[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10582-10645]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
       Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No. 
     358), to remove the 21st century community learning center 
     program from the list of programs covered by performance 
     agreements.
       Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls 
     Clubs of America.
       Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit 
     the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational 
     agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of 
     America in providing equal access to school premises or 
     facilities.
       Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing 
     the sense of the Senate that there should be established a 
     joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to 
     investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the 
     country and to determine what is causing the increases.
       Hutchinson modified amendment No. 555 (to amendment No. 
     358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
     Department of Education program to promote access of Armed 
     Forces recruiters to student directory information.
       Feinstein modified amendment No. 369 (to amendment No. 
     358), to specify the purposes for which funds provided under 
     subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used.
       Reed amendment No. 431 (to amendment No. 358), to provide 
     for greater parental involvement.
       Clinton modified amendment No. 516 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health 
     and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school 
     buildings on children and to establish the Healthy and High 
     Performance Schools Program.
       Cantwell modified amendment No. 630 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for additional requirements with regard to the 
     integration of education technology resources.
       Hollings amendment No. 798 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     permit States to waive certain testing requirements.
       Gregg (for Santorum) amendment No. 799 (to amendment No. 
     358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding science 
     education.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now 
be 40 minutes for closing debate on the Santorum amendment No. 799 and 
the Hollings amendment numbered 798.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we resume consideration of the 
education authorization bill, we have 40 minutes of debate on the 
Santorum and Hollings amendments concurrently, with two rollcall votes 
at approximately 9:40 this morning, and votes throughout the day, as 
well into the evening, as the Senate works to complete action on the 
education bill this week. If the bill is completed on Thursday, there 
will be no rollcall votes on Friday.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Santorum.


                      Amendments Nos. 798 and 799

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my amendment which 
will be voted on in roughly 40 minutes. This is an amendment that is a 
sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that deals with the 
subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science 
in the classroom, in primary and secondary education. It is a sense of 
the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite 
the contrary, it says there should be freedom to discuss and air good 
scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do 
better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to 
discuss.
  I will read this sense of the Senate. It is simply two sentences--
frankly, two rather innocuous sentences--that hopefully this Senate 
will embrace:

       ``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.

  It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out 
there that are continually tested. Our knowledge of science is not 
absolute, obviously. We continue to test theories. Over the centuries, 
there were theories that were once assumed to be true and have been 
proven, through further revelation of scientific investigation and 
testing, to be not true.
  One of the things I thought was important in putting this forward was 
to make sure the Senate of this country, obviously one of the greatest, 
if not the greatest, deliberative bodies on the face of the Earth, was 
on record saying we are for this kind of intellectual freedom; we are 
for this kind of discussion going on; it will enhance the quality of 
science education for our students.
  I will read three points made by one of the advocates of this 
thought, a man named David DeWolf, as to the advantages of teaching 
this controversy that exists. He says:

       Several benefits will accrue from a more open discussion of 
     biological origins in the science classroom. First, this 
     approach will do a better job of teaching the issue itself, 
     both because it presents more accurate information about the 
     state of scientific thinking and evidence, and because it 
     presents the subject in a more lively and less dogmatic way. 
     Second, this approach gives students greater appreciation for 
     how science is actually practiced. Science necessarily 
     involves the interpretation of data; yet scientists often 
     disagree about how to interpret their

[[Page 10583]]

     data. By presenting this scientific controversy 
     realistically, students will learn how to evaluate competing 
     interpretations in light of evidence--a skill they will need 
     as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or other 
     fields. Third, this approach will model for students how to 
     address differences of opinion through reasoned discussion 
     within the context of a pluralistic society.

  I think there are many benefits to this discussion that we hope to 
encourage in science classrooms across this country. I frankly don't 
see any down side to this discussion--that we are standing here as the 
Senate in favor of intellectual freedom and open and fair discussion of 
using science--not philosophy and religion within the context, within 
the context of science but science--as the basis for this 
determination.
  I will reserve the remainder of my time. I have a couple of other 
speakers I anticipate will come down and talk about this amendment, and 
I want to leave adequate time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I understand correctly the Senator 
from Minnesota has the time from Senator Hollings?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So Senator Hollings has the 10 minutes. In his absence, 
the control of the time should be with the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair whether or not we have 
10 minutes altogether on our side or 10 minutes for each of us. What is 
the understanding from last night?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 10 
minutes, and the Senator from South Carolina controls 10 minutes, which 
has now been----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes of my time if the 
Senator wants it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has been tendered 
10 minutes from the time allotted to Mr. Hollings.


                           Amendment No. 798

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my hope is the Senator from South 
Carolina will be able to be here. He spoke last night on his amendment, 
and he can do it with more eloquence and more persuasively than can I. 
But I told him, since I support his amendment, I would be pleased to 
try to be a fill-in for him.
  I see my colleague is now here. I say to the Senator from South 
Carolina that I will be delighted to follow him, if he is ready to 
speak.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina. I will 
follow my colleague.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from South Carolina seek 
recognition?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. President, this Senate, and I say it advisedly and respectfully, 
in a sense, we are the best off-Broadway show. We engage in these 
charades, set up these straw men and then knock them down, taking the 
credit for being so effective politically.
  We say we have a surplus; we don't have a surplus. The CBO projected 
in March a $23 billion surplus for this fiscal year. Mark it down, it 
will be between a $50 billion and $70 billion deficit. We haven't even 
passed an appropriations bill. We have not passed any kind of 
supplemental and already we can foresee, less than a week after the 
signing of the so-called tax cut--where we had no taxes to cut--a 
deficit of $50 billion to $70 billion.
  Now here is what we set up. We say: Wait a minute. In education there 
is no accountability; there is no testing. The people back home do not 
know what they need. If we can get some accountability and testing, we 
will learn what they need.
  Such fanciful nonsense. We have testing coming out of our ears. You 
mention the State, and I will give you the millions they are spending.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this schedule 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       Grade 3       Grade 4       Grade 5       Grade 6       Grade 7       Grade 8     Number of    New tests       sharing
                                                      (in thous)                                                                                         3-8 tests     required      proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................................          $4,000            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0     $24,915,437
Alaska............................................           3,500            B             B   ............            B             B             B            10            2       8,629,291
Arizona...........................................           4,800            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      28,129,355
Arkansas..........................................           3,200  ............            B             B             B             B             B            10            2      16,983,311
California........................................          44,000            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0     161,769,009
Colorado..........................................          10,700            R             R             B             B             B             B            10            2      23,798,968
Connecticut.......................................           2,000  ............            B   ............            B   ............            B             6            6      19,875,848
Delaware..........................................           3,800            B   ............            B   ............  ............            B             6            6       8,016,860
Florida...........................................          22,400            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      68,848,688
Georgia...........................................          14,000            B             B             B             B   ............            B            10            2      43,139,333
Hawaii............................................           1,400            B   ............            B   ............  ............            B             6            6       9,961,299
Idaho.............................................             700            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      11,393,934
Illinois..........................................          16,500            B   ............            B   ............  ............            B             6            6      57,731,557
Indiana...........................................          19,000            B   ............  ............            B   ............            B             6            6      31,207,328
Iowa..............................................               0  ............            B   ............  ............  ............            B             4            8      17,424,763
Kansas............................................           1,100  ............            M             R   ............            M             R             4            8      17,179,348
Kentucky..........................................           8,100            B             R             M             B             R             M             8            4      21,605,599
Louisiana.........................................           9,000            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      24,579,091
Maine.............................................           3,300  ............            B   ............  ............  ............            B             4            8      10,704,063
Maryland..........................................          17,100            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      27,457,342
Massachusetts.....................................          20,000            R             B   ............            M             B             R             7            5      31,006,359
Michigan..........................................          16,000  ............            B             R   ............            R             R             5            7      48,296,329
Minnesota.........................................           5,200            B   ............            B   ............  ............            B             6            6      27,066,118
Mississippi.......................................           7,600            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      18,198,252
Missouri..........................................          13,400            R             M   ............  ............            R             M             4            8      28,736,967
Montana...........................................             282            B   ............  ............  ............  ............            B             4            8       9,161,562
Nebraska..........................................           1,650  ............            R   ............  ............  ............            R             2           10      12,374,005
Nevada............................................           3,300            B             B             B   ............  ............            B             8            4      13,876,879
New Hampshire.....................................           2,500            B   ............  ............            B   ............  ............            4            8      10,802,081
New Jersey........................................          17,000  ............            B   ............  ............  ............            B             4            8      37,746,447
New Mexico........................................             650            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      13,633,052
New York..........................................          13,000  ............            B   ............  ............  ............            B             4            8      77,283,719
North Carolina....................................          11,300            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      39,659,706
North Dakota......................................             208  ............            B   ............            B   ............            B             6            6       7,883,693
Ohio..............................................          12,300  ............            B   ............            B   ............  ............            4            8      53,078,486
Oklahoma..........................................           2,500            B   ............            B   ............  ............            B             6            6      20,932,225
Oregon............................................           7,000            B   ............            B   ............  ............            B             6            6      19,516,428
Pennsylvania......................................          15,000  ............  ............            B             R   ............            B             5            7      52,955,297
Rhode Island......................................           2,300            R             B   ............  ............            R             B             6            6       9,150,790
South Carolina....................................           7,800            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      22,849,169
South Dakota......................................             720  ............            B             R   ............  ............            B             5            7       8,412,279
Tennessee.........................................          15,600            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      28,600,739
Texas.............................................          26,600            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0     108,915,567
Uutah.............................................           1,400            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      17,026,566

[[Page 10584]]

 
Vermont...........................................             460  ............            B   ............  ............  ............            B             4            8       7,730,061
Virginia..........................................          17,900            B             B             B             B   ............            B            10            2      34,846,313
Washington........................................           7,700            B             B   ............            B             B   ............            8            4      31,448,887
West Virginia.....................................             400            B             B             B             B             B             B            12            0      12,494,530
Wisconsin.........................................           2,000            R             B   ............  ............  ............            B             5            7      27,306,317
Wyoming...........................................           1,700  ............            B   ............  ............  ............            B             4            8       7,415,370
                                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................         422,070  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............          387          213  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are spending $422 million this 
present year in testing back home. We have been testing since you were 
a little boy and I was a little boy. The folks back home know what is 
really needed. But here we come and say they don't know what they need 
and they never have had any accountability. We want to discover for 
them what schools are flunking and close those schools down, and in the 
meantime hurt the students who have never even had the course, so to 
speak.
  If you did not benefit, as a poor child, from the Women Infants and 
Children Program, you don't have a strong mind coming into this world. 
If your school did not receive Title I funding, if you didn't have 
access to a Head Start program, if you didn't get a good teacher, if 
your class was so big that you were unable to listen and learn, you are 
unprepared. All these programs figure into giving students the course 
and they are less than 50-percent funded. Now we are going to test 
students because we know from the debate they have not had the course. 
We haven't really gotten to the crux of the matter. Congress has 
decided what is needed. So we have had testing.
  Right to the point, if you really believe in harming students, as my 
distinguished colleague from Minnesota points out so vividly and 
forcefully, and you are merely trying to give yourself political 
credit, then vote against the amendment. That crowd that has been 
trying to abolish the Department of Education now comes in saying they 
are going to get responsibility in education, accountability, and set 
up a straw man and knock it over with a 7-year bureaucracy of $2.7 
billion to $7 billion. That is what it costs.
  Mr. President, yesterday I had printed in the Record this particular 
survey by the National Association of State Boards Of Education.
  If you believe in bureaucracy at the cost of some $7 billion, if you 
believe that Washington knows best, that the people back home don't 
know what they need--while we have heard on the floor about needs 
ranging from libraries to curricula to teachers to reducing class sizes 
to school construction to after-school programs--then don't vote for 
this amendment. Every Senator over the 7 weeks has put out the needs. 
But what we need to do is take that money, like revenue sharing, send 
it back to the local folks, and say: If you want to have testing, test. 
If you want to have further testing, do that. If you really think you 
need to increase the teachers' pay, if you need to hire more teachers, 
those kinds of things, then do it. But that is really assisting; not 
spending extra money.
  This is not an increase, this is giving flexibility to the money 
under the bill to address the needs back home. It is playing as if, 
fast forward 3 or 4 years, we have had the testing, we know what is 
needed, and we know what schools are flunking. I could flunk 30 or 40 
in South Carolina this afternoon with this so-called quality test, and 
students do not have another school to go to and you cannot close their 
school down. So we spend billions, and we are in the same place as we 
are this minute.
  If you believe in that bureaucracy, if you believe in unfunded 
mandates, if you believe in one size fits all, if you believe in 
harming the children just to get political credit on the floor of the 
Senate, then vote against this amendment.
  But if you want to help the children back home and help the local 
school boards, if you want to help America advance education, then take 
this same program money and send it back on a revenue-sharing basis so 
that schools can address their needs, whether those needs be testing or 
otherwise.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Hollings 
amendment. Hearing the Senator from South Carolina makes me think that, 
our motto should be, perhaps: We should invest before we test.
  I think of what the American people said about Dr. King when he left 
the pulpit and went out into the community: He went out and walked his 
talk. I don't think we are walking our talk. If we were walking our 
talk, we would not only be demanding our tests, but we would be 
demanding that every child have an opportunity to do well on the tests. 
We have not done that, and I think Senator Hollings raises what I think 
is the most important question.
  I believe I am one of the few Senators who is troubled by this and 
agonizing over the question of whether or not the Federal Government 
should be telling the school board, the school district, which 
epitomizes the grassroots political culture of America: `You do not get 
to decide what is best.' We are telling them, every school district in 
America: You are going to test every child, grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 
every year, with consequences for your school and your school district 
depending on how these children do in these tests.
  What this amendment says is we should maybe have a little more faith 
in people at the school board level.
  We should have maybe a little more faith in people back in our States 
to decide what they think is best, and they should have the option on 
whether they want to do the testing or use the resources to help 
children. That is what this amendment says.
  I am all for national community standards for civil rights and human 
rights and for the first amendment and in making sure there is a floor 
for a educational commitment below which no poor child falls. I think 
that is what we are about as a nation. But I think when it comes to 
this kind of decision, is it right for the Federal Government literally 
to tell every school district what to do to test every child? I think 
we might rue the day we have voted for this. I struggle over the 
question right now. That is why I think this is such an important 
amendment. I fully support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, on the Santorum amendment, 
I hope all of our colleagues will vote in support of it. It talks about 
using good science to consider the teaching of biological evolution. I 
think the way the Senator described it, as well as the language itself, 
is completely consistent with what represents the central values of 
this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various 
scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is 
available to them so they can talk about different concepts and do it 
intelligently with the best information that is before them.
  I think the Senator has expressed his views in support of the 
amendment and the reasons for it. I think they make eminently good 
sense. I intend to support that proposal.
  On the Hollings-Wellstone amendment, I listened, as I always try to 
do,

