[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10420-10459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Continued


                           Amendment No. 536

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire.
  I rise this afternoon to express my support for the amendment offered 
by my colleague from New Hampshire which would create a Federal private 
school choice demonstration project. This amendment closely tracks 
choice proposals that I have cosponsored myself, both with Senator 
Gregg and, before him, with Senator Coats of Indiana.
  This is an experimental program. It is designed to test an idea that 
can help some of our children get a better education. It is focused 
exclusively on low-income families. It does not take any money that 
otherwise would go to our public schools, and it includes a strong 
evaluation component to determine what impact this program has both on 
academic achievement of participating students and on the public 
schools they leave behind.
  It constructively answers a question that in too many places has gone 
unanswered for too long; namely, the question that parents have asked 
me--and I am sure others in this Chamber--parents whose children are 
trapped in failing public schools and yet who cannot afford to send 
them to a nonpublic school that the parents are confident would be 
better for their children.
  How do we answer that question? How do we justify telling them to 
wait for their public schools to improve when their children may well 
be grown up or certainly have moved along in the school system by then, 
and particularly when other parents who can afford to do so are taking 
their children out of similar public schools?
  Those are questions policymakers and politicians and educators around 
the country have been struggling with for some time. The struggle is a 
real one. It is based on conflicting values, each of them strong and 
good, and conflicting loyalties, if you will. We share a common 
devotion to our public schools and the ideal of equal opportunity that 
they have made real for so many tens of millions of American citizens. 
But we also realize, as the underlying bill we are debating now 
acknowledges, that too many of our public schools, particularly in low-
income areas, have not been realizing the promise of equal opportunity, 
that that promise has become effectively hollow.
  On the one hand, we obviously cannot and will not abandon those 
public schools and certainly not abandon public education in general 
because it is the great democratizing force in American history. It is 
the great ladder up in American life. The public schools will always be 
the primary source of learning for most of our children.
  We also don't want to abandon those disadvantaged children trapped in 
schools that their parents conclude are not adequately educating them 
and thereby sacrifice their hopes for a better life for their children 
to our vision of an idealized world.
  The answer ultimately is, of course, to make our public schools 
better. That, as I will state in a moment, is the purpose of the 
underlying bill. I have struggled with the question and the dilemma, 
the question that parents have asked, for a long period of time. I have 
talked to many parents, visited many public schools in Connecticut 
where a lot of extraordinary good work and reform is going on. I have 
also talked with parents of children in schools where the kids are not 
receiving the education the parents believe they deserve and need. And 
those parents want to take their children and put them in a nonpublic 
school. I visited many of the nonpublic schools, particularly in 
Connecticut--those run by the Roman Catholic diocese in our State; they 
are run in some of Connecticut's poorest neighborhoods--accepting 
children. In many cases, most of the kids are not Catholic. The parents 
are very satisfied with the quality of education those children are 
receiving.
  After all that inquiry, I decided--this goes back years ago--that 
school choice is a reform idea worth testing on a larger stage but not 
the one answer to all of our educational challenges and shortcomings. 
There is no one answer. This is an idea worth testing. That is when I 
began working with Senator Coats to develop a national demonstration 
project very similar--almost exactly similar--to that proposed in the 
amendment Senator Gregg has introduced today.
  It was my belief then, and still is my belief, that we have an 
obligation to try everything we can to improve educational 
opportunities for all of our

[[Page 10421]]

children, to never refuse to open a single door behind which there may 
be a constructive answer that will help us better educate all of 
America's children.
  The growing national demand for choice has, I believe, helped to 
awaken us to the educational crisis that has been plaguing our poorest 
urban and rural neighborhoods. We have watched the standards movement 
take off in States around the country and listened to Governors and 
reformers of both parties demand accountability for results, saying we 
can no longer tolerate failure in our attempts to educate our children.
  We have been heartened by the academic achievement gains made in 
communities all across America. I think of Chicago and Hartford and 
districts throughout America that were once declared educational 
disaster areas and today are beacons of hope for the future of our 
children.
  Now we in this body are considering the most sweeping Federal 
education reform plan in a generation. This has taken on the challenge 
of ending what the President has called ``the soft bigotry of low 
expectations'' and closing the achievement gap into which too many poor 
minority children are falling. Part of what makes the reform plan in 
the underlying bill so encouraging is that it provides a series of 
strong answers to that same tough question I am sure many of my 
colleagues have heard from parents of children in public schools that 
they believe are not adequately answering it.
  This bill provides answers to that question because it will force 
districts to take bold steps to turn around failing schools, including 
radically reconstituting them, converting them into charter schools or, 
in the worst cases, actually closing them down and opening them as new 
schools. It will significantly expand the options for poor parents 
within the public school framework, guaranteeing that their children 
can transfer to higher performing public schools and providing them 
with transportation assistance to make that choice meaningful.
  For those children who do not or cannot leave a failing school, this 
bill gives their parents the right to demand outside tutorial or 
supplemental services to ensure that their children are not being left 
behind.
  The amendment Senator Gregg has offered would offer yet another 
option in the communities across America chosen to carry out this 
demonstration project for parents of children in schools that are 
failing. The fact is that all of the reforms I have described that are 
in the underlying bill before us are going to take some time to yield 
results. I am very optimistic about them. But even at the best, we have 
to be restless and unsatisfied in our continuing pursuit of a better 
education for our children. The truth is, the journey to a better 
education for all of America's children has no final destination point; 
it will go on and on and on.
  That is why I support the idea embodied in Senator Gregg's amendment 
which will test the school choice concept in a way that can benefit all 
of us who care about our children's education and at the same time 
provide a short-term educational lifeline for children involved in this 
demonstration program who are trapped in a school that is found to be 
failing, according to the accountability provisions of this underlying 
ESEA reform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an 
additional moment to finish my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I understand there is no guarantee that 
if this amendment were adopted, the projects authorized under it would 
succeed. But that is the very point of the amendment. It is a test. It 
is saying that we are restless and unafraid in pursuit of the best 
education for each of America's children.
  In fact, the research about the limited voucher programs that exist 
in cities across America today, such as in Milwaukee and Cleveland, is 
as controversial, in some ways, as the programs themselves. Some of the 
evidence is promising, suggesting that private school choice could 
improve achievement and drive change in the local public schools. And 
the fact that so much research is in dispute itself is an argument for 
a larger experiment, a national experiment, fully evaluated and 
reported on to provide us with better facts, better information, to 
make more informed judgments as we continue tirelessly, fearlessly, to 
explore every avenue to a better education for each and every one of 
America's children.
  Mr. President, I will support the Gregg amendment.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut. I agree 
with him that it is time for this amendment to have a test. In fact, I 
think the vote on this amendment will tell the American people whether 
we are really serious about reforming education, which is what this 
legislation really ought to be all about.
  I also think it is about which special interests are most exercised. 
Until now, with only a few exceptions, the amendments to this bill 
approved by the Senate have increased spending and authorized new 
spending programs. These are the same measures that have produced 
generations of less-educated Americans. ``After spending $125 billion . 
. . over 25 years, we have virtually nothing to show for it.'' That is 
a quotation from Secretary Paige. It is what he said when he saw new 
data showing that 60 percent of our poor fourth graders are still 
essentially unable to read.
  During this debate, the Senate voted to shovel billions of dollars 
more of taxpayers' money into this failed effort. At last count, 
measuring spending just on this bill, from last year, $17 billion spent 
to approximately $38 billion, it is well over a 100-percent increase. I 
think this is the context in which we should consider the amendment of 
the Senator from New Hampshire.
  As pointed out by the Senator from Connecticut, this amendment simply 
establishes a demonstration program which would allow only 10 
localities in 3 States the opportunity to extend school choice to low-
income students in failing schools. The cost is $50 million a year.
  Given the colossal spending increases added to this bill over the 
last few weeks, it is ironic that some still argue that this amendment 
is denying needed resources to public schools.
  No, the opposition to this amendment can only illustrate the truth of 
George Will's observation that ``opposition to school choice is the 
most purely reactionary cause in contemporary politics.''
  This is not even a liberal versus conservative issue. Many 
distinguished voices of American liberalism have broken with the 
reactionary special interests and embraced school choice.
  The list includes--but is not limited to--former Labor Secretary 
Robert Reich, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist William Raspberry former 
Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, former Congressman Floyd Flake, and the 
editors of the Washington Post.
  Most of these thoughtful observers deviated from liberal orthodoxy 
because they realize that their doctrine was hurting poor children.
  President Bush has described literacy as ``the new civil right.'' And 
he is right. When we allow the most disadvantaged to be cheated out of 
a decent education, we render the promise of equal opportunity hollow.
  School choice keeps that promise, not just for the students who are 
able to exercise choice, but for all the students who attend schools in 
a community where choice is widely exercised.
  My home State of Arizona has been a leader in the effort to provide 
parents with additional choices in education. Under the leadership of 
recently departed Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham 
Keegan, we

[[Page 10422]]

have instituted open enrollment, enacted the most liberal charter 
school law in the country, and restructured state education financing 
so that education funds follow the student to the institution of his or 
her choice.
  One of the most interesting results is that because families are now 
empowered to exercise all these new options, the traditional schools 
are working harder to improve their performance. In response to some 
new charter schools, one district changed the curricula and other 
programs and took out ads in the paper to tell parents about efforts to 
improve upon its already strong academic offerings.
  But the competition that the new charter schools created spurred them 
to do even better. Who benefited? The kids. And after all, isn't that 
what this is about?
  It shouldn't be surprising that improvements resulted when Arizona 
began encouraging innovation by educators and providing more choice for 
parents and students.
  Our Nation has thrived because our leading industries and 
institutions have been challenged by constant pressure to improve and 
innovate. The source of that pressure is vigorous competition among 
producers of a service or good for the allegiance of their potential 
consumers.
  The alternative is monopoly, and a system that maintains a captive 
clientele by blocking all the exits, a system within which attempts to 
provide such an exit--even one so modest as that contained in this 
amendment--are considered a deadly threat.
  We all know that any politician who crosses these reform foes can 
expect to pay a price.
  We all recall how our former colleague Bill Bradley was pilloried in 
the Democrat primaries for the heresy of supporting proposals just like 
this one.
  Senator Bradley tried to reason with his critics:

       Advocates of school choice say that . . . it will create 
     competition that will make the public schools better,

he noted, before concluding:

       You don't know that unless you have a test.

  The die-hard choice opponents don't want to know. Or perhaps they 
already do know.
  Recently, along with a number of my colleagues, I had the opportunity 
to hear from Howard Fuller, who served as superintendent of schools in 
Milwaukee and helped implement that city's path-breaking choice 
program.
  Dr. Fuller is a passionate and eloquent advocate for school choice. 
He gets to the heart of the opposition when he said:

       Parents must be empowered to have their aspirations for 
     their children's education taken seriously by educators. A 
     critical step in that direction is when we give them the 
     capacity to exercise choice. I believe that [currently] our 
     educational systems are . . . organized to protect the 
     interests of those of us who work in these systems, not the 
     needs and interests of the families we are supposed to serve. 
     . . .

  When we vote on this amendment, the Senate will decide: Is our 
purpose to protect the special interests or is it to protect the 
interests of American students and their families?
  The choice is clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope we will consider seriously this 
pending amendment and the implications.
  To clarify some of the record in terms of statistics that have been 
thrown about during this debate, there was mention on the floor early 
today that 63 percent of the American people support vouchers. The 
exact number is 63 percent support public school vouchers. The 
implication that this is 63 percent supporting vouchers to private 
schools is not an accurate figure at all.
  The national exit polls in November showed by nearly an 80-percent 
margin Americans prefer investments in public schools to vouchers.
  The State of California rejected its voucher referendum 71-29. 
Latinos rejected it by a higher margin, 77-23. Michigan rejected its 
voucher referendum 69-31. African Americans rejected it by a higher 
margin, 75-25. The notion that this is a concept that is supported by 
the American public or that has gone on trial is not the case.
  Normally, one might ask, what is wrong with a demonstration program, 
with a budget of multibillions of dollars; why not take $50 million and 
put it into a demonstration program to determine whether or not 
something like this works?
  First of all, I suppose, only in Washington would a person consider 
$50 million an insignificant amount of money. Particularly when we are 
trying to get funding for title I and special education and a variety 
of other needs out there, $50 million may make a significant 
difference.
  Putting aside the size of the amount being asked for, this is not a 
new idea. It is not an untested idea. Every place it has been tested it 
has not worked. Those are the facts.
  States, counties, cities, have tried vouchers. There is no research 
that voucher students outperform public school students or that voucher 
programs improve public schools at all. Instead, vouchers take scarce 
resources from public schools that desperately need them. Remember, as 
we debate this issue, 55 million children went to school in America 
today; 50 million went to a public school; 5 million went to a private 
or parochial school.
  The idea that we will take every desiring public school student and 
put them into the structures that accommodate private school students 
is ridiculous on its face.
  Although this is a pilot program, there are those who would make this 
a full-scale program if they could. This is, of course, to get $50 
million in the door to demonstrate in a sense that we ought to try this 
as a national scheme and underwrite people's desires to send their 
children to private or parochial schools. So the 50 million kids who 
are going to schools need to know whether or not we will be doing what 
we can to improve the quality of public education. That is where our 
primary responsibility is when it comes to elementary and secondary 
education needs.
  What will help public schools, in my view, is not vouchers but better 
qualified teachers, smaller class size, safe and modern facilities, 
programs to increase parental involvement, and more afterschool 
programs. Even if every available space in private schools were filled 
by a transfer student from a public school in America, only 4 percent 
of the public school students would receive a voucher under the maximum 
set of circumstances. Which 4 percent will it be? Who makes that 
choice? It will not be a kid who can be a bit of a problem. Unlike a 
public school, a private school can cherry-pick who they want to have, 
who they don't want to have, who they want to reject, who they like or 
don't like. That is their right. I never fault or suggest that a 
private or parochial school ought to accept everyone who applies. So 
when you are setting up a private school program, many of which, by the 
way, cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars--the idea that somehow we 
are going to have a meaningful voucher program for some desperately 
poor black child growing up in a ghetto somewhere to go to the Taft 
School in Connecticut or some private institution is foolish, in my 
view. We are talking about a fraction, even if you had a national 
program here, a fraction of the students who would qualify.
  Vouchers do not even provide a choice for many of the students who 
are eligible for them. Unlike public schools, private schools are not 
required to accept all students, nor is there any evidence that the few 
students who are able to use vouchers to attend private schools 
outperform public school peers. The most comprehensive study of the 
first 5 years of the Milwaukee voucher program showed no achievement 
differences between voucher students and public school students, not 
any after 5 years.
  I ask for 2 additional minutes, if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. In fact, this is why I made the statement I did at the 
outset. This is not uncharted waters at all. Mr.

[[Page 10423]]

President, 30 years of research suggests that when background 
conditions and other factors are taken into account there are no 
significant differences in achievement between public and private 
school students. Supporters of vouchers also suggest that competition 
from vouchers will improve public schools; that competition will shake 
out the bad schools.
  I am all for business models in a lot of areas, but education is not 
widgets. The business model starts with a premise that there are 
winners and losers. An educational model that starts with that premise 
is not consistent with leaving no child behind. We cannot afford for 
any school or any child to be a loser. We cannot guarantee there will 
be winners, but we ought to be able to guarantee an equal opportunity 
to win. The idea that some are just going to fail and that's the way 
life is is not the way we ought to be dealing with elementary and 
secondary educational needs.
  I do not think we can afford for any school or child to be a loser in 
America. Just as there is no reliable research suggesting that voucher 
students outperform their peers, there is no reliable research that 
suggests that voucher programs improve public schools either. We know 
what does improve them: additional resources, better teachers, smaller 
class size, curriculum, model schools. Those are the things that make a 
difference. We do not need a Federal demonstration program to learn 
about voucher programs or about what is necessary to improve public 
schools. We already know that we do not improve public schools by 
draining away desperately needed resources and undermining public 
support for those schools.
  Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to look at what the record has 
been on this issue. It has been developed. It is not new.
  I have great respect for what private and parochial schools do. They 
make a significant contribution. But the idea somehow we are going to 
fund two school systems in America is unrealistic. We do not do a very 
good job at the one we have. The idea somehow we are going to 
underwrite two is terribly naive and detracts from the resource 
allocation we need in order to try to make those schools that are in 
trouble receive the kind of support they ought to be getting.
  For those reasons, I urge our colleagues to reject the Gregg 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am concerned by some of the major 
distortions of fact that have occurred during today's debate. Some 
Senators have erroneously cited polling data to buoy their claims that 
a majority of Americans support school vouchers. A closer look at some 
recent trends show otherwise.
  I have heard some of my colleagues cite a National Education 
Association poll suggesting that 63 percent of Americans favor voucher 
programs. That is just plain wrong. In fact, that poll demonstrated 
that 63 percent of Americans favor public school choice--not voucher 
programs. There is a huge distinction there, and I am surprised that my 
colleagues are not a little more cautious in discussing these two very 
separate ideas. As we all know, public school choice allows students 
and parents the opportunity to participate in charter schools, magnet 
schools or even just another public school in the same district. Public 
school choice does not involve private schools at all. I should also 
point out that public school choice has been strongly endorsed in this 
bill, and I congratulate the many hands who helped shape this 
legislation to include a provision that support public school choice 
programs.
  In the 2000 election, two States overwhelmingly rejected referendums 
on funding voucher programs. Californians rejected vouchers by 71-29 
percent, while Michigan voters rejected vouchers by 69-31. Since some 
of my colleagues raised race as an issue in this debate, I would also 
add that minorities in both States rejected vouchers in numbers that 
far exceed the aggregate State totals. Wolverine State African 
Americans, for example, voted against the voucher referendum by a 
margin of 3-1.
  The much-heralded Milwaukee voucher program has also recently come 
under scrutiny. Students participating in the public school's SAGE 
program--which includes smaller class sizes, rigorous curriculum and 
assessment, access to after school programs and increased professional 
development--have tested better than kids in voucher programs.
  So with those points made, I would like to address a couple of other 
arguments that have been made this morning. Even as proponents tell us 
that vouchers improve public schools, reality tells us otherwise. The 
Milwaukee and Cleveland voucher programs--which cost $29 million and $9 
million, respectively--do not cover the complete cost of private school 
tuition for the relatively few students served by the programs. Private 
schools can also reduce their budgets by not offering health services, 
breakfast and lunch programs, counselors, or services to special needs 
students. For less than the cost of either voucher program, other 
programs, such as the Success for All program, could be implemented in 
city public schools, thereby benefiting all children in the school 
district.
  Voucher programs create the potential for discrimination. Awarding a 
voucher to a family does not guarantee that the student will be 
accepted into a private school. While Milwaukee schools may not 
discriminate against disabled students, there is no requirement that 
they provide special education services. Likewise, private schools are 
not required to provide needed services to low-English proficient 
students or chronically disruptive students.
  Finally, I take issue with colleagues who cry for accountability in 
our public schools, then blithely support voucher programs. I believe 
that our schools absolutely must be accountable for their students. But 
the enduring legacies of the Cleveland voucher experiment may well be 
bad budgeting and misspent funds rather than better results for 
students. A 1997 independent financial audit found that $1.9 million 
had been misspent, including $1.4 million paid to taxi companies 
transporting students to voucher schools. Since 1997, program officials 
have uncovered more than $400,000 in taxi fares were billed on days 
when the students in question were absent.
  Worse even than the taxi fiasco, in 1998, the program ran 41 percent 
over budget, forcing the State of Ohio to take $2.9 million from public 
school funds to cover the overruns. That is $3 million coming out of 
the State public school coffers to fund a program that, like today's 
amendment, was not supposed to ``take money out of the public 
schools.''
  No one wants to improve schools in the poorest parts of America more 
than I do. But voucher programs are not the way to accomplish this very 
worthwhile goal. We simply do not have the resources to spend millions 
of dollars on a few students at the expense of the 90 percent of 
American children who attend public schools. So I urge my colleagues to 
reject this amendment and instead to support greater investment in our 
public schools.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I warmly endorse the comments of the 
senior Senator from Connecticut. As always, he is spot on with his 
analysis, and his point with regard to the Gregg amendment, which I 
strongly oppose, is exactly where I think we should come out.
  Although I commend the author and supporters of the amendment for 
their concern about low-performing schools, I believe this amendment is 
misguided because it would undermine the public education system that 
is the very tie that binds our society.
  I encourage the authors to show their passion to improve our poor-
performing public schools by fully resourcing those proven initiatives 
that will change failed schools.
  Mr. President, 90 percent of our children attend public schools. As 
our Nation becomes increasingly diverse--my

[[Page 10424]]

State, in particular, is blessed with incredible diversity--our public 
schools continue their fundamental purpose of uniting Americans while 
providing every child with the opportunity to succeed. That must be our 
mission--our passion. The availability of quality public education for 
all is defining to America's democracy.
  If we adopt this vouchers measure, we would drain limited resources 
from our public schools and send a signal that we are prepared to erode 
the historical purpose and position of public education in America.
  Much of the debate around vouchers is about choice. But the choice 
inherent in any vouchers proposal is false, meaningless choice.
  Contrary to the rhetoric, vouchers would not ensure parental choice, 
because private schools can and do reject applicants for private 
reasons--including disability or language skills.
  In fact, the only real choice vouchers will create is in the hands of 
the private schools.
  That means that a child with limited English proficiency--let's keep 
in mind that there are over 4.1 million of such children in our 
schools--would not have a meaningful choice. That means that a child 
with learning disabilities wouldn't really have a meaningful choice. 
These children with unique educational needs--who most need the promise 
of a quality education--would often be left behind in schools we deem 
to be failing.
  Vouchers are also a false choice because the amount being offered is 
too little to be meaningful. How many families, making $32,000 or less, 
actually have the additional funds to allow them to take advantage of 
vouchers. What is the practical reality here?
  In addition to vouchers setting up a false choice, vouchers provide 
no accountability. Now, I have been listening to much of the debate on 
this education bill, and one of the main themes has been about 
accountability. I support accountability. As a former businessman, I 
appreciate the importance of monitoring the success or failure of our 
investments.
  But this voucher proposal provides no accountability. Under the 
proposal, we would divert critical public resources without any public 
oversight. This proposal would thus undermine the progress we are 
making towards increased accountability.
  The incredible fact in this debate is that the evidence does not show 
that vouchers work. Experiments have shown that vouchers do not help 
improve student achievement. A University of Wisconsin-Madison 
professor found that there were no achievement differences between 
voucher student and comparable Milwaukee public school students.
  Princeton University Professor Cecilia Rouse found that students in a 
special Milwaukee program that used extra resources to reduce class 
sizes outperformed both regular public school students as well as 
voucher students in both reading and math.
  The evidence also shows that vouchers do not reach the students most 
in need. Finally, they do nothing to help the public schools that are 
left behind to educate the vast majority of our children.
  We are unfortunately operating in a time of limited resources. More 
limited now that we have made the choices we've taken on the recent tax 
cut.
  We are underfunding title I, the critical engine of reform for our 
low-income school districts. Two-thirds of the eligible kids are left 
out. Similarly, we have been shirking the Federal Government's 
responsibility in fully funding IDEA, education for the disabled.
  Just when we should be putting increased resources in our public 
schools--so that our reform efforts can be meaningful, and so that we 
can ensure that the children who need our help the most, get our help--
we should not be siphoning critical funds to fund vouchers. If we want 
to reform schools, we need to provide those schools with real 
resources, not deprive them.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about the need to ensure that 
no child is left behind, and about the need for school reform. But we 
must put our money where our mouth is, because reform without resources 
is a charade.
  Even though supporters will argue that this proposal would not take 
away funding from the title I program, any money spent on vouchers is 
money that could and should be used to bolster our public schools.
  We know what works. A good teacher in every class is the most 
important single factor in the quality of a child's education. We can 
do everything else right, but if we don't have good teachers, the 
educational system just won't work. That's why it is critically 
important that we provide real resources to attract and retain quality 
teachers, and to help teachers develop their skills.
  We also know that smaller class sizes work. It's abundantly clear 
that smaller classes are better for children, and we've started to make 
progress in recent years. But we have not gone far enough. In my view, 
that's a serious mistake.
  We also know that our children must go to school in safe modern 
school buildings, and that's why I have been fighting to modernize our 
schools.
  In sum, there is no evidence that vouchers work. They do not provide 
a meaningful choice to families who struggle to ensure that their 
children receive a quality education.
  And by diverting funds we undermine our other reform efforts and put 
at risk those who remain in our public system.
  We should not give up on our public schools. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 8 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from New 
Hampshire.
  I have listened to the remarks and to the complaints of those who are 
going to vote against this amendment. First, they say it is not going 
to work; that the only program out there that is in fact in place right 
now is Milwaukee. Yet the superintendent of the Milwaukee school 
districts has come to Washington, DC, over the past few months and 
pleaded for us to pass this proposal because he and the poor people of 
Milwaukee whose children don't have an opportunity to get a good 
quality education in the existing school system want this program. It 
is the ultimate accountability.
  We don't have accountability. When you have the dollars and you can 
take them to this school or to that school, that is accountability. 
There is no accountability in the public system because there is no 
choice in the public system. Your child is trapped in the school if you 
have low income. The child is trapped in the school to which they are 
designated to go. Therefore, accountability is just simply a check 
sheet that you have to fill out for some government bureaucracy. But 
there is no accountability to the consumer of the product. Isn't that 
what we are talking about? The consumer is the child.
  We worry so much and talk so much. By the way, I know people are 
concerned about the money. This bill under consideration, to my 
understanding, increases the amount of money we are going to spend on 
education by over 100 percent. To suggest somehow or another that we 
have been parsimonious with the money we are throwing around here for 
education is somewhat disingenuous. Hundreds of billions of dollars are 
being authorized for this legislation. We are looking at $50 million 
for a pilot program.
  What are people afraid of? Are you afraid this program will actually 
work? And if it does, it makes these hundreds of billions of dollars we 
are spending look as if we didn't know what we were doing. Are you 
afraid that it won't work and that there are some children right now 
who are getting a poor education who will continue to get a poor 
education?
  There is no down side for these people. They are saying, if it 
doesn't work, we are no worse off than we are today. If you as the 
mother or father of a child in a poor school district want to give your 
child a chance, at least you are giving them hope of improving their 
situation. Hope is a powerful motivator. What are we afraid of? What 
are we afraid of?

[[Page 10425]]

  Hundreds of billions of dollars are being pumped into our educational 
institutions through this bill, and we are running for the hills 
because there is $50 million for pilot programs that only go into 
effect if the Governor and the people in the local community want it.
  Let me underline that again. There is not a Federal mandate on any 
State. There is not a Federal mandate on any school. This says, if you 
are a Governor and you want to work with your cities--principally there 
are going to be cities that are underperforming and leaving children 
behind--we are going to give you a chance, with some Federal dollars, 
for you and the school district to innovate and to do something very 
different that might change a child's life.
  We talk about leaving children behind. The Senator from Connecticut 
said we cannot afford to have any child be a loser. You make the 
assumption that there are no losers in the current system. Let me 
assure you that we have lots of losers when it comes to having the 
opportunity to get a good education in this country. Lots of children 
are losing out on the opportunity to get a good education in this 
country.
  For us to say we are not going to give caring Governors, caring 
superintendents, school boards, and parents the choice of doing 
something different for children who are right now losing out because 
of fear that it might work--let me get to the bottom line--isn't that 
what it is all about? Aren't we really afraid this might work? Because 
if we are afraid it is going to fail, that child who is losing under 
the current system right now is going to be no worse off.
  Aren't we really afraid of success here? What we have been talking 
about--these glorious proclamations we have made about how we are going 
to improve the quality of schools and change the system and how we are 
going to be the savior of education--can all come down to the fact that 
we just haven't been giving the right incentives to parents and kids to 
get the kind of education they want, that we haven't upgraded a system 
that has ultimate accountability.
  The ultimate accountability is that you can walk with your money. 
Isn't that what we are afraid of? I think it is. I think it is a great 
fear of giving up control.
  The big problem is my life; I don't want to give up control. I want 
control over every aspect of my life. One of the things I have found is 
that sometimes, by giving up control, wonderful things can happen. 
Whether it is the State, whether it is the local school board, or 
whether it is the Federal Government, we want control of every little 
aspect, all the way down to making sure we have our hands in 
everything, and to make sure everything is run right. We control all of 
it. We feel good because we are doing something about it.
  But I think all of us know in our own lives that when we try to 
micromanage control, everything gets screwed up, particularly when you 
are doing it from Washington, DC, in every little city and school 
district.
  We are talking about a child here. We are not talking about children. 
It is wonderful to talk about children. I am talking about a child, 
because you know that if you are a mother sending a child to a poor 
school, you are worried about that child.
  What does this have to do with my child and my child's education? I 
don't care whether you are controlling all of this. All I want is to 
give my child a chance. That is what this bill does. This amendment 
gives my child--mine--a chance--not children, my child.
  We are afraid of that. We are afraid to give parents the chance to 
care for my child. We want to care for children because we know best--
because, of course, we are smarter than all the people who worry about 
their child. We know best. So we are going to dictate to you every step 
of the way as to where the billions of dollars go; $50 million for a 
little pilot project that says we are going to give you the ability to 
take care of your child; we are going to give up control of your child; 
they say: Oh, no, we cannot do that. It is too risky. There might be a 
loser out there somewhere.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used the 8 minutes yielded to 
him.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask the question finally: 
What are we afraid of?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
his strong and very effective statement in support of this amendment. I 
appreciate it.
  I understand Senator Kennedy is going to close on his side, and I am 
going to close on my side, and we will be ready to vote. My closing 
will be a little shorter than his closing because I have no more time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, I have 6 remaining 
minutes. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to remind me when I have 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. President, I think we have had a good debate and discussion, and 
perhaps the best presentations of differing views on this matter during 
the last several hours.
  I want to summarize the reasons I am strongly opposed to this 
amendment. We are talking about scarce resources. The case is made that 
this really isn't money that is going to be used for education. That 
doesn't really stand. I think most of us who are opposed to this 
amendment believe that if we have public money, we ought to invest it 
in the areas where public school children can benefit.
  The theme of this legislation is to try to take tried and tested 
ideas and to make them available to the local communities and give 
those ideas that have been tried and tested some additional incentives 
with financial support in order to enable the most challenged children 
and the neediest children in our society to make progress.
  We are committed to it. This legislation is to use tried and tested 
techniques in order to enhance that possibility. I think over the 
period of this debate we have demonstrated that these voucher programs 
that have been tried, whether it was in Milwaukee, Cleveland, or other 
communities, have not really provided effective enhancement of the 
children's ability to learn.
  Now, just finally, I have listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania. 
This isn't about a child's choice. We have to understand this. The 
voucher issue isn't about the choice of a child. It is the choice for 
the school. That is a major difference.
  To try to represent to families all over this country that if this 
amendment is adopted, and their child is caught in a particular school, 
that parent will be able to take that child out and go to another 
school is wrong. That child's school will make a determination based 
upon their own considerations whether to admit that child.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is going to modify his amendment to 
make sure children who have some disability or special needs will be 
able to be included, and that children can be selected on the basis of 
lottery. Still, it will be up to the school, but that is certainly an 
improvement.
  Let me read from the Department of Education's study about the 
private schools and accepting students with special needs:

       A policy of random assignment could mean that participating 
     schools would accept any student who was assigned, including 
     students with learning disabilities, limited English 
     proficiency, or low achievement. However, when the private 
     schools were asked specifically about a transfer program that 
     would require participating private schools to accept such 
     students, their interest in participating declined further. 
     Under this circumstance, only 15 percent of the schools said 
     they would be definitely or probably willing to participate. 
     . . .

