. 
She offered up another little prayer: I would like you to help me to 
get to school, but don't push so hard. I fell down.
  Sometimes we are pushing a little too hard. Sometimes what we try to 
do to help the people who are trying to deliver education try to uplift 
and empower our children pushes them down on their face. I think it is 
time that we consolidate those programs, that we take all these great 
revenues and give parents a say. Let school boards determine the 
policy, let administrators know how to run their school, and let 
teachers who know the names and the problems and the opportunities and 
the potential of each child make those educational decisions.
  S. 1, the underlying bill, consolidates a myriad of Federal programs 
into a set of programs designed to allow States and local school 
districts to make decisions on their own, to determine their 
priorities, recognizing that education reform will take place in the 
classroom, not because of all of the wonderful, great ideas we have in 
Washington, DC. The underlying concept of S. 1 is the right way to go.
  Amendments on class size are absolutely unnecessary. Class size 
reduction is an option in S. 1's larger, more flexible program for 
improving the quality of classroom teaching. It should be an option, 
not a mandate.
  Let me ask this question: Has it been shown that a fifth grade class 
must have only so many children in it to be successful? I have talked 
to a lot of administrators who say the most important thing for 
teaching that fifth grade class and each child in it is to make sure 
the quality of the teacher is good. If we can't come up with two 
quality teachers, all we do, in splitting up the class, is say to those 
children who go with a less qualified teacher that they don't get as 
good an education.
  What if the school district has already devoted its money to reducing 
class size, used its local funds? What they need is better pay to keep 
those teachers there.
  On classroom funding, are we going to say: You can only use this 
money to hire more teachers? What if the principal said: I have some 
great teachers, but they are going to go into the private sector if I 
don't give them a pay increase? How does that make sense for us to say 
to every school district in the Nation: Thou shalt hire more teachers? 
It doesn't make sense to me.
  Local school districts are best equipped to determine what they need. 
Many have already reduced class size where they thought necessary. They 
might have done that at the expense of some other things: Teacher pay, 
technology, class books. Maybe they need professional development for 
the teachers they have. How do we know? I will guarantee you, we don't 
know. We can't know for every school district in the Nation. That is 
why we ought not be mandating that Federal dollars be spent for a 
purpose that may or may not be the top priority need of that district.
  Mandating specific resources for class size reduction really takes 
money off the table for other schools that have already addressed that 
specific issue. As I said earlier, they may have decided that 
professional development for their teachers to improve the quality of 
teaching is more important to obtain academic success for the students 
and schools.

[[Page 7951]]

  We always deal with limited budgets. There is not going to be an 
unlimited source of money going into anything we need. The question is 
how best we spend the money we have. All of us agree that a good, 
quality education is our top national priority. We can't say we are 
going to have all the specific programs and we are going to meet every 
need of every school district because State and local funds still cover 
at least 90 percent--in most States more--of education funding. We are 
not going to replace that. We shouldn't because we didn't run for this 
office to be a national school board.
  The President and the Secretary of Education are men deeply committed 
to education, but they are not good superintendents of schools or 
principals or even teachers, in this instance, because they have to 
deal with all the schools and they can't know all the kids' names.
  The American public is and should be interested in the debate in 
Washington because they overwhelmingly believe that good education for 
our children is a top priority. But they also know what really matters 
is what goes on in the schools and the classrooms around the country. 
As much as we like to argue among ourselves, what is said in this 
Chamber or even in the other body is not going to drive the education 
of a student or make sure that student is better educated. That depends 
upon a teacher and the school in which that child studies.
  Individuals on one side of this debate believe that the Olympians on 
the hill, those of us in Washington with fine titles, those of us with 
national responsibilities in the Congress or those in the Education 
Department, a group of very concerned individuals, know what is best 
for the folks down in the valley.
  I happen to be on the side who believe that the great ideas, the 
accomplishments, the successes that are going to make our children 
better educated for the future, that are going to help them meet the 
challenges of this wonderful but challenging century are going to be 
made by the folks in the valley, the men and women who staff our 
schools, who are the teachers, administrators, superintendents, 
principals who run the school boards, and who are the parents who, 
above all, are the ones with the greatest stake in the education of 
their children.
  I hope this body does not hijack S. 1 and make it into another system 
of categorical grants: Jump through this hoop and you will get some 
dollars. But then you will have to fill out reports and check in with 
Washington to see how you used them, and then you will have to file 
more reports, or you can jump through this hoop if you make a 
successful application. And if you jump through the right hoops and 
somebody in Washington agrees that it is OK, then you have to follow up 
with more reports and redtape and forms and tell them what you did. I 
don't think that is the way we ought to be going on education.
  I urge my colleagues, as we look at these amendments before us, to 
ask these basic questions: Is this amendment or provision going to 
enable somebody who is teaching children in a school in my State to do 
a better job? Is it going to be across the board? Is it going to enable 
every teacher in every school district? Or is it only going to affect a 
few school districts, where our priority happens to be that school's 
priority?
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to rethink how we are going in 
terms of setting up too many hoops for schools to jump through. We want 
to see better education, but Federal hoops are not the way to get 
there.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for his dedication 
to education. He is a very valuable member of my committee. I have 
listened carefully to his message, and I thank him.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont thanks the Senator 
from Vermont for yielding to the Senator from Vermont, and the Senator 
from Vermont thanks the Chair for recognizing both Senators from 
Vermont.
  Someday somebody looking through trivia in the Record will try to 
figure out what the heck that was all about.
  Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are there 
amendments pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are amendments pending. It would take 
unanimous consent to set them aside.


                           Amendment No. 424

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
424 be added to the list of those amendments that are now pending. I 
send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Hatch, for 
     himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 424.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment reads as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls 
                           Clubs of America)

       On page 893, after line 14, add the following:

     SEC. __. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA.

       Section 401 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1966 (42 
     U.S.C. 13751 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``1,000'' and inserting ``1,200'';
       (B) by striking ``2,500'' and inserting ``4,000''; and
       (C) by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2006, serving not less than 6,000,000 young 
     people'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 
     and 2001'' and inserting ``2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 
     2006''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``90 days'' and inserting ``30 days'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1,000'' and 
     inserting ``1,200''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2,500 Boys and 
     Girls Clubs of America facilities in operation before January 
     1, 2000'' and inserting ``4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs of 
     America facilities in operation before January 1, 2007''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section--
       ``(A) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(B) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(D) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(E) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does this become the 12th amendment, or one 
on the list on those now pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is on the list of those that are now 
pending.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I join with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee in offering this amendment. As the Senators know, this 
reauthorizes Department of Justice grants for new Boys and Girls Clubs 
in each of our 50 States.
  This bipartisan amendment authorizes $60 million in Department of 
Justice grants for each of the next 5 years to establish 1,200 
additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. In fact, this will 
bring the number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000. That means they will 
serve approximately 6 million young people by January 1, 2007.
  I am very impressed with what I see about the Boys and Girls Clubs as 
I travel around the country. In 1997, I was very proud to join with 
Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation to authorize 
grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs 
across the Nation. We got very strong bipartisan support. We increased 
the Department of Justice grant funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs 
from $20 million in fiscal year 1998 to $60 million in fiscal year 
2001. That is why we have now 2,591 Boys and Girls Clubs in all 50 
States and 3.3 million children are served. It is a success story.
  I hear from parents certainly across my State how valuable it is to 
have the Boys and Girls Clubs. I hear it also from police chiefs. In 
fact, one police chief told me, rather than giving him a couple more 
police officers, fund a

[[Page 7952]]

Boys and Girls Club in his district; it would be more beneficial. This 
long-term Federal commitment has enabled Vermonters to establish six 
Boys and Girls Clubs--in Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, 
Rutland, and Vergennes. In fact, I believe the Vermont Boys and Girls 
Clubs have received more than a million dollars from the Department of 
Justice grants since 1998.
  Last week at a Vermont town meeting on heroin prevention and 
treatment, I was honored to present a check for more than $150,000 in 
Department of Justice funds to the members of the Burlington club to 
continue helping young Vermonters find some constructive alternatives 
for both their talents and energies, because we know that in Vermont 
and across the Nation Boys and Girls Clubs are proving they are a 
growing success at preventing crime and supporting young children.
  Parents, educators, law enforcement officers, and others know we need 
safe havens where young people can learn and grow up free from the 
influence of the drugs and gangs and crime. That is why the Boys and 
Girls Clubs are so important to our Nation's children. Indeed, the 
success already in Vermont has led to efforts to create nine more clubs 
throughout my home State. Continued Federal support would be critical 
to these expansion efforts in Vermont and in the other 49 States as 
well.
  I was disappointed when the President's budget request called for 
eliminating funding for Boys and Girls Clubs from the Department of 
Justice's programs for State and local law enforcement assistance. I 
realize there was an effort to bring down the budget to compensate for 
what has been a very large tax cut, but I think this money should have 
been left in. I think the administration makes a mistake in cutting out 
the money for the Boys and Girls Clubs.
  In fact, based on last year's appropriations, the failure of the Bush 
administration to request funding for the Department of Justice grants 
for Boys and Girls Clubs amounts to a $60 million cut in our Federal 
drug and crime prevention efforts. I have written to the 
administration. I hope the President will reconsider this decision. I 
hope he will realize that the Boys and Girls Clubs is not a Democratic 
initiative or a Republican initiative; this is a commonsense initiative 
that both parties have endorsed.
  Those of us who have children or grandchildren know instinctively how 
important it is. If we have any doubt, we can just talk to any of the 
parents in the towns or communities where there are Boys and Girls 
Clubs; they will tell you how valuable they are. In fact, the Boys and 
Girls Clubs of America are the most successful youth organization in 
the country today, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
  I worked together on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Attorney 
General Ashcroft, and I applaud him because he is a big booster of the 
Boys and Girls Clubs. He spent a lot of his youth at a club in 
Missouri, he told me.
  I am hopeful that the Attorney General will also support additional 
Department of Justice funding for more Boys and Girls Clubs. He was 
very helpful to the debate when Senator Harkin and I offered an 
amendment to add one-half billion dollars to the Department of Justice 
Department in fiscal year 2002 that would fund programs that assist 
State and local law enforcement. Our amendment, the Leahy-Harkin law 
enforcement budget amendment, passed the Senate unanimously. It does 
continue funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs and their Department of 
Justice grants.
  In fact, the budget resolution conference report retained most of the 
funding increases in the Leahy-Harkin law enforcement amendment.
  I hope the amendment today to reauthorize the Department of Justice 
grants to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America will clear the way for 
the administration to endorse Federal funding for this effort. It is 
something on which Senator Hatch and I have joined forces. We want to 
demonstrate this is not a Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or 
Democratic effort. It is a commonsense effort because these clubs make 
such a real difference in the lives of millions of America's young 
people.
  Mr. President, I see others in the Chamber, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from North Carolina be recognized and that I follow him after his 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senator is most gracious, and I 
certainly appreciate it. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to present my remarks seated at my desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. What is the pending amendment? Are 
there pending amendments, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there are pending amendments.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that they be laid aside 
temporarily so I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 574 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 574 and ask that it 
be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 574.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of Federal funds by any State or local 
educational agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts 
 of America in providing equal access to school premises or facilities)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

           TITLE __--EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES

     SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Boy Scouts of America 
     Equal Access Act''.

     SEC. __2. EQUAL ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds made available through the Department of 
     Education shall be provided to any public elementary school, 
     public secondary school, local educational agency, or State 
     educational agency, if the school or a school served by the 
     agency--
       (1) has a designated open forum; and
       (2) denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, 
     or discriminates against, any group affiliated with the Boy 
     Scouts of America or any other youth group that wishes to 
     conduct a meeting within that designated open forum, on the 
     basis of the membership or leadership criteria of the Boy 
     Scouts of America or of the youth group that prohibit the 
     acceptance of homosexuals, or individuals who reject the Boy 
     Scouts' or the youth group's oath of allegiance to God and 
     country, as members or leaders.
       (b) Termination of Assistance and Other Action.--
       (1) Departmental action.--The Secretary is authorized and 
     directed to effectuate subsection (a) by issuing, and 
     securing compliance with, rules or orders with respect to a 
     public school or agency that receives funds made available 
     through the Department of Education and that denies equal 
     access, or a fair opportunity to meet, or discriminates, as 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Procedure.--The Secretary shall issue and secure 
     compliance with the rules or orders, under paragraph (1), in 
     a manner consistent with the procedure used by a Federal 
     department or agency under section 602 of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1).
       (3) Judicial review.--Any action taken by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the judicial review 
     described in section 603 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2). Any 
     person aggrieved by the action may obtain that judicial 
     review in the manner, and to the extent, provided in section 
     603 of that Act.
       (c) Definitions and Rule.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this section:
       (A) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary 
     school; state educational agency.--The terms ``elementary 
     school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'', 
     and ``State educational agency'' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965.
       (B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education, acting through the Assistant Secretary for 
     Civil Rights of the Department of Education.