[[Page 10585]]

to my friend and colleague from South Carolina. There is so much he 
says that makes very good sense, but I have to oppose the amendment.
  When he talks about the preparation of children, he makes a great 
deal of sense. In fact, if the children are denied the Women's, 
Infants', and Children's Program--the WIC Program--if they are denied 
the early nutrition, which is so important for the development of the 
mind, if they are denied the early learning experiences, which are 
absolutely instrumental in developing and shaping the mind, they lose 
opportunities.
  If we are only funding the Head Start Program at 40 percent, we are 
leaving 60 percent out. The Early Head Start Program is only funded at 
about 10 or 12 percent.
  If we take children who are denied all of those kinds of 
opportunities, unless they are enormously fortunate to have other kinds 
of sustained enforcement of educational experience and stimulating 
experience in terms of their home life, or other circumstances, we can 
ask whether children are arriving in school ready to learn. Some may be 
but many others may not.
  One of the most important developments over the period of the last 10 
years has been the knowledge of what happens in the development of the 
brain. We had ``The Year of The Brain.'' It was on the front pages of 
magazines and newspapers and on television programs. We found that the 
early development aspects of the brain are absolutely essential where 
the neurons connect with the synapses and we have the development of 
the mind.
  One of the key aspects, that at least many of us have believed, is 
that not only is it important to leave no child behind in terms of the 
support of this bill to reach all 10 million children who will be 
eligible but also the investment in children at the early age, to which 
Senator Hollings spoke. But if we are going to continue to make that 
battle and struggle, we are going to have to, on the floor in the 
Senate and in appropriations, try to invest for the children so they 
are ready to learn.
  A number of States responded to the requirements of the title I 
program in 1994. We require testing in the elementary schools, middle 
schools, and in the high schools. Fifteen States are meeting that 
requirement at the present time. But most of the tests which exist in 
the States are more attuned to national standards rather than State 
standards. Forty-nine States have established their own standards.
  The purpose of this legislation is to try to develop a curriculum 
that will reflect those standards and have well-trained teachers who 
will use that curriculum and then examination of the students with well 
thought out tests that are really going to test not only what the child 
learns but the ability of the child to use concepts. That is why the 
average test that is being used at the State level is $6 or $7. The 
test we are trying to develop here, the provisions which are 
strengthened with the Wellstone amendment and the other requirements, 
averages $68 a test versus $6.
  Money doesn't answer everything in terms of being sure you are going 
to get a quality test, but part of the requirements we have for the use 
of the test is to be able to disaggregate it. At the current time, 
there are only three States that use disaggregated information. So you 
know in the class that there are various groups of students who aren't 
making it rather than just the test that uses the whole classroom.
  It is also important to disaggregate information so that you know 
more completely where the challenges are in terms of the students 
themselves in order to make progress and tie the curriculum into these 
types of features, and also to make sure we are going to have the 
development of the test developed by the States, in the States, for the 
States' standards.
  That is our purpose--not that they take off-the-shelf tests. Most of 
the States using the tests now are using the off-shelf-tests that are 
focused on national standards rather than State standards. That happens 
to be the reality.
  I don't question that in a number of States there are superintendents 
and school boards who think they are getting adequate information. But 
this is a much more comprehensive way of finding out what the children 
know and then hopefully developing the kinds of methodologies to equip 
the children to move ahead. That is really our purpose. We may not get 
it right, but that is certainly the purpose we intend.
  Finally, if the States are developing their own tests, and if they 
meet the standards which are included in this legislation and they 
conform with them, then they obviously meet those requirements. Then 
there is nothing further they have to do.
  Three States, as I said, disaggregate information and have a number 
of the items that are included in this bill. But by and large they are 
not in existence in other areas.
  If that is the case, and we believe assessments are a key aspect of 
all of the efforts we are trying to develop in this legislation--I know 
there are those who don't agree with that as a concept--we know that 
children are tested frequently.
  I can give you some cases in Lancaster, PA, where they test actually 
every 9 weeks in terms of what the children are learning during that 
period of time; and they alter and change the curriculum to try to give 
focus and attention to groups of students in those classes who are not 
making measurable progress. They have seen the absolutely extraordinary 
progress the schools have made in Lancaster as a result of it.
  If it is done right, done well, done effectively, it is a very 
important, positive instrument in terms of children's development. If 
it is not, then it can have the kind of unfortunate results that have 
been mentioned in this Chamber. It is our intention to try to do it 
right. We have built in enough legislation to do it. I think this is 
the way to go.
  I think we have a good bill. We have had good authorization. We are 
going to have the difficulty and challenge of getting the funding. That 
is an essential aspect of the continuing process as we move through the 
legislative process. We want to make sure that we are going to do it 
right.
  But I do not believe the Hollings-Wellstone amendment is consistent 
with the whole central thrust of this legislation. I, regretfully, 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to 
now ask for the yeas and nays. And then I will ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on the amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls the remaining time, 
15\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If there is no one who wants to address the Senate, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum--I am sorry.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to use some of the time that is 
available for our side to talk a little about the bill. I have not said 
much in relation to this bill, but it certainly is one

[[Page 10586]]

of the most important issues that we will talk about.
  We have a great opportunity to help make education stronger in our 
country. That is, of course, what we ought to be seeking to do. This 
discussion has gone on for a very long time. I hope we are nearing the 
end of the debate. I think we have spent nearly 4 weeks, off and on, on 
this proposition. It is time to bring it to a close.
  In my view, we have had an excessive amount of amendments; 
nevertheless, that is where we are. But now if we are really going to 
do our part, and if we are really going to be able to cause this to be 
something that is effective, then we need to focus a little bit, as we 
evaluate where we are, on what our goals are, what it is we are really 
seeking to do.
  I guess too often I get the notion that we get wrapped up around here 
in all the details, little items that mean something to someone, and we 
lose track of where it is we really want to go.
  What we ought to do is have a vision--hopefully, a fairly common 
vision--of what our goals are in terms of education, in terms of the 
role of the Federal Government in education, and to be able to measure 
what we are doing each day in terms of how we meet those goals.
  I think one of them that is quite important is, what is the role of 
the Federal Government in education? It has been my view, and continues 
to be my view, that the major responsibility for elementary and 
secondary education lies at the local level, lies with the community, 
lies with the school boards, and lies with the States.
  One of the reasons I think that is so important is there are very 
different needs in very different places because what you need in 
Chugwater, WY, is quite different than what you need in Pittsburgh, PA. 
They ought to be able to make those kinds of unique decisions locally.
  What is really needed to bring about change? We are all in favor of 
change, although I am not as pessimistic about schools as many people 
are. I think most of our schools do a pretty good job. One of the 
reasons I think that--and I realize this is not a broad sampling--is 
because of the young people who come to the Senate. They are evidence, 
it seems to me, that our schools are doing a pretty darn good job.
  We need to do better, and there are some schools that do better than 
others, but that ought to be part of our goal, to establish what is 
really needed to bring about change. Then we ought to measure it. I 
think too often when we get into these issues, much of our conversation 
begins to border on political rhetoric: Boy, if you are for education, 
then that's a great thing. But you have to kind of decide what it is 
that you are for. Everybody is for education.
  We have to talk a little bit about spending. This bill authorizes 
spending far beyond anything that we have ever thought about. 
Obviously, most of us would agree dollars alone don't bring about 
quality education. You can't have it without the dollars, but dollars 
alone don't do that. So I think there has to be some limit.
  With that, inevitably, goes a certain amount of direction and control 
from Washington. How much of that do you want? I think there are some 
things that we ought to think and talk about.
  As I understand it, the real purpose, as we started out with this S. 
1, was to increase accountability for student performance. We do that 
some by testing. There has to be some accountability. We have to put 
out there funding, funding that really works and is not wasted, is not 
used up in bureaucracies. We have to have increased flexibility and 
local control if we really want to be able to deal with the problems 
that exist in our school systems.
  We need to empower parents to have a role in schools. We need there 
to be opportunities for students such as in charter schools. We need 
some changes in that respect. We need to provide options for students 
who are consistently failing or who are in danger at schools. We need 
to do something about that.
  But the responsibility really lies at the local level. That is why we 
elect school boards. That is why we have legislatures. We need to help, 
but there needs to be local flexibility. I think it is pretty clear 
from the debate that the bureaucracy and redtape have been real 
problems.
  My wife happens to be a special ed teacher. I can tell you, she 
spends more time with reports than is really necessary. When she ought 
to be working with the kids, she is having to fill out all these 
reports that come in and are required. There ought to be a limit to 
that.
  We ought to try to reduce the duplicative educational programs that 
are out there. Now over 50 percent of the Federal education dollars are 
spent on bureaucracy and overhead. That is unacceptable. The money 
needs to be there to help the kids.
  Burdensome regulations, unfunded mandates--talk to anybody who is an 
administrator at a school and see what they think about unfunded 
mandates and the burdens of regulation. We do not talk about that very 
much. We have had 150 amendments that bring about more regulations. We 
ought to make sure we avoid that.
  I think, again, we have to work to give the States and the locals 
unprecedented flexibility. The Federal Government has provided only 
about 6 or 7 percent of the funding for elementary and secondary 
education. We ought to do better than that. But keep in mind, the basic 
thrust is in the local community with the local dollars, the local 
decisions, the local leaders. That is where it belongs.
  We talk about schools failing. We ought to put a little 
responsibility on those who are responsible for those schools that are 
failing. Help them, yes, of course. But the idea that we are suddenly 
going to take over this whole educational system and change it, I don't 
think that is consistent with our notions of Government.
  So I just think we have a great opportunity. I think there are some 
very good things in this bill. I hope that we conclude it soon so we 
can get it moving and so we can get on to some other issues as well. 
But I hope we evaluate, as we go: What do we think the role of the 
Federal Government is? How should money be used that is sent to the 
local and State governments? How do we have accountability? And how, 
indeed, do we make sure this effort of ours is one that produces the 
best dividends and moves us towards our vision of what education in 
this country ought to be.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts for his support of my amendment. I hope the Senate will 
overwhelmingly vote for and support the amendment that I have offered.
  The Senator from Wyoming was just talking about the role of the 
Federal Government in education. I was just thinking about the many 
visits I have made to school districts around my State. I have been to 
about 160 or 170 school districts in my State. We have about 500 school 
districts. I talked about education in many of those visits.
  Maybe other Senators have experienced the same thing, but when I talk 
about education in schools, when I talk about educational reform, 
superintendents and teachers tend to get a little stiff in front of me, 
tend to get a little tense, because they are living it. And here we 
are, on the outside, trying to tell them how to do it better. One of 
the reasons I go to those schools is to listen to the schoolteachers 
and to principals and superintendents, parents, and students.
  One of the things I hear more and more from people and parents and 
teachers in particular is, yes, we need to improve education, but we 
also need to look at what is coming into the educational system, the 
children coming into our system, particularly in our lowest performing 
schools, where children are coming in with many more profound problems 
than they did 20, 30, 40, even 50 years ago, when we thought we had a 
pretty good educational system in the country.
  To sit here and say all the problems in our society, all the problems 
with our children are because they don't