  There is the answer. Fifteen percent are willing to take children who 
have some kind of special needs.
  Secondly, in this report, in relation to participation in State 
assessments, 42 percent of the schools said they would be unwilling to 
participate.
  Listen to this:

       Permit exemptions from religious instruction or activities. 
     Very few religious schools

[[Page 10426]]

     would be willing to participate in a transfer program if they 
     were required to permit exemptions from religious instruction 
     or activities. Eighty-six percent of the religious schools 
     are unwilling to participate under this condition.

  There is no provision for that in the Gregg amendment, absolutely 
none. If a child is admitted, finally, on a lottery provision and goes 
to a particular school, they are going to have to attend the religious 
ceremonies in that school. At least 86 percent of the schools will 
require it.
  Milwaukee did not do it. They had a provision that excused it. Not in 
the Gregg amendment. This is not well thought through. The Senator says 
that hard-pressed parent out there, that single mom, is going to have a 
choice. That is baloney. That is not true.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The school is going to make the decision. It is going to 
be as true as I am standing here, that if that child has special needs, 
there is no sense in applying; if that child has limited English, there 
is no sense in applying; if that child is a homeless child, there is no 
sense in applying. That is the record. That is why we should reject 
this amendment.
  Let's take scarce resources and invest them where they should be 
invested; and that is in tried and tested programs that will enhance 
the children's academic achievement in the public schools of this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 14\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Tried and tested programs, that is a fairly unique way to 
describe a program that has left literally hundreds of thousands of 
children behind. The average low-income child in this country today, in 
a fourth grade class, reads at two grade levels less than their peers. 
Only half of those kids even graduate from their high school. They have 
been left behind. That is the whole point. That is why parents in 
inner-city schools want to have the opportunity to have some options.
  That is why when the Children's Scholarship Fund put up some money 
and asked if there was anybody out there who wanted to go to a 
different school, you had literally thousands, actually 1.3 million 
children applying for those 40,000 slots which were limited to low-
income kids.
  That is why the Milwaukee school system has found it to be so 
successful. That is why Florida has found it to be so successful. 
Because it is the low-income children--specifically, the children of 
parents who in many instances are single moms--who have been locked 
into schools that have failed year after year after year, who have no 
options because the schools will not improve. No matter how much money 
we put into the schools, they simply will not improve. That is why 
those parents want another opportunity.
  Let me read from a couple of statements made by some of these 
parents. We have Carol Butts, from the Milwaukee schools:

       When my daughter Evan finished fifth grade in the Milwaukee 
     public school system, she could not multiply; she couldn't 
     even write. Our family has limited income, so we didn't have 
     too many choices. When I learned about the Milwaukee Parental 
     Choice Program, I was ecstatic. In two years there, her 
     school work has really improved.

  These are specific cases.
  Tracy Richardson:

       I first looked at three public school options. Classes were 
     unruly. A magnet public school was better, but there was a 
     waiting list. . . . I ended up using the A+ program to choose 
     Montessori Elementary School. It has improved my child's 
     learning immensely.

  Tony Higgins:

       The Milwaukee program let me choose schools that I think 
     are best for my girls. I believe both of them will have a 
     choice to go on to college because of the voucher program.

  These are real people who were locked into inner-city schools who did 
not have the option for education that those folks who have more money 
have, who were seeing their kids left behind. All they wanted for their 
children was a decent education. So through choice programs, in 
Milwaukee, Ohio, and Florida, a few parents have had that opportunity.
  This idea that choice does not work is just a lot of hokum. It is a 
straw dog. A study by Kim Metcalf at Indiana University, the official 
evaluation of the Cleveland program in Ohio, found statistically 
significant gains in the test scores of students who were on vouchers. 
A study by Jay Greene and Paul Peterson found statistically significant 
math and reading score gains in the Milwaukee school voucher system. A 
study by a Princeton group found quite large statistically significant 
math gains for the Milwaukee Choice Program. Study after study has 
proven these programs work.
  The idea that the other side has promoted, which is totally elitist, 
which is the problem, of course--opposition to the concept of choice is 
elitist by definition--is that we know best for parents--these parents 
whose children are locked in these schools and want to get out, we know 
best for them.
  How outrageous that we stand in this Senate Chamber and do not give 
parents an option to allow their children to compete for the American 
dream.
  The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King had it right. This is a civil 
right that we are talking about. The right to have a decent education 
is a civil right. When we year after year after year put children in 
schools that fail, we deny them that civil right.
  This amendment is very simple. It is very small. It is very focused. 
Ten school districts across the country get the opportunity to 
participate, if they wish. Then the only parents who can participate 
are parents of families with $32,000 of income or less who are actually 
having their kids attend schools where for 3 years those schools have 
been defined as ``failing.'' And then, in order to protect the system 
more and assure fairness, we say the students who go to the private 
schools will be chosen by lottery. So there isn't any creaming or any 
attempt to skew the system.
  In addition, we have language in this amendment that specifically 
says there can be no discrimination. That has been a straw dog that has 
been put up on the other side that if anybody bothered to read the 
amendment they would have seen did not apply.
  Then we put in very tough evaluation standards to see whether or not 
the system works, to see whether or not private school choice works.
  So what is there to fear from the other side? What is it that they 
fear? I think the Senator from Pennsylvania had it right. They fear 
that parents may actually choose to send their kids to a private school 
and that that may actually produce children who are actually 
competitive academically and who have a shot at the American dream, and 
it may--and this is what is really feared--put pressure on the public 
school system to change. It may threaten those unions which for years 
have told us that mediocrity works; that if we dumb down, it is 
acceptable; that we can have failed schools as long as we pay a union 
wage.
  They fear this may actually disrupt the public school system. Should 
we not disrupt the public school system where year after year the 
schools have failed? Of course, we should. We should improve it. The 
way you improve it is to bring competition into the system, which is 
what this amendment does.
  I go back to my experience as a child when I saw that elected 
official, the Governor of a State in our country, standing in the 
doorway of a school in Arkansas, I believe, unfortunately. I know my 
colleague from Arkansas opposed that aggressively and is glad that it 
is no longer the situation there. When that Governor stood in the door 
of that school and the Army had to come to allow a child to go into the 
school, that was an imprint on my youth. That is one of those visual 
things one remembers. I just couldn't understand how that could happen 
in our country, how somebody could block a child from going to school.
  What is happening today is there are people standing in the school 
door of failed schools, of schools filled with

[[Page 10427]]

drugs and violence, schools where they do not teach, schools where 
children from year to year shuffle from classroom to classroom and 
cannot learn and are not allowed to learn and who, therefore, cannot 
participate in the American dream. We have people in this Congress 
standing in the doorway, blocking that doorway from allowing those 
children to leave that school and go across the street and participate 
in a school where they will learn and have the opportunity to 
participate in the American dream. It is an irony which has to 
disappoint us all.
  Choice, portability, vouchers, to use the pejorative term, what is it 
all about? It is all about one thing: It is about children, giving 
America's children an opportunity to learn. It is especially about low-
income children, locked in the inner city, whose only way out of their 
situation is education. When we deny them this choice, we deny them the 
opportunity to participate in the American dream.
  That is not right and it is not fair. This minor exercise, in the 
sense of funding and in the sense of scope, should not be viewed with 
such antipathy from the other side. Rather, it should be viewed as an 
opportunity to see whether or not the arguments they make so 
aggressively are valid. If they have the courage of their position, 
they should allow this demonstration program to go forward because they 
will prove that it fails. In any event, they will have spent $50 
million on at least improving a few children's opportunities to learn.
  I can't understand why it is opposed, but I can understand this: If 
we do not get on the path of correcting these failing schools, and we 
do not get on the path of giving children in those schools options to 
learn in an environment which is conducive to learning, then we will 
lose another generation. As a nation, we can't afford that.
  It is my hope that this amendment will be accepted, and I look 
forward to the vote.


                     Amendment No. 536, As Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modification of the 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 536), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 628, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

          ``Subpart 4--Low-Income School Choice Demonstration

     ``SEC. 5161. LOW-INCOME SCHOOL CHOICE DEMONSTRATION.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the `Low-
     Income School Choice Demonstration Act of 2001'.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to determine 
     the effectiveness of school choice in improving the academic 
     achievement of disadvantaged students and the overall quality 
     of public schools and local educational agencies.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Choice school.--The term `choice school' means any 
     public school, including a public charter school, that is not 
     identified under section 1116, or any private school, 
     including a private sectarian school, that is involved in a 
     demonstration project assisted under this section.
       ``(2) Eligible child.--The term `eligible child' means a 
     child in grades kindergarten through 12--
       ``(A) who is eligible for free or reduced price meals under 
     the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1964;
       ``(B) who attended a public elementary or secondary school, 
     or who was not yet of school age, in the year preceding the 
     year in which the child intends to participate in the project 
     under this section; and
       ``(C) who attends, or is to attend, a public school that 
     has been identified as failing for 3 consecutive years under 
     section 1116 or by the State's accountability system.
       ``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     public agency, institution, or organization, such as a State, 
     a State or local educational agency, a county or municipal 
     agency, a consortium of public agencies, or a consortium of 
     public agencies and private nonprofit organizations, that can 
     demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, its 
     ability to--
       ``(A) receive, disburse, and account for Federal funds; and
       ``(B) carry out the activities described in its application 
     under this section.
       ``(4) Evaluating entity.--The term `evaluating entity' 
     means an independent third party entity, including any 
     academic institution, or private or nonprofit organization, 
     with demonstrated expertise in conducting evaluations, that 
     is not an agency or instrumentality of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(5) Parent.--The term `parent' includes a legal guardian 
     or other individual acting in loco parentis.
       ``(6) School.--The term `school' means a school that 
     provides elementary education or secondary education (through 
     grade 12), as determined under State law.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6 
     succeeding fiscal years, to carry out this section.
       ``(e) Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) Reservation.--From the amount appropriated pursuant 
     to the authority of subsection (d) in any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve and make available to the evaluating 
     agency 5 percent for the evaluation of programs assisted 
     under this section in accordance with subsection (k).
       ``(2) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount appropriated pursuant to 
     the authority of subsection (d) and not reserved under 
     paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall award 
     grants to eligible entities to enable such entities to carry 
     out not more than 10 demonstration projects (which may 
     include 1 state) under which low-income parents receive 
     education certificates for the costs of enrolling their 
     eligible children in a choice school.


       ``(B) Continuing eligibility.--The Secretary shall continue 
     a demonstration project under this section by awarding a 
     grant under subparagraph (A) to an eligible entity that 
     received such a grant for a fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year for which the determination is made, if the Secretary 
     determines that such eligible entity was in compliance with 
     this section for such preceding fiscal year.
       ``(3) Use of grants.--Grants awarded under paragraph (2) 
     shall be used to pay the costs of--
       ``(A) providing education certificates to low-income 
     parents to enable such parents to pay the tuition, the fees, 
     the allowable costs of transportation, if any, and the costs 
     of complying with subsection (i)(1)(A), if any, for their 
     eligible children to attend a choice school; and
       ``(B) administration of the demonstration project, which 
     shall not exceed 15 percent of the amount received in the 
     first fiscal year for which the eligible entity provides 
     education certificates under this section or 10 percent in 
     any subsequent year, including--
       ``(i) seeking the involvement of choice schools in the 
     demonstration project;
       ``(ii) providing information about the demonstration 
     project, and the schools involved in the demonstration 
     project, to parents of eligible children;
       ``(iii) making determinations of eligibility for 
     participation in the demonstration project for eligible 
     children;
       ``(iv) selecting students to participate in the 
     demonstration project;
       ``(v) determining the amount of, and issuing, education 
     certificates;
       ``(vi) compiling and maintaining such financial and 
     programmatic records as the Secretary may prescribe; and
       ``(vii) collecting such information about the effects of 
     the demonstration project as the evaluating agency may need 
     to conduct the evaluation described in subsection (k).
       ``(4) Civil rights.--
       ``(A) In general.--A choice school participating in the 
     project under this section shall comply with title VI of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 and shall not discriminate on the 
     basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in carrying out 
     the provisions of this section.
       ``(B) Applicability and construction with respect to 
     discrimination on the basis of sex.--
       ``(i) Applicability.--With respect to discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a choice 
     school that is controlled by a religious organization if the 
     application of such subparagraph is inconsistent with the 
     religious tenets of the choice school.
       ``(ii) Construction.--With respect to discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed 
     to require any person, or public or private entity to provide 
     or pay, or to prohibit any such person or entity from 
     providing or paying, for any benefit or service, including 
     the use of facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in the 
     preceding sentence shall be construed to permit a penalty to 
     be imposed on any person or individual because such person or 
     individual is seeking or has received any benefit or service 
     related to a legal abortion.
       ``(iii) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--With 
     respect to discrimination on the basis of sex, nothing in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be construed to prevent a parent from 
     choosing, or a choice school from offering, a single-sex 
     school, class, or activity.
       ``(C) Revocation.--If the eligible entity determines that a 
     choice school participating in the project under this section 
     is in violation of subparagraph (A), then the eligible entity 
     shall terminate the involvement of such schools in the 
     project.
       ``(f) Authorized Projects; Priority.--
       ``(1) Authorized projects.--The Secretary may award a grant 
     under this section only for a demonstration project that--

[[Page 10428]]

       ``(A) involves at least one local educational agency that 
     receives funds under section 1124A; and
       ``(B) includes the involvement of a sufficient number of 
     choice schools, in the judgment of the Secretary, to allow 
     for a valid demonstration project.
       ``(2) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to demonstration projects--
       ``(A) involve at least one local educational agency that is 
     among the 20 percent of local educational agencies receiving 
     funds under section 1124A in the State and having the highest 
     number of children described in section 1124(c);
       ``(B) that involve diverse types of choice schools; and
       ``(C) that will contribute to the geographic diversity of 
     demonstration projects assisted under this section.
       ``(g) Applications.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any eligible entity that wishes to 
     receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner 
     as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each application described in paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) information demonstrating the eligibility for 
     participation in the demonstration program of the eligible 
     entity;
       ``(B) with respect to choice schools--
       ``(i) a description of the standards used by the eligible 
     entity to determine which schools are within a reasonable 
     commuting distance of eligible children and present a 
     reasonable commuting cost for such eligible children 
     consistent with state law;
       ``(ii) a description of the types of potential choice 
     schools that will be involved in the demonstration project;
       ``(iii)(I) a description of the procedures used to 
     encourage public and private schools to be involved in the 
     demonstration project; and
       ``(II) a description of how the eligible entity will 
     annually determine the number of spaces available for 
     eligible children in each choice school;
       ``(iv) an assurance that each choice school will not impose 
     higher standards for admission or participation in its 
     programs and activities for eligible children provided 
     education certificates under this section than the choice 
     school does for other children;
       (v) an assurance that each choice school will admit 
     children on the basis of a lottery;
       ``(vi) an assurance that each choice school operated, for 
     at least 1 year prior to accepting education certificates 
     under this section, an educational program similar to the 
     educational program for which such choice school will accept 
     such education certificates;
       ``(viii) an assurance that the eligible entity will 
     terminate the involvement of any choice school that fails to 
     comply with the conditions of its involvement in the 
     demonstration project; and
       ``(viii) an assurance that choice schools will accept the 
     amount of the scholarship as full payment of tuition and 
     fees;
       ``(C) with respect to the participation in the 
     demonstration project of eligible children--
       ``(i) a description of the procedures to be used to make a 
     determination of eligibility for participation in the 
     demonstration project for an eligible child, which shall 
     include--

       ``(I) the procedures for obtaining, using and safeguarding 
     information from applications for free or reduced price meals 
     under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1964; or
       ``(II) any other procedure, subject to the Secretary's 
     approval, that accurately establishes the eligibility for 
     such participation for an eligible child;

       ``(ii) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure 
     that, in selecting eligible children to participate in the 
     demonstration project, the eligible entity will give priority 
     to eligible children from the lowest income families;
       ``(iii) a description of the procedures to be used to 
     ensure maximum choice of schools for participating eligible 
     children, including procedures to be used when--

       ``(I) the number of parents provided education certificates 
     under this section who desire to enroll their eligible 
     children in a particular choice school exceeds the number of 
     eligible children that the choice school will accept; and
       ``(II) grant funds and funds from local sources are 
     insufficient to support the total cost of choices made by 
     parents with education certificates under this section; and

       ``(iv) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure 
     compliance with subsection (i)(1)(A), which may include--

       ``(I) the direct provision of services by a local 
     educational agency; and
       ``(II) arrangements made by a local educational agency with 
     other service providers;

       ``(D) with respect to the operation of the demonstration 
     project--
       ``(i) a description of the geographic area to be served;
       ``(ii) a timetable for carrying out the demonstration 
     project;
       ``(iii) a description of the procedures to be used for the 
     issuance and redemption of education certificates under this 
     section;
       ``(iv) a description of the procedures by which a choice 
     school will make a pro rata refund of the education 
     certificate under this section for any participating eligible 
     child who withdraws from the school for any reason, before 
     completing 75 percent of the school attendance period for 
     which the education certificate was issued;
       ``(v) a description of the procedures to be used to provide 
     the parental notification described in subsection (j);
       ``(vi) an assurance that the eligible entity will place all 
     funds received under this section into a separate account, 
     and that no other funds will be placed in such account;
       ``(vii) an assurance that the eligible entity will provide 
     the Secretary periodic reports on the status of such funds;
       ``(viii) an assurance that the eligible entity will 
     cooperate with the evaluating entity in carrying out the 
     evaluations described in subsection (k);
       ``(ix) an assurance that the eligible entity will--

       ``(I) maintain such records as the Secretary may require; 
     and
       ``(II) comply with reasonable requests from the Secretary 
     for information;

       ``(x) a description of the method by which the eligible 
     entity will use to assess the progress of participants in 
     math and reading and how such assessment is comparable to 
     assessments used by the local educational agency involved;
       ``(xi) an assurance that if the number of students applying 
     to participate in the project is greater than the number of 
     students that the project can serve, participating students 
     will be selected by a lottery; and
       ``(x) an assurance that no private school will be required 
     to participate in the project without the private school's 
     consent; and
       ``(E) such other assurances and information as the 
     Secretary may require.
       ``(h) Education Certificates.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Amount.--The amount of an eligible child's education 
     certificate under this section shall be determined by the 
     eligible entity, but shall be an amount that provides to the 
     recipient of the education certificate the maximum degree of 
     choice in selecting the choice school the eligible child will 
     attend.
       ``(B) Considerations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to such regulations as the 
     Secretary shall prescribe, in determining the amount of an 
     education certificate under this section an eligible entity 
     shall consider--

       ``(I) the additional reasonable costs of transportation 
     directly attributable to the eligible child's participation 
     in the demonstration project; and
       ``(II) the cost of complying with subsection (i)(1)(A).

       ``(ii) Schools charging tuition.--If an eligible child 
     participating in a demonstration project under this section 
     was attending a public school that charged tuition for the 
     year preceding the first year of such participation, then in 
     determining the amount of an education certificate for such 
     eligible child under this section the eligible entity shall 
     consider the tuition charged by such school for such eligible 
     child in such preceding year.
       ``(C) Special rule.--An eligible entity may provide an 
     education certificate under this section to the parent of an 
     eligible child who chooses to attend a school that does not 
     charge tuition or fees, to pay the additional reasonable 
     costs of transportation directly attributable to the eligible 
     child's participation in the demonstration project or the 
     cost of complying with subsection (i)(1)(A).
       ``(2) Adjustment.--The amount of the education certificate 
     for a fiscal year may be adjusted in the second and third 
     years of an eligible child's participation in a demonstration 
     project under this section to reflect any increase or 
     decrease in the tuition, fees, or transportation costs 
     directly attributable to that eligible child's continued 
     attendance at a choice school, but shall not be increased for 
     this purpose by more than 10 percent of the amount of the 
     education certificate for the fiscal year preceding the 
     fiscal year for which the determination is made. The amount 
     of the education certificate may also be adjusted in any 
     fiscal year to comply with subsection (i)(1)(A).
       ``(3) Maximum amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this subsection, the amount of an eligible child's 
     education certificate shall not exceed the per pupil 
     expenditure for elementary or secondary education, as 
     appropriate, by the local educational agency in which the 
     public school to which the eligible child would normally be 
     assigned is located for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year for which the determination is made.
       ``(4) Income.--An education certificate under this section, 
     and funds provided under the education certificate, shall not 
     be treated as income of the parents for purposes of Federal 
     tax laws or for determining eligibility for any other Federal 
     program.
       ``(i) Effect on Other Programs; Use of School Lunch Data.--
       ``(1) Effect on other programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible child participating in a 
     demonstration project under this section, who, in the absence 
     of such a demonstration project, would have received services 
     under part A of title I shall be provided such services.

[[Page 10429]]

       ``(B) Part b of the individuals with disabilities education 
     act.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     the requirements of part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act.
       ``(2) Counting of Eligible Children.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, any local educational agency 
     participating in a demonstration project under this section 
     may count eligible children who, in the absence of such a 
     demonstration project, would attend the schools of such 
     agency, for purposes of receiving funds under any program 
     administered by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Special rule.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     section 9(b)(2)(C)(iii) and (iv) of the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act, information obtained from an 
     application for free or reduced price meals under such Act or 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1964 shall, upon request, be 
     disclosed to an eligible entity receiving a grant under this 
     section and may be used by the eligible entity to determine 
     the eligibility of a child to participate in a demonstration 
     project under this section and, if needed, to rank families 
     by income in accordance with subsection (g)(2)(C)(ii).
       ``(B) Limitations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Information provided under this 
     paragraph shall be limited to the information needed to 
     determine eligibility or to rank families in a demonstration 
     project under this section and may be used only by persons 
     who need the information to determine eligibility or rank 
     families in a demonstration project under this section.
       ``(ii) Limitations.--A person having access to information 
     provided under this paragraph shall be subject to the 
     limitations and penalties imposed under section 9(b)(2)(C)(v) 
     of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
       ``(4) Construction.--
       ``(A) Sectarian institutions.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to supersede or modify any provision of a 
     State constitution or State law that prohibits the 
     expenditure of public funds in or by sectarian institutions, 
     except that no provision of a State constitution or State law 
     shall be construed to prohibit the expenditure in or by 
     sectarian institutions of any Federal funds provided under 
     this section.
       ``(B) Desegregation plans.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to interfere with any desegregation plans that 
     involve school attendance areas affected by this section.
       ``(j) Parental Notification.--Each eligible entity 
     receiving a grant under this section shall provide timely 
     notice of the demonstration project to parents of eligible 
     children residing in the area to be served by the 
     demonstration project. At a minimum, such notice shall--
       ``(1) describe the demonstration project;
       ``(2) describe the eligibility requirements for 
     participation in the demonstration project;
       ``(3) describe the information needed to make a 
     determination of eligibility for participation in the 
     demonstration project for an eligible child;
       ``(4) describe the selection procedures to be used if the 
     number of eligible children seeking to participate in the 
     demonstration project exceeds the number that can be 
     accommodated in the demonstration project;
       ``(5) provide information about each choice school, 
     including information about any admission requirements or 
     criteria for each choice school participating in the 
     demonstration project; and
       ``(6) include the schedule for parents to apply for their 
     eligible children to participate in the demonstration 
     project.
       ``(k) Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Annual evaluation.--
       ``(A) Contract.--The Secretary shall enter into a contract 
     with an evaluating agency for the conduct of an ongoing 
     rigorous evaluation of the demonstration program under this 
     section.
       ``(B) Annual evaluation requirement.--The contract 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall require the evaluating 
     agency to annually evaluate each demonstration project under 
     this section in accordance with the criteria described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Evaluation criteria.--The Secretary shall establish 
     such criteria for evaluating the demonstration program under 
     this section. Such criteria shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the implementation of each 
     demonstration project under this section;
       ``(B) a comparison of the educational achievement between 
     students receiving education certificates under this section 
     and students otherwise eligible for, but not receiving 
     education certificates under this section;
       ``(C) a comparison of the level of parental satisfaction 
     and involvement between parents whose children receive 
     education certificates and parents from comparable 
     backgrounds whose children did not receive an education 
     certificate; and
       ``(D) a description of changes in the overall performance 
     and quality of public elementary and secondary schools in the 
     demonstration project area that can be directly or reasonably 
     attributable to the program under this section.
       ``(3) Reports.--
       ``(A) Report by grant recipient.--Each eligible entity 
     receiving a grant under this section shall submit, to the 
     Secretary and the evaluating agency, an annual report 
     regarding the demonstration project under this section. Each 
     such report shall be submitted at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information, as such evaluating 
     agency may require.
       ``(B) Reports by evaluating agency.--
       ``(i) In general.--The evaluating agency shall transmit to 
     the Secretary and the Congress 2 interim reports on the 
     findings of the annual evaluation under this subsection.
       ``(ii) First interim report.--The first interim report 
     under clause (i) shall be submitted not later than September 
     20, 2003, and shall, at a minimum, describe the 
     implementation of the demonstration projects under this 
     section and shall include such demographic information as is 
     reasonably available about--

       ``(I) the participating schools (both the choice schools 
     and the schools that have been identified as failing;
       ``(II) the participating and requesting students and 
     background of their families; and
       ``(III) the number of certificates requested versus the 
     number of certificates received.

       ``(iii) Second interim and final report.--The second 
     interim and final report under this subparagraph shall be 
     submitted to the Secretary and the appropriate committees in 
     Congress not later than September 30, 2006, and June 1, 2008, 
     respectfully, and shall, at a minimum, include the 
     information described in clause (ii), as well as any 
     additional information deemed necessary by the Secretary.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 536, as modified. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carper
     Cochran
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 536), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we thank all our Members. Now we have 
agreed to consider the Carper amendment. We have a time limit, I 
believe a 2-hour time limit, evenly divided, so we expect our next vote 
sometime around quarter of 6. Perhaps we will be able to yield back 
some time, but we are trying to move this along.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, it is my understanding after 
the Carper amendment we are going to have 10 or 20 minutes equally 
divided on the Dodd amendments?
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from New Hampshire will yield, we cleared 
with Senator Kennedy and with you, we are going to have a half hour 
evenly divided and then vote on the Dodd

[[Page 10430]]

amendment dealing with comparability, amendment No. 459.
  Senator Daschle wishes to have a number of other amendments resolved 
tonight. We will do that. We will work with the two managers to move 
on.
  Mr. GREGG. We are now moving onto the Carper-Gregg amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Delaware, Mr. Carper, is recognized to call up amendment No. 518, on 
which there shall be 2 hours of debate.


                     Amendment No. 518, As Modified

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 
518 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] for himself, Mr. 
     Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Ms. 
     Landrieu, Mr. Biden, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Ensign, and 
     Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 518, as modified.

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

 (Purpose: To promote parental involvement and parental empowerment in 
        public education through greater competition and choice)

       On page 45, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       ``(H) Each State plan shall provide an assurance that the 
     State's accountability requirements for charter schools (as 
     defined in section 5120), such as requirements established 
     under the State's charter school law and overseen by the 
     State's authorized chartering agencies for such schools, are 
     at least as rigorous as the accountability requirements 
     established under this Act, such as the requirements 
     regarding standards, assessments, adequate yearly progress, 
     school identification, receipt of technical assistance, and 
     corrective action, that are applicable to other schools in 
     the State under this Act.