[[Page 7953]]

       (C) Youth group.--The term ``youth group'' means any group 
     or organization intended to serve young people under the age 
     of 21.
       (2) Rule.--For purposes of this section, an elementary 
     school or secondary school has a designated open forum 
     whenever the school involved grants an offering to or 
     opportunity for 1 or more youth or community groups to meet 
     on school premises or in school facilities before or after 
     the hours during which attendance at the school is 
     compulsory.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 648 To Amendment No. 574

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 648 to amendment No. 574.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

           TITLE __--EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES

     SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Boy Scouts of America 
     Equal Access Act''.

     SEC. __2. EQUAL ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds made available through the Department of 
     Education shall be provided to any public elementary school, 
     public secondary school, local educational agency, or State 
     educational agency, if the school or a school served by the 
     agency--
       (1) has a designated open forum; and
       (2) denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, 
     or discriminates against, any group affiliated with the Boy 
     Scouts of America or any other youth group that wishes to 
     conduct a meeting within that designated open forum, on the 
     basis of the membership or leadership criteria of the Boy 
     Scouts of America or of the youth group that prohibit the 
     acceptance of homosexuals, or individuals who reject the Boy 
     Scouts' or the youth group's oath of allegiance to God and 
     country, as members or leaders.
       (b) Termination of Assistance and Other Action.--
       (1) Departmental action.--The Secretary is authorized and 
     directed to effectuate subsection (a) by issuing, and 
     securing compliance with, rules or orders with respect to a 
     public school or agency that receives funds made available 
     through the Department of Education and that denies equal 
     access, or a fair opportunity to meet, or discriminates, as 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Procedure.--The Secretary shall issue and secure 
     compliance with the rules or orders, under paragraph (1), in 
     a manner consistent with the procedure used by a Federal 
     department or agency under section 602 of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1).
       (3) Judicial review.--Any action taken by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the judicial review 
     described in section 603 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2). Any 
     person aggrieved by the action may obtain that judicial 
     review in the manner, and to the extent, provided in section 
     603 of that Act.
       (c) Definitions and Rule.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this section:
       (A) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary 
     school; state educational agency.--The terms ``elementary 
     school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'', 
     and ``State educational agency'' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965.
       (B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education, acting through the Assistant Secretary for 
     Civil Rights of the Department of Education.
       (C) Youth group.--The term ``youth group'' means any group 
     or organization intended to serve young people under the age 
     of 21.
       (2) Rule.--For purposes of this section, an elementary 
     school or secondary school has a designated open forum 
     whenever the school involved grants an offering to or 
     opportunity for 1 or more youth or community groups to meet 
     on school premises or in school facilities before or after 
     the hours during which attendance at the school is 
     compulsory.

     SEC. __3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for years, the Boy Scouts of America 
organization has been subjected to malicious assaults by some 
homosexuals and some liberal politicians simply because the Boy Scouts 
of America organization, and many individual scout groups, have 
steadfastly continued to uphold their moral and decent standards for 
scouting and the leaders of that great organization.
  I have long admired and supported scouting--its leaders, and the Boy 
Scouts themselves. (I was one a long time ago, although we will not 
discuss how long ago that was.) In any case, it comes as no surprise to 
me that the Supreme Court properly upheld in June of last year the 
constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America--their rights to 
establish their own membership guidelines, which included no obligation 
whatsoever to accept homosexuals as Boy Scout members or leaders.
  Nor was there any surprise that there came the customary discordant 
company of radical militants demanding that this landmark decision of 
the U.S. Supreme Court be undermined.
  Mr. President, they never miss a beat, not one--those who demand that 
everybody else's principles must be laid aside in order to protect the 
rights of homosexual conduct, or they go on and on like Tennyson's 
Brook. These radical militants are up to the same old tactics when 
targeting an honorable and respectable organization, the Boy Scouts of 
America.
  Where else do you suppose these people are aiming their attacks now? 
The answer: the public schools of America. School districts across 
America are now being pressured to kick the Boy Scouts of America out 
of federally funded public school facilities. Why and how come, you may 
ask. I will tell you. It is because the Boy Scouts will not agree to 
surrender their first amendment rights, and they will not accept the 
agenda of the radical left in this country.
  I asked the Congressional Research Service for a report about how 
many school districts have already taken hostile actions against the 
Boy Scouts of America. The Congressional Research Service reported to 
me that at least nine school districts are known to have publicly 
attacked the Boy Scouts of America, and in the majority of these cases 
they have done so in an outright rejection of the Supreme Court's 
ruling protecting Boy Scouts' rights.
  One of the more publicized instances occurred in Broward County, FL--
a place which earned some notoriety last fall due to its ballot 
confusion during the Presidential election. Obviously, Broward County, 
FL, is in another state of confusion: Its school board voted 
unanimously to forbid--get this--forbid the Boy Scouts of America to 
use the public school facilities for their meetings, as had 
historically been the case, unless the Boy Scouts compromised with, 
guess who? That is right: the homosexual leaders of Broward County. 
Thankfully, the U.S. district court in Florida intervened at that 
point, and the court has issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting 
Broward County from moving forward in evicting the Boy Scouts from the 
school premises.
  I am obliged to acknowledge that Broward County is not the only 
school district taking such action. In my own State of North Carolina, 
members of the Chapel Hill School District have demanded that the Boy 
Scouts of America change their policy (which was upheld, Mr. President, 
you will remember, by the Supreme Court in June of last year), or the 
Chapel Hill School District will send the Boy Scouts packing to find 
another meeting place. Either do it their way or get out of the school. 
That is what they are saying in Chapel Hill, NC.
  Only if they will accept homosexuals as their leaders and fellow 
scouts will these Boy Scouts be allowed to continue their meetings on 
school property. But those very same meeting places at school remain 
open for more than 800 Gay-Straight Alliance clubs. These are 
homosexual school clubs that have been formed with the assistance of 
the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, which is a radical 
group committed to promoting immoral lifestyles in the school systems 
of America.
  With groups such as these welcomed in our public schools, while the 
Boy

[[Page 7954]]

Scouts are kicked out, schoolchildren need, it seems to me, to have the 
Boy Scouts stick around, and that is what I want to do with this 
legislation, if I can, and if the Senate will go along with it.
  This arrogant discriminatory treatment of Boy Scouts of America must 
not be allowed to continue, and that is why I am sitting here this 
afternoon offering amendments to reinforce the U.S. Supreme Court's 
decision upholding the first amendment rights of the Boy Scouts of 
America and not oblige those Boy Scouts to compromise their membership 
or leadership guidelines, nor any of their moral principles.
  Specifically, the pending first-degree and second-degree amendments 
propose that any public school receiving Federal funds from the 
Department of Education must provide the Boy Scouts or youth groups 
such as the Boy Scouts equal access to school facilities and must not 
discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America by requiring scouts or 
any other youth groups to accept homosexuals as members or as leaders 
or any other individuals who reject the Boy Scouts' oath of allegiance 
to God and country. The penalty for such violation could constitute the 
risk of their Federal funding being eliminated.
  This amendment provides the Office of Civil Rights within the 
Department of Education the statutory authority to investigate any 
discriminatory action taken against The Boy Scouts of America based on 
their membership or leadership criteria.
  In other words, DOE will handle cases of discrimination against the 
Boy Scouts, in the same manner that DOE currently handles other cases 
of discrimination, which are barred by Federal law and may result in 
termination of Federal funds.
  For those unfamiliar with the existing process: DOE has given their 
Office of Civil Rights oversight responsibility over discrimination 
complaints. The Office of Civil Rights typically notifies and warns a 
fund recipient--such as a school--to correct its actions or else.
  However, it should be noted that according to CRS:

       Historically, the fund termination sanction has been 
     infrequently exercised, and most cases are settled at . . . 
     the investigative process. . . .

  Therefore, it's highly unlikely that any school will in fact ever 
have its funding cut off; unless it adamantly refuses to provide the 
Boy Scouts of America equal access to school facilities.
  Mr. President, 70 years ago, I remember raising my hand to take the 
Scout Oath. I have it written here but I really do not need it. How 
many times on Friday night would we stand with our hands up and say:

       On my honor as a Scout, I will do my best to do my duty to 
     God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law. To help other 
     people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, 
     mentally awake, and morally straight.

  Mr. President. I hope the Senate will, as the U.S. Supreme Court has 
already done, uphold the constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of 
America to continue to take this oath, meaningfully and sincerely.
  I ask unanimous consent that the two memoranda, prepared by the 
Congressional Research Service and a legal analysis, which was prepared 
by the American Center for Law and Justice in support of my amendment 
on the grounds that it is constitutional--I ask that all of these 
documents be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [Memorandum to Hon. Jesse Helms from American Law Division, CRS, Mar. 
                                5, 2001]

 Federal Civil Rights Enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights of the 
            U.S. Department of Education and Related Matters

       At your request, this memorandum summarizes our recent 
     discussions relative to enforcement by federal administrative 
     agencies--in particular, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 
     the Department of Education--of Title VI of the 1964 Civil 
     Rights Act and other federal statutes prohibiting 
     discrimination in state and local programs receiving federal 
     financial assistance.
       OCR is responsible for enforcing federal laws barring 
     discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, 
     disability or age in all federal education programs or 
     activities funded by the federal government at the 
     elementary, secondary, or higher educational level. It 
     derives its authority mainly from the following statutory 
     sources: Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which enacted 
     a generic ban on race, color, or national origin 
     discrimination in all federally assisted programs, 
     educational or otherwise; Title IX of the Education 
     Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the 
     basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive 
     federal financial assistance; Section 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, banning discrimination because of 
     handicap in all federally funded activities; and the Age 
     Discrimination Act of 1975.
       Federal agencies were authorized by Title VI to enforce 
     nondiscrimination ``by issuing rules, regulations, and orders 
     of general applicability'' and to secure compliance through 
     imposition of sanctions, which may include the ``termination 
     or refusal to grant or to continue assistance'' to 
     recipients, or by ``any other means authorized by law.'' An 
     early target of Title VI enforcement efforts were segregated 
     ``dual school'' systems in the South, which had resisted the 
     mandate of Brown v. Board of Education to desegregate with 
     ``all deliberate speed.'' The Civil Rights Act enlisted the 
     executive branch--in this case, the former Department of 
     Health Education and Welfare--as an ally of the courts in 
     effectuating compliance with desegregation requirements by 
     means of threatened fund cutoffs. With statutory creation of 
     the Department of Education in 1979, OCR was made the 
     principal entity responsible for administratively enforcing 
     the panoply of federal laws barring discrimination in 
     programs and activities carried on by federally financed 
     schools, school districts, and higher education institutions.
       OCR enforces the noted statutes by conducting 
     investigations of complaints filed in its ten regional 
     offices or at national headquarters in Washington, or by 
     conducting compliance reviews. Compliance reviews are 
     internally generated and are intended as broad investigations 
     of overall compliance by recipients of Federal financial 
     assistance from the Department of Education. Institutions are 
     targeted for such review by examining information gathered in 
     surveys by OCR and from other sources. The surveys are 
     intended to assist the agency in identifying potential areas 
     of ``system discrimination.'' Upon finding an apparent 
     violation of Title VI or other applicable law, OCR notifies 
     the fund recipient, i.e. the state or local education agency, 
     and must then seek voluntary compliance. If voluntary 
     compliance cannot be secured, OCR may pursue enforcement 
     through fund termination proceedings within the agency or 
     seek compliance by other authorized means. The administrative 
     fund termination process entails notifying the alleged 
     discriminatory entity of the opportunity for hearing before a 
     DOE administrative law judge. Alternatively, and more often 
     the case, the matter may be referred to the Department of 
     Justice (DOJ) with recommendation for appropriate legal 
     action.
       Historically, the fund termination sanction has been 
     infrequently exercised, and most cases are settled at one of 
     four stages of the investigative process: early complaint 
     resolution; during negotiations prior to a ``letter of 
     finding'' by the agency of a violation, or following such a 
     finding; and at the administrative enforcement stage, when 
     the institution is given a final opportunity to correct any 
     violation found by the ALJ. In addition, litigation 
     instituted by DOJ, on referral from DOE, or by private 
     parties pursuant to an implied right of action has been an 
     important avenue for Title VI enforcement. Although much 
     litigation has concerned public school desegregation, Title 
     VI judicial remedies have also been invoked for claims of 
     discrimination in school disciplinary proceedings, failure to 
     provide bilingual or supplemental instruction for non-English 
     speaking students, student grades and ability grouping, 
     financial aid or scholarship programs.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                                  ____


 [Memorandum to Hon. Jesse Helms from American Law Division, CRS, Mar. 
                                6, 2001]

   Actions by Various School Districts Across the Nation to Restrict 
   Access by Local Scouting Organizations to Public School Facilities