[[Page 10587]]

have a good education or there is not a good school, whatever the case 
may be, sort of laying all the blame on the schools for not producing 
educated children, in some respects, I believe, misses the mark or 
certainly doesn't tell the whole story of the problems that we are 
confronting as a culture and as a nation.
  We have a couple minutes before the vote, and I wanted to put my two 
cents in. For those teachers and administrators, people who work very 
hard in the school system, particularly the poor schools and schools 
that are in difficult neighborhoods, you are right; the schools are not 
the sole source of blame for having children who can't read coming out 
of them. I even argue in many cases they aren't the principal sources 
of blame or even a particularly big share of the blame.
  When we talk about educational reform, particularly leaving no child 
behind--and I support that--we need to look not just within the school 
system; we have to look outside the school system. We have to look at 
our culture. We have to look at the American family, our neighborhoods, 
at our popular culture, and the message being sent to the young 
children. We have to look at neighborhoods. And whether it is crime or 
the breakdown of the family or the breakdown of the community, the lack 
of economic opportunities, whatever the case may be--in most cases, it 
is all of those things--we need to recognize that education is just a 
piece of solving this puzzle for a child growing up in these very poor 
neighborhoods.
  I hope we don't walk away from here flexing our muscles, raising our 
hands, saying: We have now solved the problem; We have fixed the 
educational system and that alone is going to solve the problems we 
face in our poor and downtrodden communities. It will not, no matter 
how good our schools are.
  I always share this story of going to a high school in north 
Philadelphia, a very poor high school, a very poor neighborhood, a 
crime ridden neighborhood. I walked through that school. First I walked 
through the metal detectors. And I finally got to a classroom where, of 
the students going to the school, less than 5 percent were going to go 
on to some education beyond high school. I went into the classroom 
where those 5 percent were, and they were being talked to about their 
opportunities. They were all from public housing, poor neighborhoods. 
They could get a free ride to any school they wanted to go to.
  I remember talking to them about the opportunities they had and sort 
of seeing somewhat blank stares back at me. We got into a discussion. I 
said: What is your biggest fear? What is your biggest concern about the 
school you go to and your education? And the consensus developed was 
this: Getting to school alive every day. When you are an achiever in a 
group of people who do not achieve academically, you are a target. You 
can throw more money at that school, you can improve the quality of the 
teachers, you can have smaller class size, but if your concern is 
getting to school alive, we are missing the boat somewhere.
  I want to step back, as we hopefully will celebrate passage of this 
bill and say that we have done great things to help children. If we 
don't get to the issues outside of the school, throwing more money into 
the school is whistling through the graveyard at night. It isn't going 
to solve the problem.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been interested in the debate 
surrounding the teaching of evolution in our schools. I think that 
Senator Santorum's amendment will lead to a more thoughtful treatment 
of this topic in the classroom. It is important that students be 
exposed not only to the theory of evolution, but also to the context in 
which it is viewed by many in our society.
  I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing 
them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If 
students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a 
range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil 
discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors?
  Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its 
beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many 
scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and 
concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth 
of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. 
But I understand that they might not align with someone else's. That is 
the very point of this amendment--to support an airing of varying 
opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. If education is truly a 
vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints 
should be welcome as part of the school experience.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as my friend from Pennsylvania, and 
perhaps every one in the free world, knows the issue he brings up with 
regard to how to teach scientific theory and philosophy was recently an 
issue in my home State of Kansas. For this reason, many of my 
constituents are particularly sensitive to this issue.
  I would like to take the opportunity of this amendment to clear the 
record about the controversy in Kansas.
  In August of 1999 the Kansas State School Board fired a shot heard 
'round the world. Press reports began to surface that evolution would 
no longer be taught. The specter of a theocratic school board entering 
the class to ensure that no student would be taught the prevailing 
wisdom of biology was envisioned. Political cartoons and editorials 
were drafted by the hundreds. To hear the furor, one might think that 
the teachers would be charged with sorting through their student's 
texts with an Exacto knife carving out pictures of Darwin.
  However, the prevailing impression, as is often the case was not 
quite accurate. Here are the facts about what happened in Kansas. The 
school board did not ban the teaching of evolution. They did not forbid 
the mention of Darwin in the classroom. They didn't even remove all 
mention of evolution from the State assessment test. Rather, the school 
board voted against including questions on macro-evolution--the theory 
that new species can evolve from existing species over time--from the 
State assessment. The assessment did include questions on micro-
evolution--the observed change over time within an existing species.
  Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro and 
macro-evolution on the State exam? How would that serve the theocratic 
school board's purpose that we read so much about? Well, the truth is . 
. . their was no theocratic end to the actions of the school board. In 
fact, their vote was cast based on the most basic scientific principal 
that science is about what we observe, not what we assume. The great 
and bold statement that the Kansas School Board made was that simply 
that we observe micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact; 
and that it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific 
assumption.
  The response to this relatively minor and eminently scientific move 
by the Kansas school board was shocking. The actions and intentions of 
the school board were routinely misrepresented in the global press. 
Many in the global scientific community, who presumably knew the facts, 
spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas. College admissions 
boards, who most certainly knew the facts, threatened Kansas students. 
The State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the State universities 
were threatened based on the actions of school board. All of these 
effects caused by a school board trying to decipher between scientific 
fact and scientific assumption. The response to the actions of the 
board, appeared to many as a response to the commission of heresy.
  For this reason, I am very pleased that my friend from Pennsylvania 
offered this amendment. He clarifies the opinion of the Senate that the 
debate of scientific fact versus scientific assumption is an important 
debate to embrace. I plan to support the amendment and urge my 
colleagues to join me.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between the two 
votes, prior to the second vote in order,

[[Page 10588]]

there be 2 minutes on each side for debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield back the remainder of his 
time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
799. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

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

                                NAYS--8

     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Hagel
     Stevens
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The amendment (No. 799) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 798

  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, we have 2 minutes on each side. There 
will be 2 minutes for the Senator from South Carolina and 2 minutes for 
the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, dear colleagues, the fundamental flaw 
is the approach that we do not, at the local level, have 
accountability, that we do not have testing. The truth is, and I have 
previously printed it in the Record, we have testing coming out of our 
ears: $422 million this year. We know what works.
  I say, rather than go through a 7-year exercise at $7 billion, along 
with the bureaucracy from Washington, to develop what Washington thinks 
is the standard, what Washington thinks is quality, use that money to 
address local concerns, whether they be further testing or additional 
needs. We know what the needs are. Senators have stated them over 7 
weeks: Curriculum, better teachers, more teachers, smaller class size, 
and on down the line.
  This is, in a sense, revenue sharing with the same amount of money.
  If Members believe in one size fits all, that Washington--and not the 
local folks--has the answers, if Members believe in unfunded mandates, 
if Members believe students should be tested on courses that they have 
yet to receive--Title I, Head Start, and the others--if Members believe 
we ought to institute this 7-year bureaucracy at a cost of $7 billion, 
vote against the amendment.
  If Members believe in local control, and if Members believe they know 
what is best, and what schools in their states need is help for 
curriculum, for class size, and everything else, then vote with us. I 
don't see my distinguished colleague, Senator Wellstone, but I have his 
support, and I think I might be able to get the support of Senator 
Kennedy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, with all respect to my friend and 
colleague from South Carolina, I rise to oppose the amendment. This 
amendment, if passed, will cut out the heart of the bipartisan 
agreement on educational reform in this underlying bill. The heart of 
it is that we are going to demand results; we are going to ask for 
evidence that we can present to educators, to parents, indeed to 
students and public officials, that the vast amounts of money that we 
at the Federal level and those at the State and local level are 
investing in the education of our children is actually working. The 
important thing to say is that in the requirement that the underlying 
bipartisan agreement makes for testing of schoolchildren from grades 3-
8, we set the rules, but we leave it to the States to determine the 
standards. It is the States that will decide each year what is adequate 
yearly progress. It is the States that will determine how well their 
students are doing. So this is a national set of rules, but it is the 
States that will decide how each of them goes forward in implementing 
the rules.
  Second, we require an arcane term, but it means a lot, disaggregation 
of data, so that people in the State, in the local area, parents, can 
see how each group of children is doing so we will be sure in that 
evidence that we will not overlook the educational needs of the 
neediest of our children.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and thereby stand by the 
bipartisan agreement for educational reform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
798. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 78, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--22

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Leahy
     Levin
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--78

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 798) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                 Amendment No. 420 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 420.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 420.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit 
       certain youth to perform certain work with wood products)

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

     SEC. __. EXEMPTION.

       Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 213(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 10589]]

       ``(6)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the administration 
     and enforcement of the child labor provisions of this Act, it 
     shall not be considered oppressive child labor for an 
     individual who--
       ``(i) is under the age of 18 and over the age of 14, and
       ``(ii) by statute or judicial order is exempt from 
     compulsory school attendance beyond the eighth grade,

     to be employed inside or outside places of business where 
     machinery is used to process wood products.
       ``(B) The employment of an individual under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be permitted--
       ``(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult relative 
     of the individual or is supervised by an adult member of the 
     same religious sect or division as the individual;
       ``(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist in the 
     operation of power-driven woodworking machines;
       ``(iii) if the individual is protected from wood particles 
     or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier 
     appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or 
     flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from 
     machinery in operation; and
       ``(iv) if the individual is required to use personal 
     protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels 
     of noise and saw dust.''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition to discuss my 
amendment, which briefly stated, would simply permit Amish youths, aged 
14 to 18, to be able to work in sawmills. The issue has arisen as to 
the safety of these sawmills. The Appropriations subcommittee which has 
jurisdiction over the Department of Labor which I had chaired held a 
hearing on this subject. It is appropriate and necessary that the full 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions have a hearing.
  We have consulted with experts who have given us a formula to provide 
for what we think is the requisite safety. I have had a brief 
discussion with the Senator from Massachusetts about my withdrawing 
this amendment and having a hearing so that due consideration could be 
given to this issue by his committee.
  This amendment is designed to permit certain youths--those exempt 
from attending school--between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in 
sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I 
introduced identical measures in the 105th and 106th Congresses. 
Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, 
Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House twice 
before. I am hopeful the Senate will also seriously consider this 
important issue.
  As chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased 
funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections 
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, 
that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from 
compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is 
extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be 
provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer 
employment where they live.
  The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish 
community. In 1998, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, PA, 
and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. In 
December 2000, Representative Pitts and I held a meeting in Gap, PA, 
with over 20 members of the Amish community to hear their concerns on 
this issue. Most recently, I chaired a hearing of the Labor, Health and 
Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to examine 
these issues.
  At the hearing the Amish explained that while they once made their 
living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand 
into other occupations as farmland has disappeared in many areas due to 
pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to 
rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish 
culture expects youth, upon the completion of their education at the 
age of 14, to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become 
productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one 
of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system 
limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are 
currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they 
reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and 
lifestyle of the Amish.
  Under my amendment, youths would not be allowed to operate power 
machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as 
sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My amendment requires that 
the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and 
wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. 
The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that 
they are enforced.
  The Department of Justice has raised serious concerns under the 
establishment clause with the House legislation. The House measure 
conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious 
sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit 
formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the 
``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only the adherents of certain 
religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly 
favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my amendment, I attempted 
to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in 
sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education 
laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is 
necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for 
all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational 
opportunities.
  I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in 
Wisconsin versus Yoder supports my bill. In Yoder, the Court held that 
Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to 
attend school until the age of 16 violated the free exercise clause. 
The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on 
the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school 
beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and 
practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be 
made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their 
population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of 
life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to 
the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills 
denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self-
reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish 
do not need the final two years of public education.
  This is a matter of great importance and I urge my colleagues to work 
with me to provide relief for the Amish community.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senator is correct. The Senator has 
spoken to me about this issue. It is a very important issue because it 
does involve children and involves a dangerous industry. But there are 
other factors to be considered.
  The Senator has given us some recommendations from very noteworthy 
OSHA experts who believe a way can be found to ensure the safety of 
these children and also achieve the objective. I think it would be 
valuable to have that in an open hearing, and we will do so in our 
Labor Committee and give due notice to the Senator when that hearing 
will be held, and welcome any of the people from whom he thinks it 
would be useful for us to hear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  I just add one note. There are very serious issues of religious 
freedom involved here with the Amish having the right under the 
Constitution not to have education beyond the age of 14, and those will 
be considered in due course.
  Let me thank my distinguished colleague from Louisiana for yielding 
so that we could have this brief colloquy.
  I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

[[Page 10590]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. We will have a very brief quorum call. 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. SPECTER. 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. 420 Withdrawn

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the last colloquy I stated my 
intention to withdraw the amendment. I did not use the magic words, 
which I now use. I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
disposition of the Dodd amendment No. 382, the Senator from Nebraska, 
Mr. Nelson, be recognized to call up amendment No. 533; that there be 5 
minutes for debate on the amendment equally divided in the usual form; 
that upon the use of the time, the amendment be agreed to and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no second-degree 
amendment in order thereto.
  Further, that upon the disposition of amendment No. 533, Senator 
Kerry be recognized to call up amendments Nos. 423 and 455, that there 
be 40 minutes total for debate on the two amendments with time divided 
as follows: 10 minutes each, Senators Kerry, Smith of Oregon, Kennedy, 
and Gregg, with no second-degree amendments; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the amendments be agreed to and the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Provided further that, upon the disposition of the Kerry/Smith 
amendments, the Senate resume consideration of the Cantwell amendment 
No. 630, as modified, with a total of 15 minutes for debate divided as 
follows: 5 minutes each, Senators Cantwell, Kennedy, and Gregg; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the Cantwell amendment, with no second-degree amendment in 
order thereto, with no intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Louisiana is recognized to 
call up amendment No. 474 on which there will be 30 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form.


                 Amendment No. 474 to Amendment No. 358

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 474.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes 
     amendment numbered 474.