       On page 763, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 502. EMPOWERING PARENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Empowering Parents Act of 2001''.
       (b) Public School Choice.--
       (1) Short title of subsection.--This subsection may be 
     referred to as the ``Enhancing Public Education Through 
     Choice Act''.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of this subsection are--
       (A) to prevent children from being consigned to, or left 
     trapped in, failing schools;
       (B) to ensure that parents of children in failing public 
     schools have the choice to send their children to higher 
     performing public schools, including public charter schools;
       (C) to support and stimulate improved public school 
     performance through increased public school competition and 
     increased Federal financial assistance;
       (D) to provide parents with more choices among public 
     school options; and
       (E) to assist local educational agencies with low-
     performing schools to implement districtwide public school 
     choice programs or enter into partnerships with other local 
     educational agencies to offer students interdistrict or 
     statewide public school choice programs.
       (3) Public school choice programs.--Part A of title V, as 
     amended in section 501, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

          ``Subpart 4--Voluntary Public School Choice Programs

     ``SEC. 5161. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart:
       ``(1) Charter school.--The term `charter school' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 5120.
       ``(2) Lowest performing school.--The term `lowest 
     performing school' means a public school that has failed to 
     make adequate yearly progress, as described in section 1111, 
     for 2 or more years.
       ``(3) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the 
     income official poverty line (as defined by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and revised annually in accordance 
     with section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size 
     involved, for the most recent fiscal year for which 
     satisfactory data are available.
       ``(4) Public school.--The term `public school' means a 
     charter school, a public elementary school, and a public 
     secondary school.
       ``(5) Student in poverty.--The term `student in poverty' 
     means a student from a family with an income below the 
     poverty line.

     ``SEC. 5162. GRANTS.

       ``The Secretary shall make grants, on a competitive basis, 
     to State educational agencies and local educational agencies, 
     to enable the agencies, including the agencies serving the 
     lowest performing schools, to implement programs of universal 
     public school choice.

     ``SEC. 5163. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--An agency that receives a grant under 
     this subpart shall use the funds made available through the 
     grant to pay for the expenses of implementing a public school 
     choice program, including--
       ``(1) the expenses of providing transportation services or 
     the cost of transportation to eligible children;
       ``(2) the cost of making tuition transfer payments to 
     public schools to which students transfer under the program;
       ``(3) the cost of capacity-enhancing activities that enable 
     high-demand public schools to accommodate transfer requests 
     under the program;
       ``(4) the cost of carrying out public education campaigns 
     to inform students and parents about the program;
       ``(5) administrative costs; and
       ``(6) other costs reasonably necessary to implement the 
     program.
       ``(b) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Funds made available under 
     this subpart shall supplement, and not supplant, State and 
     local public funds expended to provide public school choice 
     programs for eligible individuals.

     ``SEC. 5164. REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Inclusion in Program.--In carrying out a public 
     school choice program under this subpart, a State educational 
     agency or local educational agency shall--
       ``(1) allow all students attending public schools within 
     the State or school district involved to attend the public 
     school of their choice within the State or school district, 
     respectively;
       ``(2) provide all eligible students in all grade levels 
     equal access to the program;
       ``(3) include in the program charter schools and any other 
     public school in the State or school district, respectively; 
     and
       ``(4) develop the program with the involvement of parents 
     and others in the community to be served, and individuals who 
     will carry out the program, including administrators, 
     teachers, principals, and other staff.
       ``(b) Notice.--In carrying out a public school choice 
     program under this subpart, a State educational agency or 
     local educational agency shall give parents of eligible 
     students prompt notice of the existence of the program and 
     the program's availability to such parents, and a clear 
     explanation of how the program will operate.
       ``(c) Transportation.--In carrying out a public school 
     choice program under this subpart, a State educational agency 
     or local educational agency shall provide eligible students 
     with transportation services or the cost of transportation to 
     and from the public schools, including charter schools, that 
     the students choose to attend under this program.
       ``(d) Nondiscrimination.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a)(3), no public school may discriminate on the basis of 
     race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual 
     orientation, or disability in providing programs and 
     activities under this subpart.
       ``(e) Parallel Accountability.--Each State educational 
     agency or local educational agency receiving a grant under 
     this subpart for a program through which a charter school 
     receives assistance shall hold the school accountable for 
     adequate yearly progress in improving student performance as 
     described in title I and as established in the school's 
     charter, including the use of the standards and assessments 
     established under title I.

     ``SEC. 5165. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subpart, a State educational agency or local educational 
     agency shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each application for a grant under this 
     subpart shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the program for which the agency 
     seeks funds and the goals for such program;
       ``(2) a description of how the program will be coordinated 
     with, and will complement and enhance, other related Federal 
     and non-Federal projects;
       ``(3) if the program is carried out by a partnership, the 
     name of each partner and a description of the partner's 
     responsibilities;
       ``(4) a description of the policies and procedures the 
     agency will use to ensure--
       ``(A) accountability for results, including goals and 
     performance indicators; and
       ``(B) that the program is open and accessible to, and will 
     promote high academic standards for, all students; and
       ``(5) such other information as the Secretary may require.

     ``SEC. 5166. PRIORITIES.

       ``In making grants under this subpart, the Secretary shall 
     give priority to--
       ``(1) first, those State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies serving the lowest performing schools;
       ``(2) second, those State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies serving

[[Page 10431]]

     the highest percentage of students in poverty; and
       ``(3) third, those State educational agencies or local 
     educational agencies forming a partnership that seeks to 
     implement an interdistrict approach to carrying out a public 
     school choice program.

     ``SEC. 5167. EVALUATIONS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND 
                   DISSEMINATION.

       ``(a) In General.--From the amount made available to carry 
     out this subpart for any fiscal year, the Secretary may 
     reserve not more than 5 percent to carry out evaluations, to 
     provide technical assistance, and to disseminate information.
       ``(b) Evaluations.--In carrying out evaluations under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may use the amount reserved 
     under subsection (a) to carry out 1 or more evaluations of 
     State and local programs assisted under this subpart, which 
     shall, at a minimum, address--
       ``(1) how, and the extent to which, the programs promote 
     educational equity and excellence; and
       ``(2) the extent to which public schools carrying out the 
     programs are--
       ``(A) held accountable to the public;
       ``(B) effective in improving public education; and
       ``(C) open and accessible to all students.

     ``SEC. 5168. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subpart $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year.''.
       (c) Public Charter School Facilities Financing.--
       (1) Short title of subsection.--This subsection may be 
     cited as the ``Charter Schools Equity Act''.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of this subsection are--
       (A) to help eliminate the barriers that prevent charter 
     school developers from accessing the credit markets, by 
     encouraging lending institutions to lend funds to charter 
     schools on terms more similar to the terms typically extended 
     to traditional public schools; and
       (B) to encourage the States to provide support to charter 
     schools for facilities financing in an amount more nearly 
     commensurate to the amount the States have typically provided 
     for traditional public schools.
       (3) Charter schools.--
       (A) Conforming amendment.--Section 5112(e)(1), as amended 
     in section 501, is further amended by inserting ``(other than 
     funds reserved to carry out section 5115(b))'' after 
     ``section 5121''.
       (B) Matching grants to states.--Section 5115, as amended in 
     section 501, is further amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(other than funds 
     reserved to carry out subsection (b))'' after ``this 
     subpart'';
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (iii) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Per-Pupil Facilities Aid Programs.--
       ``(1) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount made available to carry 
     out this subsection under section 5121 for any fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall make grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     States to pay for the Federal share of the cost of 
     establishing or enhancing, and administering, programs in 
     which the States make payments, on a per-pupil basis, to 
     charter schools to assist the schools in financing school 
     facilities (referred to in this subsection as `per-pupil 
     facilities aid programs').
       ``(B) Period.--The Secretary shall award grants under this 
     subsection for periods of not more than 5 years.
       ``(C) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost 
     described in subparagraph (A) for a per-pupil facilities aid 
     program shall be not more than--
       ``(i) 90 percent of the cost, for the first fiscal year for 
     which the program receives assistance under this subsection 
     or its predecessor authority;
       ``(ii) 80 percent in the second such year;
       ``(iii) 60 percent in the third such year;
       ``(iv) 40 percent in the fourth such year; and
       ``(v) 20 percent in the fifth such year.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this 
     subsection shall use the funds made available through the 
     grant to establish or enhance, and administer, a per-pupil 
     facilities aid program for charter schools in the State.
       ``(B) Evaluations; technical assistance; dissemination.--
     From the amount made available to a State through a grant 
     under this subsection for a fiscal year, the State may 
     reserve not more than 5 percent of the amount to carry out 
     evaluations, to provide technical assistance, and to 
     disseminate information.
       ``(C) Supplement, not supplant.--Funds made available under 
     this subsection shall supplement, and not supplant, State and 
     local public funds expended to provide per-pupil facilities 
     aid programs, operations financing programs, or other 
     programs, for charter schools.
       ``(3) Requirements.--
       ``(A) Voluntary participation.--No State may be required to 
     participate in a program carried out under this subsection.
       ``(B) State law.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subsection, a State shall establish or enhance, and 
     administer, a per-pupil facilities aid program for charter 
     schools in the State, that--
       ``(i) is specified in State law;
       ``(ii) provides annual financing, on a per-pupil basis, for 
     charter school facilities; and
       ``(iii) provides financing that is dedicated solely for 
     funding the facilities.
       ``(4) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, a State shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(5) Priorities.--In making grants under this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to States that meet the 
     criteria described in paragraph (2), and subparagraphs (A), 
     (B), and (C) of paragraph (3), of section 5112(e).
       ``(6) Evaluations, Technical Assistance, and 
     Dissemination.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount made available to carry 
     out this subsection under section 5121 for any fiscal year, 
     the Secretary may carry out evaluations, provide technical 
     assistance, and disseminate information.
       ``(B) Evaluations.--In carrying out evaluations under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary may carry out 1 or more 
     evaluations of State programs assisted under this subsection, 
     which shall, at a minimum, address--
       ``(i) how, and the extent to which, the programs promote 
     educational equity and excellence; and
       ``(ii) the extent to which charter schools supported 
     through the programs are--

       ``(I) held accountable to the public;
       ``(II) effective in improving public education; and
       ``(III) open and accessible to all students.''.

       (C) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 5121, as 
     amended in section 501, is further amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 5121. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this subpart $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 
     and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(b) Reservation.--For fiscal year 2002, the Secretary 
     shall reserve, from the amount appropriated under subsection 
     (a)--
       ``(1) $200,000,000 to carry out this subpart, other than 
     section 5115(b); and
       ``(2) the remainder to carry out section 5115(b).''.
       (4) Credit enhancement initiatives.--Subpart 1 of part A of 
     title V, as amended in section 501, is further amended--
       (A) by inserting after the subpart heading the following:

                ``CHAPTER I--CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS'';

       (B) by striking ``this subpart'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``this chapter''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

``CHAPTER II--CREDIT ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE CHARTER SCHOOL 
           FACILITY ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND RENOVATION

     ``SEC. 5126. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this chapter is to provide grants to 
     eligible entities to permit the entities to establish or 
     improve innovative credit enhancement initiatives that assist 
     charter schools to address the cost of acquiring, 
     constructing, and renovating facilities.

     ``SEC. 5126A. GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Grants for Initiatives.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use 100 percent of 
     the amount available to carry out this chapter to eligible 
     entities having applications approved under this chapter to 
     carry out innovative initiatives for assisting charter 
     schools to address the cost of acquiring, constructing, and 
     renovating facilities by enhancing the availability of loans 
     or bond financing.
       ``(2) Number of grants.--The Secretary shall award not 
     fewer than 3 of the grants.
       ``(b) Grantee Selection.--
       ``(1) Determination.--The Secretary shall evaluate each 
     application submitted, and shall determine which applications 
     are of sufficient quality to merit approval and which are 
     not.
       ``(2) Minimum grants.--The Secretary shall award at least--
       ``(A) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section 
     5126I(2)(A);
       ``(B) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section 
     5126I(2)(B); and
       ``(C) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section 
     5126I(2)(C),

     if applications are submitted that permit the Secretary to 
     award the grants without approving an application that is not 
     of sufficient quality to merit approval.
       ``(c) Grant Characteristics.--Grants under this chapter 
     shall be in sufficient amounts, and for initiatives of 
     sufficient scope and quality, so as to effectively enhance 
     credit for the financing of charter school acquisition, 
     construction, or renovation.
       ``(d) Special Rule.--In the event the Secretary determines 
     that the funds available to carry out this chapter are 
     insufficient to permit the Secretary to award not fewer than 
     3

[[Page 10432]]

     grants in accordance with subsections (a) through (c)--
       ``(1) subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) shall not apply; and
       ``(2) the Secretary may determine the appropriate number of 
     grants to be awarded in accordance with subsections (a)(1), 
     (b)(1), and (c).

     ``SEC. 5126B. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To receive a grant under this chapter, 
     an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application in such form as the Secretary may reasonably 
     require.
       ``(b) Contents.--An application submitted under subsection 
     (a) shall contain--
       ``(1) a statement identifying the activities proposed to be 
     undertaken with funds received under this chapter, including 
     how the applicant will determine which charter schools will 
     receive assistance, and how much and what types of assistance 
     the charter schools will receive;
       ``(2) a description of the involvement of charter schools 
     in the application's development and the design of the 
     proposed activities;
       ``(3) a description of the applicant's expertise in capital 
     market financing;
       ``(4) a description of how the proposed activities will--
       ``(A) leverage private sector financing capital, to obtain 
     the maximum amount of private sector financing capital, 
     relative to the amount of government funding used, to assist 
     charter schools; and
       ``(B) otherwise enhance credit available to charter 
     schools;
       ``(5) a description of how the applicant possesses 
     sufficient expertise in education to evaluate the likelihood 
     of success of a charter school program for which facilities 
     financing is sought;
       ``(6) in the case of an application submitted by a State 
     governmental entity, a description of the actions that the 
     entity has taken, or will take, to ensure that charter 
     schools within the State receive the funding the schools need 
     to have adequate facilities; and
       ``(7) such other information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 5126C. CHARTER SCHOOL OBJECTIVES.

       ``An eligible entity receiving a grant under this chapter 
     shall use the funds received through the grant, and deposited 
     in the reserve account established under section 5126D(a), to 
     assist 1 or more charter schools to access private sector 
     capital to accomplish 1 or more of the following objectives:
       ``(1) The acquisition (by purchase, lease, donation, or 
     otherwise) of an interest (including an interest held by a 
     third party for the benefit of a charter school) in improved 
     or unimproved real property that is necessary to commence or 
     continue the operation of a charter school.
       ``(2) The construction of new facilities, or the 
     renovation, repair, or alteration of existing facilities, 
     necessary to commence or continue the operation of a charter 
     school.
       ``(3) The payment of start-up costs, including the costs of 
     training teachers and purchasing materials and equipment, 
     including instructional materials and computers, for a 
     charter school.

     ``SEC. 5126D. RESERVE ACCOUNT.

       ``(a) In General.--For the purpose of assisting charter 
     schools to accomplish the objectives described in section 
     5126C, an eligible entity receiving a grant under this 
     chapter shall deposit the funds received through the grant 
     (other than funds used for administrative costs in accordance 
     with section 5126E) in a reserve account established and 
     maintained by the entity for that purpose. The entity shall 
     make the deposit in accordance with State and local law and 
     may make the deposit directly or indirectly, and alone or in 
     collaboration with others.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Amounts deposited in such account 
     shall be used by the entity for 1 or more of the following 
     purposes:
       ``(1) Guaranteeing, insuring, and reinsuring bonds, notes, 
     evidences of debt, loans, and interests therein, the proceeds 
     of which are used for an objective described in section 
     5126C.
       ``(2) Guaranteeing and insuring leases of personal and real 
     property for such an objective.
       ``(3) Facilitating financing for such an objective by 
     identifying potential lending sources, encouraging private 
     lending, and carrying out other similar activities that 
     directly promote lending to, or for the benefit of, charter 
     schools.
       ``(4) Facilitating the issuance of bonds by charter 
     schools, or by other public entities for the benefit of 
     charter schools, for such an objective, by providing 
     technical, administrative, and other appropriate assistance 
     (including the recruitment of bond counsel, underwriters, and 
     potential investors and the consolidation of multiple charter 
     school projects within a single bond issue).
       ``(c) Investment.--Funds received under this chapter and 
     deposited in the reserve account shall be invested in 
     obligations issued or guaranteed by the United States or a 
     State, or in other similarly low-risk securities.
       ``(d) Reinvestment of Earnings.--Any earnings on funds 
     received under this chapter shall be deposited in the reserve 
     account established under subsection (a) and used in 
     accordance with subsection (b).

     ``SEC. 5126E. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       ``An eligible entity that receives a grant under this 
     chapter may use not more than 0.25 percent of the funds 
     received through the grant for the administrative costs of 
     carrying out the entity's responsibilities under this 
     chapter.

     ``SEC. 5126F. AUDITS AND REPORTS.

       ``(a) Financial Record Maintenance and Audit.--The 
     financial records of each eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this chapter shall be maintained in accordance with 
     generally accepted accounting principles and shall be subject 
     to an annual audit by an independent public accountant.
       ``(b) Reports.--
       ``(1) Grantee annual reports.--Each eligible entity 
     receiving a grant under this chapter annually shall submit to 
     the Secretary a report of the entity's operations and 
     activities under this chapter.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each such annual report shall include--
       ``(A) a copy of the most recent financial statements, and 
     any accompanying opinion on such statements, prepared by the 
     independent public accountant auditing the financial records 
     of the eligible entity;
       ``(B) a copy of any report made on an audit of the 
     financial records of the eligible entity that was conducted 
     under subsection (a) during the reporting period;
       ``(C) an evaluation by the eligible entity of the 
     effectiveness of the entity's use of the Federal funds 
     provided under this chapter in leveraging private funds;
       ``(D) a listing and description of the charter schools 
     served by the entity with such Federal funds during the 
     reporting period;
       ``(E) a description of the activities carried out by the 
     eligible entity to assist charter schools in meeting the 
     objectives set forth in section 5126C; and
       ``(F) a description of the characteristics of lenders and 
     other financial institutions participating in the activities 
     undertaken by the eligible entity under this chapter during 
     the reporting period.
       ``(3) Secretarial report.--The Secretary shall review the 
     reports submitted under paragraph (1) and shall provide a 
     comprehensive annual report to Congress on the activities 
     conducted under this chapter.

     ``SEC. 5126G. NO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR GRANTEE 
                   OBLIGATIONS.

       ``No financial obligation of an eligible entity entered 
     into pursuant to this chapter (such as an obligation under a 
     guarantee, bond, note, evidence of debt, or loan) shall be an 
     obligation of, or guaranteed in any respect by, the United 
     States. The full faith and credit of the United States is not 
     pledged to the payment of funds that may be required to be 
     paid under any obligation made by an eligible entity pursuant 
     to any provision of this chapter.

     ``SEC. 5126H. RECOVERY OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in accordance with 
     chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code, shall collect--
       ``(1) all of the funds in a reserve account established by 
     an eligible entity under section 5126D(a) if the Secretary 
     determines, not earlier than 2 years after the date on which 
     the entity first received funds under this chapter, that the 
     entity has failed to make substantial progress in carrying 
     out the purposes described in section 5126D(b); or
       ``(2) all or a portion of the funds in a reserve account 
     established by an eligible entity under section 5126D(a) if 
     the Secretary determines that the eligible entity has 
     permanently ceased to use all or a portion of the funds in 
     such account to accomplish any purpose described in section 
     5126D(b).
       ``(b) Exercise of Authority.--The Secretary shall not 
     exercise the authority provided in subsection (a) to collect 
     from any eligible entity any funds that are being properly 
     used to achieve 1 or more of the purposes described in 
     section 5126D(b).
       ``(c) Procedures.--The provisions of sections 451, 452, and 
     458 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234 
     et seq.) shall apply to the recovery of funds under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(d) Construction.--This section shall not be construed to 
     impair or affect the authority of the Secretary to recover 
     funds under part D of the General Education Provisions Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1234 et seq.).

     ``SEC. 5126I. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Charter school.--The term `charter school' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 5120.
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a public entity, such as a State or local 
     governmental entity;
       ``(B) a private nonprofit entity; or
       ``(C) a consortium of entities described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).

     ``SEC. 5126J. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     chapter $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year.''.
       (5) Income exclusion for interest paid on loans by charter 
     schools.--
       (A) In general.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     redesignating section 139 and section 140 and by inserting 
     after section 138 the following new section:


[[Page 10433]]

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me begin by extending my appreciation to Senator Gregg and a 
number of our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for joining 
me in offering this amendment today.
  Over the course of the last several weeks, we have found considerable 
common ground as we seek to redefine the role of the Federal Government 
in education. We believe we need to invest, at the Federal level, more 
resources, but in programs that work. We agree on the need to give that 
money to schools and school districts from the Federal Government more 
flexibly. We agree if we are going to provide more resources, and if we 
are going to provide those dollars more flexibly, we should demand 
results there should be accountability. Finally, we all agree on the 
need to impart to parents the ability to make choices about the schools 
their children attend.
  In the 50 States, all but one have adopted rigorous standards about 
what they expect their students to know and do. In more than half the 
States of our country this past school year, tests were given to 
measure student progress toward their State standards in subjects such 
as math and science and English and social studies. States throughout 
America have wrestled with consequences, with accountability systems. 
How do we hold schools accountable, school districts accountable, 
parents accountable, and politicians as well? We have wrestled with 
those questions in Delaware. I know we are wrestling with them in all 
50 States.
  The bill we are working on, as it has been modified to date, has some 
important elements I want us to address with this amendment. I hope in 
offering this amendment we will make this bill better. I think there is 
a need for the changes we are offering in this amendment.
  Under the legislation that has been modified to date and that stands 
before us today, we call on States to set their academic standards. For 
the most part they have done that. We call on States to prepare tests--
some have prepared tests to measure student progress, but in this case 
we are calling on States to prepare tests to measure student progress 
on an annual basis from the third to eighth grade. We are calling on 
States to decide at what level they expect all of their students to 
perform roughly 10 years out.
  In each of the next 10 years, we are asking them to spell out the 
benchmarks, the performance levels at which they expect their students 
to be able to perform, in year 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, out to the 10th 
year.
  There are consequences for schools where students do not meet the 
benchmarks, the improvement that the States themselves agreed on for 
their own schools. For failing schools--schools that fail to meet their 
annual progress improvement goals--the consequence is not great in the 
first year. They will receive technical assistance--more help. I think 
that is appropriate.
  The second year a school fails to meet the annual improvement goals 
for their students, more technical assistance is provided, but there 
are some additional consequences as well.
  By the time we get to year 4, for a school that has continued failing 
4 years in a row, meaning their students have not met the benchmarks 
set by their school, set by their State, the consequences become more 
severe. Let me mention a few of them.
  First of all, the school district in which that school has failed 4 
years in a row must offer public school choice, must provide the 
transportation for students to go from a failing school to a school 
that is not failing. In addition, the school district is faced with one 
of a limited number of options for addressing what to do with that 
failing school. One of those options is to turn the school over to the 
State to run. Another option is to disband the school with respect to 
existing faculty and administration and start all over. A third option 
will be to turn the school over to a private sector enterprise, a 
private entity, to run the school. And a fourth option is to mandate 
that the school be transformed and turned into a charter school.
  Personally, I hope by the end of year 4 there are not any schools 
that are failing in this country. But I think that may be the triumph 
of man's hope over experience. We have tens of thousands of schools. We 
have thousands of school districts across America. There are going to 
be schools that do not meet the standards, the benchmarks set by their 
own States--in some cases, 4 years in a row. What do we do within the 
Federal Government to help nurture, to foster, to ease that transition 
to public school choice in those schools that have failed 4 years in a 
row?
  I think Delaware was the first State to implement public school 
choice statewide. We did so to inject market forces into our public 
schools by saying to parents that if your child's school is failing to 
meet your expectations for your child, you have the option to go to a 
variety of other schools, and the State will pay for the 
transportation. It makes for wonderful change, for good change, and for 
a positive change as we introduce elements of competition into public 
education.
  Unfortunately, if you look at what we are offering within the Federal 
Government to assist, to nurture, to encourage, and to help ease that 
transition from traditional public schools to maybe statewide public 
school choice, we do precious little.
  The amendment I offer today with Senator Gregg and others says that 
we ought to do a good deal more. In this amendment, we do.
  The second question I want to ask rhetorically is, If we say in this 
legislation before us today that after 4 years of failure we have to do 
something with that failing school-- one of the options is to turn it 
into a charter school--what do we do to help make sure that folks who 
want a charter school might have some ability to succeed in starting a 
charter school? How do we help them?
  Under current law, we do a couple of things. Under current law, there 
is a basic charter school planning and development grant. It does not 
address brick and mortar, but it helps people who have an idea they 
would like to start a charter school and are not sure how to do it. It 
supports technical resource centers and clearinghouses that help point 
to what is working in other places to start charter schools; but with 
respect to brick and mortar, to help with the biggest challenge 
involved in starting up a charter school: Where are we going to have 
the school? How are we going to pay for building the school? How are 
going to take over an existing building and refurbish it for our 
school? It is a huge challenge in my State and every other State. There 
are 36 States that now have charter schools. But current law doesn't 
help much in that regard. We help very little in terms of the money 
that we appropriate. In the current fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill, there is a $25 million grant to public entities 
and private entities that are engaged in providing credit enhancement 
to help provide space for charter schools. That help might come in the 
form of loan guarantees. It might come in the form of subsidized loans. 
It is $25 million.
  The amendment before us today says that we ought to grow both of 
these approaches. In the first case, instead of providing $25 million--
the program is currently authorized at $100 million--why don't we 
increase the authorization to $200 million to provide the assistance 
that charter schools really need to get started?
  In the second case, we propose with our amendment to provide short-
term matching grants to States that will help these charter schools on 
the brick and mortar side on the capital side.
  Currently, in my State folks running a charter school and kids going 
to that charter school may receive operating money per student at that 
school equal to the operating funds that go to students in other public 
schools. However, in those other public schools, if they want to 
rebuild the school, build a new school, or refurbish a school, the 
State of Delaware will sell tax-exempt bonds for those public schools. 
The State of Delaware will pay anywhere from 60 to

[[Page 10434]]

80 percent of the cost of the principal and interest on those bonds. If 
a charter school is trying to get started in my State on the brick and 
mortar side, we don't do anything for them. We don't issue tax-exempt 
bonds, or even pay for 1 percent of their capital costs, much less 60 
to 80 percent. If you look at the other 36 States, for the most part, 
those States provide just about the same help to charter schools on the 
capital side as Delaware--does.
  I don't think it is the role of the Federal Government to come in and 
make up all of that difference. We can, as a Federal government, 
through loan guarantees and subsidized loans, encourage other public 
and nonpublic entities to assist in starting up charter schools and 
paying for the brick and mortar costs.
  We can also provide incentives from my State and other States to 
provide some capital costs and capital assistance for charter schools. 
We will provide matching grants at the Federal level. We will not pay 
for all of it, but we will provide matching grants to help States get 
those charter schools started.
  At the beginning of the debate I asked to modify the amendment. I did 
so because there are some tax consequences that are not appropriate to 
be debated in the context of this bill because they are within the 
purview of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means 
Committee. I will mention them anyway. I will use my State as an 
example because that is what I know best.
  If the State of Delaware wants to help build public schools, we issue 
tax-exempt bonds. If a charter school wants to build a school for 
themselves, they borrow money. The interest is not tax-free. A charter 
school may be right alongside a traditional public school. The public 
school gets tax-exempt bonds. Whoever loans the money to the charter 
school has to pay taxes on the interest.
  I don't think that is right or fair. I would like to change that. 
Unfortunately, we cannot do that today. We will try to come back and 
address it in another venue with another vehicle.
  For people who voted against the Gregg amendment on a demonstration 
for vouchers, I understand it was a tough vote. But for people who 
weren't willing to experiment in that way with choice, I urge you to 
consider this approach.
  If you think public school choice can really help introduce market 
forces and competition into our public schools--other States are trying 
it--I urge you to vote for this amendment. If you think that we may be 
able to replicate the success of schools across America as we have done 
in Delaware--I urge you to vote for this amendment. The Presiding 
Officer, in another role as First Lady, actually came to the very first 
charter school we started in Delaware about 5 years ago. We were 
pleased to welcome her there. We were trying to start a charter high 
school. I say to the Presiding Officer that last year when the results 
were counted for tests in reading, math, science, and so forth, the 
high school that did the best of all the public high schools in 
Delaware was the Wilmington charter school that she visited.
  In my State, the only school out of almost 200 schools where every 
student who took the Delaware math test last year actually met or 
exceeded the State's math standards, believe it or not, is the school 
that has the highest incidence of poverty in the State. Eighty-three 
percent of the kids at the East Side charter school receive free or 
reduced-price lunches. No other school in our State has an incidence of 
poverty such as that.
  Those are only two examples of charter schools: one is a high school 
and another is K through 3. Charter schools are working well.
  I hope we will say that the Federal Government should have an 
obligation. Under the accountability provisions of this legislation, I 
think there is a real obligation to assist in pushing forward public 
school choice and in making the transition from traditional public 
schools to charter schools. Maybe it is not easy, but it is something 
that is doable.
  I retain the balance of my time. I turn it over to my colleague, and 
again say to Senator Gregg, thanks for joining in support of this 
legislation and, in fact, for amending this legislation to help to make 
it better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator from New Hampshire 
is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 45 minutes, 42 
seconds. The opposition still has 1 hour.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, it is not clear to me who controls the 
time in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to 
opposition time.
  Mr. GREGG. I am not claiming opposition time. I am in support of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to 
time on the opposition side.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, would the Chair restate the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no request of the Chair.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Senator Carper asked who was in opposition to this 
amendment. Senator Kennedy was predisposed, working with his staff. 
Senator Kennedy is opposed to the amendment and would control the time.
  I ask Senator Kennedy, is that right?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just for the purposes of this moment now.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New 
Hampshire whatever time he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Delaware.
  Madam President, I support the Senator from Delaware in his 
amendment. I thank him for bringing it forward. The Senator, of course, 
served as Governor of Delaware prior to coming to the Senate. He 
understands intimately the issues that are involved in education, as 
all Governors do, because it is the No. 1 issue with which most 
Governors deal. Therefore, I think his amendment, which I am 
supporting, is a reflection of a comprehensive understanding of the 
question of how we try to address the improvement of our school 
systems.
  I believe that those who have been exposed to the charter school 
movement see in it the embryo of a way to move our school systems into 
a phase of significant improvement.
  Charter schools are being tried in a lot of States. In fact, they 
have expanded dramatically across the country. I think we are now up to 
some multiple thousand charter schools. They have caught on because 
they make sense.
  Essentially, what a charter school does is give a community which is 
unhappy with the way the public school system is working an 
opportunity, within the public school structure, to set up an 
independent school, which is a public school but which is not subject 
to the restrictions that the public school system may put on the 
traditional school in the community, thus creativity can and does occur 
within that charter school.
  In fact, there are many instances of charter schools being cited as 
schools that have radically improved the educational services delivered 
to the communities, and to students in those communities.
  I know, for example, that President Bush is fond of citing his 
experience with a charter school in Houston. I have forgotten the name 
of the school, but I do recall vividly his discussion of it on the 
campaign trail, especially when he was in New Hampshire, and his 
enthusiasm about the way this charter school had taken a low-income 
urban school district population, which basically did not have a very 
good experience in the educational system, and turned it around so that 
it was now the leading school in the State in that age group.
  That happens because charter schools are vibrant and exciting places. 
To begin with, the people who start them are enthusiastic about 
education. They want to make sure that children have