       This memorandum responds to your inquiry, and our recent 
     conversation, relative to the above.
       In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court 
     ruled, by a 5 to 4 vote, that the Boy Scouts have a 
     constitutional right to exclude homosexual members and 
     leaders. Since then, controversies have arisen in Broward 
     County, Florida, New York City, and several other 
     jurisdictions concerning continued local school board support 
     of scouting programs. In Broward County, school authorities 
     reportedly ``evicted 57 Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs 
     from school property in December [2000]'' for violating a 
     nondiscrimination clause in their agreement for use of the 
     facilities. The Boy Scouts responded with a federal lawsuit 
     in Miami district court, apparently still pending, which 
     challenges the officials' action as

[[Page 7955]]

     unlawful ``viewpoint discrimination.'' The action claims that 
     the school district violated the Scouts' right to free 
     expression and equal access to public facilities. As we 
     discussed, presumably neither Title VI of the 1964 Civil 
     Rights Act nor Executive Order 13160, issued by former 
     President Clinton, would prohibit denial by local educational 
     agencies of school facilities or services to scouting 
     organizations.
       A search of the Westlaw all news database revealed that the 
     following state or local educational agencies have taken, or 
     are considering, actions to restrict Boy Scout access to 
     public school facilities since the Supreme Court decision in 
     Boy Scouts of America:
       Broward County, Fla.: ``Broward County's school board voted 
     unanimously to keep the Boy Scouts of America from using 
     public schools to hold meetings and recruitment drives 
     because of the groups ban on gays.'' 11/16/00 Fla. Today 06, 
     2000 WL 20222668.
       Chapel Hill N.C.: ``The Chapel Hill-Carrboro school board 
     voted [on January 11, 2001] to give Scouts until June to 
     either go against the rules of their organization or lose 
     their sponsorship and meeting places in schools.'' 1/13/01 
     News & Observer (Raleigh NC) B1, 2001 WL 3447689.
       New York City: ``School Chancellor Harold Levy . . . said 
     the city school system would not enter into any new contracts 
     with the Boy Scouts of America;'' and that all sponsorships 
     and special privileges by city schools would be terminated, 
     but that they ``will be allowed to have access to school 
     buildings after school hours on the same basis as other 
     organizations, which means they would have to seek customary 
     approval first.'' 12/3/00 Star Ledger (Newark N.J.) 028, 2000 
     WL 29894638.
       Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles City Council has ``directed 
     all of the city's departments to review contracts with the 
     Boy Scouts and order an audit of those contracts to ensure 
     they comply with a nondiscrimination clause.'' Id., 2000 WL 
     29894638.
       Madison, Wis.: ``A resolution unanimously passed by the 
     Madison School Board . . . harshly criticizes the Boy Scouts 
     of America for its exclusionary policies, but the resolution 
     does not change district policies towards the group.'' 12/6/
     00 Wis. St. J. B3, 2000 WL 24297730.
       Seattle Wa.: ``Seattle Public Schools officials could 
     decide as early as [January 2001] whether to restrict Boy 
     Scouts of America's access to students and school 
     buildings.'' 12/19/00 Seattle Post-Intelligencer B2, 2000 WL 
     5309920. No additional reportage on the current status of 
     Seattle schools was located.
       Minneapolis Mn: Under unanimously-passed Minneapolis School 
     Board policy, ``[s]couts no longer can pass out recruitment 
     material in the city's public schools and individual schools 
     cannot sponsor troops; however, scouting units may still use 
     school buildings for meetings and other events.'' 10/11/00 
     Stat. trib. (Minneapolis-St. Paul) 01B, 2000 WL 6992730.
       Worchester Ma.: ``Superintendent of Schools Alfred Tutela . 
     . . banned the Boy Scouts from holding meetings in the 
     properties of the Wachusett Regional Schools District.'' 9/
     15/00 Telegram and Gazette (Worchester) B1, 2000 WL 10219354.
       Framingham Ma.: Scouts ``were banned from recruiting in the 
     district's schools.'' 12/29/00 Nat'l Post A 16, 2000 WL 
     30654763.
       We hope that this is of assistance to you.
                                  ____


 [Memorandum to Office of Senator Jesse Helms from American Center for 
                      Law & Justice, May 17, 2001]

      The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (S. 1) Is Fully 
                             Constitutional


                              introduction

       The American Center for Law and Justice (``ACLJ'') is a 
     nonprofit, public interest law firm and educational 
     organization dedicated to protecting religious liberty, human 
     life, and the family. ACLJ attorneys have successfully argued 
     constitutional law cases in federal and state courts across 
     the United States. See, e.g., Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network 
     of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997); Lamb's Chapel v. 
     Center Moriches Union Free School District, 113 S.Ct. 2141 
     (1993); Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 113 S.Ct. 
     753 (1993); United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990); 
     Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); 
     Frisby v. Shultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988); Board of Airport 
     Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987). As 
     reflected by these cases, the ACLJ has a substantial interest 
     in preserving First Amendment freedoms for groups in various 
     speech fora.
       The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (S. 1) is 
     consonant with the Free Speech and Free Association 
     provisions of the First Amendment. The denial of equal access 
     for speech or association by the Boy Scouts in a forum 
     generally open to all other types of speech is 
     unconstitutional viewpoint-based discrimination. See 
     generally, Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School 
     Dist., 113 S.Ct. 2141 (1993). And, as to this issue in 
     particular, a Federal District Court in Florida has very 
     recently ruled that such discriminatory exclusion of the Boy 
     Scouts from public school facilities was unconstitutional, 
     and enjoined the school district from such further 
     discrimination. See generally, Boy Scouts of America v. Till, 
     Case No. 00-7776-Civ-Middlebrooks-Bandstra (S.D. Fla. Mar. 
     21, 2001). The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act follows 
     in that determination to prevent discrimination and seeks to 
     insure equal and constitutional treatment of youth groups, 
     such as the Boy Scouts, without regard to such organizations' 
     oath of allegiance to God and country, or the acceptance of 
     homosexuality.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act is not only 
     constitutional, the equal access that it seeks to protect is 
     mandated by the Constitution.


   exclusion of the boy scouts from an otherwise open forum would be 
              regarded with strict scrutiny by the courts

       When a school district by policy or practice rents its 
     facilities to community groups it has clearly created an open 
     forum and cannot then exclude speech because of its content. 
     As the Supreme Court has said, ``[w]here the State has opened 
     a forum for direct citizen involvement, exclusions bear a 
     heavy burden of justification.'' Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 
     at 268.
       When the government excludes speech from an open forum, the 
     government ``must therefore satisfy the standard of review 
     appropriate to content-based exclusions. It must show that 
     its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state 
     interest, and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that 
     end.'' Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. at 270. See also, Perry, 
     460 U.S. at 45; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and 
     Education Fund, 473 U.S. at 800. When an otherwise available 
     public facility has erected a content-based prohibition 
     against religious speech in an open forum, for example, it 
     must justify that burden by showing that it has a compelling 
     governmental interest implemented by the least restrictive 
     means. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. at 270; accord Adams 
     Outdoor Advertising v. City of Newport News, 373 S.E.2d 917, 
     923 (Va. 1988). Like the City of Hialeah in Church of Lukumi 
     v. City of Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993), those that would 
     target the Boy Scouts for special disabilities misunderstand 
     that ``the interest given in justification of [such a] 
     restriction is not compelling.'' Lukumi, 113 S.Ct. at 2234. 
     If Establishment Clause concerns were not a compelling reason 
     for the targeted restrictions in Lukumi, then generalized 
     concerns about the Boy Scouts taking a politically incorrect 
     stand on the issue of homosexuality is also not compelling.


      EVEN IN A NONPUBLIC FORUM SUCH CONTENT-BASED EXCLUSIONS ARE 
                            UNCONSTITUTIONAL

       The Supreme Court has made it clear that even in the 
     context of a non-public forum, this type of viewpoint-based 
     exclusion is unconstitutional and discriminatory. As the 
     Supreme Court explained in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense 
     and Educ. Fund. Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 806 (1985), in a non-
     public forum ``the government violates the First Amendment 
     when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the 
     point of view the espouses on an otherwise includible 
     topic.''
       In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School 
     Dist., 113 S.Ct. 2141 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court declared 
     that a religious speech exclusion (which is parallel to the 
     moral viewpoint exclusion here) was unconstitutional 
     viewpoint-based discrimination. The per se exclusion of a 
     certain moral perspective is viewpoint-discriminatory. To 
     make this point clear, the Court in Lamb's Chapel used non-
     public forum standards to emphasize that even in that context 
     the Center Moriches School District has engaged in 
     unconstitutional viewpoint-based discrimination because of 
     its religious speech exclusion. See e.g., Lamb's Chapel, 113 
     S.Ct. at 2141.
       In Lamb's Chapel, the Center Moriches school district 
     allowed dozens of groups to engage in a host of First 
     Amendment expressive activities, but denied a church the 
     right to rent the facilities after school hours to show a 
     film series to adults on child-rearing because of its 
     religious content. Lamb's Chapel, 113 S.Ct. at 2144. In 
     declaring the religious speech ban to be unconstitutional the 
     Court stated:
       The film involved here no doubt dealt with a subject 
     otherwise permissible under Rule 10, and its exhibition was 
     denied solely because the film dealt with the subject from a 
     religious standpoint. The principle that has emerged from our 
     cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to 
     regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas 
     at the expense of others.--113 S.Ct. at 2147-48 (emphasis 
     added, citations and quotation marks omitted).

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Like the school district in Lamb's Chapel, public school 
     districts afford hundreds of thousands of people the 
     opportunity to express themselves through a myriad assortment 
     of words and phrases. And, as in Lamb's Chapel, the sole 
     rationale for the exclusion of the Boy Scouts is a reliance 
     upon the censorship itself as a justification for such a flat 
     ban. This circular reasoning cannot withstand the strict 
     scrutiny which must applied to such censorship. Such ``overt, 
     viewpoint based discrimination contradicts the Speech Clause 
     of the First Amendment.'' 113 S.Ct. at 2149, (Kennedy, J. 
     concurring).

[[Page 7956]]

       Even if the public school facilities were deemed to be non-
     public fora, a policy targeting the Boy Scouts for exclusion 
     would fail the governing constitutional test. The Supreme 
     Court has explained that ``[c]ontrol over access to a 
     nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker 
     identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in 
     light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint-
     neutral.'' Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806 (emphasis added). The 
     Boy Scouts exclusion fails even this deferential standard.
       There is simply no reasonable basis for the per se 
     exclusion of speech by private actors based upon speech 
     content. Ultimately, some public school districts claim the 
     sheer power to exclude the private speech of the Boy Scouts 
     for no better reason than just because the school district 
     says so. Such an assertion of a stark power to discriminate 
     against a particular group because of its message is 
     incompatible with the Constitution under any standard.

                           *   *   *   *   *



                               CONCLUSION

       The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act is fully 
     constitutional, and properly exercises Congress power of the 
     purse to insure the constitutionally recognized rights and 
     privileges of all youth groups, like the Boy Scouts, are 
     protected and honored. While it may be that exclusion of the 
     Boy Scouts has become a cause celebre for some since the U.S. 
     Supreme Court's decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 
     120 S.Ct. 2446 (200), censorship and discrimination are not 
     answers to disagreements over stands on moral issues. The 
     First Amendment specifically permits a variety of viewpoints 
     to be expressed in the marketplace of ideas, without fear of 
     censorship or exclusion.
       The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act bill merely 
     mandates what is constitutionally required. As Boy Scouts of 
     America v. Till clearly illustrates, however, there is a 
     clear and present need for such legislation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for 
a question?
  Mr. President, I ask consent to be recognized following the remarks 
of the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Helms amendment in two degrees.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the Helms amendment be temporarily 
laid aside so I can speak on the bill itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise to add my thoughts to this important debate 
about the proposed annual testing requirements for students in grades 
3-8. This bill that we are debating would require states to implement 
annual testing in reading and math by the 2005-2006 school year; to 
develop standards for science and history by the 2005-2006 school year; 
and to implement annual assessments in science for students in grades 
3-8 by the 2007-2008 school year.
  I commend the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] for his 
commitment to ensuring that these tests are high in quality and do not 
have an adverse impact on students, teachers, schools, school 
districts, and States. I am pleased to be listed as a cosponsor of a 
number of his amendments to this bill to improve its testing 
provisions.
  I actually heard a lot about this proposal for testing from the 
people of Wisconsin, and their response has been almost universally 
negative. My constituents oppose this proposal for many reasons, 
including the cost of developing and implementing additional tests, the 
loss of teaching time every year to prepare for and take the tests, the 
linking of success on these tests to ESEA administrative funds, and the 
pressure that these additional tests will place on students, teachers, 
schools, and school districts.
  I share my constituents' concerns about this proposed Federal 
mandate. I find it interesting that proponents of the BEST Act say that 
this bill will return more control to the states and local school 
districts. I strongly support local control over our children's day-to-
day classroom experiences. In my view, however, this massive new 
federal testing mandate runs counter to the idea of local control.
  Many States and local school districts around the country already 
have testing programs in place. We should leave the means and frequency 
of assessment up to the States and local school districts who bear the 
responsibility for educating our children. Every State and every school 
district is different. A uniform testing policy may, therefore, not be 
the best approach.
  I am extremely concerned that this new Federal requirement will teach 
our children that education is not about preparing for their futures, 
but rather about preparing for tests. That education is really about 
sharp number two pencils and test sheets; about making sure that little 
round bubbles are filled in completely; and--if their school districts 
and states have enough money--maybe about exam booklets for short 
answer and essay questions.
  American students are already tested at many levels--in their 
classrooms, in their schools, in their districts, and in their States.
  My home state of Wisconsin currently tests students in reading in 
grade 3 through the Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test, and in 
reading, language, math, science, and social studies in grades 4, 8, 
and 10 with the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations. 
Wisconsin also will require a high school graduation test beginning in 
the 2003-2004 school year. And this is in addition to regular classroom 
tests and quizzes and tests given at the district level by many of the 
426 school districts in my State. Then, for those students hoping to go 
to college, there is the pre-SAT, the SAT, the ACT and on and on.
  I know; I have four kids who are just completing all that process, or 
have in the last couple of years. It is an awful lot of testing 
already.
  One of my constituents who is a high school counselor said the high 
school students in her district spend so much time taking standardized 
tests that the district could award them one-half of a credit for 
testing. How much testing is worth one-half of a credit? During their 4 
years in high school, the students in this district will spend 84 hours 
taking standardized tests--84 hours. This does not even include regular 
classroom tests, final exams, or instruction time spent on test 
preparation.
  According to one teacher who recently contacted me regarding this 
legislation:

       Already I see that teachers are spending too much time on 
     test preparation rather than good instruction. The test 
     administration itself takes valuable time away from 
     instruction and does not provide new data on individual 
     children for the well informed teacher. . . . [M]ultiple 
     choice tests with some short answer [questions] only measure 
     rudimentary knowledge. They rely on memorizing and 
     regurgitating isolated facts and most items only allow one 
     correct answer. Students are being evaluated on one single 
     test. What if the student has a bad day? Lastly, the truly 
     scary part is that standardized tests ensure that half of our 
     students will always be `below average.' How can we meet the 
     benchmark that everyone will score proficient and advanced 
     when the tests are designed to never let that happen? . . . 
     Taking more tests is not going to improve learning.

  I have heard from many education professionals such as these in my 
state that this new testing requirement is a waste of money and a waste 
of time. These people are committed to educating the children of my 
state, and they don't oppose testing. I think we can all agree that 
testing has its place. What they oppose is the magnitude of testing 
that is proposed in this bill.
  One of the biggest concerns I have heard about this program is its 
cost. In my home state of Wisconsin, where the state imposes limits on 
the amount of money school districts can raise and spend annually, 
education budgets are already stretched to the breaking point, and 
federal funding is absolutely critical. And to add a federally-mandated 
testing program with little in the way of resources to implement it 
will only compound this problem. I am pleased that the Senate passed an 
amendment offered by the Chairman of the HELP Committee, Mr. Jeffords, 
to increase funding for this testing program but I remain concerned 
this bill still falls far short of authorizing enough funding for this 
program.
  Under the provisions of the BEST Act, Wisconsin would have to develop 
new reading tests for grades 5, 6, and 7 and new math tests for grades 
3, 5, 6,

[[Page 7957]]

and 7. According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the 
estimated cost to add these additional tests would be between $2 
million and $5.3 million annually, depending on the type of tests 
chosen by the state. And this is over and above the $1.5 million the 
state already spends on testing in grades 3, 4, and 8. And this figure 
does not include the cost of the state-mandated Wisconsin Knowledge and 
Concepts Examination for grade 10, which also fulfills the federal 
requirement to tests students in math and reading at least once between 
grade 10 and grade 12. And it does not include the cost of the 
Wisconsin High School Graduation Test. And it does not include the 
additional cost that the state will have to incur to develop and 
implement the additional science tests in grades 3, 5, 6, and 7 that 
this bill requires to begin in the 2007-2008 school year.
  Teachers in my state are concerned about the amount of time that they 
will have to spend preparing their students to take the tests and 
administering the tests. They are concerned that these additional tests 
will disrupt the flow of education in their classrooms. One teacher 
said the preparation for the tests Wisconsin already requires can take 
up to a month, and the administration of the test takes another week. 
That is five weeks out of the school year. And this bill would require 
teachers to take a huge chunk out of each year in grades 3-8. In my 
view, and in the view of the people of my state, this time can be 
better spent on regular classroom instruction.
  In addition to the financial cost and the instruction time lost, my 
constituents are concerned about the value of these tests to students, 
parents, and teachers. According to one teacher, the existing tests 
don't have any meaning to students and have little meaning to classroom 
teachers.
  The impact of these tests on students varies. Some students have high 
test anxiety and, as a result, grow to fear tests. Others simply do not 
care about the tests, and fill in random answers on their test sheets. 
And for students who are struggling, a low test score on a standardized 
test can be demoralizing.
  Most students, of course, try their best. But they are confused about 
why they are taking these tests, and many students and parents are 
confused by the results of these tests.
  Many teachers are unsure about how to interpret the test results. 
They see statistics that tell them about the numbers of right and wrong 
answers and about percentiles, but the test results provide little in 
the way of information for teachers and parents to know where students 
are having problems. Because so many standardized tests are copyrighted 
and are used more than once, students, parents, and teachers do not 
have the opportunity to compare the students' answers to the correct 
answers. They are unable to determine which concepts the students need 
help with, or for which concepts the students have demonstrated 
understanding.
  Our children are real people, not numbers. Yet the testing program 
contained in this bill would judge our students, teachers, schools, 
school districts, and states by test scores.
  In my view, linking funding sanctions to test performance sends the 
wrong signal. As I noted earlier, students respond differently to 
tests. To link education funding to a series of high-stakes tests not 
only does a disservice to our children, but to our teachers, parents, 
schools, school districts, and states.
  I also fear that this new annual testing requirement will 
disproportionately impact disadvantaged students. As the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, has said so many times on this floor, we must 
ensure that all students have an equality of opportunity to be 
successful in school. To that end, I am pleased that the Senate adopted 
an amendment to this bill offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Dodd, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, that would authorize 
full funding of Title I over the next ten years.
  I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of the amendment that 
will be offered by the Senator from Minnesota which would modify the 
annual testing provisions of the bill to clarify that states will not 
be required to implement the annual tests unless Title I is funded at 
$24.7 billion by July 1, 2005, which is consistent with the funding 
levels in the Dodd-Collins amendment.
  Study after study shows that disadvantaged students lag behind their 
peers on standardized tests. We must ensure that schools have the 
resources to help these students catch up with their peers before 
students are required to take these new annual tests. If we fail to 
provide adequate resources to these schools and these students, we run 
the risk of setting disadvantaged children up for failure on these 
tests--failure which could damage the self-esteem of our most 
vulnerable students.
  The issue of standards and testing is addressed in the cover story in 
the May 2001 issue of Phi Delta Kappan magazine, which is published by 
the International Association of Professional Educators of the same 
name. In his article, ``Undermining Standards,'' John Merrow discusses 
the dangers of high-stakes testing, arguing that ``in many places 
testing has gotten ahead of developing and then implementing 
standards.'' He also expresses a concern about the impact of testing on 
the classroom environment and on classroom teachers: that ``test 
preparation is dominating classroom time, stifling creativity and 
imagination, and taking the joy out of teaching.''
  Merrow also addresses the annual testing program proposed by the 
President and included in this bill. He says, ``As I read President 
Bush's proposals, it seems to me that . . . about six things can 
happen, and five of them are bad. Such high-stakes testing may (1) lead 
to an even more arid curriculum, (2) drive away talented teachers, (3) 
tempt states to lower the bar in order not to lose federal money, (4) 
increase pressure to cheat, and (5) alienate educated parents. That's 
not `reform with results,' at least not the results those who support 
public education would wish for.''
  Merrow continues, ``Of course, the President's plan might actually 
work the way he hopes it will. That is if he backs away from making 
test scores the be-all and end-all of schooling, his plan might just 
scare school systems into putting more energy into learning.''
  As my constituents have told me, this proposal does scare them--but 
not in the way the President has intended.
  I urge all of my colleagues to take a few minutes to read this 
article.
  I am concerned that the emphasis that is placed on testing as a means 
of accountability in this bill could result in a generation of students 
who know how to take tests, but who don't have the skills necessary to 
become successful adults.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Sessions has asked to be 
recognized for 2 minutes, I believe to call up an amendment. It would 
be fine with me if I could be recognized by consent following Senator 
Sessions' statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Dorgan. I appreciate his courtesy.
  I call up amendment No. 600. This is an amendment I call the ``Crisis 
Hot Line Grant.'' It is an amendment for confidential reporting of 
individuals suspected of imminent school violence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.
  Mr. REID. There is no unanimous consent request made to set it aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has requested to 
bring up an amendment that requires unanimous consent.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has the floor. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 7958]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                 Amendment No. 600 to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a minute and 
a half to offer my amendment in relation to crisis hotline grants.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection to the pending amendment being set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 600 to amendment No. 358.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide for confidential reporting of individuals 
                 suspected of imminent school violence)

       On page 577, line 2, strike the end quotation mark and the 
     second period.
       On page 577, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 4304. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTING OF INDIVIDUALS SUSPECTED 
                   OF IMMINENT SCHOOL VIOLENCE.

       ``Subject to the provisions of this title and subpart 4 of 
     part B of title V, funds made available under such titles may 
     be used to--
       ``(1) support the independent State development and 
     operation of confidential, toll-free telephone hotlines that 
     will operate 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, in order to 
     provide students, school officials, and other individuals 
     with the opportunity to report specific threats of imminent 
     school violence or to report other suspicious or criminal 
     conduct by juveniles to appropriate State and local law 
     enforcement entities for investigation;
       ``(2) ensure proper State training of personnel to answer 
     and respond to telephone calls to hotlines described in 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(3) assist in the acquisition of technology necessary to 
     enhance the effectiveness of hotlines described in paragraph 
     (1), including the utilization of Internet web-pages or 
     resources;
       ``(4) enhance State efforts to offer appropriate counseling 
     services to individuals who call hotlines described in 
     paragraph (1) threatening to do harm to themselves or others; 
     and
       ``(5) further State effort to publicize services offered by 
     the hotlines described in paragraph (1) and to encourage 
     individuals to utilize those services.''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I simply ask that this amendment be 
considered. Its purpose is to deal with the situation that we have seen 
in recent years in which teenagers at school have caused serious 
violence or committed criminal acts and in which other people knew 
about it and did little to respond. I believe we can improve upon that.
  In my State of Alabama, a crisis hotline was set up several years 
ago. In just a few weeks, they had 800 calls. For example, parents were 
calling in to say they heard that a certain child had a gun or a weapon 
or that they were threatening the lives of other people. Having such a 
hotline would allow the police and school administrators to know about 
those situations and to perhaps intervene and keep this from happening.
  I think Senator Cleland has some similar language in his legislation. 
Our language goes into more detail and was made part of the juvenile 
justice bill that we passed in this Senate but which never became law.
  I think it is appropriate that this amendment be made a part of this 
legislation involving education. It does not appropriate money. It 
provides an authorized use. The moneys can be used for this, but it 
does not mandate it on the States. I do believe it is a policy that if 
more States followed, it could save lives by simply providing a 1-800 
number that would be readily available to everyone in and about the 
school, including parents, to have a place to call to express concerns 
that something serious may be going on.
  Maybe they just want to say: Billy has a gun. Maybe the police could 
stop by and knock on Billy's door and see if he has a gun and perhaps 
stop a crime.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Nevada.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                 Amendment No. 640 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I can call up amendment No. 640.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I call up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 640 to amendment No. 
     358.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       The Senate Finds:
       The price of energy has skyrocketed in recent months;
       The California consumers have seen a 10-fold increase in 
     electricity prices in less than 2 years;
       Natural gas prices have doubled in some areas, as compared 
     with a year ago;
       Gasoline prices are close to $2.00 per gallon now and are 
     expected to increase to as much as $3.00 per gallon this 
     summer;
       Energy companies have seen their profits doubled, tripled, 
     and in some cases even quintupled; and
       High energy prices are having a detrimental effect on 
     families across the country and threaten economic growth:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE NEED TO ESTABLISH 
                   A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES TO INVESTIGATE THE RAPIDLY 
                   INCREASING ENERGY PRICES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND 
                   TO DETERMINE WHAT IS CAUSING THE INCREASES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that there should be 
     established a joint committee of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives to--
       (1) study the dramatic increases in energy prices 
     (including increases in the prices of gasoline, natural gas, 
     electricity, and home heating oil);
       (2) investigate the cause of the increases;
       (3) make findings of fact; and
       (4) make such recommendations, including recommendations 
     for legislation and any administrative or other actions, as 
     the joint committee determines to be appropriate.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment calling for the creation of the House-Senate select committee 
to investigate energy prices.
  I would like to speak just for a few minutes about the issue. Energy 
prices, as all Americans understand, have been skyrocketing through 
price spikes and other devices in recent months. The price of gasoline 
in many parts of the country is now over $2 a gallon. Some say it is 
going to go much higher.
  The price of natural gas has doubled in much of the country over what 
it was a year ago. Those who, in the first 2 months of this past 
winter, suffered the coldest 2 months on record discovered that the 
cost of heating with natural gas put quite a hole in their budget 
because natural gas prices were doubled at a time when we had a very 
significant cold spell. Natural gas prices are still much higher than 
they have been previously.
  Electricity prices are up. In some parts of the country they are way 
up.
  As all of us know, energy is not some option that people have the 
ability to decide to take or not take. Every morning virtually ever 
American has a requirement to use energy. So this is not some optional 
commodity that people can use or not use as they see fit.
  Some say, the reason for these price spikes is because that is just 
the market system working. It is not the market system working. The 
fact is, the market system is broken. In many of these areas, we have 
had merger after merger of big oil companies, with oil companies 
getting much larger and, therefore, exhibiting much greater control 
over markets. We see spot markets developing with a new class of energy 
traders. It is a very large enterprise where they are able to trade 
back and forth, often at prices that are not disclosed or not 
transparent.
  Let me, for a minute, discuss what is happening on the West Coast as 
part of