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

     (Purpose: To improve the formulas for teacher quality grants)

       Beginning on page 312, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through page 313, line 4, and insert the following:

       ``(I) an amount that bears the same relationship to 35 
     percent of the excess amount as the number of individuals age 
     5 through 17 in the State, as determined by the Secretary on 
     the basis of the most recent satisfactory data, bears to the 
     number of those individuals in all such States, as so 
     determined; and
       ``(II) an amount that bears the same relationship to 65 
     percent of the

       On page 320, strike lines 16 through 26 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) an amount that bears the same relationship to 20 
     percent of the total amount as the number of individuals age 
     5 through 17 in the geographic area served by the agency, as 
     determined by the Secretary on the basis of the most recent 
     satisfactory data, bears to the number of those individuals 
     in the geographic areas served by all the local educational 
     agencies in the State, as so determined; and
       ``(2) an amount that bears the same relationship to 80 
     percent of the total amount as the num-''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, the amendment that I offer today is 
similar in some ways to the amendment I offered and we adopted 2 days 
ago. With an overwhelming and bipartisan show of support, we again made 
a commitment to better target the somewhat scarce education resources 
offered by the Federal Government under this bill--I use the word 
scarce judiciously; to some it is an awful lot of money, but to others, 
relative to what we need, it is not enough towards the communities with 
the greatest need.
  Whatever moneys we are able to place, I believe, and many of my 
colleagues on the Republican and Democratic side and, to his credit, 
President Bush must be targeted toward helping the children and the 
schools that need the most help. Particularly when, as Senator Kennedy 
has so eloquently expressed many times on the floor, this is really a 
new day for education from the Federal Government. We are initiating 
sweeping reforms, not mandating local governments but supporting them 
in their efforts to reform their schools, to increase standards, to 
implement accountability. We must work with the states and locals in 
partnership, to help fulfill our promise to leave no child behind.
  This amendment would target more tightly title II dollars. On Monday, 
57 Members of this body helped us to target the title I dollars, the 
largest title of the elementary and secondary education bill. There are 
seven general titles in the BEST bill. Title I has always been the 
largest Federal title. Some would argue the most important. Yet, when 
you are talking about providing an quality education, it is hard to 
argue that a Title which is focused on quality teachers is any less 
important. In my mind and in the minds of many in the Senate, there 
really is no more important element of an education than a good, 
qualified teacher.
  William Arthur Ward once said: The mediocre teacher tells; the good 
teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates; the great teacher 
inspires.
  We need a lot more great teachers in America. We have many, but we 
need more. No doubt there is a crisis in our Nation today. From the 
East Coast to the West Coast, from the North to the South, from 
California, to Louisiana, to New Hampshire, to Illinois, communities 
are faced with a struggle to find qualified people to teach their 
children.
  Every major newspaper and magazine in our Nation has covered this 
story--not on the back page, not on the middle page, but on the cover 
page. Here is an excerpt from Newsweek published earlier this fall. 
``Who Will Teach Our Kids?'' That is the question parents are asking. 
``What Schools And Parents Can Do. Half Of All Teachers Will Retire By 
The Year 2010.''
  The picture is of a child waiting for a teacher and these subtitles 
only scratch the surface of the real crisis facing us today. Let me 
read briefly from a story that says ``Teachers Wanted.'' I noticed this 
because Frank, my husband, and I have our 9-year-old Connor in school 
here. He finished third grade this year. One of the joys of my day is 
to know every day that Connor is in a school with a wonderful teacher--
Holly Garland, and that he is being well educated in a school that is 
safe. I can come to work in the Senate and do my job. My husband can go 
do his job because we have that security.
  But that is not the case of a family from Georgia. Their names are 
Jill and Larry Jackson of Conyers, GA. The article says:

       It should have been a season of hopeful beginnings, but for 
     Jill and Larry Jackson of Conyers, Ga., the opening of school 
     this fall has meant only anger and frustration. Their 11-
     year-old son, Nicholas--

  Only 2 years older than Connor--

     is in a sixth-grade special-ed class taught by an assistant 
     and a substitute. The regular teacher quit after three weeks 
     of school, and the class of 13 is out of control. ``We can 
     move Nicholas to a special-ed class in another school that 
     has just five kids,'' says

[[Page 10591]]

     Jill, ``but the teacher is leaving in December. I phoned the 
     district, and they told me that they have five special-ed 
     positions to fill. And I asked them if they think they'll 
     have a certified special-ed teacher in that class by 
     December, and they said: `That's the least of our problems 
     right now.' ''

  Jill, the mother, much as I am with my children, said: ``Well, it's 
the biggest problem in my life right now.''
  To millions of parents, from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to 
Louisiana to Mississippi, the biggest problem in their lives is their 
kids, 90 percent of whom are in the public schools of this Nation. They 
send them to schools and classrooms without certified teachers, without 
any teachers, with substitute teachers, teachers who come in and out of 
the classroom every few weeks. How is it possible for a child to begin 
to learn when the teacher doesn't even know a child's name? This is a 
parent's worst nightmare.
  My amendment does not attempt to fix this terrible situation because 
I am not certain any amendment could actually deal with a problem this 
large. It is so large and so tough. What my amendment does is say, we 
know we have a problem; we need to set goals and strategies for fixing 
that problem; and most importantly, we must provide the resources to 
address the problem.
  In short, my amendment attempts to move what money we have into the 
areas and to the schools that need the most help. This bill requires 
that all schools with 50% or more of their children in poverty must 
have all highly qualified teachers by 2005. What would that mean to 
states?
  Let me cite some statistics that were actually shocking to me, and 
hopefully they will be to the Members of the Senate. Let me start with 
some examples of some States right now that are in pretty good shape. I 
will cite three or four.
  Connecticut has a total of 1,069 schools. Yet only 189 of those 
schools are 50 percent poverty. So out of over 1,000 schools, they have 
fewer than 200 schools in the whole State that have 50 percent of 
poverty or more. To meet the requirements under this bill, 6,670 in 
Connecticut's poorest schools would have to be highly qualified by 
2005. That is a manageable amount. Connecticut is in pretty good shape 
because under the bill, it is going to have to make sure that these 189 
schools have the resources to meet this requirement. Based on what I 
know about the resources in Connecticut and the great work of Senator 
Dodd and Senator Lieberman and other elected officials in that State, I 
have no doubt that with the extra muscle they can probably manage to 
find 6,000 highly qualified teachers in 3 years.
  Let me share the good news about another State, New Hampshire. It has 
516 schools. Only 7 in the whole State of New Hampshire--it is a small 
State--have a poverty rate of 50 percent. That means that they have 
three years to make sure that the 103 teachers who currently teach in 
those schools are highly qualified. Again, I am confident that with the 
good work of the Senators here from New Hampshire and their Governor, 
Jean Shaheen, and their elected officials , they can find the 103 
teachers qualified, get them in those classrooms, and meet the goals of 
this bill.
  Let me give you one other example of a State in pretty good shape. It 
is a larger State, and people might not expect that a large State such 
as New Jersey would be in good shape, but they are. They have 2,317 
schools. Only 400 of those schools have 50 percent poverty rates or 
greater. They must ensure that 16,000 teachers are highly qualified. 
Sixteen thousand is a lot, but New Jersey is a big State with a lot of 
resources. There is substantial wealth in New Jersey. Lots of 
corporations are there. Their property taxes are pretty high. If they 
would distribute them a little more evenly, which they are probably in 
the process of doing, they can perhaps find 16,000 teachers in 3 years.
  Let me tell you a sad story. Let me talk to you about 3 States. As 
you may expect, one of them is Louisiana. One of them is Mississippi. 
And the third is Texas. Let me talk about Louisiana for just a minute. 
We have--Senator Breaux and I--in our State 1,500 schools. Of the 1,500 
schools, 1,013 have more than 50 percent of the children in those 
schools in poverty. Let me repeat that. We have 1,500 schools in 
Louisiana. Out of that number, we have 1,013 schools that have 50 
percent of poverty, or higher. That means we would have to find 30,000 
highly qualified teachers for these classrooms. There are only 49,000 
full time teachers in the whole state, so we would have 3 years to make 
sure that 3 out of every 5 teachers meet the qualification requirements 
outlined in this bill. I don't know how, if we worked 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week, between now and the deadline which is in this bill, with 
the limited resources we have, if we could meet that deadline.
  Let me go into a little bit more detail about Louisiana. I want to 
show you what the challenge is. I think Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Gregg, who are very knowledgeable about this, must certainly understand 
this challenge.
  In Louisiana, every year we have 8,000 students enrolled in colleges 
and universities. The students who graduate are 1,600 every year. We 
will lose 160 in the test because the tests for teachers will weed out 
some who are not ready and qualified. That is most important. So we 
will graduate with degrees 1,440. These are last year's statistics. And 
33 percent of these, which the taxpayers in Louisiana paid taxes--
income taxes, sales taxes, fees, license taxes--to educate will leave 
our State. For the most part, they will leave Louisiana because almost 
every State around us has higher salaries. So we will lose 33 percent 
of those teachers who come out, leaving us basically with 964 teachers. 
These teachers will start, and in 5 years 30 percent of them will leave 
the system, leaving us--out of this graduating class of 1,600--675.
  This is not right. This is not efficient. This is a waste of taxpayer 
dollars. Most important, it is what is contributing to the crisis of us 
trying to get good teachers in our classrooms.
  Now a lot of things can be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The time of the Senator from 
Louisiana has expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes to complete. I 
ask unanimous consent that I may do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate the extra time.
  What's more, 66% of the teachers in Louisiana have bachelors degrees. 
Only 13 of our teachers were Nationally Board Certified in the year 
2000. And over 15% of those teaching in our state have not successfully 
completed their certification.
  This is true of Louisiana, but it is going to be true in almost every 
State you look at. The numbers of people choosing to teach are just not 
there to meet the requirements. So lots of things can be done. This 
bill encourages alternative certification, being creative, getting 
retirees who have had a successful first career into the schools. For 
instance, a great program Troops to Teachers, which uses our military 
to fill these slots. We can no longer rely on 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds. 
We must broaden our thinking.
  There are positive things that can be done, and there are success 
stories, but they are not free. I contend today, and I will continue to 
fight in this debate, that there are simply not enough resources at the 
local and Federal levels to meet the new demands of this bill and to 
give a promise to our parents and students that they will be taught by 
a qualified, good teacher.
  Let me share some facts about Mississippi. Mississippi is a State 
that is in a very tough situation. Mississippi has 874 schools. Of the 
874 schools, 700 have 50 percent of poverty--students from households 
represented by an income that hits the poverty level. They need 23,274 
highly qualified teachers. Under this bill, they are going to have 3 
years to find 23,274 teachers.
  Mississippi and Louisiana need help. That is what this amendment is 
about. It is about saying whatever dollars we can muster, whatever we 
can scratch out of this budget to make an investment in this Nation's 
future and our

[[Page 10592]]

kids, let's get it to the States and the children who have been without 
qualified teachers for too long. We have examples throughout our 
history of that special teacher with that special touch who can work 
miracles for a child, any child, regardless of their race or family 
income. Let's help get teachers to Louisiana and Mississippi.
  Let me end with Texas. Texas is a big State, and they have a big 
problem because they have 7,228 schools.
  Of those schools, 3,190 have student populations with 50 percent of 
poverty or more. They need a whopping 107,779 qualified teachers in 3 
years.
  Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi are examples of States that do not 
have the same resources other States might have, particularly 
Mississippi and Louisiana.
  This amendment is an attempt to bring the resources that will support 
this reform, that will help meet the goals of this new education bill 
to the States and to the areas that could use the most help.
  Some people on the other side have said this is a local issue. This 
might be where the local issue in terms of decisions are made, but if 
this Federal Government does not step up to the plate and provide some 
additional resources to help parishes in Louisiana, such as Red River, 
Orleans Parish, St. Martin Parish, and Iberia Parish and even Jefferson 
Parish, they cannot reach their full potential. If we do not step up to 
the plate, they will never be able to find the thousands of qualified 
teachers with creativity, with a new approach to education because 
there are so many barriers.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention to the issue of targeting 
federal resources to our areas of greatest need. It is a very important 
and fundamental principle of this bill. We have set new high standards. 
We have left the control at the local level. We have given local 
governments, as you did, Mr. President, when you were Governor of your 
wonderful State of Delaware, more resources with which to work, but 
those resources are not adequate.
  I hope as this moves forward that we can increase our investment in 
our children's education so that the family I referred to in Georgia or 
my family or any other family does not have to live through the 
nightmare of having high hopes for a child, sending them off to school 
only to be in a classroom out of control because we have not provided 
the resources and the parameters necessary to succeed.
  Today, research is confirming what common sense has suggested all 
along. A skilled and knowledgeable teacher can make an enormous 
difference in how well students learn. Is the home environment 
important? Absolutely. Can children learn without their parents or a 
parent or a grandparent or a guardian encouraging them? No. But can a 
good teacher make a difference? Absolutely.
  Again to quote:

       The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The 
     superior teacher demonstrates. But the great teacher 
     inspires.