[[Page 10435]]

an opportunity to learn in a different climate. Therefore, they start 
these schools with the energy that comes from a new expedience and 
desire to change and improve the community, and especially the 
educational system.
  They have a great track record. But they have run into some problems. 
What the Carper amendment does is essentially try to address, to the 
extent the Federal Government can participate in addressing this issue, 
some of the concerns of these school systems. One of the biggest I 
think--and one of the reasons I am excited about the amendment--is it 
addresses the capital needs of actually starting these schools. Even 
though he has had to modify the amendment in order to avoid a technical 
problem with the Ways and Means Committee on the House side--those who 
are familiar with the Ways and Means committee understand it is 
extremely territorial. I served on it and, I assure you, that is part 
of the character of the Ways and Means Committee--even with that 
adjustment, the amendment has in it initiatives which will allow 
charter school construction costs to be alleviated, or participated in 
to some degree, through these new funds which will be available.
  That is very important because one of the biggest problems you run 
into with a charter school is not getting the talent, the people who 
want to run it out getting the building into shape where it actually 
can handle kids coming into the school system. So that, in my opinion, 
will be a very positive impact of this amendment.
  Also, I think it should be pointed out that this amendment assists in 
the transportation activity, which is a critical part of the charter 
school problem. A lot of parents want to send their kids to a charter 
school, but they are low-income parents, and they do not have the 
capacity to physically move their kids from their home to the school. 
The school their child may be attending might be around the block, but 
it might be a school that simply isn't working and they may want their 
child to go to a charter school. But that charter school may require a 
significant amount of transportation costs on a daily basis, which may 
simply exceed the ability of a low-income parent to maintain. So this 
amendment assists in that area.
  It is also important for us to understand--at least I believe it is 
important for us to understand--the way you improve education is not by 
a top-down approach. We in Washington do not have the answers. It is 
that simple. The way you improve education is by allowing the creative 
minds of the educational community, and the parents, to step on to the 
playing field of education and do what they think is best, do it with 
aggressiveness and do it with imagination.
  Charter schools are an example of that opportunity. We should not say 
a charter school must be set up this way or must have this amount of 
procedure. It is just the opposite. We should simply say: You have the 
option to take that charter school route, if you want. And if you 
decide to go that way, we are going to help you by assisting you with 
the dollar support which will work for your benefit, and allow the 
school to be creative.
  Some might argue: This is a new program or a significant increase in 
a program. And with all the other new programs that have been put into 
this bill, is it appropriate to create another program or add another 
significant amount of money into this bill. Obviously, I have 
reservations about that. I am concerned about the fact that this bill 
has exploded in costs. The 10-year cost of this bill presently exceeds 
the original cost of this bill by almost $200 billion.
  But I think what we have to remember is that what this bill should be 
doing is creating incentives for creative ideas and approaches. And 
charter schools, as much as anything else that can occur in the 
educational community, will accomplish that goal.
  In this bill money is being spent to promote programmatic activity 
that is already in place and that maybe isn't working all that well or, 
if it is working all that well, maybe is tangential to dramatically 
increasing the learning capacity of children.
  Charter schools, on the other hand, are working and we know they will 
significantly impact the capacity of children to improve their 
education, not only because the child who is in the charter school gets 
a better education but because charter schools, by definition, put 
pressure on the rest of the public school community within that city or 
town or State to improve. So it is bringing competition into the public 
school system using the public school system itself.
  We just had an amendment to try to bring competition into the public 
school system using the private school system. That was rejected. This 
amendment stays within the context of the public school system and 
brings competition into the system. As a result, in my opinion, it puts 
significant positive pressure on the other public schools to improve 
their product. And as a result, I think that is very positive.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if he will yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I certainly will yield.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to Senator Kennedy, and Senator Kennedy is 
not in opposition to this amendment. I want to make sure the Senator 
knows that prior to completing his remarks. So I do not know who is in 
opposition to the amendment. I guess the Senator from Delaware will 
find out later. At this time we know of no one who is in opposition.
  Mr. GREGG. I am sure the Senator from Delaware will be relieved to 
hear no one is in opposition to the amendment. I certainly am. That is 
good news.
  Mr. REID. The Senator wishes to speak on the amendment after you 
finish.
  Mr. GREGG. With that good news, I will curtail my statement and yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I might use 
on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the pending amendment addresses two 
important growing policy areas: Public school choice and public charter 
schools. First, the amendment provides grant support to States seeking 
intra- and inter-district public school choice plans. That is very 
important, given where we are in other provisions of the bill. Second, 
the pending amendment provides specific assistance to charter schools 
struggling with capital school construction needs. That is going to be 
very important, given the provisions of the bill that will require 
schools to restructure and reorganize if they fail to meet certain 
goals.
  I support public school choice. Our legislation already provides 
parents of children in low-performing schools the option to transfer to 
other public schools or charter schools. But public school choice 
programs bring added costs that come with, most significantly, added 
transportation needs. If we are truly to support public school choice, 
we should provide the districts aid for their increased transportation 
costs.
  I also support charter schools. Like public school choice which can 
encourage districtwide improvement, charter schools can provide more 
options to parents within the public school system. I think we should 
do more to support the charter schools in the area in which they have 
the greatest need--school construction.
  Charter schools do not have the same capital resources that regular 
public schools do. Charter schools cannot float tax-exempt bonds as 
public school districts can. Charter schools primarily have new 
building construction needs. Noncharter, public schools and public 
school districts, on the other hand, primarily have building repair 
needs. Just as there are charter schools with unique and urgent school 
repair and construction needs, there are also regular public schools 
with unique and urgent school repair and construction needs. We should 
also provide school construction assistance to both charter schools and 
regular public schools.

[[Page 10436]]

  That is the difficulty I find in the logic of my friends who opposed 
the Harkin proposal in terms of providing help to meet the construction 
needs in our public school system, a best estimate of over $130 billion 
in needs. We recognize the importance of having a facility that is 
going to be safe for children and that is also going to be responsive 
to the children's needs in terms of a modern classroom. I know Senator 
Harkin has made the case, and Senator Feinstein and others, of the 
importance of giving assistance to local communities. They are not 
required to take that help, but when you realize the age of many of our 
school facilities, particularly in many of the older cities of the 
country, as well as in many of the rural areas, you know there is an 
extraordinary need.
  What is so apparent is that children attending schools which are in 
dilapidated condition sends a very powerful message to the students. On 
the one hand, they go to modern supermarkets and modern malls and they 
see what investments in these kinds of facilities would mean. They are 
valued by their parents or their grownups. Then on the other hand, 
parents are sending children off to schools which are dilapidated, 
which are in need of repair, where in many instances the electrical 
systems aren't working or their air-conditioning is not working, the 
windows are not repaired.
  I am supporting this proposal, but it is important to wonder why we 
in the Senate, if we are going to provide this kind of help for the 
construction of charter schools, are not providing assistance to the 
public schools. I find it difficult to understand the response in this 
area by many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle, their 
traditional argument that this is a local responsibility. The fact is, 
we are trying to find ways of creating a climate where children can 
learn. If we are not going to provide the classroom situation for that 
learning process, we are not really meeting our responsibilities.
  I am supporting this program, but I do think the need for school 
renovation and modernization across the board is extraordinary. The 
National Center on Education Statistics reports that nationwide more 
than $127 billion is needed for public school construction, repair, and 
modernization. The American Society of Engineers reports that average 
school repair costs per child are $3,800.
  All of the reforms included in the BEST Act will be dramatically 
undermined if we continue to send children to dilapidated, overcrowded, 
out-of-date schools. When we send children to inadequate, crumbling 
schools, we send them the message that they don't matter. What does it 
say to a child when their classroom is a school bathroom, when windows 
are broken and roofs are leaking?
  We should support public school and public charter school 
construction needs. We need to keep in mind that 97 percent of all 
public school children go to noncharter schools. I continue to hold out 
hope that we will provide badly needed school construction assistance 
to regular public schools and public charter schools. Construction and 
modernization needs are great across the board.
  I urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment and hope we can 
continue to work in the future to support construction and 
modernization needs nationwide.
  There may be those who say we are not going to support it because we 
are not meeting our responsibility to public schools. There may be some 
of our colleagues who fall in that category. I would rather see us do 
what is right for children in meeting our responsibility on the public 
school choice provisions which are included and also with regard to 
charter schools.
  My great regret about this amendment is that it is leaving out 97 
percent of the public schools that ought to get help. This amendment is 
a very modest amendment. It is a useful amendment. But for me it sort 
of fails to hit the mark in providing the assistance which is needed in 
the area of construction.
  I know we have to do the best we can. There was a broader kind of 
amendment that was not accepted in the Senate. The Senator from 
Delaware has come up with a proposal to at least provide some 
construction funding in areas where there is need. Hopefully, as this 
whole process moves ahead, we will find some opportunity to find a way 
of helping the other public schools in this country with their 
construction needs as well.
  This amendment is useful. I hope it reminds us of the fact that we 
are not meeting our responsibilities in construction and assistance to 
other public schools and that we will continue to work in that area to 
help the children of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, let me express my thanks to the 
chairman, the Senator from Massachusetts, for his support and for his 
words.
  I have said on the floor before and I say it again today: We all 
acknowledge, the role of the Federal Government is not to run our 
schools, the role of the Federal Government is to try to level the 
playing field at least a little bit for kids who come, in some cases, 
from hopelessly disadvantaged backgrounds. The appropriate role of the 
Federal Government is to help identify what is working to raise student 
achievement across the country.
  An appropriate role for the Federal Government is, when we do 
identify those things that are working, to encourage them. We nurture 
those ideas. We try to share those ideas with others around the 
country.
  I remember when I was Governor of Delaware, about 5 years ago we were 
debating public school choice. I had just signed, as Governor, public 
school choice into law. I remember overhearing a conversation between a 
couple of school administrators. They didn't know I was listening, but 
I was.
  I heard one administrator say to the other: If we don't offer parents 
what they want for their children in our public schools, their children 
will go to another school where they are offering what they want for 
their children. I said to myself at the time: He's got it. Because in 
Delaware and other places where we have public school choice, 
particularly when you provide help on the transportation side so that 
it is really meaningful, if a student in school A isn't getting what 
they want or their parents want for them, they can go to school B. The 
transportation is provided for, and the money follows the students.
  That is a really important concept. The money follows the student. In 
our State, the State provides anywhere from $6,000 to $7,000 per 
student for their education. When one child goes from school A to 
school B, the $6,000 or $7,000 follows that student. If one student 
moves from school A to school B, not many people are going to take 
notice of that. If 10 students move from school A to school B, that is 
10 times $6,000 or $7,000, which is $60,000 or $70,000. Maybe somebody 
will notice that. If 100 students move from school A to school B 
because they are offering something school A is not offering, somebody 
is going to notice that certainly; they are certainly going to notice 
it in school A. The question they began to ask in my State was: What 
are they offering there that we are not offering? Maybe we ought to 
offer it as well.
  It is the very best thing to come out of competition and out of the 
market forces we have introduced. Let me also add that I have always 
believed that the role of government, and particularly the Federal 
Government, in education is not to row the boat. The role of the 
Federal Government is maybe to help steer the boat. The Federal 
Government provides less than 10 percent of the resources for the 
education of our children. States provide much more. In Delaware, it is 
70 percent. Nationally, I think it is about 50 percent. The rest comes 
from local property taxes.
  But if we in this body, in this Capitol, in our role as the Federal 
Government--certainly the legislative side of it--if we can help 
identify those things that work and if we can nurture them and help 
steer and not row the boat, our kids, in a lot of places, with 
relatively modest investments, are going

[[Page 10437]]

to end up with a better education and be better prepared to go on and 
face the world with the skills they will need to be successful in 
college and in work and in life.
  Senator Kennedy said this is a modest but useful amendment. I think 
it is going to prove even more useful than we dare to hope today. If it 
is adopted and ends up in the final bill that goes to the President, we 
will have a chance to test that premise. I sincerely hope we do.
  Again, to Senator Gregg, and to others who joined us in cosponsoring 
the original bill which underlies the amendment, and this amendment 
itself, I express my thanks.
  Madam President, I yield back whatever time remains and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have to determine if there is a sufficient 
second.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. REID. Madam 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Delaware has yielded back his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. All time is yielded 
back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 518), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. This 
amendment is related to other very important provisions in the 
legislation to ensure there is going to be sufficient funds available. 
Also in the legislation, there was going to be, with the reconstruction 
of these schools, the possibility of the development of these charter 
schools, and this will give additional flexibility to local communities 
to move in that direction.
  So I thank him for offering the amendment. I believe it reaches sort 
of the central core of what we are attempting to do. I think it is 
valuable and helpful. I wish it had been a little broader, but I thank 
the Senator very much for offering it and for working closely with us 
to move the process along. I am grateful to him.
  I am also grateful to my friend from New Hampshire, as always.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank my friend.


  Amendments Nos. 505, 545 as modified, 520 as modified, 583, 561 as 
      modified, and 461 as modified, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today we are again in a position to 
clear amendments by consent. I ask, therefore, unanimous consent that 
it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc and that 
any modifications, where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be 
agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
  (The text of amendment No. 505 is printed in the Record of May 9, 
2001, under ``Amendments Submitted.'')


                     AMENDMENT NO. 545 AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To create a set-aside for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools)

       On page 365, strike lines 7 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--From funds appropriated under this part, 
     the Secretary shall reserve such sums as may be necessary for 
     grants awarded under section 3136 prior to the date of 
     enactment of the Better Education for Students and Teacher 
     Act.
       ``(2) Bureau of Indian Affairs funded schools.--From funds 
     appropriated under this part, the Secretary shall reserve 
     0.75 percent of such funds for Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     funded schools. Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Better Education for Students and Teacher 
     Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall establish rules for 
     distributing such funds in accordance with a formula 
     developed by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation 
     with school baords of BIA-funded schools, taking into 
     consideration whether a minimum amount is needed to ensure 
     small schools can utilize funding effectively.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 520 AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To modify the formula for calculating impact aid payments 
           relating to federal acquisition of real property)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 902. IMPACT AID PAYMENTS RELATING TO FEDERAL ACQUISITION 
                   OF REAL PROPERTY.

       Section 8002 (20 U.S.C. 7702), as amended by section 1803 
     of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398), 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h)(4), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) the Secretary shall make a payment to each local 
     educational agency that is eligible to receive a payment 
     under this section for the fiscal year involved in an amount 
     that bears the same relation to 75 percent of the remainder 
     as a percentage share determined for the local educational 
     agency (as determined by dividing the maximum amount that 
     such agency is eligible to receive under subsection (b) by 
     the total maximum amounts that all such local educational 
     agencies are eligible to receive under such subsection) bears 
     to the percentage share determined (in the same manner) for 
     all local educational agencies eligible to receive a payment 
     under this section for the fiscal year involved, except that 
     for purposes of calculating a local educational agency's 
     maximum payment under subsection (b), data from the most 
     current fiscal year shall be used.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Loss of Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, the Secretary shall make a minimum payment to a 
     local educational agency described in paragraph (2), for the 
     first fiscal year that the agency loses eligibility for 
     assistance under this section as a result of property located 
     within the school district served by the agency failing to 
     meet the definition of Federal property under section 
     8013(5)(C)(iii), in an amount equal to 90 percent of the 
     amount received by the agency under this section in the 
     preceding year.
       ``(2) Eligible local educational agencies.--A local 
     educational agency described in this paragraph is an agency 
     that--
       ``(A) was eligible for, and received, a payment under this 
     section for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(B) beginning in fiscal year 2003 or a subsequent fiscal 
     year, is no longer eligible for payments under this section 
     as provided for in subsection (a)(1)(C) as a result of the 
     transfer of the Federal property involved to a non-Federal 
     entity.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 583

 (Purpose: To make certain technical amendments with respect to impact 
                                  aid)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPACT AID TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Federal Property Payments.--Section 8002(h) (20 U.S.C. 
     7702(h)) (as amended by section 1803(c) of the Impact Aid 
     Reauthorization Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1 
     of Public Law 106-398)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and was eligible to 
     receive a payment under section 2 of the Act of September 30, 
     1950'' and inserting ``and that filed, or has been determined 
     pursuant to law to have filed, a timely application and met, 
     or has been determined pursuant to law to meet, the 
     eligibility requirements of section 2(a)(1)(C) of the Act of 
     September 30, 1950''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(or if the local 
     educational agency was not eligible to receive a payment 
     under such section 2 for fiscal year 1994,'' and inserting 
     ``(or if the local educational agency did not meet, or has 
     not been determined pursuant to law to meet, the eligibility 
     requirements under section 2(a)(1)(C) of the Act Of September 
     20, 1950, for fiscal year 1994,''.
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``, or whose application for fiscal year 1995 was 
     deemed by law to be timely filed for the purpose of payments 
     for later years''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``for each local 
     educational agency that received a payment under this section 
     for fiscal year 1995'' and inserting ``for each local 
     educational agency described in subparagraph (A)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``(in the same manner as percentage shares 
     are determined for local educational agencies under paragraph

[[Page 10438]]

     (2)(B)(ii)'' and inserting ``(by dividing the maximum amount 
     that the agency is eligible to receive under subsection (b) 
     by the total of the maximum amounts for all such agencies''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``, except that for the purpose of 
     calculating a local educational agency's assessed value of 
     the Federal property,'' and inserting ``, except that, for 
     the purpose of calculating a local educational agency's 
     maximum amount under subsection (b),''.
       (b) Calculation of Payment Under Section 8003 for Small 
     Local Educational Agencies.--Section 8003(b)(3)(B)(iv) (20 
     U.S.C. 7703(b)(3)(B)(iv)) (as amended by section 
     1806(b)(2)(C) of the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000 
     (as enacted into law by section 1 of Public Law 106-398)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``of the State in which the agency 
     is located'' the following: ``or less than the average per 
     pupil expenditure of all the States''.
       (c) State Consideration of Payments in Providing State 
     Aid.--Section 8009(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 7709 (b)(1)) (as amended 
     by section 1812(b)(1) of the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act 
     of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1 of Public Law 106-
     398)) is amended by inserting after ``section 
     8003(a)(2)(B))'' the following: ``and, with respect to a 
     local educational agency that receives a payment under 
     section 8003(b)(2), the amount in excess of the amount that 
     the agency would receive if the agency were deemed to be an 
     agency eligible to receive a payment under paragraph (1) of 
     section 8003(b)''.
       (d) Extension of Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 
     8014 (20 U.S.C. 7714) (as amended by section 1817(b)(1) of 
     the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000 (as enacted into 
     law by section 1 of Public Law 106-398)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``three succeeding'' and 
     inserting ``six succeeding''';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``three succeeding'' and 
     inserting ``"six succeeding'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``three succeeding'' and 
     inserting ``six succeeding'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``three succeeding'' and 
     inserting ``six succeeding'';
       (5) in subsection (f), by striking ``three succeeding'' and 
     inserting ``six succeeding''; and
       (6) in subsection (g), by striking ``three succeeding'' and 
     inserting ``six succeeding''.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 561 AS MODIFIED

   (Purpose: To encourage projects carried out with community-based 
    organizations such as the Police Athletic and Activity Leagues)

       On page 256, line 21, strike ``; and'' and insert a 
     semicolon.

       On page 256, line 24, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.

       On page 256, after line 24, add the following:
       ``(I) an assurance that the eligible organization will, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, carry out the proposed 
     program with community-based organizations that have 
     experience in providing before and after school programs, 
     such as the YMCA, the Police Athletic and Activities Leagues, 
     Boys and Girls Clubs and Big Brothers/Big Sisters of 
     America.''
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 461 AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To provide for the expansion of education technology for 
                              rural areas)

       On page 367, line 5, insert after the period the following: 
     ``The Secretary shall give priority when awarding grants 
     under this paragraph to State educational agencies whose 
     applications submitted under section 2305 outline a strategy 
     to carry out part E.''.

       On page 383, after line 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 203. RURAL TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION ACADEMIES.

       Title II (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), as amended by section 
     202, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

             ``PART E--RURAL TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION ACADEMIES

     ``SEC. 2501. SHORT TITLE.

       This part may be cited as the `Rural Technology Education 
     Academies Act'.

     ``SEC. 2502. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Rural areas offer technology programs in existing 
     public schools, such as those in career and technical 
     education programs, but they are limited in numbers and are 
     not adequately funded. Further, rural areas often cannot 
     support specialized schools, such as magnet or charter 
     schools.
       ``(2) Technology can offer rural students educational and 
     employment opportunities that they otherwise would not have.
       ``(3) Schools in rural and small towns receive 
     disproportionately less funding than their urban 
     counterparts, necessitating that such schools receive 
     additional assistance to implement technology curriculum.
       ``(4) In the future, workers without technology skills run 
     the risk of being excluded from the new global, technological 
     economy.
       ``(5) Teaching technology in rural schools is vitally 
     important because it creates an employee pool for employers 
     sorely in need of information technology specialists.
       ``(6) A qualified workforce can attract information 
     technology employers to rural areas and help bridge the 
     digital divide between rural and urban American that is 
     evidenced by the out-migration and economic decline typical 
     of many rural areas.
       ``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this part to give 
     rural schools comprehensive assistance to train the 
     technology literate workforce needed to bridge the rural-
     urban digital divide.

     ``SEC. 2503. GRANTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use amounts made 
     available under section 2310(a) to carry out this part to 
     make grants to eligible States for the development and 
     implementation of technology curriculum.
       ``(b) State Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible for a grant under 
     subsection (a), a State shall--
       ``(A) have in place a statewide educational technology plan 
     developed in consultation with the State agency responsible 
     for administering programs under the Carl D. Perkins 
     Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     2301 et seq.); and
       ``(B) include eligible local educational agencies (as 
     defined in paragraph (2)) under the plan.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this part, the term `eligible local 
     educational agency' means a local educational agency--
       ``(A) with less than 600 total students in average daily 
     attendance at the schools served by such agency; and
       ``(B) with respect to which all of the schools served by 
     the agency have a School Locale Code of 7 or 8, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Amount of Grant.--Of the amount made available under 
     section 2310(a) to carry out this part for a fiscal year and 
     reduced by amounts used under section 2504, the Secretary 
     shall provide to each State under a grant under subsection 
     (a) an amount the bears that same ratio to such appropriated 
     amount as the number of students in average daily attendance 
     at the schools served by eligible local educational agencies 
     in the State bears to the number of all such students at the 
     schools served by eligible local educational agencies in all 
     States in such fiscal year.
       ``(d) Use of Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under 
     subsection (a) shall use--
       ``(A) not less than 85 percent of the amounts received 
     under the grant to provide funds to eligible local 
     educational agencies in the State for use as provided for in 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) not to exceed 15 percent of the amounts received 
     under the grant to carry out activities to develop or enhance 
     and further the implementation of technology curriculum, 
     including--
       ``(i) the development or enhancement of technology courses 
     in areas including computer network technology, computer 
     engineering technology, computer design and repair, software 
     engineering, and programming;
       ``(ii) the development or enhancement of high quality 
     technology standards;
       ``(iii) the examination of the utility of web-based 
     technology courses, including college-level courses and 
     instruction for both students and teachers;
       ``(iv) the development or enhancement of State advisory 
     councils on technology teacher training;
       ``(v) the addition of high-quality technology courses to 
     teacher certification programs;
       ``(vi) the provision of financial resources and incentives 
     to eligible local educational agencies to enable such 
     agencies to implement a technology curriculum;
       ``(vii) the implementation of a centralized web-site for 
     educators to exchange computer-related curriculum and lesson 
     plans; and
       ``(viii) the provision of technical assistance to local 
     educational agencies.
       ``(2) Local use of funds.--Amounts received by an eligible 
     local educational agency under paragraph (1)(A) shall be used 
     for--
       ``(A) the implementation of a technology curriculum that is 
     based on standards developed by the State, if applicable;
       ``(B) professional development in the area of technology, 
     including for the certification of teachers in information 
     technology;
       ``(C) teacher-to-teacher technology mentoring programs;
       ``(D) the provision of incentives to teachers teaching in 
     technology-related fields to persuade such teachers to remain 
     in rural areas;
       ``(E) the purchase of equipment needed to implement a 
     technology curriculum;
       ``(F) the provision of technology courses through distance 
     learning;
       ``(G) the development of, or entering into a, consortium 
     with other local educational agencies, institutions of higher 
     education, or for-profit businesses, nonprofit organizations, 
     community-based organizations or other entities with the 
     capacity to contribute to technology training for the 
     purposes of subparagraphs (A) through (F); or
       ``(H) other activities consistent with the purposes of this 
     part.
       ``(3) Amount of assistance.--In providing assistance to 
     eligible local educational agencies under this section, a 
     State shall ensure that the amount provided to any eligible 
     agency reflects the size and financial need of the agency as 
     evidenced by the number or

[[Page 10439]]

     percentage of children served by the agency who are from 
     families with incomes below the poverty line (as defined by 
     the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in 
     accordance with section 673(2) of the Community Services 
     Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a family of 
     the size involved.