[[Page 7959]]

this price problem. Two years ago, the cost of power in California was 
$7 billion. This year it is estimated it will be $70 billion--a tenfold 
increase. How does all that happen? Well, the price of natural gas 
moving into plants that produce electricity goes from an unregulated 
market into a regulated market; it goes from one seller to a trader; 
then traded on the spot market; and an MCF that cost a certain amount 
in the morning could be double or triple or quadruple that value in the 
afternoon because it is in someone else's hands, and now it is being 
traded again for a second time on the spot market.
  So those folks in California who are paying dramatically higher 
prices for electricity are being hurt very badly. Some say that is just 
the market working. It is not. As I said before, the market is broken. 
We are supposed to have, in a circumstance where you have markets with 
great concentration of power, a referee of sorts. In this area of 
California, power would have been FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. But FERC, for 2 or 3 years, has done its best imitation of 
a potted plant. It essentially has been unwilling to take any action in 
any set of circumstances.
  So we have the opportunity and the possibility--in fact, in my 
judgment, the very real circumstance--of market manipulation and price 
manipulation in California and on the West Coast.
  Gasoline prices, as I indicated, are up, way up. Contrary to the 
views of the administration, and some others, these price spikes are 
not due to environmental regulations for reformulated gasoline and 
more. In fact, reformulated gasoline contributed only 1 to 3 cents of 
the cost of making gasoline that we witnessed last summer. Even in 
California, environmental regulations are contributing about 5 to 8 
cents of gasoline production costs.
  A March 2001 Federal Trade Commission investigation shows that 
individual refiners made deliberate decisions not to modify or expand 
refining capacity so they could tighten market supply and therefore 
drive up gasoline prices.
  For example, the Federal Trade Commission found that three refiners 
only modified facilities to produce reformulated gasoline for their own 
branded stations so the independent stations--the mom-and-pop 
stations--could not get reformulated gasoline. It created a spot market 
which drove up prices. One company even admitted to withholding 
supplies of reformulated gasoline at the most critical time to maximize 
profits.
  All of this is going on, and the American people suffer because of 
it. I had once followed a car at an intersection in rural North Dakota 
one time. It was a 20-year-old car with a broken back bumper that had a 
bumper sticker that said: We fought the gas war, and gas won. That 
bumper sticker would fit a lot of cars these days.
  Senior citizens, with declining income years, have to pay 
substantially higher energy bills. Farmers, trying to buy anhydrous 
ammonia these days--80 percent of the cost of which is natural gas--are 
discovering a horrible price for anhydrous ammonia. In addition to 
that, the price of the fuel they must put in their tractors in order to 
do spring's work has been driven up dramatically. Truckers moving 
across this country back and forth have discovered they hardly make it 
these days with the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. And 
manufacturers are struggling with the cost of these increased energy 
spikes in price.
  So if the market isn't working, what should happen? I think we should 
have a select House-Senate committee to investigate energy prices.
  Let me hasten to say quickly that there are some legitimate reasons 
we have had some price changes. We have had a tightening of supply in a 
number of areas. I will explain why.
  When the price of oil went to $10 a barrel, people stopped looking 
for oil and natural gas because it was not very productive or was not 
very rewarding to do so. The price of oil spiked then to $35 a barrel--
from $10 a barrel--and more people were looking for it. So there will 
be more supply coming on line. There is that element of price spikes. 
And there is that element of supply and prices. And that is very real. 
I do not discount that.
  But you cannot attribute what is happening with energy prices just to 
that circumstance. We now have larger enterprises. We have bigger 
economic concentrations in this country that have the ability to 
control prices and manipulate supply. And this Congress, in my 
judgment, ought to convene an investigative body to evaluate when and 
where that is happening.
  Congress has been very anxious to investigate almost anything in the 
last 10 years or so. It seems to me it ought to be anxious to 
investigate, on behalf of the American consumer, what has happened, and 
why, with respect to the cost of energy in this country.
  A century ago Teddy Roosevelt carried a big stick and said that Mr. 
Rockefeller could not control the price of gasoline and took effective 
steps to make that happen. It is time for us to do a thorough 
investigation with a select House-Senate committee to investigate 
energy pricing.
  I know at 4 o'clock the Presiding Officer is to recognize the Senator 
from Georgia. Is this an appropriate time to seek the yeas and nays on 
my amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator may do that if he 
wishes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Georgia is recognized.


                     Amendment No. 376, As Modified

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 376 and ask 
unanimous consent to modify the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 577, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 404. SCHOOL SAFETY ENHANCEMENT.

       Title IV (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                  ``PART D--SCHOOL SAFETY ENHANCEMENT

     ``SEC. 4351. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `School Safety Enhancement 
     Act of 2001'.

     ``SEC. 4352. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) While our Nation's schools are still relatively safe, 
     it is imperative that schools be provided with adequate 
     resources to prevent incidents of violence.
       ``(2) Approximately 10 percent of all public schools 
     reported at least 1 serious violent crime to a law 
     enforcement agency over the course of the 1996-1997 school 
     year.
       ``(3) In 1996, approximately 225,000 students between the 
     ages of 12 and 18 were victims of nonfatal violent crime in 
     schools in the United States.
       ``(4) From 1992 through 1994, 76 students and 29 non-
     students were victims of murders or suicides that were 
     committed in schools in the United States.
       ``(5) The school violence incidents in several States 
     across the Nation in 1998 and 1999 caused enormous damage to 
     schools, families, and whole communities.
       ``(6) Because of escalating school violence, the children 
     of the United States are increasingly afraid that they will 
     be attacked or harmed at school.
       ``(7) A report issued by the Department of Education in 
     August, 1998, entitled `Early Warning, Early Response' 
     concluded that the reduction and prevention of school 
     violence is best achieved through safety plans which involve 
     the entire community, policies which emphasize both 
     prevention and intervention, training school personnel, 
     parents, students, and community members to recognize the 
     early warning signs of potential violent behavior and to 
     share their concerns or observations with trained personnel, 
     establishing procedures which allow rapid response and 
     intervention when early warning signs of violent behavior are 
     identified, and providing adequate support and access to 
     services for troubled students.

     ``SEC. 4353. NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOOL AND YOUTH SAFETY.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Education and the 
     Attorney General shall jointly establish a National Center 
     for School and Youth Safety (in this section referred to as 
     the `Center'). The Secretary of Education and the Attorney 
     General may establish the Center at an existing facility, if

[[Page 7960]]

     the facility has a history of performing two or more of the 
     duties described in subsection (b). The Secretary of 
     Education and the Attorney General shall jointly appoint a 
     Director of the Center to oversee the operation of the 
     Center.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Center shall carry out emergency 
     response, anonymous student hotline, consultation, and 
     information and outreach activities with respect to 
     elementary and secondary school safety, including the 
     following:
       ``(1) Emergency response.--The staff of the Center, and 
     such temporary contract employees as the Director of the 
     Center shall determine necessary, shall offer emergency 
     assistance to local communities to respond to school safety 
     crises. Such assistance shall include counseling for victims 
     and the community, assistance to law enforcement to address 
     short-term security concerns, and advice on how to enhance 
     school safety, prevent future incidents, and respond to 
     future incidents.
       ``(2) Anonymous student hotline.--The Center shall 
     establish a toll-free telephone number for students to report 
     criminal activity, threats of criminal activity, and other 
     high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, gang or cult 
     affiliation, depression, or other warning signs of 
     potentially violent behavior. The Center shall relay the 
     reports, without attribution, to local law enforcement or 
     appropriate school hotlines. The Director of the Center shall 
     work with the Attorney General to establish guidelines for 
     Center staff to work with law enforcement around the Nation 
     to relay information reported through the hotline.
       ``(3) Consultation.--The Center shall establish a toll-free 
     number for the public to contact staff of the Center for 
     consultation regarding school safety. The Director of the 
     Center shall hire administrative staff and individuals with 
     expertise in enhancing school safety, including individuals 
     with backgrounds in counseling and psychology, education, law 
     enforcement and criminal justice, and community development 
     to assist in the consultation.
       ``(4) Information and outreach.--The Center shall compile 
     information about the best practices in school violence 
     prevention, intervention, and crisis management, and shall 
     serve as a clearinghouse for model school safety program 
     information. The staff of the Center shall work to ensure 
     local governments, school officials, parents, students, and 
     law enforcement officials and agencies are aware of the 
     resources, grants, and expertise available to enhance school 
     safety and prevent school crime. The staff of the Center 
     shall give special attention to providing outreach to rural 
     and impoverished communities.
       ``(c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2005.''.

     ``SEC. 4354. SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--Using funds made available under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, and the Attorney General shall 
     award grants, on a competitive basis, to help communities 
     develop community-wide safety programs involving students, 
     parents, educators, guidance counselors, psychologists, law 
     enforcement officials or agencies, civic leaders, and other 
     organizations serving the community.
       ``(b) Authorized Activities.--Funds provided under this 
     section may be used for activities that may include efforts 
     to--
       ``(1) increase early intervention strategies;
       ``(2) expand parental involvement;
       ``(3) increase students' awareness of warning signs of 
     violent behavior;
       ``(4) promote students' responsibility to report the 
     warning signs to appropriate persons;
       ``(5) promote conflict resolution and peer mediation 
     programs;
       ``(6) increase the number of after-school programs;
       ``(7) expand the use of safety-related equipment and 
     technology; and
       ``(8) expand students' access to mental health services.
       ``(c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section, $24,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2005.''.

     SEC. 405. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 
                   1993.

       Section 5(10) of the National Child Protection Act of 1993 
     (42 U.S.C. 5119c(10)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(10) the term `qualified entity' means--
       ``(A) a business or organization, whether public, private, 
     for-profit, not-for-profit, or voluntary, that provides care 
     or care placement services, including a business or 
     organization that licenses or certifies others to provide 
     care or care placement services; or
       ``(B) an elementary or secondary school.''.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The modified amendment I offer today reduces funding for the National 
Center for School and Youth Safety from $50 million to $25 million, and 
it creates separate authorizations for the National Center and the Safe 
Communities, Safe Schools grant program.
  It has been almost 2 years ago to the day that a 16-year-old boy 
brought a .22-caliber rifle and .375 magnum revolver to Heritage High 
School in Conyers, GA and opened fire on six students. The shooting 
occurred in my hometown of Lithonia, GA, where I grew up. The day was 
May 20, 1999, exactly one month after the deadly Columbine High School 
massacre, which took the lives of 15 people.
  Growing up in my hometown, I was fortunate to have had a great 
childhood--with two wonderful parents, supportive teachers in school 
and in church, and a community that cared. When I was in school, the 
strongest drug around was aspirin, and the most lethal weapon was a 
slingshot. The shootings at Heritage High, at Columbine, the school 
shootings in Springfield, OR, in Jonesboro, AR, in West Paducah, KY and 
other school tragedies around the country underscore in red the crisis 
of juvenile violence in America. Our schools were once safe havens in 
this country. Today, according to data from the Department of 
Education, they are the setting for one-third of the violence involving 
teenagers in this Nation. In fact, data from the Departments of Justice 
and Education found that in 1998, ``students aged 12 through 18 were 
victims of more than 2.7 million total crimes at school . . . and they 
were victims of about 253,000 serious violent crimes. . . .''
  These statistics are incredible and they cannot--they must not--be 
accepted or tolerated.
  The amendment I am offering today is based on legislation developed 
in the last Congress by Senator Robb of Virginia, and it is a response 
to a seminal 1998 report by the Department of Education, entitled 
``Early Warning, Timely Response,'' which concluded that the reduction 
and prevention of school violence are best achieved through safety 
plans which involve the entire community. Accordingly to that landmark 
report, the most effective plans are those which: emphasize both 
prevention and intervention; train school personnel, parents, students, 
and community members to recognize the early warning signs of potential 
violent behavior and to share their concerns or observations with 
trained personnel; establish procedures which allow rapid response and 
intervention when such signs are identified; and provide adequate 
support and access to services for troubled students.
  My amendment, The School Safety Enhancement amendment, would 
establish a National Center for School and Youth Safety tasked with the 
mission of providing schools with adequate resources to prevent 
incidents of violence. Under my amendment, the center would offer 
emergency assistance to local communities to respond to school safety 
crises, including counseling for victims, assistance to law enforcement 
to address short-term security concerns, and advice on how to enhance 
school safety, prevent future incidents, and respond to incidents once 
they occur. My amendment would also establish--and this is important--a 
toll-free, nationwide hotline for students to report criminal activity, 
threats of criminal activity, and other high-risk behaviors such as 
substance abuse, gang or cult affiliation, depression, or other warning 
signs of potentially violent behavior. Finally, the National Center for 
School and Youth Safety would compile information about the best 
practices in school violence prevention, intervention, and crisis 
management. Specifically, the center would work to ensure that local 
governments, school officials, parents, students and law enforcement 
officials and agencies are aware of the resources, grants, and 
expertise available to enhance school safety and prevent school crime, 
giving special attention to providing outreach to rural and 
impoverished communities.
  In addition, my amendment would boost coordination among the three 
Federal agencies most involved with the crucial issue of school safety 
by authorizing a total of $24 million in grants by the secretaries of 
Education and Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to 
help communities develop community-wide safety