  We have a nation that was built on hope and inspiration. Our Nation 
was founded on the belief that tomorrow could be a better day; that men 
and women would live in liberty and that value is taught through our 
school system. If we do not commit the resources to help our teachers 
do the job, if we do not find ways to get more and better teachers in 
the classroom, we have not only failed our schools, we have failed our 
country.
  I am pleased to say I understand it is going to be accepted. Again, I 
wish it was broader in its scope because we need to do more, but this 
amendment targeting our resources will help. I will be back many times 
to speak about this subject. I thank you, and I believe my time has 
expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time? The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I believe I have time, do I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Apparently those opposing the amendment have 
time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu from Louisiana 
for this amendment. As she has mentioned, this is completely consistent 
with her previous amendment, which was overwhelmingly accepted, in that 
it provides greater targeted resources for teachers.
  For my money, the most important ingredient in the educational 
process is having a well-trained teacher in the classroom. There are 
other components, but this is absolutely essential.
  The greatest challenge we face is the neediest and the poorest 
schools where we need the best teachers have the most unqualified 
teachers. The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana sharpens the 
direction of this legislation to ensure, to the extent we can, we get 
well-qualified teachers to teach the neediest students. It is a very 
important amendment, and it is a very useful and helpful amendment. I 
urge the Senate to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennessee seek 
recognition?
  Mr. FRIST. I yield back the remainder of our time, and we can have a 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 474.
  The amendment (No. 474) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FRIST. I understand we will now proceed to the Dodd amendment, 
and that we will have 2 hours equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                 Amendment No. 382 to Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, is recognized to call up amendment No. 382 on 
which there will be 2 hours of debate equally divided.
  Mr. DODD. I ask that the Chair notify me when 15 minutes of my time 
have expired. I will then ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Frist, be recognized for 15 minutes, and at the 
expiration of his 15 minutes, I be rerecognized to complete my opening 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, the chairman of the committee; Senator 
Gregg, and other Members, my friend from Tennessee with whom I have 
worked on many issues and for whom I have the highest regard and 
respect. I appreciate their efforts. I have enjoyed working with them 
on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  This is not a surprise amendment. My colleagues have known for some 
time I have been deeply interested in afterschool programs. Going back, 
in fact, I offered some of the earliest amendments to support 
afterschool programs as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Children 
and Families, and then as the ranking member, working very closely with 
my good friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and 
Senator Barbara Boxer from California has been very interested in 
afterschool programs. Most Senators have been interested in afterschool 
programs.
  Afterschool programs--in a sense, I am preaching to the choir 
addressing the Presiding Officer as a former Governor of the State of 
Delaware. He understands the tremendous value of having good, strong 
afterschool programs and how important they are. In a sense, I am 
offering this amendment not just on my behalf and those who support 
this, but I do so on behalf of Fight Crime Invest in Kids, which 
represents a thousand police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders, 
police organizations, crime survivors; on behalf of the YMCA and YWCA, 
which are the largest afterschool providers in the United States--
literally there are some 2,500 YMCA

[[Page 10593]]

and YWCA programs that provide afterschool programs--National PTA, 
National Network for Youth, Afterschool Alliance, National Community 
Education Association. I will provide a list.
  I ask unanimous consent that the long list of education groups, 
police groups, prosecutors, and others supporting this amendment be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Fight Crime Invest in KIDS
     YMCA
     NABYC
     National PTA
     National Network for Youth
     Afterschool Alliance
     National Community Education Association
     National Education Association
     School Social Work Association of America
     National Association of School Psychologists
     Council for Exceptional Children
     National Association of Social Workers
     Association for Career and Technical Education
     American Counseling Association
     American Federation of Teachers
     National Alliance of Black School Educators
     American Association of University Women

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, their endorsement is not fainthearted. They 
believe this may be the single most important issue of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. Because we are leaving out under the pilot 
program--and I want to make this argument so people can understand it; 
this bill can get a little confusing with all the various pieces of it.
  One of the major pieces of this bill is called the Straight A's 
Program which is called a pilot program.
  When we think of pilot programs or demonstration programs, our mind 
immediately draws on a number that represents a relatively small 
fraction of the larger group. It will be a pilot program or a 
demonstration program. Certainly, this program, when it was announced, 
sounded relatively small. It is a pilot program that would be in 7 
States out of 50, in 25 school districts. That sounds pretty small. One 
cannot imagine that being any great threat as a pilot program. I am not 
sure whether it is a pilot program for 1 year, 4 years, 5 years, or 7 
years.
  This bill is a 7-year bill. I am not sure how long the pilot programs 
on the grants are supposed to run during the life of this bill. That is 
rather vague in the underlying bill. It could end up being 14 States or 
21 States over the 7-year life of the bill, or is it just 7 States in 7 
years? I am not sure of the answer.
  In seven States and 25 districts, exclude the 25 districts, I can get 
you to 44 percent of the entire student population of the United 
States. If this pilot program that is going to be awarded by the 
Secretary of Education goes to the 7 largest States and the 25 largest 
school districts in America, you are at 51 percent of the entire 
student population of the United States--hardly a pilot program or a 
demonstration program. I don't think it is a leap of faith to suggest 
that may be the case.
  I expect every State in the United States to apply for the Straight 
A's Program. Why? Because it eliminates all the categorical programs. 
It says to the States, you can basically do anything you want with this 
money. It says you have to serve the neediest kids, but we know under 
title I how broad a definition that is already under law for 36 years. 
I cannot imagine a jurisdiction not saying: I would like one of those; 
I will take Federal money without any strings attached. It is not any 
great leap of logic to assume that all 50 States and virtually every 
school district will probably apply for the Straight A's Program.
  I don't think it is any great leap if, in fact, you believe this 
program ought to be national policy and not a pilot program--which is 
the view of the administration; they only call it a pilot program for 
the purpose of this bill because if they said they want this to be the 
national program, there would be a lot of resistance to it. If they 
call it a pilot program, a lot of people are willing to say they will 
try a pilot program.
  The fact is, this could affect a lot of children for a long time. 
Seven years may not seem like much in the life of a bill in Congress, 
but if you have a child in kindergarten, the first grade, the second or 
third grade, that is the entire elementary education your child will 
get. So afterschool--I will get to the particular program--is 
important. This could affect a lot of children. It is why the YMCAs, it 
is why police chiefs, it is why all the other organizations are 
concerned about this: because of the potential exposure it could mean 
to an awful lot of children around the country.
  There are reasons why this particular program is important. Let me 
explain it in context. What happens under the Straight A's Program, all 
of a sudden community-based, local-based grant applications get 
eliminated in these 7 States and 25 districts. It would now come from 
the State education authority or the Governor as to whether or not 
there would be an afterschool program. This is why people are 
concerned. We are moving away from local decisionmaking. We are saying 
in these States: You are out. That YMCA, the community-based 
organization, and some of the church-based organizations, you are out. 
It depends on what happens at the State level. They watch the program 
grow because of the value. There has never been, in the history of the 
Department of Education, a grant program that has been sought after as 
much as this grant.
  Let me demonstrate the point with this chart. In this year alone 
there have been 2,762 grant applications. Of that nearly 3,000, only 
300 will be funded under existing resources. There have been an average 
of 2,000 applications a year since the program started, and the numbers 
are going up. So we are looking at a tremendously popular program. 
People see afterschool care as critically important primarily to the 
safety of their children. There is an academic achievement element to 
this, but it is primarily an issue of safety. In the history of the 
Department this has been the most sought after grant of any in the 
United States. That is how popular it is with people all across the 
country.
  We increased the funding for this over the years, but not very much. 
According to the most recent Mott/J.C. Penney poll, nearly two-thirds 
of voters report difficulty funding quality, affordable afterschool 
programs. The Census Bureau reports that nearly 7 million children 
between the ages of 5 and 14 go home alone unsupervised each week.
  Let me show a graph with the number of children, showing the growing 
numbers of grade-school-age children in self-care in the United States: 
2 percent of 5-year-olds have no afterschool care and are home alone; 3 
percent of 6-year-olds; 4 percent of 8-year-olds; and 11-year-olds--
these are children, not teenagers--10- and 11-year-olds, 1 in every 4 
is home alone.
  The second chart points out what police chiefs say about the program, 
and why dumping it into a block grant and eliminating community 
organizations from asking for help is wrongheaded. Police chiefs were 
asked in a survey: Which of these strategies do police chiefs choose as 
the most effective for reducing youth violence in the country? 
``Afterschool,'' almost 70 percent chose that. Then it drops way down 
for ``try juveniles as adults,'' ``hire more police,'' with ``metal 
detectors'' at 1 percent. Is there any doubt where those people, who 
deal with these issues every day believe this program has value? Is 
there any doubt whether or not it ought to be taken out of this block 
grant and left to local community organizations such as the YMCAs, such 
as our community organizations that find these programs worthwhile, to 
apply for these dollars?
  I can only, with the money, grant 300 out of almost 3,000 a year that 
apply. But eliminate this, and these 7 States and 25 districts for 7 
years, left totally to the discretion of a State agency or a Governor, 
may cut a lot of these programs. Why? Because a lot of the kids come 
from some of the poorest rural and urban districts and don't have the 
local clout to be applying for this assistance and carrying it off.
  This is very important. If you talk about basic safety, it is 
critical. Again, listening to me is one thing, but listen to people who 
work every day in this area. They are the ones behind this.

[[Page 10594]]

  Listen to the police chiefs across the country. Let me read their 
letter:

       As an organization led by more than 1,000 police chiefs, 
     sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders of police organizations, and 
     crime survivors, we urge you to support a Senate floor 
     amendment to S. 1 to remove 21st Century Community Learning 
     Centers (21st CCLC) from the Straight A's Block Grant.
       We are concerned that if 21st CCLC is folded into a block 
     grant with many other educational programs the investment 
     that the Federal government has finally begun to make in 
     expanding after-school programs will wither. After-school 
     programs are different than many of the other programs 
     included in the block grant. They support and enhance 
     academic performance but they are not necessarily direct 
     academic programs. Therefore, in a block grant where the 
     accountability provisions measure only academic performance, 
     after-school programs will likely lose out to regular school-
     day academic programs.
       In addition, as law enforcement leaders and crime survivors 
     we feel strongly that one of the most important aspects of 
     after-school programs is the crime-prevention impact. The 
     Straight A's block grant accountability provisions do not 
     measure crime-prevention outcomes and therefore do not 
     completely recognize the unique nature and importance of 
     after-school programs such as 21st CCLC.
       In the hour after the school bell rings, violent juvenile 
     crime soars and the prime time for juvenile crime begins. The 
     peak hours for such crime are from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. These 
     are also the hours when children are most likely to become 
     victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, have sex, 
     smoke, drink alcohol, or use drugs.
       After-school programs that connect children to caring 
     adults and provide constructive activities during these 
     critical hours are among our most powerful tools for 
     preventing violent juvenile crime. For example, in a five-
     city study, half of a group of at-risk high-school kids were 
     randomly assigned to participate in the Quantum Opportunities 
     after-school program. The boys left out of that program had 
     six times more criminal convictions in their high-school 
     years than the boys who attended the after-school program.
       Yet roughly 11 million children go home from school 
     regularly to an empty house. With such a large unmet need, 
     now is the time to be strengthening the Federal government's 
     commitment to after-school programs, not weakening it.

  That is 1,000 police chiefs talking about this. Forget about the 
Senator from Connecticut talking; will we listen to the people who work 
on these issues every day?
  Let me read a letter from the YMCA. This is the largest program, 
celebrating its 150th year of existence this year. These people know 
what they are talking about. These are some of the best programs in the 
country.
  This is a letter from Ken Gladish, national executive director:

       A recent survey conducted for the YMCA of the USA shows how 
     important afterschool programs are. Among other findings, the 
     survey showed that young people who do not participate in 
     afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D 
     students, twice as likely to get into a fight at school and 
     far more likely to skip a day of school than youth engaged in 
     stimulating, productive activities in the hours after school. 
     According to census figures, more than seven million school-
     age children are left home alone and on the streets, 
     unsupervised after school. This is far too many of our youth 
     to place in danger of academic failure and much worse.
       As the largest private provider of afterschool programs in 
     the country, YMCAs have 150 years of experience providing 
     programs to young people during non-school hours. More than 
     2,500 YMCAs serve over 9 million children and youth in over 
     10,000 communities through partnerships with schools, 
     businesses, police, juvenile courts and housing authorities. 
     Many other community-based organizations in this country also 
     have decades of experience operating quality afterschool 
     programs, and Congress is making the 21st Century program 
     better by making sure funding is available for programs 
     operated by these organizations. However, by not requiring 
     the Straight A's states to spend this money on afterschool 
     programs and to make it available to community organizations, 
     Congress will effectively and dramatically limit the overall 
     positive impact afterschool programs can have on local 
     communities.

  I ask unanimous consent the full text of this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  Thee being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                              YMCA of the USA,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 2001.
     Hon. Chris Dodd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: On behalf of the YMCA of the USA, I 
     would like to thank you for offering your amendment to the 
     reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     to remove the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program 
     from the ``Straight As'' demonstration provision. Dedicated 
     funding for afterschool programs and the ability of 
     community-based organizations to compete fairly for this 
     funding would be severely restricted without passage of your 
     amendment.
       A recent survey conducted for the YMCA of the USA shows how 
     important afterschool programs are. Among other findings, the 
     survey showed that young people who do not participate in 
     afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D 
     students, twice as likely to get into a fight at school and 
     far more likely to skip a day of school than youth engaged in 
     stimulating, productive activities in the hours after school. 
     According to census figures, more than seven million school-
     age children are left home alone and on the streets, 
     unsupervised after school. This is far too many of our youth 
     to place in danger of academic failure and much worse.
       As the largest private provider of afterschool programs in 
     the country, YMCAs have 150 years of experience providing 
     programs to young people during non-school hours. More than 
     2,500 YMCAs serve over 9 million children and youth in over 
     10,000 communities through partnerships with schools, 
     businesses, police, juvenile courts and housing authorities. 
     Many other community-based organizations in this country also 
     have decades of experience operating quality afterschool 
     programs, and Congress is making the 21st Century program 
     better by making sure funding is available for programs 
     operated by these organizations. However, by not requiring 
     the Straight A's states to spend this money on afterschool 
     programs and to make it available to community organizations, 
     Congress will effectively and dramatically limit the overall 
     positive impact afterschool programs can have on local 
     communities.
       As we celebrate our 150th anniversary in the United States 
     in 2001, YMCAs remain committed to doing what it takes to 
     build strong kids, strong families and strong communities. 
     Thank you for your efforts to increase opportunities for all 
     our kids.
           Sincerely,
                                        Kenneth L. Gladish, Ph.D.,
                                      National Executive Director.