     ``SEC. 2504. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``From amounts made available for a fiscal year under 
     section 2310(a) to carry out this part, the Secretary may use 
     not to exceed 5 percent of such amounts to--
       ``(1) establish a position within the Office of Educational 
     Technology of the Department of Education for a specialist in 
     rural schools;
       ``(2) identify and disseminate throughout the United States 
     information on best practices concerning technology 
     curricula; and
       ``(3) conduct seminars in rural areas on technology 
     education.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. We expect that momentarily Senator Cantwell will be 
here. We have worked out a rough program and schedule for the latter 
part of the afternoon and through the evening. We will be able to move 
along on that program, and we want to thank all of our colleagues for 
their cooperation.
  We have some of the important remaining amendments with which we have 
to deal, but we have been able to work out a process and a procedure to 
get time agreements on most of these. So Members will know when these 
amendments are going to come up. The leader had indicated that we would 
be voting through the afternoon and into the evening, and there is 
every expectation that we will continue to do so.
  Madam 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. DODD. Madam 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. 459 as further modified

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 459, 
the Dodd amendment, be before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendment is laid aside.
  Mr. DODD. I understand we have half an hour of time to debate this 
amendment. Is there a time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Connecticut will yield, we ask that the 
Senator from Connecticut, the Republican leader, and Senator Kennedy 
agree to a half hour evenly divided.
  Mr. DODD. I may use less than that. We have talked a lot about it 
already. The Senator from New Hampshire has spoken eloquently and at 
length in opposition. I presume we could get done prior to that. We say 
``half an hour.'' Then we think we have to use it. If not, we could get 
done before. With the admonition of the Senator from Nevada, we will 
try to move this along.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I yield.
  Mr. REID. As part of the proposed unanimous consent agreement, I ask 
unanimous consent there be no second-degree amendments prior to the 
vote, which should be shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I raised this amendment a week or so ago. 
We spoke on it on several different occasions. It was interrupted at 
various times, other amendments were offered, and this amendment was 
laid aside.
  I say to my colleagues, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator Biden, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. This is an amendment 
that was first offered in the other body by the distinguished Member of 
the House, Congressman Chaka Fattah of Philadelphia.
  This amendment is strongly endorsed by the Council of Great City 
Schools, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Education 
Association, the National PTA, a coalition of 180 national 
organizations including AARP, AFL-CIO, American Veterans Committee, 
Catholic Charities, Children's Defense Fund, the Congress of National 
Black Churches, the League of Women Voters, the National Council of 
Jewish Women, the National Council of La Rasa, the YWCA and YMCA, just 
to name some.
  Chaka Fattah made an eloquent argument in the other body about the 
value of this amendment. Basically what it does is the following:
  Since 1965, for 36 years, we have written into the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act language that says that in each school district 
in America there must be a comparable educational opportunity for every 
child. For 36 years that has worked rather well. We improved 
education--but there are still gaps in it. Nonetheless, 36 years ago we 
said for those school districts we believe that all children, 
regardless of their circumstances of birth, ought to have a comparable 
education.
  Some school districts have student populations vastly in excess of 
what some States have. The school districts of Los Angeles and New York 
individually have school populations in excess of the student 
populations in 27 States. Those school districts are highly diverse, in 
terms of the number of children from various economic backgrounds 
within those school districts.
  My amendment says we ought to apply that same standard to the States. 
Why do I say that? This bill asks that children do a better job, be 
more accountable, be more responsive. To do that, we are going to 
require a test in this bill. The underlying bill says that every third, 
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grader is now going to have 
to take a test.
  Prior to the adoption of this bill, we had mandates from the Federal 
Government that said there would be three tests in that age group. So 
we have mandated that there be accountability already. We are not 
breaking new ground. We are extending it.
  Also in this bill we say the teachers need to be more accountable and 
more responsive. We say school districts need to be accountable and 
more responsive. We say parents do, school boards do. We say we, at the 
Federal level, need to be more responsible and demand greater 
accountability. The one missing element in this entire chain, from the 
infant child in school to the Federal Government, where I have named 
virtually everybody from the child to Uncle Sam--one element is missing 
in that litany. The one element is the States. There is nothing in this 
bill that requires that the States be accountable or that the States be 
responsible.
  Remember, title I was written 36 years ago because we thought, at the 
national level, not enough was being done to serve the most needy 
children in America. That was the rationale behind the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act--to provide Federal moneys to the States, to 
help them serve the most needy children.
  Over the years we provided a lot of money, about 6 cents on every 
dollar. Madam President, 94 cents for educating children comes from 
States and localities.
  If we are going to demand greater accountability, and that students 
do better in school, that there be higher standards that are to be met, 
how do we exclude one of the elements here responsible for at least a 
part of that 94 cents? It is certainly more than the 6 cents the 
Federal Government supplies. Is it really that radical to say: Mr. 
Governor or State education board, will you see to it, or work towards 
achieving comparability of educational opportunity within your State?
  I am not mandating success. I don't think you ought to do that. We 
cannot do that. But to say to a child in Connecticut or a child in the 
State of Washington or New Hampshire or wherever else they may be, that 
because of the accident of where you are born, being born in that State 
should not mean you can end up with an entirely different educational 
opportunity.
  My bill says over the next 6 years--not right away--within 6 years, 
you will write to the Secretary of Education, under this amendment, if 
it is adopted, providing assurance that you have such a plan and that 
you have begun to implement it. And by the

[[Page 10440]]

way, if 6 years is not long enough, I will give you 2 more under this 
amendment. That is 8 years.
  If you do not do it, what happens? It is left to the discretion of 
the Secretary to withhold some of the administrative funds under title 
I--not title I funds. The idea is to urge the States to join with us. 
Many States, Madam President, as you know and I know, are working hard 
at this already, just as most school districts are working hard, just 
as most parents are working hard, and most school boards are working 
hard. We are not demanding greater accountability in this bill of every 
school district, parent, child, and teacher because we think they are 
all failing. We do not believe that. We believe some are.
  I believe some States are not doing enough. If I can demand 
accountability and responsibility of a child, a parent, a teacher, a 
school board, a school district, and the Federal Government, is it too 
much to ask that we seek at least an effort on the part of our States 
to improve the quality of educational opportunity?
  I do not think I need to go back and lay out all the arguments. We 
all know the days of saying this ought to be exclusively, totally a 
local effort are gone. That may have had great value in the 19th or 
most of the 20th century when our economic future and success depended 
upon a child from Connecticut competing with a child from New Hampshire 
or Massachusetts, or one from Illinois competing with someone in the 
State of Washington.
  But we have entered a global economy. We better have a national 
vision when it comes to education and national standards. Leaving no 
child behind means just that. That is why the President has raised this 
subject matter with the priority he has.
  The American public wants to see our public schools do better. The 
President said leave no child behind and he is enforcing this bill 
because he believes that by testing children, testing teachers, putting 
real stringent requirements on school districts, on parents and on 
ourselves, we are going to raise those standards. I did not hear the 
word ``States'' there. That 94 cents that goes to the education of a 
child, a substantial part of it comes from the States.
  I know my State is working hard at this. We have had court cases 
pending. I know the Governor and the State legislature work at this. I 
have no problems whatsoever with States that are trying to get this job 
done. But unfortunately, as I said a moment ago, there are 
jurisdictions in this country which have not been as responsive or have 
not been as accountable to the desire to see to it that all children 
will be given an equal opportunity to succeed.
  It has been 47 years since the Supreme Court of the United States, 
just across the street here, passed Brown v. Board of Education, almost 
a half century ago. When they said separate and unequal schools can no 
longer be permissible, it was almost a half century ago. There is not 
one of us in this Chamber who does not know as a matter of fact, even 
in the States that are trying harder, that Brown v. Board of Education, 
that 9-0 decision, has yet to provide the kind of relief of the 
problems that too many of our children are facing. They are separate 
and they are in unequal educational opportunities. I do not care what 
State you go to, that is the case. Some States are working at it and 
some are not.
  Madam President, almost 50 years later I do not think it is too much 
to ask that State education authorities or our Governors should also be 
asked to join in this effort. We cannot do it without them. This is not 
some peripheral organization here. This is about as critical as it 
gets. If we are going to be looking for better results and excluding 
the States from stepping up to the plate and becoming a part of this 
assessment, then we are missing a major part of the equation necessary 
to achieve that success.
  I do not point an accusing finger at any Governor, State agency, or 
board.
  We don't tell them how to do it. We don't lay out in some 
excruciating detail of micromanaging how each State ought to try to 
achieve it. We don't say identical at all. We say comparable.
  I know I will hear from my friend from New Hampshire suggesting that 
I am using a cookie cutter--that every jurisdiction within a given 
State is going to have to develop an identical plan. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. We are talking about comparability. The word 
was chosen because it is in existing law. It has been there for almost 
four decades--comparable educational opportunity at a district level. I 
am expanding the concept to include the States. We are expanding and 
doing a lot of things new. The Federal Government is not new to having 
mandates. We shut off all Federal funds if States don't do a better job 
on school violence. We mandate that there be testing done at the 
elementary level in America. We have done that for years. We are 
mandating that districts offer comparable education. These are all 
mandates. We are not breaking new ground by insisting that States join 
in this effort.
  My colleague from New Hampshire said this is a deal breaker. What 
deal breaker? We deal with this bill once every 6 years. How do you 
exclude the States? How do you go home and say to people we have done a 
great job here? We are going to see much better results.
  By the way, a substantial portion of that 94 cents that goes to the 
education of a child is going to be excluded from any accountability or 
any assessment, in effect.
  It seems to me that if you are asking some impoverished school 
district to do better, or some kid growing up in a ghetto or in a rural 
part of America to do better, you ought to try to provide the resources 
to achieve those goals. And you ought to have some measurement by which 
you can judge whether or not everybody is pulling their fair share to 
see to it that we get the best results possible.
  That is all this amendment is designed to do--to just add one other 
word to district student, district teacher, school board, Federal 
Government: add the word ``State.'' However, you want to make it 
accountable, whether it is the educational authority, or the Governor, 
or whoever it is, whatever means you choose to try to achieve 
comparability, that is up to each State. I don't believe the Federal 
Government ought to be telling States how to do that. It is not 
identical. It is comparable.
  As I have said, there are many school districts that embrace a great 
diversity within their boundaries. They have lived with this law for 36 
years. Certainly, for school districts that have student populations in 
excess of the populations in 27 States--more than half of the States in 
this country--asking the States to step up and provide some assurance 
and at least making themselves open to the assessments that we ought to 
be requiring, I don't think is too much.
  I thank Chaka Fattah, the Congressional Black Caucus. La Rasa, the 
Latino/Hispanic group, places this at a very high priority. Chaka 
Fattah said the other day that this is the No. 1 priority for the 
Congressional Black Caucus in their consideration of this bill. Again, 
groups like the YMCA, YWCA, the Children's Defense Fund, American 
Veterans Committee, AARP--I give great credit to retirees for 
supporting this effort--the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the 
National PTA, and the National Education Association are supporting 
this amendment. I thank them for their support.
  Again, it is 6 years down the road. This doesn't go into effect next 
month, or next year, or the year after, if this bill is passed. We are 
providing more than half a decade for States to try it and at least get 
themselves in a position to offer these assurances, and then a 2-year 
waiver beyond that and penalties to be imposed by the Secretary only to 
administrative funds and not to the title I funds that go to the needy 
children in this country.
  Again, I hope our colleagues will see fit to support this amendment. 
I will be happy to yield the floor at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from 
Connecticut, after I speak, does the Senator want to

[[Page 10441]]

go to a vote at that time on his amendment?
  Mr. DODD. I am prepared to at that point.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will not try to say anything that is 
identical to what I said yesterday or the day before or last week on 
this issue.
  Let me simply point out that this amendment, in my humble opinion, is 
one of the most significant ones we are going to take up in that it 
reflects and makes one of the most significant attempts to have the 
Federal Government become intrusive in the school systems of our 
country.
  The practical implications of this amendment are that the Federal 
Government will now require that every State and all its communities 
have comparable educational systems. We went through in some length 
debate on this amendment over a couple of days last week. But, 
essentially, that is a role that is inappropriate for the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government should not be telling the State, 
whatever State it happens to be--Montana, Indiana, West Virginia, New 
Hampshire, or Ohio--you must have a school system structured so that 
all your school systems are comparable; so that every school system in 
the entire State must do essentially the same thing from school 
district to school district in order to meet that comparability 
standard.
  There are States in this country that, either through court actions 
dealing with funding, such as New Hampshire, or through court actions 
maybe dealing with something beyond funding. I am not familiar with any 
that have gone beyond the funding issue that have determined there 
should be comparability within the State. There are States which may 
have--I don't know this--State legislators that have decided it is part 
of their State organizational structure for education that they want 
comparability.
  But I also know that there are a lot of States in this country that 
have decided they do not necessarily want comparability because there 
are significant differences within that State between what one school 
district needs to do in order to be a good school educational system 
and what another school needs to do in order to be a good educational 
system.
  Those differences are reflected in the collective bargaining 
agreements between where you might have one part of the State with 
collective bargaining agreements where teachers have introduced 
agreements where the teacher has a different workweek than another part 
of the State; or where the number of students for a classroom is 
different in another part of the State; or the responsibility of 
teachers in extracurricular activities is different in another part of 
the State; or you might have a school district where States have 
decided that in one part of the State kids will be educated in a 
certain technical skill area that is unique to that part of the State--
say forestry or farming--and in another part of the State that 
technical skill is not relevant because it is an urban part of the 
State; or you might have a school district in one part of the State 
that believes it wants to focus on foreign languages; whereas, another 
part of the State wants to focus on technology skills versus foreign 
languages, so they restructured their structure, or you might even have 
different schooldays. One may have a longer schoolday or a shorter 
schoolday.
  Obviously, in the end, they probably have a State law requiring so 
many schooldays or the way buildings are configured may be 
significantly different.
  States have legitimate reasons because of the weather requirements in 
a State. They may not want to have a comparable school system across 
the State and still believe that they can deliver quality education. 
But other States may decide they want comparability.
  But it is truly the responsibility of the State to make that decision 
and not the Federal Government.
  With the Federal Government to come in with 6 to 7 percent of the 
dollars spent on local elementary and secondary school education and 
say we have the right to demand statewide comparability is incredibly 
intrusive. It opens the door to all sorts of issues that I think 
significantly expand the role of the Federal Government in an 
inappropriate way.
  The logic of this amendment would be that the next step is entire 
school systems across the country have to be comparable. Why stop at 
the State border?
  If you are going to say that every State has to have comparable 
districts why would you stop there? Wouldn't the next logical step be 
the true nationalization of the school systems, saying that every State 
has to have comparable educational systems? That would be an excessive 
reach of the Federal Government.
  I believe this amendment, as has been characterized, clearly 
undermines fundamentally the agreement that was reached in negotiations 
as to the core elements of this bill. It is a dramatic departure from 
the traditional role of the Federal Government, with an excessive 
amount of intrusion by the Federal Government. For that reason, I 
strongly oppose this amendment and hope it will be defeated.
  I understand my colleague is going to ask for the yeas and nays and 
we can go to a vote.
  Mr. DODD. If I could take 1 minute, I have some remarks.
  Mr. GREGG. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will just respond a little bit. Then we 
will go to the vote. I have a statement from Chaka Fattah. I will not 
read all of this, but I think the Congressman from Philadelphia makes a 
very strong point. He says:

       If students do not have comparable opportunities, they will 
     not have comparable results.
       . . . There is no one anywhere who would say that rural and 
     urban school districts receive comparable resources with our 
     wealthier suburban districts; yet, we want to have the same 
     standards. This is not logical. I am perfectly prepared to 
     support testing where we measure the aptitude of young people 
     who have the same opportunities to see if they have the same 
     results.
       . . . The goal should be excellence for not just some, but 
     all, of our nation's children. My hope is that some of [our] 
     colleagues will understand the importance of educational 
     comparability as well.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Statement by Congressman Chaka Fattah on the Dodd Amendment

       ``For two days this week, the most powerful lawmaking body 
     in the world has debated whether poor children have the right 
     to learn in situations comparable to our wealthier students. 
     The Dodd Amendment, No. 459, stresses the need for schools to 
     have comparable resources. However, some are attempting to 
     block this important vote.
       Right now, the Republicans are pushing to test every child 
     in math and reading. But if poor kids do not have certified 
     teachers, if they don't have updated textbooks, if their 
     class sizes are twice as large and their school districts are 
     underfunded, then why ask for test results that are clearly 
     skewed? If students do not have comparable opportunities, 
     they will not have comparable results.
       I wonder why some Republicans are unwilling to urge states 
     to provide comparable educational opportunities for poor 
     children as the Dodd Amendment asserts. There is no one 
     anywhere who would say that rural and urban school districts 
     receive comparable resources with our wealthier suburban 
     districts; yet, we want to have the same standards. This is 
     not logical. I am perfectly prepared to support testing where 
     we measure the aptitude of young people who have the same 
     opportunities to see if they have the same results. However, 
     if we want these children to take national tests, we should 
     also strive to provide them with comparable resources. With 
     so many state courts ruling for more equitable funding, why 
     would some Republicans threaten to filibuster an amendment 
     that would provide this very goal?
       I have had many conversations with Senators Dodd, Biden and 
     others on why we need all our public schools to perform at 
     comparable levels. They understand this and should be 
     commended for offering this amendment. The goal should be 
     excellence for not just some, but all, of our nation's 
     children. My hope is that some of their Republican colleagues 
     will understannd the importance of educational comparability 
     as well.''

  Mr. DODD. To add to my colleague's point, this is not telling the 
States how

[[Page 10442]]

the State system should be structured. It is not saying that if one 
district offers Japanese as a language, because there is an interest, 
they have to offer it to everybody in the State. That is not common 
sense.
  Comparability of educational services is about comparability of 
educational opportunity. I cannot see why this is a controversial 
issue. I hope, again, our colleagues can support the amendment.
  I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his patience and yield 
the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 459, as further 
modified. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 459), as further modified, was rejected.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
370 offered by the Senator from California be next in order; that there 
be a 30-minute time agreement, with no second-degree amendments, and 
that we have, as we have been doing on this bill, a side-by-side 
amendment offered by Senator Hagel. His amendment would be debated for 
30 minutes evenly divided, with no second-degree amendments to the 
Hagel amendment. We would vote after both amendments were offered and 
argued.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it looks as if we will vote at 6:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                 Amendment No. 370 to Amendment No. 358

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to proceed under the 
unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 370.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 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 award grants for school construction)

       On page 302, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

                      Part __--School Construction

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

       This part may be cited as the ``Excellence in Education Act 
     of 2001''.

     SEC. __02. DEFINITIONS.

       In this part:
       (1) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary 
     school; secretary.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``local 
     educational agency'', ``secondary school'', and ``Secretary'' 
     have the meanings given the terms in section 3 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (2) Construction.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     ``construction'' means--
       (i) preparation of drawings and specifications for school 
     facilities;
       (ii) building new school facilities, or acquiring, 
     remodeling, demolishing, renovating, improving, or repairing 
     facilities to establish new school facilities; and
       (iii) inspection and supervision of the construction of new 
     school facilities.
       (B) Rule.--An activity described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be considered to be construction only if the labor standards 
     described in section 439 of the General Education Provisions 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b) are applied with respect to such 
     activity.
       (3) School facility.--The term ``school facility'' means a 
     public structure suitable for use as a classroom, laboratory, 
     library, media center, or related facility the primary 
     purpose of which is the instruction of public elementary 
     school or secondary school students. The term does not 
     include an athletic stadium or any other structure or 
     facility intended primarily for athletic exhibitions, 
     contests, or games for which admission is charged to the 
     general public.

     SEC. __03. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $1,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 
     2006.

     SEC. __04. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       The Secretary is authorized to award grants to local 
     educational agencies to enable the local educational agencies 
     to carry out the construction of new public elementary school 
     and secondary school facilities.

     SEC. __05. CONDITIONS FOR RECEIVING FUNDS.

       In order to receive funds under this part a local 
     educational agency shall meet the following requirements:
       (1) Reduce class and school sizes for public schools served 
     by the local educational agency as follows:
       (A) Limit class size to an average student-to-teacher ratio 
     of 20 to 1, in classes serving kindergarten through grade 6 
     students, in the schools served by the agency.
       (B) Limit class size to an average student-to-teacher ratio 
     of 28 to 1, in classes serving grade 7 through grade 12 
     students, in the schools served by the agency.
       (C) Limit the size of public elementary schools and 
     secondary schools served by the agency to--
       (i) not more than 500 students in the case of a school 
     serving kindergarten through grade 5 students;
       (ii) not more than 750 students in the case of a school 
     serving grade 6 through grade 8 students; and
       (iii) not more than 1,500 students in the case of a school 
     serving grade 9 through grade 12 students.
       (2) Provide matching funds, with respect to the cost to be 
     incurred in carrying out the activities for which the grant 
     is awarded, from non-Federal sources in an amount equal to 
     the Federal funds provided under the grant.

     SEC. __06. APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Each local educational agency desiring to 
     receive a grant under this part shall submit an application 
     to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the 
     Secretary may require.
       (b) Contents.--Each application shall contain--
       (1) an assurance that the grant funds will be used in 
     accordance with this part;
       (2) a brief description of the construction to be 
     conducted;
       (3) a cost estimate of the activities to be conducted; and
       (4) a description of available non-Federal matching funds.


                     Amendment No. 370 as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified 
with the changes I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, we have not seen the 
modification.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment as modified, is as follows:

       On page 696, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

                    ``CHAPTER 5--SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

     ``SEC. 5351. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Construction.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     `construction' means--
       ``(i) preparation of drawings and specifications for school 
     facilities;

[[Page 10443]]

       ``(ii) building new school facilities, or acquiring, 
     remodeling, demolishing, renovating, improving, or repairing 
     facilities to establish new school facilities; and
       ``(iii) inspection and supervision of the construction of 
     new school facilities.
       ``(B) Rule.--An activity described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be considered to be construction only if the labor 
     standards described in section 439 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b) are applied with respect to 
     such activity.
       ``(2) School facility.--The term `school facility' means a 
     public structure suitable for use as a classroom, laboratory, 
     library, media center, or related facility the primary 
     purpose of which is the instruction of public elementary 
     school or secondary school students. The term does not 
     include an athletic stadium or any other structure or 
     facility intended primarily for athletic exhibitions, 
     contests, or games for which admission is charged to the 
     general public.

     ``SEC. 5352. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--Funds made available to local 
     educational agencies under section 5312 may, notwithstanding 
     section 5331(a), be used to enable the local educational 
     agencies to carry out the construction of new public 
     elementary school and secondary school facilities.
       ``(b) Nonapplication of Provisions.--The provisions of 
     chapter 4 shall not apply to this chapter.

     ``SEC. 5353. CONDITIONS FOR USE OF FUNDS.

       ``In order to use funds for construction under this chapter 
     a local educational agency shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(1) Reduce school sizes for public elementary schools and 
     secondary schools served by the local educational agency to--
       ``(A) not more than 500 students in the case of a school 
     serving kindergarten through grade 5 students;
       ``(B) not more than 750 students in the case of a school 
     serving grade 6 through grade 8 students; and
       ``(C) not more than 1,500 students in the case of a school 
     serving grade 9 through grade 12 students.
       ``(2) Provide matching funds, with respect to the cost to 
     be incurred in carrying out the activities for which the 
     grant is awarded, from non-Federal sources in an amount equal 
     to the Federal funds provided under the grant.

     ``SEC. 5354. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency desiring 
     to use funds under this chapter shall submit an application 
     to the State educational agency at such time and in such 
     manner as the State educational agency may require.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each application shall contain--
       ``(1) an assurance that the grant funds will be used in 
     accordance with this chapter;
       ``(2) a brief description of the construction to be 
     conducted;
       ``(3) a cost estimate of the activities to be conducted; 
     and
       ``(4) a description of available non-Federal matching 
     funds.''

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think virtually every Member of this 
body has been to an overcrowded school. I personally have been in 
schools where I have seen children learning in closets because the 
population of the school was so large, for example, elementary schools 
with over 1,000 students, many schools with many different languages. 
Yet it is very difficult for local jurisdictions to build smaller 
schools because of the pressures of growing population.
  The amendment I have sent to the desk allows funds under title V, 
part B, subpart 4, the Innovative Education Program Strategies, to be 
used to reduce the size of schools. The amendment authorizes the U.S. 
Department of Education to award grants as a permissible use of these 
funds to reduce the size of schools, in other words, to build small 
schools. The grants would be equally matched by the State, the local 
jurisdiction, or the school district. This amendment does not add 
additional dollars but permits use of funds under Title V that may be 
available.
  I am introducing the amendment because I strongly believe children 
learn better and teachers teach better in smaller schools. Many of our 
schools are just too big. In fact, half of all American high school 
students go to schools with 1,500 or more students. Half of all 
American high school students are in huge high schools. Studies have 
shown again and again and again that student achievement improves when 
school and class size are reduced.
  The U.S. Department of Education indicates these are some of the 
benefits of small schools: Students have a greater sense of belonging; 
fewer discipline problems occur; crime, violence, and gang activity go 
down; alcohol and tobacco use declines; dropout rates fall; graduation 
rates rise; and student attendance increases.
  The ideal high school, according to education experts, is between 600 
and 900 students. The National Association of Elementary School 
Principals recommends an elementary school size of no more than 400 for 
grades kindergarten to grade 5. That is the way it was when I went to 
public school, and that is one of the reasons I was able to learn.
  Studies show that students in small schools have higher academic 
achievement, fewer discipline problems, lower dropout rates, higher 
levels of student participation, and higher graduation rates. A 
Tennessee study called project STAR placed 6,500 kindergartners in 330 
classes of different sizes. The test scores and the behavior of 
students in smaller classes were better than those in larger classes.
  We know that small class size benefits. We also know that in a 
society as diverse as ours, when some schools have as many as 40 
different languages, smaller schools benefit students and teachers as 
well.
  Under this amendment, schools receiving grants that would be equally 
matched would have to meet the following size requirements: For 
kindergarten through fifth grade, not more than 500 students; for 
grades 6 through 8, not more than 750 students; for grades 9 through 
12, not more than 1,500 students.
  This amendment will provide a new funding source for school districts 
or States to build new schools with the explicit goal of reducing 
school size. We need to build 6,000 new schools in this Nation just to 
meet enrollment growth projections. That is not going to happen if 
there isn't some Federal help. By amending title V and making this a 
permitted use--grants for small schools--I hope school districts will 
have an incentive to build small.
  Let me give examples of large schools. In Mapleton, UT, 832 students 
in an elementary school; Narragansett Elementary School, in Rhode 
Island, 710 students; Coral Gables Elementary School, FL, 748 students; 
Munford, AL, Ophelia Hill Elementary, 730 students; Gosnell Elementary, 
in Arkansas, 788 students. It isn't only the big States, it is the 
small States, too.
  Right nearby in Herndon, Virginia, we have a middle school of 1,285 
students and Rocky Run Middle School, also in Virginia, 1,350 students. 
A combination middle school and high school in Florida, in River Ridge 
Middle and High School, 3,260 students in one school.
  Here are some examples of large high schools. Olympic Heights 
Community High School, Palm Beach, FL, 2,405 students; Camelback High 
School, Phoenix, AZ, 2,557 students; Georgia, in South Gwinnett High 
School, 2,550 students; in Lyons, IL, 3,087 students; and Waipahu High 
School, in Hawaii, 2,434 students.
  California, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, has some of 
the largest schools in the country. Los Angeles has some of the largest 
classes and schools in the world. Let me give an example. In Los 
Angeles, Hawaiian Elementary--elementary--1,365 students; South Gate 
Middle School--middle school--4,442 students; Belmont High School, 
4,874 students.
  I have been in some of these schools.
  If we can provide an incentive for local jurisdictions to build 
smaller schools, educational experts now say that beginning schools, 
elementary schools, do not have to be in a special campus. We can have 
a campus within a campus or have a small school as part of a commercial 
setting, for example.
  The important thing is ``small.'' Small is better when it comes to 
education, particularly in the lower grades, and particularly when one 
has a varied socioeconomic structure, one has many different languages. 
Schools I have been in--and I will tell you this--have been a cacophony 
of sound, so many students, so much noise, everything in shifts; a 
shift for the lunch, everything in track; track 1, track 2; and, again, 
40 different languages spoken.
  I hope the Senate sees fit to pass this amendment. As I said, the 
amendment

[[Page 10444]]

does not add new funds. It would simply amend title V to make as a 
permissible use of title V funds, grants that would be equally matched, 
Federal dollars with state or local dollars, to build small schools in 
the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                 Amendment No. 797 to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hagel], for himself, Mr. 
     Campbell, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 797.

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

  (Purpose: To require that certain schools be given priority in the 
             allocation of school construction assistance)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

       ``5--FEDERAL PRIORITIES FOR SCHOOL REPAIR AND RENOVATION.

     ``SEC. 5351. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(7) Over several decades, Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
     Impact Aid schools have suffered from neglect and disrepair, 
     which has had a direct impact on student learning and safety.
       ``(8) As of January 2001, the repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation backlog for Bureau of Indian Affairs and heavily 
     impacted Impact Aid education facilities and quarters was 
     over $2,000,000,000.
       ``(b) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (including the provisions of this Act), in administering 
     any Federal program to provide assistance for school 
     construction or renovation, the Secretary of Education shall 
     ensure that assistance under such program is provided to meet 
     the construction or renovation needs of schools receiving 
     Impact Aid, schools under the jurisdiction of the Department 
     of Defense, and Indian and Bureau of Indian Affairs funded 
     schools prior to making any such assistance available under 
     such program to other schools.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to apply to--
       ``(1) school construction bond programs or school 
     renovation bond programs; or
       ``(2) amounts provided for school construction or 
     renovation under--''.