[[Page 7961]]

programs involving all its members: students, parents, educators, 
counselors, psychologists, law enforcement officials and agencies, and 
civic leaders. Grant funds may be used for activities that may include 
efforts to increase early intervention strategies; expand parental 
involvement; increase students' awareness of warning signs of violent 
behavior; promote conflict resolution; increase the number of 
afterschool programs; and expand the use of safety-related equipment 
and technology.
  The School Safety Enhancement amendment is endorsed by the National 
Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Georgia Association of Chiefs of 
Police. On behalf of America's schoolchildren and safety in our 
schools, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time under 
the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CLELAND. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. Is 
the time evenly divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is equally divided between the 
Senator from Georgia and an opponent of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Georgia would be good 
enough to yield on his time, I don't know of opposition. We haven't 
been notified of the opposition. I want to take a moment to share with 
our colleagues a bit of the background on this amendment. This has been 
something that the Senator from Georgia has been interested in and 
committed to for some period of time.
  During the past weeks and months, he has taken the time to speak to 
me on a number of different occasions. He has talked to the members of 
the Education Committee about this issue. I am familiar with the fact, 
going back over a period of time when the Senate considered the 
reauthorization of this legislation previously, over a year ago, that 
the Senator from Georgia was very much involved in the developing of 
the legislation. He has read closely, obviously, the Department of 
Justice and Education study, which came out in 1998. In that study, 
this was one of the very important recommendations that they had. But 
he has taken a broad recommendation and sharpened it a good deal.
  I know he has spent a good deal of time talking to those who had 
initially been involved in recommending the study and has prepared this 
in a way which I think is enormously important and can be incredibly 
helpful. As I was listening to the good Senator and thinking about the 
times he has talked to me about it, I hope we are going to have the 
sufficient resources to be able to deal with this issue. I am convinced 
that if we can get this started and get to do even part of the things 
that the good Senator from Georgia has hoped that it would achieve and 
accomplish, we can develop the kind of enhanced support for this 
program that is necessary.
  What the Senator is basically pointing out is the great challenges of 
so many of the young people who are in school, going to school, after 
school, in a school community, and the kind of violence that is 
affecting these young people. It is a form of intimidation, a form of 
bullying, and it obviously has a very important adverse impact on the 
willingness of children to either go to school or their attitude toward 
school when violence takes place in the time period after school but in 
the proximity of the school. He has framed it in a broad way to 
challenge the center itself to draw on all of the community and 
community resources, which I think is obviously enormously useful. He 
is talking about the entire community, and he is talking about steps 
that can be taken in terms of prevention and intervention. He is 
talking to the various school personnel so they will have the training 
which too many of them don't have now to be able to anticipate these 
problems. He is talking about involvement of the students themselves 
and community members in these activities.
  I can think of a number of different schools in my own city of Boston 
where the students themselves have become very much involved in 
assuring safe passage, so to speak, for children to be able to go to 
the school, while they are at school, and after school. It is a very 
important success. This is one of those situations where some guidance, 
some training, some information in the community can have an enormous 
payoff. I think the result will be a safer climate and an atmosphere in 
which the children can learn.
  I think this is a very well thought through program. He has done a 
great deal of work in the fashioning and shaping of it. The security of 
the children in school we try to address to some extent in the safe and 
drug-free schools. I can see this as a complement to those efforts as 
well. I think as a result of this amendment the children in that 
community, as well as teachers and parents, and the whole climate and 
atmosphere around schools, which in too many instances, tragically, are 
threatened, would be made safer and more secure.
  I commend the Senator for his initiative and thank him for his work 
in this area, and I indicate that I hope, when the Senate does address 
this issue, we have very strong and overwhelming support.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to give people notice that there 
will be a change in the time of the vote this evening. I ask unanimous 
consent that the previously scheduled vote begin at 5:45 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
proceed without the time being charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 460

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was not here at the time my good 
friend, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, offered his amendment about 
afterschool literacy programs. This would expand the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers' eligibility to certain organizations to 
include projects with an emphasis on language and life skill programs 
for limited-English-proficient students.
  I wish to add my support for that program. We had an excellent debate 
last week when the Senate addressed the issue about increasing support 
for the limited-English-speaking programs. We pointed out at the start 
of the debate that, under the existing legislation, we were only 
reaching about 25 percent of the children who would need these 
programs.
  Then time was taken by the good Senator from Arkansas, myself, and 
others to point out what has been happening in our school systems with 
limited-English-speaking students. The number of children has doubled 
in the last 10 years.
  If one looks at what happened over the next several years, the 
numbers went up dramatically. This is true with regard to Hispanics, 
but it is also applicable to other children.
  I mentioned earlier in the debate my not so recent, several months 
ago, visit

[[Page 7962]]

to Revere High School in Revere, MA, where they have children speaking 
43 languages. The school is involved in 12 to 14 language classes and 
expects to expand in the next few years. It is an enormous challenge to 
schools, but schools are attempting to respond in an extraordinary way.
  Encouraging afterschool programs, encouraging programs in these 
afterschool settings makes a good deal of sense to me. There are a 
variety of activities in the afterschool programs. In many instances, 
there are excellent tutorial services, excellent supplementary 
services. In some areas, there are just athletic programs.
  There are different programs in each afterschool program. For 
example, in one I visited recently, they have an excellent program in 
photography and also a second program in graphic arts. A number of the 
children were coming to this afterschool program.
  The fascination of the children in graphic arts and also in 
photography was overwhelming. Because children were interested in those 
activities, they were becoming more interested in their school work as 
well. It has a symbiotic effect.
  Senator Reid's amendment makes sure children will also have an 
opportunity for continued training in language in the afterschool 
programs. If the local jurisdiction chooses to do so, it can utilize 
the assets they have for that type of activity. It makes a great deal 
of sense to me. The Senator is to be commended for it.
  We have found that where we have these effective programs, the 
favorable impact in student achievement has been extraordinary, and 
where we do not have these programs, the children have difficulties.
  This is a continuum of opportunity for children with limited English 
capability, and it is a wise policy decision. I congratulate the 
Senator for his initiative and hope the Senate will support the 
amendment when we have the opportunity to do so.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be charged to the 
opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time is in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes 8 seconds left in 
opposition.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend on the floor, the Senator 
from Georgia, who is the primary sponsor of this amendment. I now have 
the excellent study which was the basis of his amendment, ``Early 
Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools.'' I know he is 
familiar with this study. One of the conclusions in this excellent 
study is that there is valuable information available on recognizing 
the warning signs of violent behavior; that in dealing effectively with 
a school crisis, one of the tragedies is schools have become the 
experts after they face violence that is destructive and harmful to the 
children themselves who are attending these schools.
  As I understand, one of the principal reasons the Senator is offering 
the amendment is so that we will have a central clearinghouse available 
to public schools all across the country where the school 
administrators, teachers, and others with responsibility for security 
within the schools can tap into and draw from the experience of other 
schools that have had successful programs.
  Is this one of the purposes for the amendment?
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership role not 
only in the area of education and in working with this piece of 
legislation, but in the area of school safety.
  The Senator is correct; this report from 1998 that the Senator refers 
to is, quite frankly, shocking to me in the sense that it has indicated 
how broad based the real question of violence in our schools really is. 
It indicates to me that we need a broad-based approach.
  The facts from this report indicate that a third of the violence 
involving teenagers in this Nation occurs in our schools. That is 
shocking. It seems to me, then, that the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts is correct that we need this broad-based approach and a 
national center, a national clearinghouse to make sure that communities 
are in touch with one another.
  I can testify that the little community of Conyers, GA, not far from 
my hometown of Lithonia, GA, has within it Heritage High School. That 
community was in shock, in trauma really, for months after the school 
shootings there. The community was wondering what in the world to do, 
whether to enhance counseling, whether to improve police protection, 
whether to enforce tighter laws or what.
  With this center that we are setting up, the National Center for 
School and Youth Safety, one call can inform any community that goes 
through such a tragedy and such trauma what other communities have done 
and what resources are available to assist them. These are not 
resources just available to schools; these are resources available to 
counselors and law enforcement agencies.
  I note that not only are the teachers of America--the National 
Education Association--behind this legislation, and those who defend 
our children in America--the Children's Defense Fund--but also law 
enforcement is behind this piece of legislation--the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Chiefs of Police in my own home 
State.
  I am thrilled with this kind of support, but, again, the Senator is 
correct. It was not my idea. This amendment was really the outgrowth of 
a report in 1998, issued by the Department of Education, that found, in 
coordination with the Department of Justice, this incredibly high 
number of incidents of violence. I thought it was incredible that 
students from age 12 to 18 were victims of more than 2.7 million crimes 
at school and the victims of 253,000 serious violent crimes.
  When I was growing up in my home community, this level of violence, 
this level of crime, was unheard of, unthinkable. I can remember our 
high school principal articulated a principle that is embodied actually 
in this legislation, that a school cannot live apart from the 
community. So our schools are not just separate oases out there, 
monasteries that are separate from the community; they reflect what is 
going on in the community. That is why our approach isn't just some 
assistance to schools or teachers and counselors; it is assistance to 
law enforcement, to community leaders, nonprofit organizations, because 
violence is that broad bound, and it is not just located in one 
particular place.
  The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is correct. It is one 
reason why we have incorporated immediate access to this center in the 
form of a toll free, nationwide hotline for students to report criminal 
activity, threats of criminal activity, high-risk behavior such as 
substance abuse, gang or cult affiliation, or other warning signs of 
potentially violent behavior.
  There is a special emphasis, too, on rural and impoverished 
communities. Violence knows no boundaries. Our rural and impoverished 
communities are just as susceptible to violence as any others.
  I thank the Senator for his willingness to assist me in this 
amendment. I thank him and his staff for the courtesies they have 
exhibited toward us.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I remind the Senate that the study, which 
is the basis for this amendment, is entitled ``Early Warning, Timely 
Response: A Guide To Safe Schools.'' The study itself was sent out to 
principals of schools across the country, but if teachers or parents 
are interested, they can write the Department of Justice or the 
Department of Education and get this study. It is also available on 
line as well.

[[Page 7963]]

  I want to mention one quote from Wilmer Cody, Kentucky Commissioner 
of Education:

       Coordinated school efforts can help. But the solution does 
     not just rest in the schools. Together we must develop 
     solutions that are community-wide and coordinated, that 
     include schools, families, courts, law enforcement, community 
     agencies, representatives of the faith community, business, 
     and the broader community.