  Mr. DODD. Can there be any more eloquent argument that whatever else 
we do with Straight A's and academic performance, we should not take a 
program for which there is such need in this country, where the 
overwhelming evidence is that police officers and people who provide 
afterschool programs are begging us not to jeopardize the millions of 
kids who could be in a pilot program affecting literally millions of 
children--we should not exclude this valuable tool for keeping kids 
safe and providing some safe harbor for them in the afterschool hours.
  With that, I promised my good friend from Tennessee, because of other 
obligations he has, to provide him with whatever time I have remaining 
to respond to these eloquent, persuasive arguments--maybe he will 
endorse the amendment at this point--and then I have unanimous consent 
to reclaim my time.
  Mr. FRIST. I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut outlining the 
debate in which we will be engaged for the next 2 hours. He raised many 
important points.
  I do rise in opposition to the Dodd amendment. Over the next 13 or 14 
minutes, I hope to explain to my colleagues why I am opposed to this 
amendment. I will address two issues. No. 1, I will address problems 
with the substance of the amendment itself and its impact on the 
underlying bill. No. 2, I hope to reveal how this particular amendment, 
in stripping out part of the bipartisan education bill, violates the 
principles behind this bipartisan agreement. I mention this right 
upfront because if this amendment were agreed to, it would potentially 
threaten the entire education bill.
  Most important, in response to the eloquent words of the Senator from 
Connecticut, we should focus on the substance of the amendment itself. 
First of all, you will hear several terms. One is ``Straight A's''; one 
is ``21st Century School.'' Let me back up a little bit and paint the 
big picture.
  ``Straight A's'' is the title that is given for the program entitled 
Academic Achievement for All. This is a program that is a part of the 
underlying bill. It functions as a pilot program. Its purpose is to 
demonstrate, not on a nationwide scale, but for up to 7 States and 25 
districts which can apply to qualify for this pilot program. The reason 
the program itself is so important to our side of the aisle is that

[[Page 10595]]

it does crystallize and underscore the important principle of 
flexibility and--and this is where I disagree with my colleague--local 
control. Local control is coupled with higher standards of 
accountability.
  The BEST bill requires all students meet standards of achievement. 
However, if you participate in this voluntary pilot program, you are 
given greater flexibility to make decisions at the local level, and you 
will be required to deliver higher standards than are required in the 
underlying bill.
  Again, I mention it because people think this is a block grant with 
no strings attached, and that is simply not true. The strings are 
attached in the form of high academic standards and accountability. If 
you don't meet the standards, you cannot participate; again, if you 
don't qualify in the evaluations that are built into the underlying 
bill, your privileges of flexibility are taken away.
  What funding are we talking about? We are not talking about enormous 
Federal block grants which are taken from education funding. Many are 
concerned about the approximately $8 billion title I funds that are 
aimed at disadvantaged children. No, we are talking about the other 
programs, non-title I funds. I do not want people to misunderstand 
where these funds will come from. I can't emphasize this enough.
  After a lot of negotiation with the White House, with the Democrats, 
with the Republicans, we brought everyone to the table, and we agreed 
on certain programs. That is why Straight A's is in the underlying 
bill. But this amendment is trying to strip it out. We agreed to choose 
those categorical programs which conform to the ideas in the underlying 
bill: Increased flexibility and strong accountability. The pilot 
program links greater flexibility to accountability for higher student 
achievement. Not all 18 categorical programs incorporate these two 
components. However, I believe about 9 do. Nine categorical programs 
have been included, one of which is the 21st Century program. This is 
an afterschool program. It is a program which I believe, as the Senator 
from Connecticut does, is a very positive, important program which is 
integral to strengthening the entire underlying education bill.
  The program may be worthwhile. I am not going to argue that it is 
not, because the program is a worthwhile program. I will argue, 
however, that there are situations where local districts should be able 
to use that money for afterschool programs, or for more tutoring, or 
for more teachers, or for class size reduction, or for teacher 
training, or for school construction. They ought to have the freedom to 
choose how best to use those funds, and this pilot program gives local 
and State officials the authority to do this.
  It captures innovation through increased accountability with local 
control. Those concepts are terribly important to the Republicans.
  We started negotiating with all 50 States to agree to more 
flexibility if they guarantee high accountability. But, in the 
negotiations, it went from 50 States to 40, to 30, to 20, to 10 and now 
we are down to 7 States. Indeed, we had 9 categorical programs with 
title 1 funds. We started with many more. But after negotiations with 
the White House, Democrats and Republicans, we narrowed it down 9 
programs which made sense to be a part of this consolidation as we go 
forward.
  Clearly, President Bush feels strongly about flexibility and local 
control. It is part of his larger agenda. And so much of the underlying 
bill itself has moved away from the flexibility that I and many others 
had hoped would be in this bill. This is the only thing left in this 
overall education bill that really captures high accountability, 
maximum flexibility, and local control.
  It is important for our colleagues to understand that negotiations 
and compromise brought us to the point where we agreed in a bipartisan 
way to narrow the scope of this program from 50 to 7 States. We also 
included fewer categorical programs to raise the academic standards. It 
was a bipartisan compromise. Therefore, I have to mention that if this 
amendment passes, it will strip away the heart and soul of Straight 
A's, which is in the underlying bill. In fact, it jeopardizes the 
entire education bill.
  Let me elaborate on flexibility. Seven States will participate. They 
can still have the Safe School Programs, but they will make that 
decision for themselves. We allow for diversity at the local level. One 
district might take a lot of steps toward an afterschool program. In 
another district, they may already have an afterschool program funded 
in some other way. They may want to use those funds for more teachers 
or improving technology or for more computers in classrooms. All of 
these initiatives can improve education, but only the local schools 
know which programs will most effectively improve education. Again, 
this can only be done when they are given maximum flexibility and local 
control.
  What does the Dodd amendment do? It destroys the program. The Dodd 
amendment destroys the pilot program because it takes away from the 
overall funding that is available. If a State is accepted into the 
program, the Dodd amendment takes away about 40 percent of that 
funding, leaving only about 60 percent of the funding for flexibility 
programs.
  We know, based on the negotiations with States and districts, that if 
the Straight A's program only provided the little amount of funding 
which the Dodd amendment allows for, it wouldn't be worthwhile for a 
State or a district to participate.
  This amendment takes 40 percent of the funding out of a very 
important program that we negotiated through compromise. We simply 
cannot strip more out of it because nobody will take advantage of it. 
It destroys Straight A's. It destroys what is left in the education 
bill that we feel strongly about, and that the President of the United 
States feels strongly about. It is one of the few things left in the 
bill that captures innovation, captures creativity, and focuses on 
local decisionmaking coupled with high standards of accountability.
  There were several questions that the Senator from Connecticut 
brought up. I will go through them again.
  He mentioned the pilot program which requires a review of the State's 
performance. If a State fails to meet what is agreed to in terms of the 
average yearly program for 2 years, or if the State fails to exceed the 
average yearly process for 3 years, the agreement is terminated right 
then.
  He mentioned that the Straight A's program will eliminate all of the 
categorically targeted programs. It does not eliminate all of them. I 
think as we observe which programs local schools choose, we will 
understand which programs are most effective and more frequently 
implemented, but it doesn't eliminate all of them.
  I started with 50 States. That is where we were. That is what our 
Republican caucus wants. We don't want to impose the program on any 
State, but if a State wants more flexibility in exchange for higher 
standards, they should be able to choose this path. We whittled it down 
from 50 to 7 states, but we just can't take away anymore and still have 
an effective program. I hope as many States as possible will take 
advantage of this program.
  The Senator from Connecticut made a point about losing local control. 
This is an important principle because larger principle behind this 
program is: local people can make better decisions. They will make 
better decisions, if they are held accountable to improve education.
  That is what this elementary and secondary education bill is all 
about--reauthorization of education for those children. Local districts 
get the same amount of funds, but they decide what their priorities 
are. This includes afterschool programs; we are not taking that away. 
They get the exact same amount of money. But they can decide where to 
spend the funds. Maybe in rural Tennessee all of the kids are out 
playing football in the afternoon and don't need an afterschool 
program.
  Under our plan, they can take that same amount of money and put it in 
tutoring for those students who are not doing as well academically. 
Today, they don't have that flexibility. The

[[Page 10596]]

money has to go straight into the 21st century afterschool program 
whether they want it to or not.
  The Senator from Connecticut said the programs would eliminate 
afterschool programs. We don't eliminate them. We believe that local 
districts should use that money for afterschool programs, if they like, 
or for teachers, or for technology, or for tutoring, or for textbooks.
  Are there strings attached? Absolutely. This is not a block grant 
program where they can take the money and use it however they want. 
Again, this is not a block grant.
  That is why, again, it came from the negotiations. We put the 
standards pretty high in the underlying bill--but raised them even 
higher for the straight A's program. These are the highest standards 
anywhere in the bill. If a district participates, they will operate 
under higher standards, or they will not qualify to continue to 
participate in the program.
  We do not eliminate all categorical grant programs. For example, we 
didn't touch the reading program. We didn't touch homeless or Indian or 
emigrants or vocational education. Are all categorical grant programs 
within bipartisan negotiations? Yes, it was narrowed down 17 to 9.
  I will close. Again, I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut 
allowing me the opportunity to respond to some of the points he made. I 
appreciate the support of my colleagues on this bill. I hope to be able 
to speak a little bit later this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my friend 
from Tennessee.
  I am unclear--I don't expect this to be resolved in this amendment--
as to how long these actual block grant applications will be in 
existence. It is unclear in the bill. That is why I said it could be 7. 
It could be 14. It could be 21 States, if the grants are for shorter 
periods of time. That is an open-ended question.
  But the important point I want to make and the distinction here is 
that the decisions within the State are not made locally. That is a big 
difference. They are made by the State education authority, or the 
Governor. We had that debate the other day as to who would dominate in 
that discussion.
  But the idea that the local town or some community in Delaware or 
Connecticut can make the decision about an afterschool program is not 
the case. I wish it were. That decision, and whether or not you are 
going to get any afterschool programs, will be made by a higher 
authority. They are the ones who will make that decision.
  Under the existing program, the town or the county can apply, and 
they can receive it or not. But it is a local decision. If you have 
football programs locally and you don't need it, you don't apply for 
it. There are many communities who need the help, so they apply 
directly. Some are not communities, they are community-based 
organizations, which are expanding tremendously. That is why YMCAs and 
other organizations, even some that involve churches and synagogues, 
are allowed to apply here, which does not mean the State has to make 
that decision.
  So all I am saying under the Straight A's Program is, just on those 
afterschool programs, leave it to the local communities to decide 
whether or not they think afterschool programs are worthwhile. I do not 
believe that is that great a difficulty.
  By the way, on the percentages taken out--this has been said over and 
over again--I asked the Congressional Research Service to give me their 
financial interpretation of what my afterschool program would mean in 
the context of the Straight A's Program. If you exclude title I, yes, 
my colleague from Tennessee is right, it is 40 percent. But I do not 
think you can pick and choose here.
  Under all of the Straight A's Programs, the afterschool program 
amounts to 5.7 percent. That leaves roughly 94 percent of the dollars 
under Straight A's that is still there to do all the other things for 
academic performance.
  So if you are going to define Straight A's as eliminating all non-
title I funds, of course you get a higher percentage. But that is not 
what this is. Under Straight A's, it the entire pot of money, it is 5.7 
percent, not 40 percent or 50 percent, as has been argued by some. So I 
make those two points particularly.
  The rest, as my colleague has said very candidly, would like to have 
all 50 States under this, with no strings attached, to just go out and 
do what they want to do. That is why there is an Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  Why did the Federal Government, 36 years ago, pass this law? It 
passed the law because there was a growing concern that the neediest of 
children in the United States--28 million of them who grow up in 
poverty, and 12 million working families in poverty, and others--that 
there was a need to step in and try to do more to see to it that the 
neediest children would be served. That is why there is a Federal 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, because there was a concern 
across the country that these neediest kids' needs were not being met.
  Over the years, we have contributed about 6 cents. It has gone up 
from 4 cents to 6 cents of an education dollar; that is, 94 cents comes 
from the State and local property taxpayers, and 4 cents or 5 cents or 
6 cents of the education dollar comes from the Federal Government.
  So what we are trying to do in that 6 cents is just to make sure that 
in certain areas the neediest of our children are going to get served, 
not that we have a right to guarantee anyone's success. We do not. 
There is no obligation to say to Americans: You ought to count on your 
Government guaranteeing you success. That is out. What we try to do--
all people at all levels in our society--is to create equal opportunity 
for people. That is the beauty of America. That has been such an 
attraction to people all over the globe and why people every morning 
get up around the world and line up around U.S. Embassies to try to 
come here, either as citizens or as green card holders.
  There are a lot of reasons why they come, but I think the most 
important one is that this is a place of equal opportunity. We are not 
perfect. We have not arrived at perfection, but we try very hard to see 
to it that, regardless of where you come from, if you are a citizen of 
this country, regardless of ethnicity or background or religion, you 
have an equal opportunity to succeed. That is America. There is no 
guarantee of success, but an equal opportunity to succeed.
  That is what this is all about. That is the beauty of America, more 
so than our wonderful natural landscape or the economic wealth of our 
country. As important as those things are, I have always believed that 
the great beauty of America, the great magic of it, is this notion of 
equal opportunity.
  How equal can the opportunity be if your education isn't equal? I 
have told the story in this Chamber, when my great grandmother came to 
America, at age 14 or 15, with her husband--Thomas and Catherine 
Murphy--from the west coast of Ireland, she could not read or write. 
That was not uncommon for immigrants in the 19th century and early part 
of the 20th century. The first thing she did was she got herself 
elected to the Voluntown, CT, school board. She understood that 
education was going to be the key for the nine children she was about 
to have--my grandfather being the ninth--and that was the way you were 
going to get ahead. No guarantee of it, but if you had a decent 
education, you had an opportunity to get ahead.
  We are at the beginning of the 21st century, not at the end of the 
19th century, and I happen to believe that principle my great 
grandmother intuitively applied to her own family. It is something we 
ought to apply to all families. At least give people a good education 
in this country, a good starting block--that is what this is really all 
about--and see to it that kids can be safe.
  As you can see from the chart, when you have between 7 million and 11 
million children home alone--if you take 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds, and 
you have 9 percent of 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds alone