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Campbell and 
Kyl, in offering this amendment which reconfirms the Federal obligation 
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, Department of Defense schools, 
and Impact Aid schools. While we all agree that steps need to be taken 
to modernize and improve the conditions of our schools nationwide, one 
question continually permeates this debate and makes consensus 
difficult. This question revolves around what should be the appropriate 
role of the Federal Government with respect to school construction.
  Senator Feinstein would like to reduce class size by constructing 
more classrooms. That is an admirable goal, one to which I think we all 
are committed. However, before the Senate authorizes funding for 
general school construction, we have an existing obligation that we 
should meet first. The Federal Government has a responsibility to 
educate Native American children and the children of men and women who 
serve the Federal Government. This obligation includes building and 
repairing the schools these children attend.
  The need for school repair is great. There is no dispute about this 
need. The General Accounting Office estimated in March 2000 that it 
will cost $112 billion to repair and modernize U.S. schools. The 
National Education Association estimates that it will cost more than 
$300 billion to repair and modernize U.S. schools.
  However, before we can allow Federal funds to flow to locally 
supported schools for these purposes, as noble and worthy as these 
purposes are, we, the Federal Government, have our first obligation to 
ensure the facility needs of BIA, DOD, and Impact Aid-supported schools 
are met.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs operates 185 schools across the country. 
Impact Aid reaches more than 1,600 schools serving 1.2 million 
federally connected children. The Department of Defense operates 70 
schools nationwide. The repair needs of these schools reach well over 
$2 billion.
  Due to military base realignments, the Fort Hood public school 
district in Texas is now using over 200 trailers to serve students.
  The Waynesville School District in Missouri needs to replace a high 
school that was built in the late 19th century.
  In my home State of Nebraska, your home State, Mr. President, the 
Bellevue public school district needs a new middle school, and the 
Winnebago School District has over $3 million in needed immediate 
repairs and construction.
  The amendment I offer today along with my colleagues from Arizona and 
Colorado will assure we meet our commitment to the children attending 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Impact Aid, and Department of Defense 
schools, schools we clearly have a Federal obligation to support.
  We must meet these clear Federal obligations first.
  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. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                     Amendment No. 370 As Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I first thank Senator Feinstein for her 
amendment and urge the Senate adopt it. We have in the legislation what 
is called title V. That provides flexibility in the States and local 
communities--20 percent is retained to the State; 80 percent goes to 
the local communities. Half is distributed under a somewhat different 
formula from title I, but half goes into the title I formula, the other 
based on population. So there are funds that will be available.
  What this amendment is saying, as described by the Senator, is the 
resources can be used for the development of new schools.
  One of the things most of us think about when we think about new 
schools is a brand new school appearing on a bluff or on a hill or in a 
field. But what we are finding out now is that many new schools are 
being built inside of old schools. We have had good hearings on the 
results of this kind of experimentation, where they are taking schools 
that have large student populations and breaking them down and 
literally having two or three or four new schools in a very large 
school context.
  They are finding out the changing of the organization and changing of 
the structure and the administration and running of these institutions 
have had a very positive impact on the students themselves.
  So this amendment will provide some flexibility in this area of new 
schools. It will not only try to meet some of the needs for additional 
construction, which we have talked about earlier in the debate on the 
Carper amendment and earlier than that on the Harkin amendment, but it 
will also permit the use of these funds which otherwise would not have 
been permitted for the development of new schools in older school 
buildings.
  I think it is a useful addition. I know the initial amendment was a 
good deal more ambitious. I was prepared to support that 
enthusiastically. But I think this is an important addition, and I 
thank the Senator for bringing this matter to our attention.
  From my own judgment, this will be a very worthwhile utilization of 
the title I funding that I think should be supported.
  I notice the Senator from Nebraska asked for the yeas and nays. I 
believe, with my colleague, we are prepared to accept the Feinstein 
amendment, if we could voice vote that amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I think we will have to reserve our rights. We cannot do 
that right now.
  Mr. KENNEDY. All right. Then I think the Senator reserves the 
remainder of her time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts

[[Page 10445]]

for his comments. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 797

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment of the Senator from California, but right 
now I rise in support of the Hagel amendment and yield myself such time 
as I consume.
  I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska. 
Senator Hagel has proposed an amendment which is very appropriate. He 
essentially said in his amendment, before we start doing construction 
activities--renovation, repair--on public schools in jurisdictions 
where States have responsibilities or communities have 
responsibilities, we ought to first do our job in our own areas where 
we have responsibilities, specifically in the Indian reservation areas 
and especially at our military facilities. Many of our military 
personnel have young children and those children are, first, under the 
pressure of being children of military personnel, which is a difficult 
position and it puts a lot of pressure on the family. And, second, a 
lot of them are in school buildings which are dilapidated and simply 
not up to snuff as far as being a physical facility in which education 
should be performed.
  We, the Federal Government, have a first line of responsibility to 
take care of those school buildings and those school construction needs 
and renovation needs on our military installations. The same can be 
said for our Indian reservations where we have the primary 
responsibility through treaty agreements. There are numerous instances 
where the Federal Government has the responsibility of maintaining the 
physical facilities of the schools on those reservations. We have an 
obligation to do that.
  I think the Senator from Nebraska has really pointed out a very 
appropriate obligation of the Federal Government and has prioritized 
this process of using funds, to the extent they are going to be used, 
in the renovation area out of title VI, and the use of those funds in a 
manner which is consistent with our obligations as the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government's first responsibility should be the 
Federal facilities, and especially to children on our military bases.
  I strongly support the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska and 
hope it will be accepted. I look forward to voting on it.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I did not comment earlier on the Hagel 
amendment. I join in recommending support for the amendment. As one who 
was the chairman of the Committee on Indian Education just about 30 
years ago and was mindful of the particular needs of Native Americans, 
as well as those in the densely populated military districts, I think 
the Senator has given us a good amendment to be able to express our 
priority by giving focus and attention to the heavily impacted Native 
Americans and military districts.
  I welcome the chance to support the amendment. I thank him for 
bringing it to our attention.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I understand the Senator from 
California has 4 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this amendment, offered as a perfecting 
amendment, was never part of the printed list of amendments. As a 
matter of good faith, I was under the impression that it was the 
perfection of another amendment.
  This amendment is effectively the Enzi amendment. The effect of this 
amendment, if it goes into effect, is not the $10 million of impact aid 
for Native Americans; it effectively, under the language of the 
amendment on page 3 says, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the secretary shall ensure that assistance under such program is 
provided to meet the construction and renovation needs of schools 
receiving impacted aid.''
  That takes all of the previously appropriated money and effectively 
ends that kind of support for the schools that are expecting for this 
to be distributed in this month. So this is a revote on the Enzi 
amendment. The Enzi amendment was defeated and this amendment should be 
defeated.
  Quite frankly, I really question--I hate to say this--the good will 
of our colleagues. We have been attempting to working in good-faith 
efforts here. I didn't object to the modification of the amendment. 
This is a restatement of the Enzi amendment which effectively takes all 
of the construction funds previously appropriated and earmarked for 
States--already now the States would have that--and says that money 
will go to a handful of impact aid areas. I hope this amendment will be 
defeated. It is the Enzi amendment. I ask our colleagues to review 
their votes at that particular time.
  This effectively vitiates the action that was taken in the last 
Congress to help school construction across this country. With this 
amendment, it effectively eliminates that kind of proposal. I think it 
is grossly both an unfair and unwise policy.
  I have the list of the allocations now from the Department of 
Education for each of the 50 States. I say to every one of our Members, 
you can be assured you will not get this money that is going to go out 
to your States within the next 4 weeks. It will not go out if this 
amendment is accepted and becomes law. That is the effect of it.
  I regret that we didn't have more time to debate it. I regret that 
the proponent of the amendment is not here. I have been asking whether 
the floor manager of the bill understood this to be a repeat of the 
Enzi amendment. I ask him now if he knows that.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I can't yield on my time, since I have very little time 
left. I will say it is the exact language of the Enzi amendment. They 
are identical. That is really a misrepresentation of what this 
amendment is all about.
  I repeat, since I haven't any further time--and we were charged on 
our side during the quorum call, with all of my time being charged 
initially--even though earlier today when the Senator wasn't here, we 
asked for a fair distribution of the time. We can play it whatever way 
our friends on the other side want, but this is not the way for good 
legislation or good faith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, possibly, could you tell us what the time 
situation is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from California has how much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remains.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Nebraska?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes, I have 4 minutes, 
and there is no time on that side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. I don't know how the time is charged, but it seems to me 
that time is obviously being charged fairly and equitably because we 
are down to 4 minutes on our side, and I think the Senator from 
Massachusetts probably spoke for at least 4 minutes on his time.

[[Page 10446]]

  As to the equity of time charge, I think it was reasonable.
  As to the issue which the Senator from Massachusetts has asked--did I 
know this was the Enzi amendment--unfortunately, I didn't. But I still 
like the Enzi amendment. So I guess I am certainly for it. However, at 
this point I will yield to the Senator from Arizona, if the Senator 
wishes to claim time from Senator Hagel.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, as a cosponsor of the amendment, perhaps I 
could have the remainder of the time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could we ask for another 20 minutes?
  Mr. GREGG. That is fine with me if you want 20 minutes equally 
divided.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, first let me respond to the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I think he will find that this is not the Enzi 
amendment. That was several pages long. This is the first 21 lines of 
the first page of the Enzi amendment.
  What this amendment says is that the impact aid which has 
traditionally gone to the federally impacted areas is going to be given 
a priority. The primary areas we are talking about are Indian 
reservations and military installations.
  In my State of Arizona, we have more reservation Indians than any 
other State in the United States, and a lot of military installations.
  My own view is that States and local school districts have always had 
the responsibility for school construction. They are the ones primarily 
responsible for that.
  With respect to Federal involvement in primary and secondary 
education, our first obligation ought to be to the our first 
responsibilities--the Federal installations and the Indian reservations 
over which we have trust land responsibility. Both of them are sorely 
in need of these funds. Therefore, it makes sense to me that we should 
consider, as a distinct proposition, the first 21 lines of the Enzi 
amendment, which provide that the priority goes to these federally 
impacted areas--so that they get the money first, and what is left over 
can go to other school districts.
  To me, that seems very logical. It seems to be the appropriate role 
for the Federal Government. Why would we not take care of the Federal 
responsibilities first as a priority and then, to the extent there is 
money left over, add that to what the States and local school districts 
spend for their schools?
  Since 1967, impact aid construction has not been fully funded. The 
result is a huge backlog of projects. In Education Week, a school board 
member in the military impact district said that some districts 
conducted so much of their business in portable classrooms and aging 
buildings that they ``more closely resemble prison camps than 
schools.''
  He went on to say, ``Our troops are in Bosnia and those are the kinds 
of schools their kids are in.''
  I might note that the Military Impact Schools Association, which is 
obviously interested in this, estimated it would take $310 million to 
meet facility needs in their members' districts.
  I can tell you from my experience with the many Indian reservations 
in Arizona that you have a very similar situation with federally 
impacted schools in Indian Country. In fact, it is even more dire.
  According to a 1996 study by the National Indian Impacted Schools 
Association, a typical district of this type had more than $7 million 
in facilities needs.
  And facilities needs are even more pressing for America's 185 Indian 
schools, which educate 50,000 Indian students.
  According to testimony from the director of the Office of Indian 
Education, perhaps half of the schools within the jurisdiction of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs exceeded their useful lives of more than 50 
years, and more than 20 percent are over 50 years old.
  No fewer than 96 schools need to be entirely replaced.
  I think it is important that we put the money first where the Federal 
Government has the first responsibility, which is in our military 
installations and Indian reservations. That is all this amendment does. 
There is nothing secret about it. That is all it does.
  That doesn't begin to use up the entire $1.5 billion that is 
available here. That is approximately the amount, as I understand it.
  Again, we are simply providing the priority to the military 
installations and the reservations.
  I commend the Senator from Nebraska as well as the Senator from 
Colorado, Mr. Campbell, for his emphasis on getting these needs met, 
and I certainly hope we can adopt this amendment which establishes the 
priority for Federal facilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam President, this is an entirely unacceptable way to do business 
in the Senate. The initial Hagel amendment that was printed for all of 
us to see applied to impact aid and Native American construction. The 
amount of money that was appropriated previously was $10 million. It 
was represented to us that this was a technical correction about how 
that $10 million was going to be expended between impact aid and Native 
American housing.
  At the last moment, the Senator from Nebraska asked for a perfecting 
amendment. We, to our fault, believed that it was a perfecting 
amendment, but the perfecting amendment is an amendment that does not 
deal with the $10 million but deals with $1.2 billion and tracks the 
Enzi amendment which says the allocations of funding that had been 
reached under the Department of Education under the Harkin amendment of 
last year will be emasculated and instead there will be an entirely 
different distribution according to impact aid, so that every one of 
those States that was going to receive the aid now from the Department 
of Education are going to receive nothing. Somehow it will be 
distributed to States that have impact aid and Native Americans.
  That is a perfecting amendment. That just defies understanding, 
logic, reason, and truthfulness. Truthfulness.
  Madam President, I hope that amendment will be defeated. I will print 
the exact language of the Enzi amendment and the 22 lines the Senator 
from Arizona says--well, it is true they had 22 lines of the Enzi 
amendment. That is the operative language. What difference does it make 
if you have five other pages of it? You have 22 lines of it that say 
exactly what the Enzi amendment said. That is basically wrong. It is a 
bad way to deal with this institution.
  I am surprised, quite frankly. I regret having to make these remarks 
when the Senator is not here. We are under a time limit on this, and 
this amendment ought to be withdrawn, and we ought to deal with the 
existing Hagel amendment. When all time expires, I am going to make 
that request, that we withdraw the perfecting amendment and go back to 
the original Enzi amendment that was distributed and that was 
understood to be the amendment on which we were going to act.
  I yield the remaining 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in my home State of Illinois, we have an 
impact aid district. It is near the Great Lakes Naval Training Station. 
It needs additional Federal assistance. I supported it and asked for it 
over the years, and I will continue to support it.
  The Hagel amendment we are considering is fundamentally inexplicable. 
Here we have $1.2 billion to be given, as I understand it, to 200 
impact aid school districts; $6 million per school district if you 
happen to be in the lucky category of Senator Hagel's amendment. And 
who will lose? Sixteen thousand school districts across America that 
have already made application and been approved for money for 
renovation of schools.
  In my home State of Illinois, we are talking about $42 million they 
expect

[[Page 10447]]

to receive in the next few weeks, money that will be spent to make 
schools better and safer before the new school year starts. They will 
not receive the money under the Hagel amendment. Only one school 
district in my State will receive the money, some $6 million. Quite a 
windfall.
  I am sure they can figure out someplace to use it, but is that fair? 
Is it fair at this point in time, after every State in the Union and 
the school districts therein have made applications for $1.2 billion in 
school construction money, to tell them it is over, they are not going 
to receive this assistance? The money that is being applied for in this 
construction grant is money to make schools safer so kids can go to 
school and have a good learning experience.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. He really explained the 
motive behind this amendment. It is not a matter of helping impact aid 
districts; it is a matter of many Senators on that side of the aisle 
objecting to the notion that the Federal Government would give money to 
local school districts.
  The Senator from Arizona was very forthcoming. He said when it comes 
to school construction, it should come from State and local funds. That 
is his philosophy. This amendment reflects it. They do not want Federal 
assistance going to school districts across the State.
  I respect the Senator for being forthcoming in his statement, but 
let's be very clear that this amendment will take away $1.2 billion in 
school construction funds that school districts across America have 
applied for to make their schools better and safer for the new school 
year. That is clearly the intent of it. It is not a question of helping 
kids in school. It is a question of ending a program which many people 
on the other side of the aisle just do not agree with philosophically.
  I happen to believe education is the highest priority in our country. 
I believe that an investment from the Federal Government in making our 
schools safer so kids do not have the ceilings falling down on top of 
them, they are not stuck out in a trailer in the parking lot, they have 
a good classroom where they can learn, is a national priority that 
deserves a national investment.
  Those who opposed that program in years gone by had a chance to argue 
against it. They lost the debate. Now they are trying with the Hagel 
amendment to win again.
  I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, this amendment is, as he 
says, a last minute attempt to undermine a good program for school 
construction across America. Those school districts in every State are 
going to learn, if this amendment is adopted today, they have lost the 
Federal assistance they need to improve their schools. I reserve the 
remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. How much time is on this side?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Arizona 3 minutes.
  Mr. REID. How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 29 seconds.
  Mr. KYL. That was the time remaining on the Democratic side; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KYL. And the time remaining on the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I want to respond to my colleague from 
Illinois.
  I would like to characterize my position rather than having my friend 
from Illinois characterize my position. He complimented me on being 
candid to say that I thought the first responsibility for the Federal 
Government in school construction is for the military installations and 
Indian reservations. That is correct.
  That is why, in this amendment, we first apply school construction 
funds to the needs of the military installations and the Indian 
reservations because those are the schools that get no help from the 
States. States do not build schools on military installations of the 
Federal Government or on the Federal Indian reservations. Only the 
Federal Government has that responsibility. Only we spend the money for 
those facilities.
  Those facilities are in horrible condition, far worse as a general 
rule than the average school described by my friend from Illinois.
  What we are saying is since only the Federal Government takes care of 
these two areas, or should, that the money we have allocated for school 
construction should first be applied to them as a matter of priority.
  Do I have a bit of a parochial interest here? Yes, I do because we 
have a lot of military installations and Indian reservations in 
Arizona, and the conditions are deplorable on our Federal Indian 
reservations. Anybody in this Chamber would be embarrassed to go to 
these facilities, and I add to that the court facilities, the jail 
facilities, and a lot of other facilities. And who has the 
responsibility for them? The Federal Government. Again: these are the 
schools that do not get any help from the States.
  What are we saying as the Federal Government when we say that we are 
going to help the States and local governments build their schools 
before attending to our first obligation, our Indian reservations and 
military installations? I say that is backwards. We already have 
somebody who is supposed to have the responsibility to take care of our 
primary and secondary education within the States. It is only the 
Federal Government that can take care of the military and Indian 
reservations. That is why I say this amendment makes all the sense in 
the world.
  Let's prioritize the Federal dollars so we take care of our own 
responsibilities first and then the remainder of the funds can be 
distributed to the State school needs.
  That is the way I characterize this, rather than the way my colleague 
from Illinois did. It is a matter of priorities.
  I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 3 minutes 29 seconds, and the 
minority has 6 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Iowa is here. He was the proponent of 
the initial amendment that provided $1.2 billion which has been 
appropriated and now allocated to 50 States. The initial amendment of 
the Senator from Nebraska had a program that was previously funded at 
$10 million, and his amendment allocated that $10 million to Native 
Americans. That was the initial amendment.
  The Senator sent up a new amendment that was not even printed that 
effectively wipes out all of the money appropriated under the Harkin 
amendment a year ago and will deny the 50 States the funding to which 
they were entitled.
  The remaining 3 minutes goes to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I don't know how this amendment all of a sudden came out 
of the clear blue sky. We heard it was noncontroversial. This amendment 
robs States of millions of dollars they get on July 1 of this year. 
This is money we put in the appropriations bill last year. It was 
agreed to by the Republicans, by the Democrats, by the House, by the 
White House. This is all signed off on. This is $1.2 billion that goes 
to States for emergencies--safety, repairs to schools, to meet fire 
code violations.
  This is the same amendment--this amendment that is before the 
Senate--that was defeated May 16 by a bipartisan vote of 62-37. This is 
basically the same amendment. We have already defeated it 62-37. If 
Members vote for this amendment, they are voting to cut already 
appropriated funds that are going to States. Members are shifting it to 
important but a small number of schools in a few States.
  Before Members vote, see how much money is going into your State 
beginning on July 1 of this year. If this amendment passes, your State 
will not get one cent of this money for emergency repairs to meet fire 
and safety codes in their schools.

[[Page 10448]]

  This amendment was defeated on May 16--check the record--by a 
bipartisan vote of 62-37. This money is already appropriated. I already 
have the amount of money that has been allocated going to each State. 
The money is going out on July 1. Your school districts are counting on 
getting this money to meet fire and safety codes, to repair and 
renovate their schools. This is not building new schools. This is 
simply to make your schools safe.
  I hope people will reject this amendment as we rejected it before by 
a vote of 62-37 on May 16.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Hagel for offering 
an amendment to S. 1 concerning the existing obligations the Federal 
Government has to Bureau of Indian Affairs, DOD and impact aid school 
systems. through numerous treaties, statutes, and court decisions, the 
Federal Government has assumed a trust responsibility to provide a 
quality education to Indian children.
  This duty includes providing school facilities that have such basic 
amenities as 4 walls, heat, and healthy air to breathe. Adequate 
facilities and such essential necessities are not being provided to 
many Indian children attending Bureau of Indian Affairs, (BIA), funded 
schools.
  Unlike communities that have a tax base to fund school construction, 
military reservations and Indian reservations are dependent on Federal 
resources. Nearly 4,500 facilities serve the Bureau's education 
program, consisting of over 20 million square feet of space, including 
dormitories, employee housing, and other buildings providing education 
opportunities to more than 50,000 students. These facilities serve more 
than 330 federally recognized Indian tribes located in 23 States 
through self-determination contracts, compacts and education grants.
  We are not dealing here with ``the unknown.'' The GAO and other 
entities have produced countless studies and surveys showing us that 
half of the school facilities in the inventory have exceeded their 
useful lives of 30 years, and more than 20 percent are over 50 years 
old. Numerous deficiencies in the areas of health, safety, access for 
disabled students, classroom size, ability to integrate computer and 
telecommunications technology, and administrative space have been 
reported by the Bureau.
  As a former teacher myself, I am appalled when I visit reservations 
and see first hand the many schools with leaking roofs, peeling paint, 
overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate heating and cooling systems. The 
studies have shown that such deficiencies have adverse effects on 
student learning. By not providing secure educational facilities, we 
are paralyzing these children and putting them at a disadvantage that 
they may never overcome.
  The Federal Government has responded to the problem in piecemeal 
fashion, often using temporary solutions instead of working on a 
permanent plan of action. For instance, in fiscal year 2001 President 
Clinton's budget requested $2 million for ``portables'' or trailer 
classrooms that have been used since 1993. To date, the BIA has 
purchased 472 portables and 20 percent of the BIA's total education 
buildings are now portable classrooms. The request states these 
trailers are needed due to overcrowding and unhealthy and unsafe 
buildings. It states that portables are used to replace buildings or 
parts of buildings that have ``poor air quality'' that result in what 
the BIA calls ``sick building syndrome.''
  New funds for Indian school construction is one of the major focuses 
of President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget request with $292.5 million 
slated for such purposes. Of the overall education construction budget, 
$127.8 million has been requested for the construction of six schools: 
Wingate Elementary, NM; Polacca Day School, AZ; Holbrook Dormitory, AZ; 
Santa Fe Indian School, NM; Ojibwa Indian School, ND; and Paschal 
Sherman School, WA.
  As of January 2001, the repair and rehabilitation, and renovation 
backlog for Indian education facilities and quarters stood at $1.1 
billion and is even greater today.
  I understand the underlying notion of the Feinstein amendment, but I 
think this body should affirm our existing obligations to this Nation's 
DOD, Indian, and impact aid schools before we undertake even greater 
obligations.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 8 seconds 
and the Senator from New Hampshire has 6 minutes 59 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I make a point: For all the concern which 
the other side has, I believe the other side has a right to know of the 
amendments that come forward. The confusion about this is unfortunate. 
The fact is, this amendment is a legitimate second degree to the 
underlying amendment, and therefore would have been in order if we had 
been functioning under the traditional parliamentary system. We are 
functioning under a system where we don't second degree; we have side-
by-sides. As a second degree, it would have wiped out the Feinstein 
amendment. That is just a statement of where we are parliamentarily.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask to be recognized for 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I make it clear again: On May 16 an 
amendment was offered by Senator Enzi of Wyoming that would have 
redistributed $240 million of the $1.2 billion that is going out for 
school repair. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 62-37. That 
would have only redistributed $240 million. This amendment before the 
Senate takes the whole $1.2 billion and puts it into Impact Aid.
  If a Member was opposed to taking $240 million out of the school 
renovation repair for fire and safety code on the Enzi amendment, that 
Member surely ought to be opposed to taking $1.2 billion and putting it 
into Impact Aid and taking it away from our schools for meeting safety 
and fire codes in our local school districts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask to proceed for 2 minutes and give 1 minute to the 
Senator.
  The initial Hagel amendment was 549; what was called up was No. 797 
and was not printed. This was $10 million which we understood was going 
to be perfected in some way, as we have been perfecting amendments all 
day long on the floor and granting that permission--although it takes 
consent to do it. We expected that perfection would be along the lines 
of the Hagel amendment, a drafting error. Instead, what was called up 
is a completely different amendment, 797, that was not even printed and 
otherwise would be out of order since it was not filed in time. Instead 
of $10 million, it is $1.2 billion.
  I think that is a gross misappropriation. I ask, therefore, that the 
perfecting amendment be withdrawn and that we vote on the initial Hagel 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. GREGG. I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I understand the Senator from 
Massachusetts is expressing his frustration about the situation. But 
the situation is not, as I mentioned before, so far from what a typical 
parliamentary situation would be. All the first degrees had to be 
cleared, that is correct, but no second degrees had to be cleared. So 
there have been second degrees which are not being set up as second 
degrees because of this side-by-side process, which has been very 
constructive, so that everybody gets a vote on what their position is. 
They have been relevant to the first degree but have not been filed. So 
this is a second-degree amendment which is being held as a side-by-side 
amendment.
  That being said, simply, once again, to clear the parliamentary 
errors from where we are from our perspective.

[[Page 10449]]

  I yield the floor.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent we stand in a quorum call for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator can suggest the 
absence of a quorum. It will require further consent to terminate the 
call. Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wanted to ask if it would be 
appropriate----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum call is in progress.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted 
for----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may not reserve the right to 
object.
  Mr. GREGG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The bill clerk continued the call of the roll.


                      Amendment No. 797, Withdrawn

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays on my amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Was the 
amendment withdrawn, or did the author of the amendment intend to 
withdraw it?
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, my intent is to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-- of course I 
will not object--I cosponsored it because I felt very strongly that it 
was something we should do. I hope that sometime we will prioritize 
Federal funds for our responsibility to Federal military and Federal 
Indian reservation installations. I hope at some point we can get along 
with it. But, obviously, I don't object to withdrawing the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I ask the 
distinguished manager of the bill if there will be another opportunity 
with appropriate notice to have a vote on the Federal priorities for 
Federal schools because I, too, am very interested in our military 
schools and our Indian schools being a first priority. That is my 
inquiry.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there are amendments which are filed to 
that effect and that are in order. I don't have the list as to that 
particular measure in front of me.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think there is an amendment coming up 
that would be relevant to a second degree. If the Senator wishes to 
bring it back, it would be available at that time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend from 
Nebraska that his actions tonight, because of a misunderstanding that 
could have been on our part, only magnify my feelings about the Senator 
from Nebraska. This was very classic action on his behalf, and I 
personally appreciate it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in that. The Senator has given me 
a good explanation of what his plans were and what his intentions were, 
and they were completely honorable--not that they are not always 
honorable.
  His explanations made a great deal of sense to me when he explained 
what he had intended to do. So we were caught up in a difficult 
situation. I am enormously grateful to him for this action. We are more 
than glad to accommodate Senators as we move on. We will have another 
opportunity.
  On the basis of the substance, if he wants to, I will certainly ask 
consent that we be able to consider the Senator's amendment at a time, 
if he chooses to do so, later in this debate. We will all have an 
opportunity to vote on it at some time. I will take the opportunity to 
discuss this with the Senator and other interested Senators at a later 
time.
  I thank him very much.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, may I respond. I appreciate very much the 
work of my friends and colleagues from Nevada and Massachusetts. I 
would very much like to accept the invitation of the distinguished 
senior Senator from Massachusetts to at a later date have an 
opportunity to revisit this subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.


                     Amendment No. 370, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 370, as modified, offered by the Senator from California. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Murkowski
       
  The amendment (No. 370), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have the Senator from Washington, Ms. 
Cantwell, who has an amendment. As I understand it, there will probably 
be a side-by-side amendment that will be offered on that from the other 
side. It is the desire that both of those would be considered together 
probably on the morrow.
  We have the Senator from South Carolina and Senator Wellstone to 
speak. We are prepared to take the Nelson amendment now and include 
that. It has been cleared. Later on in the evening, we will have a 
voice vote on the amendment of my colleague, Senator Kerry. There is 
going to be, as I understand it, from the other side, a side-by-side 
amendment to that of the Senator from South Carolina. That is going to 
be available tonight, and it is going to be printed tonight. I don't 
know whether the Senator from Pennsylvania intends to speak about it 
tonight or not. We are just trying to get the general lay of the land 
so that the Members will know the way we are going to proceed. That is 
sort of what we have on track.
  Then we have a full morning tomorrow with the Senator from 
Connecticut and his amendment. We will then dispose of these other 
measures.

[[Page 10450]]

  I see the majority leader here. I know he wants to address the 
Senate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment both managers. I thank 
especially my colleague, Senator Kennedy. We have made a lot of good 
progress today. Obviously, we have a full night's work tonight. With 
that understanding, I have talked with Senator Lott, and I think we are 
prepared to say tonight there will be no more votes. We will have those 
two votes side by side tomorrow at 9 o'clock.
  So we will begin again following our work tonight with the votes 
tomorrow, and we will go on to the Dodd amendment and the order that 
Senator Kennedy has suggested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Was the Senator propounding a unanimous consent 
agreement?
  Mr. KENNEDY. No, I was not propounding a consent request. I was 
stating the way the managers would like to proceed. We are trying to 
proceed in good faith. We have talked to the different Members, and 
that seemed to be acceptable. We wanted to let the Members know.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Hollings and I were under the impression we 
would vote tonight. Sometimes when colleagues are gone, it is like 
spitting in the wind. If we are going to do it tomorrow, could we 
have--and this would hold true for Senator Santorum--5 minutes each to 
summarize tomorrow?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will put forth a unanimous consent 
request, which we will be prepared to propound later tonight. We will 
take that request into consideration.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, so we will continue through this evening. 
If there are other Senators with other amendments, we will try to 
continue the process. We have made good progress during the day, and we 
have some remaining important amendments tonight, and particularly in 
the morning. We thank our colleagues for their cooperation. We can move 
ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify 
amendment No. 630.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object--and I will not--it is my 
understanding that the Senator from Washington is going to take about 5 
minutes; is that right?
  Ms. CANTWELL. About 7 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Seven minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator proceed now, and we will 
have a chance to look at the modification and make the request for the 
modification perhaps later at the conclusion of her remarks? If I could 
suggest that to the Senator.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I will call up----
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator wants to proceed with her presentation, 
and then we will have an opportunity for the other side to review the 
modification. I am sure it is in order, and we can modify the amendment 
and dispose of this tomorrow.


                     Amendment No. 630 As Modified

  Ms. CANTWELL. I will call up amendment No. 630, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 630, as modified.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is no objection to the 
modification.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

             (Purpose: To provide additional requirements)

       On page 363, line 12, after ``disability.'' insert the 
     following: ``It shall be a further goal of this part to 
     encourage the effective integration of technology resources 
     and systems with teacher training and curriculum development 
     to establish research-based methods that can be widely 
     implemented into best practices by State and local 
     educational agencies.''.
       On page 369, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       ``(2) outlines how the plan incorporates--
       ``(A) teacher education and professional development;
       ``(B) curricular development; and
       ``(C) technology resources and systems for the purpose of 
     establishing best practices that can be widely implemented by 
     State and local educational agencies;''.
       On page 375, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 2309. NATIONAL EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGY PLANS.