  I think that is what is unique in the Cleland proposal. It isn't just 
relying on one aspect of the community; it includes all of those 
elements. It is described in this report. I think it will be a center 
which will have information of essential importance to every school in 
this country. I think every school in the country would be wise to 
continue to upgrade their own information because it will be a resource 
that will explain what is working, what has been effective, what has 
been successful.
  Finally, we have to start by recognizing that schools are safe 
places. They are safe places for children. We are all mindful of the 
tragedies, the tragic killings that have taken place, the shootings 
that have brought such enormous tragedy to the families of people who 
have been affected by acts of violence.
  Parents are constantly concerned about how safe their children are 
when they go to school every day. But the essential fact is, children 
are safe in their schools. I think people understand that. We 
understand that. But we want to make sure they are going to continue to 
be safe. There are too many instances of violence. The instances that 
have occurred are a real concern to us. We want to reduce them and make 
the schools even safer.
  That is what the amendment of the Senator from Georgia is all about. 
As I mentioned, I hope those who follow this debate--and it is a 
difficult debate to follow since we are on this legislation for a few 
days and then have intervening matters, but nonetheless, I hope they 
will have the chance to review that study and this amendment. We think 
this amendment will be an important addition to the bill.
  I thank the Senator again.
  Mr. CLELAND. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to yield.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Levin be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
leadership. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We will have that chance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 465 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two 
pending amendments be temporarily laid aside and I call up amendment 
No. 465.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 465 to Amendment 
     No. 358.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment reads as follows:

 (Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to assessment completion 
                                bonuses)

       On page 776, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Assessment Completion Bonuses.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the end of school year 2006-2007, the 
     Secretary shall make 1-time bonus payments to States that 
     develop State assessments as required under section 
     1111(b)(3)(F) that are of particularly high quality in terms 
     of assessing the performance of students in grades 3 through 
     8. The Secretary shall make the awards to States that develop 
     assessments that involve up-to-date measures of student 
     performance from multiple sources that assess the range and 
     depth of student knowledge and proficiency in meeting State 
     performance standards, in each academic subject in which the 
     State is required to conduct the assessments.
       ``(2) Peer review.--In making awards under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall use a peer review process.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment that I have called up--I 
do it now because I am hoping--and I certainly thank the Senator from 
Vermont for his focus on policy last week and his support of an 
amendment I had on testing. But this amendment is really simple and 
straightforward. I thought tonight would be a good time to introduce 
it.
  Right now, in S. 1, the Secretary can give bonuses to States if they 
complete their assessments ahead of the deadline outlined in the law, 
which is the 2005-2006 school year.
  What we are saying in the amendment is that actually what we ought to 
do is to, instead, give bonuses to States for developing and using 
high-quality assessments. That is really where any bonus ought to go.
  So what this amendment would do is change the bonus grant so the 
rewards would go to States if they develop high-quality assessments as 
determined by a peer review process that would be set up by the 
Secretary--that is done all the time--instead of awarding grants to 
States just because their assessments get done quickly.
  The point is not whether they are done quickly, the point is to make 
sure this is high-quality assessment. To emphasize the thoughtful 
development of high-quality assessments, these bonuses would not be 
rewarded until the date at which the new annual testing goes into 
effect.
  So I want to start out by saying to colleagues that this is very 
consistent, interestingly enough, with the piece that Secretary Paige 
wrote in the Washington Post this weekend. He writes:

       A good test, the kind the President and I support, is 
     aligned with the curriculum so the schools know whether 
     children are actually learning the material that their States 
     have decided the child should know.

  So I am saying now and what I was saying last week--that I absolutely 
agree and, of course, the majority of my colleagues agreed--is let's 
make sure we meet the basic criteria that the tests are comprehensive--
you don't just have to take off-the-shelf, single standardized test--
and that the tests are coherent, that they are measuring the curriculum 
being taught, and they are continuous so we can measure the progress of 
a child over time.
  Well, I think what Secretary Paige said in his op-ed piece in the 
Washington Post is, yes; we want to make sure that this is high-quality 
testing. So I was looking at the language in the bill, I say to my 
colleagues, and I thought, wait a minute, we don't want to have an 
incentive saying that the sooner you do the assessment, the more likely 
you are to get a bonus because then the incentive is all in the wrong 
direction.
  What we really want to say is we do not want people rushing and we do 
not want people as a result of that rush--and I have heard Senator 
Kennedy talk about this more than once--to use off-the-shelf, 
relatively low level tests. We want to reward States and provide 
bonuses for doing high-quality testing. That is what this amendment is 
about.
  I was not here earlier, but I thank my colleague and friend from 
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, who is a cosponsor of this amendment. He 
came to the Chamber earlier, and I understand he made some very 
thoughtful comments on the general issue of high quality and fair 
assessments, and he also raised some very legitimate questions and 
concerns about the direction in which we are moving.
  I could spend a lot of time on this. I do not think I need to draw 
from the different reports and studies that have taken place about the 
importance of getting it right and making sure this is high-quality 
testing.
  If we want to get the tests right, then we ought to provide bonuses 
for States that do the best job. That is really where the bonuses 
should go.
  My point is, let us enhance the accountability systems by enhancing 
the quality of assessments so that we do not make a mistake, and the 
way to do

[[Page 7964]]

that is to provide incentives for States, bonuses for States that do a 
high-quality job with high-quality tests.
  That is what I tried to do last week and this week--and I so 
appreciate the support of the Senators from Massachusetts and Vermont. 
There will come a point in the debate where I am going to raise the 
philosophical question--which I do not know I have answered in my own 
mind--as to whether the Federal Government ought to be dictating this 
to States and local school districts. That is the question. We have 
done it before with title I, but this goes way beyond what we have 
done.
  The part of the op-ed piece Secretary Paige wrote with which I do not 
agree is the opening sentence:

       Anyone who opposes annual testing of children is an 
     apologist for a broken system of education that dismisses 
     certain children and classes of children as unteachable.

  My fear is, I say to Senator Jeffords, I thought when we were marking 
up this bill we were saying two things. We were saying yes to 
accountability and we want to do it the right way, and we were also 
saying yes to making sure there were resources for the tools, for the 
students and for the teachers to do well.
  My concern is, given where we are heading with the budget resolution 
and where we are heading with this tax cut, as a matter of fact, we are 
not going to have the resources to help students do better. In which 
case it seems to me a little disingenuous at best and, I frankly argue, 
cruel at worst, to take a fourth grader or a third grader, since we 
start at age 8, who has been in a school where there have been two or 
three teachers during the school year--that is not uncommon in some of 
the inner-city schools, and expect those children to do as well as 
students who have had the best teachers and the best opportunities.
  Low income children do not have the support necessary to do well, 
most particularly in the area of early childhood education. A child who 
comes to kindergarten and is way behind other children who had good 
nurturing, stimulation, had the best of early childhood development 
either from their own family or in a really good childcare center the 
parents could afford, has an immeasurable disadvantage. Yet, we will 
basically say, without any additional help, that we are going to fail 
her.
  We already know these children are not going to do well. The thing 
Secretary Paige is missing in his piece today is what he testified to 
before our committee. He said, yes, we need the resources. I do not see 
those resources, and I think this will end up not being a good piece of 
legislation if we do not have both.
  The two colleagues who are in the Chamber, the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Vermont, have made the same point: 
We need the resources to go with accountability.
  I have an amendment--I am ready to do it at a good time--that is a 
trigger amendment--linking the new testing to the funding 79 of us 
voted for in the Dodd-Collins amendment on fully authorizing title I. 
My amendment would ensure that there is additional money for reading 
help, quality teachers, preschool and afterschool care.
  All that is going to be a key debate. Right now I am in a pragmatic 
mood, and I am just trying to make sure the testing is done the best 
possible way. Even if I do not end up voting for the bill, I still want 
it to be the best possible bill.
  I think we ought to provide the bonuses for the high-quality testing. 
It seems to me a mistake that the bonuses go only to the States that 
develop their assessments as quickly as possible. I hope I get support 
from my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for what I hope will 
be an accepted amendment. The administration is offering the bonuses to 
encourage States to move ahead. The Senator has rightfully put his 
finger on the fact that we want to make sure the tests are not going to 
be off-the-shelf tests and responding to rote information but are a 
reflection of what the children actually learned and how they think.
  That is done in a number of States at the present time. The 
administration wanted to provide encouragement to States to do it. We 
had, the Senator may remember, in the previous elementary and secondary 
education title I program, put in a provision encouraging States to do 
it, and only 10 or 12 States actually did it. We provided flexibility 
for them to do it in the elementary, middle, and then the senior year. 
A number of the States did but most did not.
  The administration was trying to encourage States to move ahead. I 
support that concept, but I absolutely agree with the Senator from 
Minnesota: First, we want to have good tests. We had that debate last 
week.
  The bill is strengthened with the amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota. This is a follow-on that says we want to encourage good 
tests and we want to get it done as early as possible.
  As I understand, there are 15 States now which have tests between the 
third and the eighth grade. The basic reviews, the studies that have 
been done on those tests, say of the 15, 7 States have very well 
designed tests that are generally recognized to meet this criterion to 
test the children's ability to think and comprehend the information and 
then be able to respond to challenges using that information in an 
effective way in response to questions. We want to encourage that.
  It takes time to do tests well. There are a number of steps. We want 
good tests. We want a good curriculum. We want well-trained teachers. 
That is what we are trying to do, get well-trained teachers, and we 
have the provisions in the legislation to do that. We want to get the 
curriculum formed, and we have provisions in the legislation to do 
that.
  We want accountability with tests which we are encouraging, and with 
the Wellstone amendment we can do that. With the Wellstone amendment 
and the bonuses, this is a very useful and helpful amendment. I am very 
hopeful at the appropriate time we will be able to successfully urge 
Senators to accept this amendment.
  Senator Wellstone has targeted one area of concern to me and I think 
to many here, and that is to make sure we are going to get good tests 
and not just the off-the-shelf tests which are taught to and really do 
not reflect the progress all of us want to see in terms of children 
learning.
  I thank him very much. We had talked about this concept before, and 
he has taken the concept and put it into legislative form. I had not 
seen it before. There may be some parts to it--but I cannot spot them--
that may be of trouble to some of our colleagues, but I hope at the 
appropriate time we can move ahead and accept the amendment.
  I thank the Senator for the development of this amendment. This 
amendment and the other amendment he had immeasurably strengthen the 
legislation.
  I don't want to end this part of the discussion without saying I 
agree with him about the importance of the resources. I am somewhat 
more hopeful than he is that by the end of the day we are going to be 
able to get them. Maybe it is a false hope. I do not believe it is. But 
I know he will be helping us and doing everything he can to help us get 
them whenever we can.
  I know the depth of his own feeling. I respect it, although I might 
have some difference in the final conclusions he comes to with regard 
to the overall legislation.
  This is an important amendment. I am hopeful it will be accepted at 
an appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his gracious remarks and thank 
him for his support of this amendment.


                           amendment no. 600

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, earlier today I had a followup amendment 
600 that I offered to create a crisis hotline so parents and 
schoolchildren who see a child carrying a weapon or making a serious 
threat can call on that

[[Page 7965]]

hotline and something would be done about it because in the most 
serious high school violent cases we have had in America those children 
were sending signals in advance and perhaps lives have been saved in 
that regard.
  I offered the amendment earlier, and I ask unanimous consent to ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 389

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I call up Senator Voinovich's amendment 
No. 389.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is now pending.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside 
and the regular order be resumed.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 460

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
  The pending amendment by previous order is now the Reid amendment No. 
460. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Harkin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 460) was agreed to.


                           aAmendment no. 376

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Cleland amendment No. 376. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I yield my time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Georgia. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland 
(Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chafee
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 376) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 600

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 600 of Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe this amendment is acceptable to both sides. I 
ask the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will accept this 
amendment. The Senator explained it earlier, and I think it is a useful 
addition to the legislation. I hope it will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 600) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                      Amendment No. 388, withdrawn

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to withdraw 
amendment No. 388, which is a second-degree amendment to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. I have done so 
because pursuant to some substantial complications of the bill and a 
number of corrections, I believe the underlying bill accomplishes what 
I have sought, and that is to allow the States to have discretion to 
use funds under this bill for classroom size or additional teachers if 
they choose to do so.
  There is a long and involved history to this issue which came up on 
the appropriations bill which I managed last year in my capacity as 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education. But in any event, the objective 
which I have sought will be accomplished by the underlying bill, and it 
would simplify the process if I withdraw the amendment, which I hereby 
do.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.




  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 600

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on 
amendment No. 600, as agreed to.