[[Page 10597]]

for hours after school, and you have
10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds, where about 60 percent of those kids are 
home alone, you have a problem on your hands. You do not need a Ph.D. 
in child psychology to tell you that.
  You ask any parent who is working what they worry about at 2 or 3 
o'clock in the afternoon. Sometimes in rural communities--not so much 
today with cellular phones, but before the arrival of cellular phones, 
it was sometimes hard to get a call through because parents who were 
working were calling their houses at 2:30, 3, 3:30 to see whether or 
not their child was home safely.
  There isn't a parent in America who does not worry about where their 
kids are when school lets out. That is why there are almost 3,000 
applications for afterschool programs. That is why 1,000 police chiefs 
have begged us to adopt this amendment. Because they understand it as 
the most important issue when it comes to preventing crime and juvenile 
problems, and kids who become victims.
  This isn't about liberals and conservatives, Republicans and 
Democrats. That is not what this is about. You go ahead and ask these 
people. Ask the YMCAs what party they belong to. Ask those 1,000 police 
chiefs what party they belong to. Ask crime survivors, are you a 
Democrat or Republican? That is not what they said in the letter. They 
said: We are people who know what we are talking about, and we think 
afterschool programs make sense.
  Academic achievement is important. I have said I would support this 
pilot program. I have my concerns about it. I am not the first to admit 
that. But I am willing to try it, provided there is adequate funding. I 
doubt the funding may be there, but if the funding is there, let's try 
this over the next 7 years. If your child ends up in one these States 
and is a guinea pig for the next 7 years, that may be another matter. 
But that is not the case. So we will try the pilot program.
  But why would you throw afterschool programs into the guinea pig area 
when we know it works? When every community in the country will tell 
you they need it? When you have people who have dedicated their lives 
to this, who understand it, why are you going to throw this into that 
situation where some State authority is going to decide whether some 
rural county or some urban community ought to have some money for after 
school? That is what this bill does. You take away local authority when 
it comes to applying for the grant applications. They have no authority 
to apply for them. It will be a decision made at the State level.
  The local authority is gone. So that local YMCA, that local Boys Club 
or Girls Club out there, they will not have the right to apply to the 
Department of Education to ask for an afterschool program and 
assistance. They are going to have to rely on someone in their State 
capital to decide whether it is OK.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, as a former Governor, you understand 
as well as anyone how difficult that can be. We all know it. It is hard 
to work the different battles that go on, and so forth. Sometimes it 
isn't just how this works. For the 3,000 who apply and the 300 who get 
some help--if you want to help them, increase the funding for it 
instead of throwing it into a block grant where it is a jump ball over 
whether or not this program is going to be funded.
  We heard my colleague from Tennessee say this is a great program, the 
21st Century Community Learning Centers. Everybody who stands up says 
this is a great program. Then why are you throwing it into a roulette 
wheel for the next 7 years to see whether or not communities might get 
some help? If it is such a great program, if the communities are 
telling us it is a great program--and I will repeat what I said at the 
outset, there has never been a grant program that has been sought after 
as widely in the history of the Department of Education as the 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers. We are about to take it and dump it 
into a Las Vegas environment where you are shooting craps on whether or 
not you may end up with a good afterschool program, despite the fact 
every organization you can think of that works in this area is asking 
us to do otherwise.
  I am not suggesting that Straight A's eliminates all categorical 
programs. I realize that. There was some negotiation that went on, and 
so some made it, some didn't. I accept that. That is politics. That is 
how it works. Don't try to convince me it was done on the merits. It 
was done on who could get in the room, who couldn't, what deal was 
going on. Afterschool got left out. That is all.
  I am here today to say: Look this does not directly relate to 
academic performance. It has some impact. As we heard, kids who are in 
afterschool programs do better academically. Those who are not do 
worse. A lot of other things happen to them.
  Academic performance is very important. I don't question that at all. 
But it is not the most important or the only thing. There are other 
things that are important as well.
  A kid's safety is important. Ask a parent whether or not they think 
their child is safe after school has any value or any importance. I 
think we know the answer. If you ask them if academic performance is 
important, of course, they will say it is. But they don't believe you 
ought to make it a choice between academic performance and a kid being 
unsafe.
  I am suggesting we can do both. You can test academic performance 
through this pilot program, but you can also, as part of the Federal 
Government's commitment to education, provide some small resources to 
community-based organizations that desire them. It is their decision to 
apply. I am not dumping the money out to them. They have to apply. They 
have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting it, even if they do apply. Of 
the 3,000 that apply, 300 make it. So even if you have a strong desire 
for one, under present funding levels, you have a very small chance of 
getting it. But why eliminate any chance at all or leave it to the 
whims of what happens at the State level where a lot of other issues 
are going to be in play?
  I apologize for getting wound up. Obviously, I care about this. I see 
my colleagues from New Jersey and Rhode Island here. I also see my 
colleague from Arkansas who I presume wants to be heard on this. I will 
yield some time to my two colleagues if they are interested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has consumed 31 
minutes; 29 minutes remain. The opposition side has 45 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island, and 
then I will go to my colleague from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senator from 
Connecticut for his amendment and for his passion. He is exactly right. 
He is focusing on a very important program, the 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers.
  I speak not theoretically but from experience. About 2 weeks ago I 
went to Central Falls, RI, the poorest community in my State, a 
community so poor that the school system has been taken over by the 
State of Rhode Island. I was there because they were announcing the 
opening of a support center that would integrate all the services 
necessary today to effectively deal with the education of a child. It 
was located right next to one of the elementary schools. It would be 
open to parents and provide the resources and services necessary, 
health care services, screening services.
  This initiative was sponsored by the United Way of Rhode Island. The 
good news, it is spreading from Central Falls to other communities in 
Rhode Island, starting next with Providence, our biggest city. At the 
core of this initiative: A grant for the 21st century learning program 
from Federal education. This grant helped the United Way move forward 
and provided additional momentum, the thrust to go forward with this.
  That is an example of how this program has materially affected the 
education of students in Rhode Island.

[[Page 10598]]

Central Falls is the poorest community, heavily Latino, with new 
Americans coming in. It needs all sorts of services that you don't 
typically find the extra dollars in the budget to deal with. And the 
21st century grant provided the additional necessary resources. That is 
an example of how we can make a real difference.
  This 21st century learning program has made that real difference. The 
Senator from Connecticut is so right, we are sacrificing this ability 
to go ahead and make these critical differences, inspiring local 
participation of the United Way, combined activities, doing what we all 
say we want to do--bring the whole community into the education of 
children.
  The risk of a block grant is that these priorities will fall by the 
wayside. A school district that is faced with paying salaries, fixing 
buildings, everything else, will say: I would love to do this. This is 
exactly what we have to do, but we don't have the resources to do it.
  I commend the Senator.
  Let me suggest two other areas with respect to the Straight A's 
program that I think are very important. First, the program is being 
presented as a pilot program. The reality is, if you do the 
mathematics, and if you take seven States, such as California, Texas, 
New York, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and then you take 
the 25 largest school districts outside of those states, Straight A's 
could potentially apply to about 51 percent of the students in the 
country. That is a rather significant amount of children subject to 
this pilot program. We have to be very clear that this program could be 
far from a pilot, that within a year or so we could see 51 percent of 
the students of America subject to this block grant program, magnifying 
all of the concerns expressed by Senator Dodd of Connecticut and 
others.
  Let's be very clear, this is a pilot, but the pilot is flying a 
stealth aircraft. We could find ourselves not with a pilot program to 
evaluate, but in the midst of a widespread, significant change in 
public policy in the United States.
  I originally filed amendment No. 537 to try to truly restrict this to 
a pilot program, but I think, because of many factors, this is a 
discussion that will probably take place in conference, as the House 
version comes over without the widespread application that is 
potentially in this bill.
  One other point about Straight A's: I have been insistent on getting 
parental involvement in this legislation. With the cooperation of 
Senator Gregg and Senator Hutchinson and everyone on the committee, we 
have made real strides. But unfortunately, some of those parental 
involvement protections would not have to be followed in Straight A's 
states and districts. I filed amendment No. 399 to ensure that those 
other parental involvement requirements of S. 1 would have to be 
followed, such as various provisions of section 1118, and other 
provisions throughout S. 1 which require parental involvement, 
including teacher quality and safe and drug free schools. I would hate 
to see the parental involvement provisions go by the wayside because of 
a block grant approach. I don't want to get involved in an extended 
debate over each of the parental involvement provisions right now, and 
will not offer this amendment, but will continue to address these 
issues as S. 1 moves to Conference.
  Let me return to the issue at hand and conclude. Senator Dodd's 
amendment is well placed, well stated. This is about practical 
improvement of schools. I have seen this improvement in Rhode Island. 
We will lose it if we go to a block grant. If you ask yourself what is 
wrong with American education, one of the things that has been wrong is 
that the governance of education for too many years has ignored 
problems that have festered--poor professional development, poor 
infrastructure, many things such as that. Who are these people? They 
are the Governors, the school committees, and the Congress. But what we 
propose to do in a block grant is to reinforce this lack of 
performance, this turning over of the keys and keep doing what you are 
doing.
  I suggest there is a middle ground between a block grant program and 
micromanagement. One example of how that works successfully is the 21st 
century learning centers. I hope we can maintain that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired. So far 
Senator Dodd and those speaking in favor of the amendment have consumed 
37 minutes; 23 minutes remain. Those in opposition have consumed 15 
minutes; 45 minutes remain. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume in opposition to the Dodd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as we hear the debate on removing the 
21st century program from the Straight A's demonstration project, I am 
reminded very much of the fierce debate that occurred in the early and 
mid-1990s over welfare reform. I was in the House at the time and there 
were those of us who believed that the great reforms that were taking 
place in welfare were occurring at the State level--there were a number 
of Governors around the country who were in the forefront of reforming, 
and the Presiding Officer was one of those Governors--and that the best 
thing we could do on the Federal level after a generation of trying to 
micromanage welfare, and having done a miserable job at it and, in 
fact, having seen welfare dependence only increase in our country, many 
of us believed, on a bipartisan basis, that the best possible thing we 
could do was to give the States broad new flexibility in the reforms 
they would enact at the State level.
  There was a fierce debate over whether that was a good direction in 
which to go. The opponents continually raised the issue that you can't 
really trust the States and we dare not give them that kind of 
flexibility; if we give them that flexibility, they will misuse it and 
they will abuse the poor and they will not take care of the most 
vulnerable in our society. And there was the hue and cry about block 
granting being the great evil; that only those of us in Washington knew 
how to care for those who were in need. Many campaigns were run on the 
issue of how callous and heartless it was to pass welfare reform.
  Well, history demonstrated that that was one of the greatest things 
we could do for the working poor and for the welfare-dependent in this 
country--the welfare reform that Congress passed and President Clinton 
ultimately signed into law. As a result, welfare rolls nationwide have 
fallen. Tens of thousands have gone from a life of dependence to a life 
of productive work and have begun to realize and to live out the 
American dream.
  As we bring forth a very small demonstration program that has been 
compromised and compromised, whittled and whittled, until it is but a 
shadow of its former self, we hear the same arguments raised against 
this small demonstration program that we heard against welfare reform 
years ago. I know there are differences, but there are a lot of 
similarities; the argument is basically the same: You can't trust that 
the States are going to do the right thing. Never mind that they are 
elected by the same people who elected us. It doesn't matter that they 
are accountable to the same constituents to whom we are accountable. We 
can't trust them. Only we can ensure that these programs are conducted 
in the right way.
  There have been good faith negotiations that went on, bipartisan 
negotiations, about a bill and about a program--the Straight A's--that 
at least there could be a little effort, a little opportunity for 
States--no State would be compelled to--and for 25 school districts--
but no school district would be compelled--to enter into not a block 
grant in the purest sense but a program in which they would be given 
greater flexibility than ever before in exchange for a very tight 
commitment on performance improvement.