       ``Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of 
     this title, the Secretary, in consultation with other Federal 
     departments or agencies, State and local educational 
     practitioners, and policy makers, including teachers, 
     principals and superintendents, and experts in technology and 
     the application of technology to education, shall report to 
     Congress on best practices in implementing technology 
     effectively consistent with the provisions of section 
     2305(2). The report shall include recommendations for 
     revisions to the National Education Technology Plan for the 
     purpose of establishing best practices that can be widely 
     implemented by State and local educational agencies.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington will proceed 
for 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan amendment to the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act that embraces the powerful role technology can play as a 
tool in educating our Nation's children.
  Before I proceed further, I thank Senator Kennedy for his exceptional 
work and leadership on this bill, and I thank Senator Enzi for his work 
in helping me develop this amendment. His leadership in technology 
issues during his tenure in the Senate has been outstanding, and I look 
forward to the continued work on these and other important technology 
issues.
  Technology has brought innovation and efficiency to our lives through 
businesses, and now it is time to make sure we make those same 
achievements in our educational system.
  Across the country, we have seen the proper uses of technology can 
transform a curriculum into a multimedia interactive experience that 
not only helps children learn more effectively but also fosters a 
student's passion for learning.
  Numerous recent studies, including some done by the Department of 
Education, the White House Office of Science and Technology, and the 
Rand Corporation, have shown that technology serves the goal of 
education in several important ways: Supporting student performance, 
increasing motivation and self-esteem, and preparing students for the 
future.
  Last fall, a San Francisco-based independent research organization 
released a study showing that the integrated use of computer technology 
in schools significantly increases learning. The study focused on the 
first 3 years of Microsoft's Anytime, Anywhere Learning Program which 
provides laptops for students and their teachers to integrate 
technology into the classroom and into their daily classwork. The study 
showed it improved the students' writing and encouraged collaboration 
and more involvement with their school classwork.
  So we understand that the potential of education and technology is no 
secret. But what we are finding today, as this chart shows, is that 
much of the investment has been made, in fact, in equipment. The chart 
shows that unless technology is properly integrated into curriculum, 
students will not realize the benefits of having access. Without 
teachers who know how to use computers to teach children, they will not 
benefit. When teachers are well trained and technology is used 
effectively to unleash children's imagination and creativity, magical 
things happen in our educational system.
  Take, for example, Tonasket, WA, where a teacher, Larry Alexander, 
combined computer technology and a 500-tree apple orchard to teach his 
fifth grade class about science, math, and technology. The kids studied 
a range of topics, including cell growth, life cycles, geometry, 
economics, and hands-

[[Page 10451]]

on learning experiences, literally becoming the most favorite program 
in the school.
  What the Cantwell-Enzi amendment says is that in addition to 
computers and access, we need to assure teacher training and curriculum 
development. The Cantwell-Enzi amendment takes the first step in 
bridging the technology and teaching divide. The amendment says the 
technology block grant program for State and local agencies should be 
amended so that instead of just putting dollars into technology under 
the title II program, States applying should integrate their system 
resources with teacher training and professional development and 
curriculum development, thereby assuring a focus on teacher training 
and curriculum development and not just on equipment.
  There are many examples of success to which this kind of legislation 
can lead, but I want to give one example from the State of New Jersey 
where a neighborhood of Cuban citizens and a school in Union City have 
made great success. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an 
article that appeared in Business Week in the last year on this 
subject.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Wired Schools--A Technology Revolution Is About To Sweep America's 
                               Classrooms

       In 1989, the schools in Union City, N.J., an impoverished 
     Cuban enclave along the Hudson River across from Manhattan, 
     were among the nation's worst. They received failing marks in 
     44 of the 52 categories New Jersey used to assess schools, 
     and state officials warned they would seize control if Union 
     City didn't shape up. The threat prompted many changes in 
     Union City, including a technological transformation of its 
     entire educational system. Aided by Bell Atlantic Corp. 
     (BEL<http://host,businessweek.com/businessweek/corporate 
     snapshot.html?Symbol-BEL&Timespan=260>, officials equipped 
     the schools and students' homes with a network of computers, 
     creating ``one of the most, if not the most wired urban 
     school district in the U.S.,'' says Margaret Honey, director 
     of the Center for Children & Technology in New York City. But 
     Union City did far more than simply buy computers. The school 
     day was restructured into longer classes; teachers were given 
     40 hours of training a year, up from 8; the district's school 
     budget more than doubled; and the traditional curriculum, 
     emphasizing rote learning, was scrapped so students would 
     work on joint projects such as researching a report on 
     inventions. ``The dynamics have changed tremendously,'' says 
     Mary Ann Sakoutis, a 37-year veteran social studies teacher 
     at Union City's Emerson High School, whose U.S. history 
     students now spend much of their time on the Net researching 
     such events as the Spanish-American War. ``The kids are more 
     involved, and I am no longer force-feeding them.'' It shows. 
     Last year, Union City topped all New Jersey cities on state 
     tests. The number of graduates accepted at top institutions 
     such as Yale University and Massachusetts Institute of 
     Technology has jumped from 8 in 1997, the last class taught 
     the old-fashioned way, to 63 in 1999.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Ms. CANTWELL. The article says:

       But Union City did far more than simply buy computers. The 
     school day was reconstructed into longer classes; teachers 
     were given 40 hours of training a year--

  And the school district doubled its budget--

     and the traditional curriculum of emphasizing rote learning 
     was scrapped so students could work on joint projects such as 
     research reports and inventions.

  The article further says that the kids are more involved and they are 
no longer being force fed in the educational system. The result is, the 
article says, that Union City topped all New Jersey cities on State 
tests. The number of graduates accepted at top institutions such as 
Yale University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology has jumped 
from just 8 of their graduates from Union City in 1997, the last time a 
class was taught the old-fashioned way, to 63 accepted graduates in 
1999.
  I think it shows the success of our focus on technology ought to be 
on curriculum development, teacher training, and on integration of the 
system.
  This amendment asks that the Department of Education analyze after 3 
years the best practices so we can scale the use of these best 
practices into our educational system in this country.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic cosponsor of 
the Cantwell-Enzi amendment. For some time, we have been working 
together to make sure there is not a digital divide in the United 
States of America. Both in the budget and in other amendments in this 
bill, we have passed legislation to provide access to technology, but 
we also have to be sure our children have access to people who know how 
to teach technology.
  Bill Gates said that if you have access to technology and know how to 
use technology, whether you are a person, a county, or a country, your 
future is bright, but if you do not have that access, your future is 
dismal.
  As we are working on our legislation, we want to make sure we have 
access to technology, but it is not only about gadgets, it is not about 
gear, it is about opportunity and empowerment.
  We need to make sure the children do have technology, but the single 
most important thing is teacher training--that the teachers themselves 
know how to use technology and then also, through creativity and new 
ingenious software, get our children ready for the future.
  We do not have a worker shortage in this country, but we do have a 
skill shortage. K-12 is the farm team for the future. Just as we have 
little leagues for baseball, we have to make sure our teachers are big 
league and ready to teach technology.
  I am pleased to continue to support the legislation that ensures 
there is no digital divide. The amendment offered by the Senator from 
the State of Washington is just what we need to make highest and best 
use of the technology we are going to provide. I congratulate her on 
her research, creativity, and the practicality of her amendment. I look 
forward to voting for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was under the impression this amendment 
was going to take a couple minutes, that the other side accepted it. 
Now I understand they are going to offer a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. SANTORUM. To Wellstone.
  Mr. REID. To Wellstone, not to this.
  Does the Senator from New Jersey wish to speak for 5 minutes on this 
amendment? I ask unanimous consent that be the case. If I may, while I 
am proceeding, I ask the Republican manager, is there going to be a 
second-degree amendment offered to this amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. REID. May we vote on them in the morning?
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding we will be voting on these in the 
morning. If they are acceptable, there will be less time needed to 
debate them in the morning.
  Mr. REID. They both may be accepted; is that right?
  Mr. GREGG. If they are going to be accepted. I do not know if your 
side has reviewed the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. REID. My only question is, we have Senators Hollings and 
Wellstone waiting, and we know they are going to be second-degreed. 
Senator Santorum already spoke to Senator Hollings. I wonder how much 
more time the Senator from Virginia wants on this amendment.
  Again, we have Senators Hollings and Wellstone waiting. They thought 
they would be next.
  Mr. ALLEN. We thought we were going to be introducing this amendment 
tomorrow morning. Copies are being made now. I believe I can give my 
remarks in 15 minutes this evening and it would be perfectly fine to 
vote. I understand people want to move forward.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from New Hampshire has the floor, maybe the 
Senator from Virginia could offer his amendment tonight, we could look 
at it, and he could speak on it sometime tomorrow and we could dispose 
of these two amendments.

[[Page 10452]]


  Mr. GREGG. That is an excellent suggestion. Perhaps those folks who 
wish to speak on the amendment of the Senator from Washington could 
also speak tomorrow prior to the vote on both.
  Mr. REID. Senator Corzine only wishes to speak for 5 minutes. We have 
Senator Hollings waiting.
  Mr. GREGG. We will plan to do it that way.
  Mr. REID. We vote on Senator Hollings in the morning and Senator 
Santorum in the morning.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct. Senator Santorum may need some time, 
unless it is accepted.
  Mr. REID. He has whatever time he needs tonight. Senator Hollings and 
Wellstone wanted 5 minutes. Does he need more than that?
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Pennsylvania is in the Chamber and can 
advise how much time he believes he needs in the morning.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Maybe 10 or 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. We will prepare something in writing.
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you.
  Mr. ENZI. I wanted to speak on the Helms amendment, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. I rise in strong support of the amendment that develops 
best practices for teaching technology education, the integration. This 
amendment ensures that our kids benefit from new technologies that are 
rapidly changing the face of our country.
  Before I discuss the amendment, I extend my compliments to the 
Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, for her outstanding leadership 
on this issue. Given her State and her own personal background, it is 
fitting she has taken the lead in this area. I think her expertise and 
her commitment to the application of technology in our society is a 
terrific addition to the Senate.
  I am particularly pleased the Senator from Washington cited Union 
City, NJ, as one of those places that has effectively integrated 
computer technology into the educational system, making a real 
difference in the lives of children in their learning experience. We 
heard the statistics.
  It is clear the Internet and the proliferation of computers have 
created a revolutionary change in our society. Yet when it comes to 
using the Internet to improve our schools, we have only scratched the 
surface. As the Senator suggested, we have done a lot regarding 
investing in hardware, but not a lot on the software, particularly 
among the teachers that have to bring the technology to our students.
  We need to move beyond word processing and e-mails and get to the 
real heart and soul of learning in a fundamental way and make it more 
interesting, more effective. The same kind of productivity gains we 
have had in our economy we can have in education. To do that we need to 
do a better job of training teachers and showing them how computers can 
change, not just what we teach but how we teach, integrating the 
technology and educational experience together.
  A few years ago, it would have been difficult for a fifth grader in a 
New Jersey school to share their experiences with a similar class in 
Australia or anywhere else in the world. Now they can. A few years ago 
it would have been difficult for students to chat real time with real 
experts around the country about questions discussed in class. Now they 
can. A few years ago it would have been unrealistic for a teacher to 
involve students with interactive software that uses exciting games to 
teach math and science. Now they can.
  However, they cannot do any of these things if teachers do not have 
the ability or the background to deliver those experiences. Today, many 
classrooms are equipped with computers, but their teachers are not 
equipped to integrate the computers into a learning experience. That is 
why this amendment is vital. Truly, it will make a difference. It will 
require States and local education officials to develop strategies for 
improving teacher training and curriculum development in order to 
assure that schools take full advantage of the Internet and other new 
technologies. There is tremendous potential and this amendment will 
make that possible.
  Again, I thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership on this issue. I 
urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, bringing the 
advances we have had in the rest of our society to our classrooms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. What is the present business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Cantwell amendment, as modified, is 
pending.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the amendment, and I 
send an amendment to the desk and ask it be reported on behalf of 
Senator Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, the Senator sent the amendment which 
will be offered as a side-by-side, the Santorum amendment, for 
tomorrow. I hope the amendment is printed and that interested Members 
and their staffs have a chance to take a look. We have copies available 
for the staff.
  There is no objection.
  Mr. GREGG. I withdraw my unanimous consent to set aside the Cantwell 
amendment so this can be a second degree. Is that correct procedure?
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, we are going to follow the precedent 
from earlier of voting side by side. We had the opportunity to vote 
first on the Cantwell amendment and then the other amendment, with 
back-to-back votes. I think that is what is intended. I think the 
Senator from New Hampshire agrees with me.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the cleanest way to do this is, if I may 
inquire of the Chair, to offer this as a first degree and have the 
Cantwell amendment also be a first degree. Would that be the most 
appropriate way to proceed?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this moment I ask to withhold further 
action on the amendment I sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to conform to the unanimous 
consent agreement. Accordingly, I ask my amendment at the desk be 
called and reported. I take it it is an amendment in the first degree?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment as drafted is a second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be considered 
as a first degree.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Amendments Nos. 798 and 799 to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time the 
Santorum amendment, which I had sent to the desk, be reported and that 
it be considered as a first degree in a side-by-side status with the 
Hollings amendment which is now a first degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 798.
       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 799.


[[Page 10453]]


  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 798

   (Purpose: To permit States to waive certain testing requirements)

         On page 47, after line 12, insert the following:
       ``(i)(I) a State may elect, in accordance with this clause, 
     to waive the application of the requirements of this 
     subparagraph if--

       ``(aa) the State determines that alternative public 
     elementary and secondary educational investments will produce 
     a greater increase in student achievement; or
       ``(bb) the State can demonstrate the presence of a 
     comparable assessment system;

       ``(II) a waiver under subclause (I) shall be for a period 
     of 1 year;
       ``(III) a State with a waiver in effect under this clause 
     may utilize Federal funds appropriated to carry out 
     activities in schools that fail to make yearly progress, as 
     defined in the plan of the State under section 1111(b)(2)(B), 
     to--

       ``(aa) increase teacher pay;
       ``(bb) implement teacher recruitment and retention 
     programs;
       ``(cc) reduce class size;
       ``(dd) hire additional teachers to reduce class sizes;
       ``(ee) improve school facilities;
       ``(ff) provide afterschool programs;
       ``(gg) tutor students;
       ``(hh) increase the access of students to technology;
       ``(ii) improve school safety; or
       ``(jj) carry out any other activity that the State 
     educational agency determines necessary to improve the 
     education of public elementary and secondary school students; 
     and

       ``(IV) a State shall ensure that funds to which this clause 
     applies will not be used to pay the cost of tuition, room, or 
     board at a private school or a charter school;''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 799

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding science 
                               education)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       ``It is the sense of the Senate that--
       ``(1) good science education should prepare students to 
     distinguish the data or testable theories of science from 
     philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name 
     of science; and
       ``(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum 
     should help students to understand why this subject generates 
     so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the 
     students to be informed participants in public discussions 
     regarding the subject.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, following the debate here for the last 7 
weeks, one would think the public school system of this Nation is in 
terrible, terrible disrepair. In fact, you'd think it should be closed 
down, a good bit of it. That is the thrust of the so-called testing 
approach given here, whereby for $7 billion over a 7-year period, all 
who have not done so will do so immediately. In other words, third to 
eighth grade pupils will be tested and then found inadequate and the 
trustees found unresponsive. Thereby, what we have is a closing down of 
the public school system.
  So we are going to show them from Washington. It is all out of whole 
cloth. The fact is, at the Federal level, we only provide some 7 cents 
of every education dollar. So we are not closing down the schools. And 
we ought to understand, at the outset, the public school system is one 
of the geniuses of the Founding Fathers.
  It was James Madison:

       A popular government without popular information or the 
     means of acquiring it is about a prologue to a farce or a 
     tragedy.

  In the earliest days, there was Madison.
  John Adams:

       The whole people must take upon themselves the education of 
     the whole people and be willing to bear the expense of it.

  The reason I start in this vein, to make these quotes, is because I 
have observed the 20-year effort to close down public schools: put in 
tuition tax credits, put in vouchers, put in charter schools--anything 
but give to the public schools and the pupils of America what they 
need.
  Thank heavens for the wonderful Senator from Minnesota, Senator Paul 
Wellstone. I had not been in on the early parts of this 7-week debate. 
But watching his zeal, his brilliance, and the way he has approached 
this particular problem, he has really been an education to all of us 
in the Senate.
  Let's look, for example, at the Land Ordinance of 1785, whereby 4 
years before the ratification of the Constitution of the United States 
they divided up in the western lands of Minnesota, 6 miles by 6 miles 
square, 36 squares, with the provision that square 36, in the middle, 
be reserved for public education. And Horace Mann, the father of public 
schools in America, said that this law laid the foundation of the 
present system of free schools:

       The idea of an educational system that was at once both 
     universal, free, and available to all the people, rich and 
     poor alike, was revolutionary. This is the great thing about 
     America. No other nation ever had such an institution. Three 
     centuries later it is a stranger to the bulk of the people of 
     the world. The free public school system which the Puritans 
     conceived, has been, in large measure, the secret of 
     America's success. In these classrooms, children of all ages, 
     nationalities, and tongues, learned a common language and 
     became imbued with one central idea: The American conception 
     that all men are created equal, that opportunities are open 
     to all, that every minority, whether respected or despised, 
     has the same guaranteed rights as the majority. Parents who 
     landed here often brought with them the antagonisms, the 
     rivalries, the suspicions of other continents, but their 
     children became one and united in the pursuit of a democratic 
     ideal.

  Mr. President, what Mann said and persists today is what he calls the 
large measure of the secret of America's success--not failure, success.
  I emphasize that because in the hinterlands 70 years ago, I was 
tested. We have been having tests, tests. The fact of the matter is I 
looked it up. This past school year, they spent $422 million on 
testing.
  Let's go to the little State of South Carolina where we have been 
having tests for the third through eighth grades, complete, at the cost 
of some $7.8 million.
  The superintendent of education in South Carolina, Ms. Inez 
Tenenbaum, said students under her testing system made significant and, 
in some cases, dramatic improvements in the latest round of tests. 
South Carolina increased greatly, met or exceeded the international 
average in the Third International Math and Science Study.
  The national report card, Quality Counts 2001, published by the 
respected national magazine, Education Week, recognized South 
Carolina's efforts to improve teacher quality and raise academic 
standards. South Carolina was ranked among the top six States in the 
Nation in both categories.
  My little State is not affluent with a low per capita income, and 
with a large minority population who, for 200 years, did not have 
public schools.
  The first thing I did the week I was elected back in 1948 was to 
attend the Freedom School across the Cooper River in my county in 
November. It was one big square building with a potbelly stove in the 
middle, with classes in each of the four corners, and one teacher. That 
is what the minorities had in 1948. We didn't start providing adequate 
educational opportunities for minorities until 1954 with Brown vs. 
Board of Education, and we are still playing catchup. It is not because 
we haven't made the effort or we do not know what is going on.
  I really get annoyed when I hear the Senator, not to be identified, 
say what we want to do is find out what works. Come on, Washington, ha-
ha. We are going to find out what works.
  Mr. President, I have a school that has been taken over by this 
distinguished superintendent. It has almost a totally black population. 
They have the zeal. They have the interest. They don't have the 
wherewithal. Now, we are helping at the State level. But to find out 
what works, they only have to go up to the junior high school in 
Columbia, SC, which was extolled in last week's issue of Time magazine, 
or to the Spartanburg High School in Spartanburg, SC, which was the 
first 4-time Blue Ribbon School.
  We know what works. We are working on what works. What really gets 
this Senator is potentially spending $3 to $7 billion on testing, 
according to the National Association of State Boards of Education. I 
ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 10454]]



                    ESTIMATED COST OF FEDERAL TESTING MANDATE FOR READING AND MATH (DOES NOT INCLUDE SCIENCE ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENT)
     (Calculations on the attached chart were made using the accepted cost scale of developing and administering (scoring, reporting results, etc.)
  assessments. Developing state tests aligned to standards range from $25-$125 per student. Administering tests is an annual expense that usually runs
  from $25-$50 per student. The number of students was derived from the 1999-2000 school year enrollment statistics in grades 3-8 in each state. Since
 administration is an ongoing expense, it was calculated based on being implemented in the 2004-05 school year as called for in the President's proposal
  and detailed in H.R. 1 and running through the remainder of the seven year reauthorization term of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
                                 The estimates do not include the cost of the science assessments required in 2007-08.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Development                     Administration             Total cost--development plus
                                      Students,    --------------------------------------------------------------------          administration
              States                  grades 3-8                                                                       ---------------------------------
                                                          $25              $125             $25              $50            Minimum          Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................          351,299       $8,782,475      $43,912,375       $8,782,475      $17,564,950      $43,912,375     $114,172,175
Alaska...........................           64,019        1,600,475        8,002,375        1,600,475        3,200,950        8,002,375       20,806,175
Arizona..........................          407,991       10,199,775       50,998,875       10,119,975       20,399,550       50,998,875      132,597,075
Arkansas.........................          211,380        5,284,500       26,422,500        5,284,500       10,569,000       26,422,500       68,698,500
California.......................        2,765,332       69,133,300      345,666,500       69,133,300      138,266,600      345,666,500      898,732,900
Colorado.........................          331,605        8,290,125       41,450,625        8,290,125       16,580,250       41,450,625      107,771,625
Connecticut......................          262,403        6,560,075       32,800,375        6,560,075       13,120,150       32,800,375       85,280,975
Delaware.........................           53,216        1,330,400        6,652,000        1,330,400        2,660,800        6,652,000       17,295,200
DC...............................           31,634          790,850        3,954,250          790,850        1,581,700        3,954,250       10,281,050
Florida..........................        1,126,261       28,156,525      140,782,625       28,156,525       56,313,050      140,782,625      366,034,825
Georgia..........................          672,760       16,819,000       84,095,000       16,819,000       33,638,000       84,095,000      218,647,000
Hawaii...........................           87,515        2,187,875       10,939,375        2,187,875        4,375,750       10,939,375       28,442,375
Idaho............................          112,786        2,819,650       14,098,250        2,819,650        5,639,300       14,098,250       36,655,450
Illinois.........................          930,160       23,254,000      116,270,000       23,254,000       46,508,000      116,270,000      302,302,000
Indiana..........................          462,285       11,557,125       57,785,625       11,557,125       23,114,250       57,785,625      150,242,625
Iowa.............................          219,167        5,479,175       27,395,875        5,479,175       10,958,350       27,395,875       71,229,275
Kansas...........................          214,838        5,370,950       26,854,750        5,370,950       10,741,900       26,854,750       69,822,350
Kentucky.........................          292,915        7,322,875       36,614,375        7,322,875       14,645,750       36,614,375       95,197,375
Louisiana........................          345,366        8,634,150       43,170,750        8,634,150       17,268,300       43,170,750      112,243,950
Maine............................          100,617        2,515,425       12,577,125        2,515,425        5,030,850       12,577,125       32,700,525
Maryland.........................          396,137        9,903,425       49,517,125        9,903,425       19,806,850       49,517,125      128,744,525
Massachusetts....................          458,740       11,468,500       57,342,500       11,468,500       22,937,000       57,342,500      149,090,500
Michigan.........................          763,727       19,093,175       95,465,875       19,093,175       38,186,350       95,465,875      248,211,275
Minnesota........................          389,236        9,730,900       48,654,500        9,730,900       19,461,800       48,654,500      126,501,700
Mississippi......................          232,811        5,820,275       29,101,375        5,820,275       11,640,550       29,101,375       75,663,575
Missouri.........................          418,709       10,467,725       52,338,625       10,467,725       20,935,450       52,338,625      136,080,425
Montana..........................           73,408        1,835,200        9,176,000        1,835,200        3,670,400        9,176,000       23,857,600
Nebraska.........................          130,074        3,251,850       16,259,250        3,251,850        6,503,700       16,259,250       42,274,050
Nevada...........................          156,584        3,914,600       19,573,000        3,914,600        7,829,200       19,573,000       50,889,800
New Hampshire....................          102,346        2,558,650       12,793,250        2,558,650        5,117,300       12,793,250       33,262,450
New Jersey.......................          577,632       14,440,800       72,204,000       14,440,800       28,881,600       72,204,000      187,730,400
New Mexico.......................          152,283        3,807,075       19,035,375        3,807,075        7,614,150       19,035,375       49,491,975
New York.........................        1,275,051       31,876,275      159,381,375       31,876,275       63,752,550      159,381,375      414,391,575
North Carolina...................          611,381       15,284,525       76,422,625       15,284,525       30,569,050       76,422,625      198,698,825
North Dakota.....................           50,867        1,271,675        6,358,375        1,271,675        2,543,350        6,358,375       16,351,775
Ohio.............................          848,082       21,202,050      106,010,250       21,202,050       42,404,100      106,010,250      275,626,650
Oklahoma.........................          281,037        7,025,925       35,129,625        7,025,925       14,051,850       35,129,625       91,337,025
Oregon...........................          256,063        6,401,575       32,007,875        6,401,575       12,083,150       32,007,875       83,220,475
Pennsylvania.....................          845,909       21,147,725      105,738,625       21,147,725       42,295,450      105,738,625      274,920,425
Rhode Island.....................           73,218        1,830,450        9,152,250        1,830,450        3,660,900        9,152,250       23,795,850
South Carolina...................          314,851        7,871,275       39,356,375        7,871,275       15,742,550       39,356,375      102,326,575
South Dakota.....................           60,191        1,504,775        7,523,875        1,504,775        3,009,550        7,523,875       19,562,075
Tennessee........................          416,306       10,407,650       52,038,250       10,407,650       20,815,300       52,038,250      135,299,450
Texas............................        1,833,022       45,825,550      229,127,750       45,825,550       91,651,100      229,127,750      595,732,150
Utah.............................          212,143        5,303,575       26,517,875        5,303,575       10,607,150       26,517,875       68,946,475
Vermont..........................           48,157        1,203,925        6,019,625        1,203,925        2,407,850        6,019,625       15,651,025
Virginia.........................          526,475       13,161,875       65,809,375       13,161,875       26,323,750       65,809,375      171,104,375
Washington.......................          466,546       11,663,650       58,318,250       11,663,650       23,327,300       58,318,250      151,627,450
West Virginia....................          132,200        3,305,000       16,525,000        3,305,000        6,610,000       16,525,000       42,965,000
Wisconsin........................          393,473        9,836,825       49,184,125        9,836,825       19,673,650       49,184,125      127,878,725
Wyoming..........................           42,606        1,065,150        5,325,750        1,065,150        2,130,300        5,325,750       13,846,950
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals.....................       21,582,814      539,570,350    2,697,851,750      539,570,350    1,079,140,700    2,697,851,750    7,014,414,550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2000-2001         2001-2002         2002-2003         2003-2004        2004-2005        2005-2006        2006-2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Law..................  School Fails to   School Fails to   School            School            Corrective       Cont'd--Year 6.  Cont'd--Year 7
                                make AYP--Year    make AYP--Year    Improvement--Ye   Improvement--Ye   Action--Year 5.
                                1.                2.                ar 3.             ar 4.
                                                                   New plan; 10% $   (Cont'd           W/hold $ or
                                                                    on prof dev.      activities).      change
                                                                                                        governance or
                                                                                                        reconstitute
                                                                                                        or other
Best Act.....................  School Fails to   School            School            Corrective        Reconstitution-
                                Make AYP--Year    Improvement--Ye   Improvement--Ye   Action--Year 4.   -Year 5
                                1.                ar 2.             ar 3.
                                                 At the beginning  If school is      If school failed  Schools that     Move out of
                                                  of year 2,        still failing     for 3             failed for       reconstitution
                                                  school must       to make AYP, it   consecutive       four years to    if make
                                                  implement, w/in   must, starting    years to make     make AYP must    progress over
                                                  3 months, a new   the next school   AYP, at the       go into          next 2 years
                                                  plan that         year: continue    beginning of      reconstitution   or repeat
                                                  includes: 10%     activities from   the 4th year it   which requires   reconstitution
                                                  funds for prof    previous year;    must: institute   them to:
                                                  dev; research-    and must          alternative       provide
                                                  based             provide public    governance, or    supplementary
                                                  strategies to     school choice     replace staff,    services;
                                                  turn around.      options. A        or use a new      provide public
                                                                    district may      curriculum; and   school choice
                                                                    institute         with no more      with
                                                                    corrective        than 15% of       transportation
                                                                    actions.          Title I funds,    ; and reopen
                                                                                      it must provide   the school
                                                                                      the option for    under new
                                                                                      transportation    governance.
                                                                                      for public
                                                                                      school choice
                                                                                      and
                                                                                      supplemental
                                                                                      services for
                                                                                      the lowest
                                                                                      achieving
                                                                                      students.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it shows the cost of this particular 
approach.
  Then we hear Senator after Senator saying curriculum, and the other 
one is class size. The other one is better teacher pay. The other one 
is more reading after school, and on down the list of particular needs. 
But this Washington, one-size-fits-all, unfunded mandate says do as we 
say do, and go through our $7 billion exercise in futility. And come up 
with what? Let's assume it works. Let's assume that 30 or 40 schools in 
my State are closed. You can't go from one county to the other. You 
can't just waltz from Allendale over to Hampton. You would have to 
change the laws in South Carolina. We act like we know what is going 
on. We are the ones who do not know what is going on. We are the ones 
who ought to be tested. Come on.
  Then, of all things, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has 
been going over and over again, we have given them the test without 
giving them the course.
  Sure, I believe in testing. We all believe in testing. But give them 
the course, and test them on the course.