[[Page 7966]]


  Mr. JEFFORDS. Go ahead.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Alabama. 
But I think we are not quite prepared to offer a consent agreement on 
the procedures for tomorrow. We are awaiting that agreement. We welcome 
the Senator's comments on that legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the things we have learned from 
the shootings in a number of the schools that have traumatized all of 
America is that quite often certain individuals, family, schoolmates, 
or others had reasonable cause to believe that a child might be about 
to commit some serious act of violence. But in each of those cases, no 
real intervention occurred, and the act of violence was carried out.
  Back in my hometown of Mobile, AL, we had a problem of children using 
guns and bringing them to school. I was a U.S. Attorney, and we had a 
big meeting with the district attorney and the sheriff, the juvenile 
judge, the juvenile referee, the Colleagues for Drug Free Mobile, and 
the Drug Council. We talked about how to deal with it, and we came up 
with the idea of a bumper sticker that we called ``Kid With A Gun Call 
911.''
  The police chief said if they received a call from a parent or a 
child who made a serious allegation that another child was carrying a 
weapon or maybe about to plan something dangerous, the police would 
followup on that call. Bumper stickers were put on the police cars, and 
the message got about town.
  Later, the State of Alabama adopted a hotline in which they set up 
the same kind of thing with a centralized 24-hour-a-day center to 
receive those calls from all over the State. Within 2 weeks of the 
setting up of that hotline, quite a number of calls were received. I 
think there were about 400 calls in that short period of time. Many of 
those came from 5 to 9 o'clock at night and came from parents or 
grandparents of children who had seen or heard things that troubled 
them where the kids went to school.
  I believe a hotline of this kind should be given serious 
consideration by other States.
  This legislation will make clear that the funds already appropriated 
can be used for safe schools and violence prevention, and that creating 
a hotline of this type would be a permissible use of that money.
  A mechanism needs to be set up so that anyone who has a serious cause 
for concern would know precisely where they could call. They would not 
have to give their name under most circumstances. Then perhaps 
something could be done to intervene in the situation.
  If, for example, a child comes home and says that down the street in 
the vacant lot Billy is playing with a gun, and he says he is going to 
shoot somebody, the mother, the grandmother, or somebody at home could 
make that call. Somebody would come out and check it out. They are not 
going to arrest the person if he doesn't have a gun. They are just 
going to ask questions about it.
  Perhaps those kinds of immediate responses and immediate 
interventions would be effective in reducing the likelihood that a 
child would actually go and shoot someone. In fact, we could get a lot 
of illegal weapons off the street.
  I think this is a good approach. It is legislation that we discussed 
in depth when the juvenile justice bill was moving through this Senate 
and passed this Senate, but it never became law. I think that this 
provision is appropriate for schools. I believe it would be a good 
preventive tool for violence.
  I thank the Senate and the leaders on both sides for agreeing to 
allow this amendment to be approved and made a part of this bill. I 
hope and pray that this type of intervention may prevent violence and 
possibly save lives.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 443

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 443.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Landrieu, and Mrs. 
     Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 443.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan 
         forgiveness for certain loans to Head Start teachers)

       On page 893, after line 14, add the following:

     SEC. __. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR HEAD START TEACHERS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Loan 
     Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2001''.
       (b) Head Start Teachers.--Section 428J of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1)(A) has been employed--
       ``(i) as a full-time teacher for 5 consecutive complete 
     school years in a school that qualifies under section 
     465(a)(2)(A) for loan cancellation for Perkins loan 
     recipients who teach in such a school; or
       ``(ii) as a Head Start teacher for 5 consecutive complete 
     program years under the Head Start Act; and
       ``(B)(i) if employed as a secondary school teacher, is 
     teaching a subject area that is relevant to the borrower's 
     academic major as certified by the chief administrative 
     officer of the public or nonprofit private secondary school 
     in which the borrower is employed;
       ``(ii) if employed as an elementary school teacher, has 
     demonstrated, as certified by the chief administrative 
     officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary school 
     in which the borrower is employed, knowledge and teaching 
     skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of 
     the elementary school curriculum; and
       ``(iii) if employed as a Head Start teacher, has 
     demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, 
     writing, early childhood development, and other areas of a 
     preschool curriculum, with a focus on cognitive learning; 
     and'';
       (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Head start.--An individual shall be eligible for loan 
     forgiveness under this section for service described in 
     clause (ii) of subsection (b)(1)(A) only if such individual 
     received a baccalaureate or graduate degree on or after the 
     date of enactment of the Loan Forgiveness for Head Start 
     Teachers Act of 2001.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for fiscal year 2007 and succeeding fiscal years to carry out 
     loan repayment under this section for service described in 
     clause (ii) of subsection (b)(1)(A).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 428J of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1078-10) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``or fifth complete 
     program year'' after ``fifth complete school year of 
     teaching'';
       (2) in subsection (f), by striking ``subsection (b)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)'';
       (3) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``subsection 
     (b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)''; and
       (4) in subsection (h), by inserting ``except as part of the 
     term `program year','' before ``where''.
       (d) Direct Student Loan Forgiveness.--
       (1) In general.--Section 460 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087j) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by amending subparagraph (A) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A)(i) has been employed--
       ``(I) as a full-time teacher for 5 consecutive complete 
     school years in a school that qualifies under section 
     465(a)(2)(A) for loan cancellation for Perkins loan 
     recipients who teach in such a school; or
       ``(II) as a Head Start teacher for 5 consecutive complete 
     program years under the Head Start Act; and
       ``(ii)(I) if employed as a secondary school teacher, is 
     teaching a subject area that is relevant to the borrower's 
     academic major as certified by the chief administrative 
     officer of the public or nonprofit private secondary school 
     in which the borrower is employed;
       ``(II) if employed as an elementary school teacher, has 
     demonstrated, as certified by the chief administrative 
     officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary school 
     in which the borrower is employed, knowledge and teaching 
     skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of 
     the elementary school curriculum; and
       ``(III) if employed as a Head Start teacher, has 
     demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, 
     writing, early childhood development, and other areas of a 
     preschool

[[Page 7967]]

     curriculum, with a focus on cognitive learning; and'';
       (B) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Head start.--An individual shall be eligible for loan 
     forgiveness under this section for service described in 
     subclause (II) of subsection (b)(1)(A)(i) only if such 
     individual received a baccalaureate or graduate degree on or 
     after the date of enactment of the Loan Forgiveness for Head 
     Start Teachers Act of 2001.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for fiscal year 2007 and succeeding fiscal years to carry out 
     loan repayment under this section for service described in 
     subclause (II) of subsection (b)(1)(A)(i).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 460 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1087j) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``or fifth complete 
     program year'' after ``fifth complete school year of 
     teaching'';
       (B) in subsection (f), by striking ``subsection (b)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)(I)'';
       (C) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``subsection 
     (b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)(I)''; and
       (D) in subsection (h), by inserting ``except as part of the 
     term `program year','' before ``where''.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this amendment will encourage young 
teachers to go into early childhood education, encourage further 
learning and credentialing of early learning educators, and lead to 
better education for our nation's youngest children.
  I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feinstein, Cochran, Baucus, 
Landrieu, Murray and Corzine in offering this amendment.
  If one asks virtually any scientific expert in human development or 
any mother for that matter--and they will tell you that there is no 
more important time in a child's life than their earliest years.
  In terms of priorities, the experiences and learning that fill a 
child's first years have a critical and decisive impact on the 
development of the brain and on the nature and extent of their adult 
capacities--in other words, who they will become as they grow older. 
That window of opportunity can be impacted by things that are within 
our control.
  To maximize their potential, we must begin to teach our children the 
necessary learning skills as early as possible; well before they reach 
kindergarten.
  There is countless amounts of research and data that shows that by 
focusing on these earliest years, we can make the greatest difference 
in a child's development and capacity to learn, and I know of few other 
programs that provide that kind of focus as does Head Start.
  The amendment that I am offering is designed to encourage currently 
enrolled and incoming college students working on a bachelor's or a 
master's degree to pursue a career as a Head Start teacher.
  In exchange for a 5-year teaching commitment in a qualified Head 
Start program, a college graduate with a minium of a bachelor's degree 
could receive up to $5,000 in forgiveness for their federal Stafford 
student loan.
  When I was Governor of Ohio, we invested heavily in Head Start, 
increasing funding from $18 million in 1990, to $180 million in 1998.
  By the time I left office, there was a space available for every 
eligible child in Ohio whose parents wanted them in a Head Start or 
preschool program, and because of our efforts, Ohio led the Nation in 
terms of children served by Head Start. Today, there are 60,000 
children in our Head Start programs.
  Now that I am in the Senate, I continue to believe that it is 
absolutely critical that we do more to help our young people prepare to 
begin school ready to learn.
  In this regard, I was pleased to work with Senators Jeffords and 
Stevens last year to help pass the Early Learning Opportunities Act. 
Still, we must now do more to help those teachers who educate our 
youngest children.
  The results of a survey undertaken by the U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services in 1999 and 2000 has shown a significant correlation 
between the quality of education a child receives and the amount of 
education that child's teacher possesses; that is, the more education a 
teacher has, the more effectively they teach their students cognitive 
skills, the more likely the students are to act upon those skills.
  Current Federal law requires that 50 percent of all Head Start 
teachers must have an associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree in 
early childhood education or a related field with teaching experience 
by 2003.
  Under Ohio law, by 2007, all Head Start teachers must have at least 
an associate's degree. It is hoped that this requirement will encourage 
Head Start educators to pursue a bachelor's or even an advanced degree. 
After all, the more education our teachers have, the better off our 
children will be. Unfortunately, as we all know, education can be 
expensive.
  In Ohio today, only 11.3 percent--242--of the 2,126 Head Start 
teachers employed in the State have a bachelor's degree. Additionally, 
less than 1 percent--20--of Ohio's Head Start teachers have a graduate 
degree. We must do more to help our teachers afford the education that 
will be used to help educate our children.
  If we do not intervene at this critical time in a child's life with 
programs such as Head Start and the Early Learning Opportunity Act, we 
will not likely reach our goal of ``no child left behind.'' One of the 
best uses of our Federal education resources is to target them toward 
our youngest citizens where they can have the most impact.
  Recruiting and retaining Head Start and early childhood teachers 
continues to be a challenge for Ohio and other States.
  This amendment--which is based on the bill that Senator Feinstein and 
I introduced, the Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act, S. 123 
will help communities, schools and other Head Start providers to meet 
the challenge of recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers.
  It is one of the best ways that I know of where we can make a real 
difference in the lives of our most precious resource--our children.
  I am pleased to have been able to work with the National Head Start 
Association, the Ohio Head Start Association, and my Senate colleagues 
on this legislation. I urge the Members of this Chamber to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 443

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this 
amendment with Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Cochran, Landrieu, Murray, 
and Corzine.
  Under current law, elementary and secondary teachers can receive up 
to $5,000 of their student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of 
teaching. Head Start teachers are not currently included in the federal 
loan forgiveness program. By offering Head Start teachers the same loan 
forgiveness benefit as that afforded to elementary and secondary school 
teachers, I believe, we will encourage more college graduates to enter 
the field.
  Many Head Start programs in California are losing qualified teachers 
to local school districts in part because the pay is better--
nationally, the average Head Start teacher made $20,700 in 2000 
compared to $40,575 for an elementary and secondary school teacher. 
Head Start teachers are making half of what elementary and secondary 
teachers are paid on average.
  Low pay, combined with mounting student loan debt, is a real 
deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers.
  Today, there are no educational requirements for a Head Start teacher 
other than a child development associate (CDA) credential, requiring 24 
early child education credits and 16 general education credits. By 
2003, 50 percent of Head Start teachers will be required to have at 
minimum an associate or 2-year degree.
  Under this amendment, a Head Start teacher who has completed at 
minimum a bachelor's degree could receive up to $5,000 of their federal 
student

[[Page 7968]]

loan forgiven provided they agree to teach for at least 5 years in a 
Head Start program.
  Clearly, we should recruit qualified teachers to the Head Start field 
who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, 
writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool 
curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning. Obtaining and 
maintaining teachers with such educational backgrounds will, I believe, 
improve the cognitive learning portion of the Head Start program so 
that our youngsters can start elementary school ready to learn.
  Several recent studies confirm the importance of investing in the 
education and training of those who work with preschoolers.
  The National Research Council has recommended that:

       . . . children in an early childhood education and care 
     program should be assigned a teacher who has a bachelor's 
     degree with specialized education related to early childhood. 
     . . . Progress toward a high-quality teaching force will 
     require substantial public and private support and incentive 
     programs, including innovative education programs, 
     scholarship and loan programs, and compensation commensurate 
     with the expectations of college graduates.

  Last year, the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel held fifteen 
national hearings and open forums. The panel found:

       . . . that despite increases resulting from Federal quality 
     set-aside funding, relatively low salaries and poor or non-
     existent benefits make it difficult to attract and retain 
     qualified staff over the long term. . . . the quality of the 
     program is tied directly to the quality of the staff.

  Head Start is one of the most important federal programs because it 
has the potential to reach children early in their formative years when 
their cognitive skills are just developing. Many of our Nation's 
youngsters, however, enter elementary school without the basic skills 
necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers 
throughout their academic career.
  I believe we must continue to improve the cognitive learning aspects 
of the Head Start program so that children leave the program able to 
count to ten, to recognize sizes and colors, and to recite the 
alphabet. To ensure cognitive learning, we must continue to raise the 
standards for Head Start teachers. Offering Head Start teachers similar 
compensation for their educational achievements and expenses afforded 
to other teachers is one step to encouraging college graduates to 
become Head Start teachers.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 
a.m. on Tuesday the Senate resume consideration of the Murray amendment 
No. 378 and there be 120 minutes equally divided in the usual form.
  I further ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 on Tuesday the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment and no amendments be in 
order to the amendment and there be 5 minutes equally divided for 
closing remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with regard to the Sessions amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to Sessions amendment 
No. 600 be modified to be drafted to the pending substitute. This is a 
technical change. It does not change any of the amendment's legislative 
language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________