[[Page 10455]]

But if you give them the women, infants, and children nutritional 
program, they would come into this world with strong minds. If you do 
not give them Head Start, which is only 30 percent covered right now, 
they aren't prepared to learn when they enter school. If you do not 
give them Title I for the disadvantaged--which we only fund at 33 
percent of its authorized level--they haven't had the course. If you do 
not give them a prepared teacher, they don't receive quality 
instruction. I have had tutors go into some of the schools, and say 
they were rather embarrassed because the teacher spoke English poorly.
  So the student hasn't had the course. But in Washington, we know what 
to do. We are going to mandate as much as $7 billion in standardized 
tests before they have had the course. Can't we spend $7 billion giving 
them the course, giving them good teachers, giving them the small 
classrooms, curriculum, remedial reading and math, afterschool 
programs, and give them a good building?
  Let's take the money and assume we have had the test in effect over 
the past 4 years. Let's assume it proves schools are failing. So we 
have schools that are closed down. Let's take the closed-down or about-
to-be-closed-down schools, because they are not going to do it. Let's 
assume they are the poor schools. We need revenue sharing. I put that 
first bill in on February 1, 1967. It worked well until the Senators 
found out that the Governors were using it to distribute money around 
the States to run against Senators. Senator Howard Baker and some 
others repealed it. But it worked.
  My distinguished colleague from California, Senator Boxer, says there 
is no silver bullet. But there is silver money.
  What they need is revenue sharing and financial assistance for all 
these particular endeavors that everybody has. The side-by-side 
amendment is curriculum. I tend to support Senator Santorum on that 
curriculum, and all the other Senators around. But let's not try to 
dignify this flawed approach to public education. It is just downright 
pollster politics. They haven't been able to do away with the 
Department. They haven't been able to get tuition tax credits, 
vouchers, or charter schools, or in any way to divert money to the 
private sector.
  Incidentally, I have had children that have gone to both private and 
public schools. I have a daughter who graduated from Woodrow Wilson 
High, and another one who went to Cathedral right here in the District. 
I know the value of both of them.
  But the duty of the Congress, the United States Senators and the 
United States Government is to provide, as John Adams and James Madison 
and Horace Mann said, public education, not private. That isn't how to 
do it.
  We cannot oversee the private schools. We cannot dictate to the 
private schools. We should not dictate to the private schools. But we 
have a duty. Do not give me this ``private approach'' like somehow we 
don't know what works or what works better. We know.
  Right to the point, if we use this money, we can get something done 
rather than go through an exercise in futility. We are already testing 
in all 50 States. You can't show me a State in the United States that 
does not have testing. You can't do it.
  What we really need to do--and I will yield to my distinguished 
colleague from Minnesota in a moment--is fund what works. But now that 
has to really be upgraded with respect to globalization, the technology 
that is needed in these classrooms, the good teachers and everything 
else of that kind. That is what we need to do.
  Let's not waste money. In the last campaign in 1998, my challenger 
took me on before all the principals and talked about the bureaucracy 
in Washington--the Washington nanny, the Washington approach. That is 
exactly what this is. This is not helping the local schools at all. 
This is saying, we are putting you on trial, and you are going to have 
to pay for a good part of it. That is an unfunded mandate. Can you 
imagine such a thing really being signed by the President or suggested 
by a mature body such as the Senate?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit on this debate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe I interrupted the Senator 
from South Carolina. I will take a couple minutes because the Senator 
from South Carolina has said it better than I can.
  Listening to the Senator from South Carolina, I want to say a couple 
things. First of all, I want to say one thing personally, which is 
unusual to say, but I hope people were able to listen carefully to the 
history behind the remarks.
  There are some people in our country--I am sorry, but the Senator was 
so kind and gracious, I just sound like a politician engaged in 
flattery--there are few people I have met who I so admire. I cannot 
believe the people that were at the heart of the struggle in the South 
who took on a system of apartheid. And this Senator from South Carolina 
is one of them. There are very few of us who have this history--very 
few of us. It doesn't mean Senators have to agree with his position on 
this amendment. But I just wanted to say that. There are some people 
who showed unbelievable courage and were prophetic. And I feel that way 
about Senator Hollings from South Carolina.
  When I was listening to the Senator from South Carolina, I was 
thinking to myself that actually there are a couple different issues 
here. On one of them, I spent so many hours I felt as if I was giving 
enough speeches to deafen the gods. And maybe that is what happened 
because I did not get a lot of votes on the amendment that meant the 
most to me.
  There were some amendments we did on testing, I say to my colleague, 
that make this bill better, much, much better if, in fact, it ensures 
that assessments do not just become standardized, multiple choice 
tests, and rather include multiple, high quality measures.
  Then there was the question of whether or not, if we are going to 
mandate--my colleague talks about unfunded mandates--that every child 
will be tested in every State, in every school district, in every 
grade, then I was praying for a Federal mandate or mission that would 
say that we would also have equality of opportunity for every child in 
our country to be able to do well in these tests, to be able to 
achieve.
  I think part of what the Senator from South Carolina is saying is 
that in some ways this is utterly ridiculous. We already know the 
schools where kids have two and three and four teachers during a year. 
We already know the schools where I would argue housing is becoming a 
major educational issue. In some of our towns kids, little kids are 
moving--little children that are my grandchildren's age--two or three 
or four times during the year.
  We already know the difference between a beautiful building, that is 
inviting, that tells children that we care about them versus a 
dilapidated, crumbling building that tells children that we don't care 
about them.
  We also know of the schools where there are toilets that work and 
computer technology and buildings that were warm this winter and are 
not stifling hot in the summer. We know that that works. As a matter of 
fact, most Senators can look at where their children have gone to 
school, and they know what works.
  We already know that the smaller class sizes are good. We already 
know that support services for teachers are really important, whether 
it be more counselors, whether it be additional teaching assistants to 
help children read or to do better in reading or to do better in math. 
We already know it all. I think that is part of what the Senator is 
saying.
  So this amendment says, if a State chooses, in its wisdom, to say, we 
don't really need to do this, but we would certainly make use of this 
money to help the children, to help our kids, to help our schools, to 
help our teachers, we leave it up to the States to do so.

[[Page 10456]]

  Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I only have two more points to make, 
one point I have not made in this Senate Chamber but I have been 
thinking about this and thinking about this and thinking about this to 
the point where I just don't even know how to decide how to vote. A 
large part of me wants to vote against this bill. On the other hand 
there are strong improvements in the bill--most particularly mandatory 
funding for the IDEA program. That is really important. That will help 
a lot of our schools, I say to Senator Hollings. It really will.
  But the other side of the coin is clear. I have asked a question of 
some of my friends who are more conservative than I. There are a number 
of Senators who may be more conservative than I. But I have asked them: 
How do we get to this point where the Federal Government is now going 
to mandate--first of all, the NAEP test every year. Despite NAEP's high 
quality these are still new tests that every State is going to have to 
do.
  Seven years ago we started some testing under Title I, but we have 
not even gotten the results on that testing authorized in 1994. We have 
not begun to evaluate whether or not that testing has had a positive 
impact on student learning. But now we are going to move ahead and test 
every child every year.
  We have the Federal Government now telling school districts--which I 
always thought was the heart of the grassroots political culture in 
America--that it doesn't matter what you have decided you need to do. 
It doesn't matter how you think you can be most accountable. We, the 
Federal Government, are telling every school district in every State, 
you will test every child in the third grade, the fourth grade, the 
fifth grade, the sixth grade, the seventh grade, and the eighth grade. 
I do not know whether the Federal Government has any business doing 
that.
  I am amazed, frankly, that there is not more opposition. It would 
seem to me a good conservative principle would be that this is an 
overreach.
  Now people could turn around and say to me: Well, you, of all people, 
Senator Wellstone but, for me, when it comes to civil rights or when it 
comes to human rights or when it comes to the first amendment or when 
it comes to a floor beneath which no poor child should fall or when it 
comes to basic educational needs of children or that children should 
not go hungry, I do not think that is up to a State to decide. To me, 
we, as a national community, should say, no, we all live by these 
rules, these values.
  But the other part of me is a decentrist. I do not know whether I 
really believe the Federal Government has any business telling every 
school district in every State they have to do this. I think we can 
very well rue the day that we voted for this.
  On that philosophical point, as well as on the question of how we are 
setting a lot of kids and teachers in schools up for failure because we 
have not committed the resources to make sure they will all have the 
opportunity to learn, it seems to me this amendment speaks of that. 
That is why I rise to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am obviously very grateful for the 
more than laudatory, exaggerated remarks. We are good friends. We are 
working the same side of the street.
  Let me emphasize, with respect to our minority schools, endeavors 
have been made there. In 1950-51 in South Carolina, we passed a 3-
percent sales tax that I authored. We were trying to play catchup ball. 
When we increased the sales tax, under Governor Riley, to 5 percent, we 
were supported by the Black Caucus. I want to emphasize that we were 
opposed at the time by the Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina 
Association of Textile Manufacturers, and the other business groups.
  Minorities know there is one way to really try to catch up and get a 
piece of this American dream. That is public schools, public education. 
Wherever you can give them the support and the means to really 
implement it, they support public education. I did not want to infer, 
when I talked about my Allendale school, that they were not for it. In 
fact, I have other reports in here, with which I will not belabor the 
Senate, on the tremendous improvements already made in the takeover of 
that particular school. We have worked year in and year out, and we 
still are trying our best.
  One of the things that goes into the calculation is the quality of 
the teacher. If you go to the institutions of higher learning in this 
country, public and private, the education degree, in large measure, is 
to take care of the football team. If you have a big, old, hefty 280-
pounder who is not too quick upstairs but very quick with his legs and 
everything else downstairs, then you put him in education. Let him get 
into an education major. I have discussed this with college presidents. 
We have been into every facet of this thing.
  The one big waste is this bill. It is a tremendous waste of time and 
money. It should not be. Yes, I agree on the disabilities provisions in 
there. All of us are frustrated because we all know about the needs. We 
have been pointing out different needs. So we should address these 
needs directly instead of creating costly tests that tell us what we 
already know.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the documents I referred 
to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Amount spent                                                                                                               Revenue
                          State                           on testing (in    Grade 3     Grade 4     Grade 5     Grade 6     Grade 7     Grade 8    Number of 3-8     New tests        sharing
                                                              thous)                                                                                   tests         required        proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................          $4,000          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0      $6,918,844
Alaska..................................................           3,500          B           B   ..........          B           B           B               10               2       3,714,151
Arizona.................................................           4,800          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       7,551,260
Arkansas................................................           3,200  ..........          B           B           B           B           B               10               2       5,358,006
California..............................................          44,000          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0      33,848,095
Colorado................................................          10,700          R           R           B           B           B           B               10               2       6,699,152
Connecticut.............................................           2,000  ..........          B   ..........          B   ..........          B                6               6       5,927,183
Delaware................................................           3,800          B   ..........          B   ..........  ..........          B                6               6       3,593,640
Florida.................................................          22,400          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0      15,563,774
Georgia.................................................          14,000          B           B           B           B   ..........          B               10               2      10,504,837
Hawaii..................................................           1,400          B   ..........          B   ..........  ..........          B                6               6       3,976,256
Idaho...................................................             700          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       4,258,161
Illinois................................................          16,500          B   ..........          B   ..........  ..........          B                6               6      13,376,210
Indiana.................................................          19,000          B   ..........  ..........          B   ..........          B                6               6       8,156,926
Iowa....................................................               0  ..........          B   ..........  ..........  ..........          B                4               8       5,444,873
Kansas..................................................           1,100  ..........          M           R   ..........          M           R                4               8       5,396,581
Kentucky................................................           8,100          B           R           M           B           R           M                8               4       6,267,553
Louisiana...............................................           9,000          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       6,852,660
Maine...................................................           3,300  ..........          B   ..........  ..........  ..........          B                4               8       4,122,412
Maryland................................................          17,100          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       7,419,025
Massachusetts...........................................          20,000          R           B   ..........          M           B           R                7               5       8,117,380
Michigan................................................          16,000  ..........          B           R   ..........          R           R                5               7      11,519,600
Minnesota...............................................           5,200          B   ..........          B   ..........  ..........          B                6               6       7,342,043
Mississippi.............................................           7,600          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       5,597,075
Missouri................................................          13,400          R           M   ..........  ..........          R           M                4               8       7,670,823
Montana.................................................             282          B   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          B                4               8       3,818,888
Nebraska................................................           1,650  ..........          R   ..........  ..........  ..........          R                2              10       4,451,014
Nevada..................................................           3,300          B           B           B   ..........  ..........          B                8               4       4,746,741

[[Page 10457]]

 
New Hampshire...........................................           2,500          B   ..........  ..........          B   ..........  ..........               4               8       4,141,700
New Jersey..............................................          17,000  ..........          B   ..........  ..........  ..........          B                4               8       9,443,656
New Mexico..............................................             650          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       4,698,762
New York................................................          13,000  ..........          B   ..........  ..........  ..........          B                4               8      17,223,571
North Carolina..........................................          11,300          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       9,820,136
North Dakota............................................             208  ..........          B   ..........          B   ..........          B                6               6       3,567,436
Ohio....................................................          12,300  ..........          B   ..........          B   ..........  ..........               4               8      12,460,605
Oklahoma................................................           2,500          B   ..........          B   ..........  ..........          B                6               6       6,135,051
Oregon..................................................           7,000          B   ..........          B   ..........  ..........          B                6               6       5,856,458
Pennsylvania............................................          15,000  ..........  ..........          B           R   ..........          B                5               7      12,436,365
Rhode Island............................................           2,300          R           B   ..........  ..........          R           B                6               6       3,816,768
South Carolina..........................................           7,800          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       6,512,256
South Dakota............................................             720  ..........          B           R   ..........  ..........          B                5               7       3,671,448
Tennessee...............................................          15,600          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       7,644,016
Texas...................................................          26,600          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0      23,447,902
Utah....................................................           1,400          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       5,366,518
Vermont.................................................             460  ..........          B   ..........  ..........  ..........          B                4               8       3,537,206
Virginia................................................          17,900          B           B           B           B   ..........          B               10               2       8,872,984
Washington..............................................           7,700          B           B   ..........          B           B   ..........               8               4       8,204,458
West Virginia...........................................             400          B           B           B           B           B           B               12               0       4,474,730
Wisconsin...............................................           2,000          R           B   ..........  ..........  ..........          B                5               7       7,389,308
Wyoming.................................................           1,700  ..........          B   ..........  ..........  ..........          B                4               8       3,475,283
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................................         422,070  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........             387             213     390,409,780
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--B=Tests in Reading and Math; M=Tests in Math; R=Tests in Reading.


                                  ____
Statewide Focus on School Improvement Produces a Year of Improving Test 
                                 Scores

                         (By Inez M. Tenenbaum)

       The end of a school year is always an exciting time. We 
     take time to review the year behind us and immediately begin 
     to plan for the one ahead. The school year just ending has 
     been marked by the most significant student test score 
     improvements in the history of South Carolina's public school 
     system. Indeed, we are well on our way to forever putting to 
     rest the misguided perception that our students and schools 
     cannot succeed. Clearly, they can.
       South Carolinians should take pride in the progress we are 
     making. Consider these successes from the past year:
       Students made significant and in some cases dramatic 
     improvements in the latest round of PACT testing, with gains 
     reported across all grade levels, subjects and demographic 
     groups.
       Scores of South Carolina High School Exit Exam rose nearly 
     three points , the largest gain in a decade.
       South Carolina high school seniors raised their average SAT 
     score by 12 points, the largest gain in the country and four 
     times the national increase. In addition, South Carolina high 
     school juniors improved their performance on the Preliminary 
     SAT by 5.2 points, nearly four times the national increase of 
     1.4 points.
       Scores of South Carolina high school seniors taking the ACT 
     college entrance exam rose from the previous year while 
     sophomores who took PLAN--the preliminary ACT--scored one-
     tenth of a point higher than the national average.
       Our fifth-, eighth- and 11th-graders scored above the 
     national average in reading, language and math on TerraNova, 
     a nationally standardized test of reading, language and math 
     skills.
       South Carolina eighth-graders met or exceeded the 
     international average in the Third International Math and 
     Science Study, which compared test scores from students in 38 
     nations.
       An analysis by the nonprofit RAND organization of 
     improvements in student reading and math test scores ranked 
     south Carolina 17th among the states.
       For the fifth consecutive year, the number of South 
     Carolina first-graders scoring ``ready'' for school set a new 
     record. More than 43,000 first-graders--a record 85.2 
     percent--met the state's readiness standard. That was a 13 
     percentage-point improvement from 1995, the year before the 
     state began a three-year phase-in of full day kindergarten. 
     The biggest improvements were by minority students and 
     students from low-income families.
       In the midst of these test score improvements, the national 
     report card ``Quality Counts 2001,'' published by the 
     respected national magazine Education Week, recognized South 
     Carolina's efforts to improve teacher quality and raise 
     academic standards, South Carolina was ranked among the top 
     six states in the nation in both categories.
       This report was especially significant, because I believe 
     that a major reason for South Carolina's success has been our 
     dramatic raising of academic standards. By setting the bar so 
     high, and by creating the extremely rigorous PACT tests to 
     measure our progress, we have challenged our students and 
     schools--and they have responded.
       I do not mean to suggest that the struggle to build a 
     world-class school system in South Carolina has been won. 
     Although it's true that we have schools in our state that are 
     as excellent as any in the nation, we also have schools that 
     struggle to provide their students with even the most basic 
     education.
       This November, South Carolina's first school report cards 
     will be published under the mandate of the Education 
     Accountability Act of 1998. Many schools will have their 
     excellence confirmed, and others will be identified as 
     needing extensive assistance. As State Superintendent of 
     Education, I can assure you that these schools will get that 
     assistance.
       But as we await November's report cards, let's remember the 
     amazing accomplishments of the school year that's now ending. 
     Our progress is real, and it is undeniable. South Carolina 
     educators, students, parents, businesses, and communities are 
     proving every day that focus and hard work pay off.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article 
in today's Washington Post, ``From Teachers to Drill Sergeants,'' be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 12, 2001]

                    From Teachers to Drill Sergeants

                            (By Jay Mathews)

       I have watched hundreds of teachers over the last two 
     decades and am sure of one thing: I couldn't last two days in 
     their jobs. After the first day, my throat would be sore, my 
     legs wobbly and my energy level needle pointing below empty. 
     That night I would fall asleep trying to make a new lesson 
     plan. The next morning I would call in sick, making it clear 
     I had an incurable, terminal illness.
       So it is unbelievably presumptuous of me to write columns 
     and give speeches on how to make schools better. I regularly 
     remind myself, and anyone who might be listening, that when 
     it comes to talking about education, I am just a balding, 5-
     foot-6-inch playback machine. The thoughts are not mine, but 
     those of the many educators, as well as students and parents, 
     who have patiently explained to me over the years what is 
     going on, and why.
       I am always amazed that such smart and busy people have 
     time for me. That is especially true these last few weeks. 
     Scores of readers have responded to the request in my May 22 
     column for a precise accounting of how the new state 
     achievement tests affect teaching. I now have a much deeper 
     appreciation of what the tests--and administrators' ill-
     considered reaction to them--have done to many schools.
       Only about half of the teachers who wrote me said they had 
     been forced to change their teaching, but that is because in 
     many cases they refused to alter what was working for their 
     students. ``My philosophy has long been, continues to be, and 
     . . . will continue to be largely the test,'' said Al Dieste, 
     who teaches at-risk middle schoolers at Springfield Community 
     Day School, a public school in Columbia, Calif. ``I teach; 
     the test be damned.''
       Lisa Donmoyer, a kindergarten to eighth grade science 
     specialist in Easton, Md., said ``a rich, interesting 
     classroom is more likely to produce students who do well on 
     the test than a classroom where the teacher employs the 
     `drill and kill' method.''
       But in many cases, teachers said, administrators made it 
     very difficult to do the right thing.
       At one Fairfax County high school, non-honors students were 
     dropped from in-class National History Day essay writing 
     activities so they would have more time to study for the 
     Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) tests, even though some 
     non-honors students had won previous district competitions.
       Hewitt, Tex., high school teacher Donna Garner resigned in 
     protest when her popular program for teaching the lost art of 
     grammar was banned because it conflicted with

[[Page 10458]]

     the step-by-step schedule for preparing for the Texas 
     Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) tests.
       A third-grade teacher in Fort Worth, said her principal 
     asked her if she had designated as many students as possible 
     for special education classes so they would be exempt from 
     the tests and make the school average higher.
       Raymond Larrabee was told his son's eighth-grade honors 
     English class would not have time to read all of Charles 
     Dickens' ``David Copperfield'' because there were too many 
     topics to cover for the Massachusetts Comprehensive 
     Assessment System (MACAS) test.
       A Florida principal told a novice teacher that her wide-
     ranging discussions of the possible answers to sample test 
     questions was a waste of time. Just tell them which answers 
     are correct, she was told.
       Doug Graney, a history teacher at Herndon High School in 
     Fairfax, and a recently retired Arlington teacher who asked 
     not to be identified, dropped their engaging approach to U.S. 
     history because of the SOLs. They had been starting with post 
     World War II history, stimulating family discussions about 
     events their students' parents and grandparents had 
     witnessed. Then they went back to colonial days to show how 
     it had all started.
       The e-mails illuminated two problems that I think all sides 
     in the testing debate would acknowledge. First, some states 
     may be demanding that teachers cover too much, ensuring once-
     over-lightly instruction. Second, many principals, moved by 
     blind panic or cross-town rivalry, are demanding more test 
     prep--taking practice tests, learning testing strategies, 
     memorizing key essay words--than is necessary or useful.
       Problem one is something for state school boards and 
     superintendents to ponder. Problem two is, at least in part, 
     something that teachers can do something about.
       Okay. I know. I am the coward who lacks the fortitude to 
     even try teaching. But I think many educators are right when 
     they say that too many of their colleagues are obeying their 
     principals rather than their principles.
       Even pointy-headed, fire-breathing managers will back off 
     if key employees tell them results will only come if they 
     butt out. That takes gumption, but it is worth a try.
       Gerald Gontarz, a sixth-grade science and social studies 
     teacher in Plymouth, NH., drops raw chicken eggs from 
     airplanes and sends up hot air balloons to involve kids in 
     his lessons. ``Much of the time I spend on this stuff will 
     not help my students take the test,'' he said. But ``it 
     really turns them on, and honestly, there is no state test 
     that measures students' motivation.''
       Kenneth Bernstein, a ninth-grade social studies teacher in 
     Prince George's County, stated what should be the teacher's 
     creed: ``I will not object to testing if you will allow me to 
     get my kids ready the best way I can, and not also mandate 
     the specific steps of instruction, for then I cannot teach 
     the individual child.''
       I sensed some teachers are having second thoughts about 
     groveling before the testing gods. Graney, for instance, told 
     me in a follow-up e-mail that he plans to return to his 
     reverse approach to U.S. history.
       The results are still important. A teacher should be able 
     to raise his class's overall achievement level a significant 
     amount from September to April or May. Some students will 
     falter because of unhappy home lives or test anxiety or other 
     factors beyond a teacher's control, but on average there 
     should be progress. If there isn't, I don't think the teacher 
     can blame the test.
       Many educators will object to this. They say the tests are 
     too narrow and their own assessments of each child should be 
     enough. In many cases, they are right, but parents cannot 
     stay in the classroom all year making certain of this. I 
     don't think I will ever be comfortable without an independent 
     measure of how my child and her school are doing, and I think 
     the vast majority of parents feel the same way.
       I think we can agree on one thing: Principals and 
     superintendents should not force good teachers to turn 
     themselves into drill sergeants if there are better ways to 
     teach the material. Administrators should set the goals and 
     let their teachers decide how to meet them, then find ways to 
     help those teachers who do not measure up.
       Most principals already do that, but since so many of them 
     are portrayed as clumsy villains by my e-mail correspondents, 
     they deserve a chance to defend themselves. My e-mail address 
     is [email protected]. How many of you administrators are 
     telling your teachers to fill their class time with practice 
     tests? Are you sure that is the best way to go?

  Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a piece Jay Mathews wrote. I want to give some 
examples from this article. There is one thing he mentions that is 
really important:

       I have watched hundreds of teachers over the last two 
     decades and am sure of one thing: I couldn't last two days in 
     their jobs. After the first day, my throat would be sore, my 
     legs wobbly and my energy level needle pointing below empty. 
     That night I would fall asleep trying to make a new lesson 
     plan. The next morning I would call in sick, making it clear 
     that I had an incurable, terminal disease.

  Then the article gets much more serious. Part of the insulting 
assumption of this legislation is that the teachers in this country 
don't want to be held accountable, that we now have to do the tests to 
show that they really are not doing their job.
  There are, of course, teachers you will find who subtract from 
children, but many of them are saints. And I doubt that there is one 
Senator who condemns these teachers who could last an hour in the 
classrooms they condemn. If you go and visit schools, teachers are 
talking about other issues: What happens to children before they get to 
school; the whole question of kids who come to kindergarten way behind. 
They are talking about the lack of affordable housing, children who are 
coming to school hungry today in America, class size and all of the 
rest of it. That is what they are talking about. But our response is to 
go to these tests and to assume that somehow, once children are tested, 
everything will become better.
  I want to give some examples Jay Mathews gives today, about the 
effect that an over-reliance on testing can have on the classroom. He 
writes:

       Lisa Donmoyer, a kindergarten to eighth grade science 
     specialist in Easton, Md., said ``a rich, interesting 
     classroom is more likely to produce students who do well on 
     the test than a classroom where the teacher employs the 
     `drill and kill' method.''
       But in many cases, teachers said, administrators make it 
     difficult to do the right thing.
       Hewitt, Tex., high school teacher Donna Garner resigned in 
     protest when her popular program for teaching the lost art of 
     grammar was banned because it conflicted with the step-by-
     step schedule for preparing for the Texas Assessment of 
     Academic Skill (TAAS) tests.
       A third grade teacher in Fort Worth said her principal 
     asked her if she had designated as many students as possible 
     for special education classes so they would be exempt from 
     the tests and make the school average higher.
       Raymond Larrabee was told his son's eighth grade honors 
     English class would not have the time to read all of Charles 
     Dickens' ``David Copperfield'' because there were too many 
     topics to cover for the Massachusetts Comprehensive 
     Assessment System (MCAS) test.
       A Florida principal told a novice teacher that her wide-
     ranging discussion of the possible answers to sample test 
     questions was a waste of time. Just tell them which answers 
     are correct, she was told.
       Doug Graney, a history teacher at Herndon High School in 
     Fairfax, and a recently retired Arlington teacher who asked 
     not to be identified, dropped their engaging approach to U.S. 
     history because of the [Virginia standard of learning test]. 
     They had been starting with post World War II history, 
     stimulating family discussions about events their students' 
     parents and grandparents had witnessed. Then they went back 
     to colonial days to show how it all started.

  So I just want to issue this warning, about where I am afraid we are 
heading: I think in the absence of the resources and with the 
overreliance on tests that is emerging, what we are going to have is, 
as one teacher put it so well to Jonathan Kozol, you are going to have 
great teachers living in ``examination hell.'' A lot of the really good 
teachers are going to get out. In fact, they are now. Some of the 
really great teachers are just refusing to be drill instructors, 
teaching to tests, tests, tests. They are leaving. This is the opposite 
direction from where we should be going.
  It is very much the case that the best teachers are the ones who are 
not going to want to be teaching to these tests. And frankly, some of 
the worst teachers can do it.
  When I am in schools, and I have been in a school about every 2 weeks 
for the last 10 and a half years I ask the students, when we get into a 
discussion of education: What do you think makes for a good education? 
You are the experts. Before class size, before technology, before 
anything else, they say: Good teachers.
  Then I say: What makes for a good teacher? I never hear students say: 
Well, the really good teachers are the teachers who teach to 
worksheets. The really good teachers are the teachers who basically 
have us memorizing all the time and then regurgitating that

[[Page 10459]]

back on tests. They talk about teachers who spend time with them, 
teachers who fire their imagination, teachers who don't just transmit 
knowledge but basically empower them to figure out how to live their 
lives. They talk about teachers who get the students to connect 
personally to the books that are being discussed, to the ideas that are 
being discussed, to how those ideas affect their lives. That is what 
they talk about.
  That is not the direction we are going, not with what we are bringing 
down from the Federal Government, top-down to school districts all 
across our land. Again, that is why this amendment is so important.
  I thank my colleague for the amendment. I am proud to support him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 1 on Wednesday, June 13, at 9 a.m. with 40 
minutes for closing debate on the Santorum amendment No. 799 and the 
Hollings amendment No. 798 concurrently, with 20 minutes each prior to 
votes in relation to the amendments, with no second-degree amendments 
in order prior to the votes, and that the Santorum amendment be voted 
on first. Further, I ask that following disposition of the Santorum and 
Hollings amendments, Senator Landrieu be recognized to call up her 
amendment No. 474, with 30 minutes for debate in the usual form prior 
to a vote in relation to her amendment, with no second-degree 
amendments in order; further, following disposition of the Landrieu 
amendment, Senator Dodd be recognized to call up his amendment No. 382 
regarding 21st century afterschool programs, with 2 hours for debate 
prior to a vote on a motion to table the amendment, with no second-
degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are moving along very well. This has been 
a difficult day. We have a number of other amendments to which we think 
we can go quite rapidly. I think with luck we can finish this bill on 
Thursday.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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. 519, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously 
agreed to Bingaman amendment No. 519 be modified to reflect a 
correction in a numerical error in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 577, line 2, strike the double quote and period.
       On page 577, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 4304. SCHOOL SECURITY TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE CENTER.

       ``(a) Center.--The Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Education, and the Secretary of Energy shall enter into an 
     agreement for the establishment at the Sandia National 
     Laboratories, in partnership with the National Law 
     Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Southeast and 
     the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, 
     Arkansas, of a center to be known as the `School Security 
     Technology and Resource Center'.
       ``(b) Administration.--The center established under 
     subsection (a) shall be administered by the Attorney General.
       ``(c) Functions.--The center established under subsection 
     (a) shall be a resource to local educational agencies for 
     school security assessments, security technology development, 
     evaluation and implementation, and technical assistance 
     relating to improving school security. The center will also 
     conduct and publish school violence research, coalesce data 
     from victim communities, and monitor and report on schools 
     that implement school security strategies.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $4,750,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, of which 
     $2,000,000 shall be for Sandia National Laboratories in each 
     fiscal year, $2,000,000 shall be for the National Center for 
     Rural Law Enforcement in each fiscal year, and $750,000 shall 
     be for the National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
     Technology Center Southeast in each fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 4305. LOCAL SCHOOL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Grants authorized.--From amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall award grants on a 
     competitive basis to local educational agencies to enable the 
     agencies to acquire security technology for, or carry out 
     activities related to improving security at, the middle and 
     secondary schools served by the agencies, including obtaining 
     school security assessments, and technical assistance, for 
     the development of a comprehensive school security plan from 
     the School Security Technology and Resource Center.
       ``(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local educational agency shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application in such form and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require, including 
     information relating to the security needs of the agency.
       ``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to local educational agencies 
     that demonstrate the highest security needs, as reported by 
     the agency in the application submitted under paragraph (2).
       ``(b) Applicability.--The provisions of this part (other 
     than this section) shall not apply to this section.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of''.

     

                          ____________________