[[Page 10599]]

  But if a State is going to make that kind of commitment, there has to 
be some incentive. And the more we pull out of the Straight A's 
demonstration program, the less incentive there is. I think most who 
have looked at what is left of Straight A's would agree that if the 
Dodd amendment passes, there will be little if any incentive. There 
will not be a Straight A's. This will destroy it, take out the very 
heart of it, and there will not be one State or one school district 
that would see it worthwhile to make the kind of commitments required 
under Straight A's for the limited flexibility that would remain.
  Let me just say, as we think about where this program has gone, the 
President campaigned on this and he called it charter States. He saw it 
as a national program. He wanted to make it an opportunity for all 
States. This is where we are now. We have gone from 50 States and 
14,000 school districts to a demonstration project for 7 States and 25 
school districts. For those who would argue that we have not given, not 
compromised, I say we have compromised to the point that there is 
nothing left if this amendment passes. So we have gone from a national 
program of 50 States to 7 States and 25 school districts.
  Additionally, there must be geographic distribution if more than that 
number applies. We have gone from no targeting of Federal dollars to 
maintaining the title I targeting to schools unless an alternative 
method better targets. We have made that compromise from the original 
program. We have gone from no limitations on non-title I dollars to 
providing that non-title I must target as well--additional targeting. 
That is a compromise that the authors of this legislation have made in 
the course of the negotiations. We have agreed to take out reading--a 
$1 billion program--from the list of eligible programs.
  We also agreed to take out the following programs in the 
negotiations, as the Senator from Connecticut well knows. We agreed to 
remove the migrant program, the homeless program, the immigrant 
program, and the Indian program. We have agreed to maintenance of 
effort language--another compromise made from the original proposal 
that the President ran on and that so many of us believe in and have 
sought. We have agreed to restrict the amendment process so SEAs or 
LEAs cannot game the process. We have agreed to allow an LEA to opt out 
of the performance agreement upon permission from the SEA. We have 
agreed to require parental involvement to be required in the 
performance agreement. That is something that Senator Reid sought as a 
concession in the process of negotiations that were made. We have 
agreed to requiring parental participation and that it be reported. We 
have agreed to prevent a State from becoming a charter State if an LEA 
becomes one until the end of the term of the LEA performance agreement.
  We agreed to make the sections of title I apply, and there are six 
different sections that we agreed to make apply. None of those sections 
were originally applied to Straight A's. We have agreed to include 
teacher quality and bilingual education goals as part of the 
performance agreements--another concession and compromise made. We have 
agreed to strict private school equitable participation language. We 
have tightened the approval requirements for the performance agreements 
so it will be subject to peer review and based on quality, not first 
come/first served as was done with the Ed-Flex legislation. We have 
tightened the amendment procedure for amendments to performance 
agreements. We have agreed that a State or district may not get an Ed-
Flex waiver for any program it consolidates under the performance 
agreement.
  On and on goes the list of concessions that have been made, in trying 
to preserve an important part of this education legislation. And now 
the last remnant is sought to be pulled out as well. Basically, when we 
vote on this amendment, the question is: Do we want to have a Straight 
A's demonstration program or not? To vote for the Dodd amendment is to 
say we should not have this at all. If that is the position, it is 
honest, but let's just say that not just whittle it down until there is 
nothing but a few fragments of sawdust left of what was a concept and 
an idea that had great merit. So we are clinging to that which is left, 
after all of the concessions that have been made.
  To pull this program will pull so much of the remaining funding 
resources in the Straight A's demonstration program that there will be 
virtually no incentive for school districts or for States to 
participate. It will be but a figleaf. It will be that we can say, 
well, it is in the bill, but what is there isn't--we really would not 
even get an idea of whether it was a workable concept in the first 
place if this much is pulled out.
  I plead with my colleagues. I don't question the sincerity of those 
who are devoted to this. There are devotees to every program in 
Straight A's. I am certain that there are worthwhile qualities to most 
of those programs. But if the concept is we consolidate spending 
streams, provide flexibility to the States and local school districts, 
in exchange for a guarantee that they are going to increase 
performance, then we must set aside those very parochial, programmatic 
loyalties to say at least in these few States and few school districts 
we will give them the opportunity to experiment and see if they have a 
better way.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat the Dodd amendment, to preserve what is 
left of the Straight A's Program in this demonstration, and allow those 
few States and those few school districts that will be given an 
opportunity under the language in the bill to have a chance, given the 
new flexibility they will have, to demonstrate that the reforms and the 
leadership they can provide at the local level will, in fact, reward 
the children. That is where our great interest should be, not in 
preserving a program but in doing what is best for the children.
  I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey, Mr. Torricelli.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding the 
time.
  I believe these have been a very productive few weeks in the Senate. 
I am very proud of the institution and how, on a bipartisan basis, it 
has put differences aside and found common ground in dealing with the 
educational problems of our country.
  In adopting the Dodd amendment on title I, for the first time we are 
guaranteeing that poor school districts will receive 100 percent of 
their title I funding. What a remarkable statement by this institution.
  Currently, there are districts in our country that are receiving a 
third or a quarter of that to which they are entitled, imposing an 
enormous burden on local school districts.
  We adopted the Harkin amendment to meet our Federal commitment to 
special education by guaranteeing $181 billion over the next 10 years. 
In 1975, when IDEA was created, the Federal Government promised to pay 
40 percent of the special education needs. Last year, it paid 13 
percent.
  These are two remarkable positions by this institution in which every 
Senator should take great pride.
  Blocking school voucher amendments stated our commitment to the 
public school system on an uncompromised basis. In fact, we will be 
funding reading programs at the $900 million level next year and voted 
to authorize $3 billion for professional development programs.
  All of these things, including the President's proposal for 
accountability and testing and those programs Democrats have supported 
for a long time, enhance the quality of performance and teaching.
  With this amendment, Senator Dodd takes us into a new area, not 
simply accountability, not only instruction,

[[Page 10600]]

but the lives of the students themselves, recognizing that education 
involves all of these aspects of a student's life, including the 
quality of their lives and what they do after school, recognizing it is 
all part of preparing a student for life.
  That is why I support the Dodd amendment. That is why I believe this 
is not a matter of discretion for some people who believe they should 
do it or should not do it. This is a national commitment to recognize 
that education is a part of the entire student day. It may be a 
Governor's responsibility. It may be a local school board's 
responsibility. It is also our responsibility. This makes sense.
  I know something about this subject. In the 1950s, it was unusual for 
a young woman to work outside the home. In the community in which I 
lived in suburban New Jersey, I believe I may have been the only 
student who came home after school to an empty home, not simply because 
my mother chose to work but because she had to work. I remember those 
hours. School let out at 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m. My mother and father would 
work until 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m., and for 3 and 4 hours sometimes I would 
sit in my home alone.
  My community was without some of the temptations of modern life. I 
encountered few problems, but I remember that stage of life. That is 
why when police chiefs were asked, as Senator Dodd has demonstrated, 
what would you do to deal with school violence, the problems of 
students, 69 percent said exactly what Senator Dodd is doing: 
Afterschool programs.
  We have done every one of these other things. Metal detectors in 
schools: We did that and should do that. One percent of police chiefs 
said that was the answer.
  Hire more police officers: We did that for years and we should. That 
is 13 percent.
  Try juveniles as adults: Many of our States have done that. The 
Federal Government is doing that. That is 17 percent.
  The Senator from Arkansas said: Why don't we listen to those of our 
constituents at other levels of government who have more experience? 
Exactly, I say to the Senator.
  Look at Senator Dodd's chart. Of the police chiefs involved in this 
every day, 69 percent of them said afterschool programs. That is what 
we are doing, and it is the right money in the right place.
  What may have been unusual in my suburban community in New Jersey is 
now common to millions of Americans. Twenty-eight million school age 
children have parents who work outside the home.
  Maybe I was the only child in my town, but 15 million American 
children in the afternoon now return to an empty home, and my 
colleagues know what that means. Juvenile crime peaks between the hours 
of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. All of those police officers looking in the middle 
of the night for kids who are committing crimes, causing problems, are 
looking at the wrong time. That is not the problem. It is after school: 
No parents, no teachers, no supervision, no options. Senator Dodd is 
offering the option.
  Violent crime: The greatest risk to our children being hurt 
themselves is not in school. We are putting in metal detectors and 
police officers. But it is after school: No options, no supervision. 
Senator Dodd has the answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield me an additional 3 minutes?
  Mr. DODD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, a few weeks ago we adopted the Boxer 
amendment to authorize $2 billion for afterschool programs, but under 
the current bill States can opt out of providing afterschool care for 
those who need it. This is not something on which people should opt 
out, not recognize the problem. It is not a local problem; it is a 
national problem.
  There is not a study I have ever seen where it is not clear that not 
only is this the source of juvenile violence, it is the principal time 
of the day and the time in life when young people experiment with 
narcotics. It is a principal reason and a problem for teenage 
pregnancy.
  Many things in America change. Some do not. Young people without 
supervision and time on their hands are mischievous, are led to 
temptations and wrong influences. This, I say to my colleagues, is an 
opportunity to address the problem, and the evidence could not be more 
overwhelming. A national study of five housing projects with 
afterschool programs and five without shows us the difference. Those 
without had 50 percent more vandalism and 30 percent more drug activity 
than those with afterschool programs.
  This Senate has met its responsibility with IDEA. We have taken a 
stand on special education. We are putting resources into reading. We 
have answered the President's call for accountability and testing. We 
have resisted abandonment of the public schools on school vouchers. 
Every Member of the Senate can be proud of this education bill.
  Senator Dodd now writes the last word, and what we did during the 
school day we now provide for afterschool programs. I am proud of his 
amendment, proud of Senator Dodd, and I urge my colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis to support his amendment.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Senator for the time.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, before he leaves, let me thank my 
colleague from New Jersey. He always brings a new level of eloquence to 
any debate in which he is involved. While we all from time to time 
bring our own natural experiences to these discussions and debate, his 
discussion of growing up in New Jersey in the home where both his 
parents worked is certainly a poignant remainder of what happens today 
with a lot of children throughout America.
  There are 28 million children in 12 million families struggling to 
make ends meet, and of that number a staggering number of these kids 
are home alone, or if not home, someplace else unsupervised. For those 
reasons, over 1,000 chiefs of police have written and beseeched in the 
strongest language one can imagine that this amendment be adopted, 
along with the 2,500 YMCAs across the country, an organization that has 
the longest record in history in providing afterschool programs.
  I underscore they did a survey on their own and the Senator from New 
Jersey pointed it out, but I repeat it because their findings 
corroborate what the Senator from New Jersey pointed out. Among the 
findings, the survey showed that young people who do not participate in 
afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D students. So 
there is an academic relationship here. They are twice as likely to get 
into a fight at school and are far more likely to miss school than 
young people engaged in stimulating, productive activities in 
afterschool hours.
  Every study and survey we have seen shows this. That is why the 
chiefs of police, who work with this problem every day, want this. If 
you want to know what local people think, obviously, afterschool is 
desired.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I yield.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. As we debate this issue, we understand the forces in 
education that will fight for more money for special education. And 
they should. I understand the constituency that wants school 
construction. I support that.
  My concern is there is not a constituency, other than us, 
representing the interests of law enforcement and our own experience 
with these children who are fighting for money to deal with this 
violence and afterschool activities. Senators, on a well-reasoned 
basis, come to the floor and say, make this all discretionary; throw it 
into a pot and let the States do what they want. But, I don't know who 
is coming to Trenton, to my State capital, to fight for afterschool 
programs.
  I know the people who want construction. I know the people who want 
more teachers. I support them. But I don't know who is going there 
representing the mothers and the fathers who are not home in the 
afternoon or the police chiefs who are concerned about drug use or 
teenage pregnancy.

[[Page 10601]]

They only have us. That is why I am not for taking away anyone's 
discretion. I believe in the judgment of the State and local 
governments, but this is an instance where the Congress has to 
compensate for the fact that we know from experience, we have looked at 
the empirical data, and we have heard from the police chiefs, and we 
know what is happening with the students on their performance when they 
don't have afterschool programs. We know what happens with teenage 
pregnancy and drug use. We know the evidence. This is a case where our 
judgment is required. That is why I think the amendment is so 
worthwhile.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for those comments.
  I have heard this repeatedly over this debate in the last hour, that 
if this amendment is adopted, this destroys the straight A's program. 
This amounts to 5.7 percent, according to the Congressional Research 
Service, of the funding in the pilot Straight A's Program, title I, 
non-title I funds under that title I program. Not 40 percent. To say 
you cannot fund the block grant program with 94 percent of the money 
does not make any sense to me. Rather than stripping the program, we 
are taking the pilot program and setting aside afterschool in that 
pilot program.
  As we said earlier, we are talking about a program that includes 7 
States and 25 districts. It could be more than 7 States over the 7 
years of this entire bill. We don't debate this bill again for 7 years. 
Obviously, for children who are starting elementary school, they will 
have completed elementary school by the time we come back and revisit 
the issue. To say in a pilot program we will block grant everything 
made at the State level, and if a local school district wants to apply 
for funds for afterschool, they will depend upon a State educational 
authority or a Governor to say, yes or no, is totally up to the 
discretion of the State authority. There is no review process at all. 
They can apply, and for whatever reason, they can say no.
  Afterschool programs are the most highly sought after grants in the 
history of the Department of Education. This year alone there were 
almost 3,000 applications. They are going up each year. We only grant 
300. There is only 1 chance in 10 of getting your grant approved. They 
are so popular because local community-based organizations see the 
value.
  I am saying, keep the Straight A's Program. We will have the pilot 
program for the block grants. It will be there for the 7 States and 25 
districts--or maybe more--to try over the next 7 years. Don't make 
afterschool become a jump ball in that regard.
  What Straight A's is about is academic performance, trying to get 
better scores in math and reading. I don't argue that afterschool has 
some relationship to academic performance, whether or not kids are in 
trouble or not in trouble. This is primarily a safety issue. It is 
primarily a crime issue, as the chiefs of police have pointed out in 
overwhelming numbers when they look at the difficulties kids get into 
and the time of day the difficulties occur. They state with 
overwhelming numbers it is between 3 in the afternoon and 6 or 7 at 
night.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield. My colleague is a great champion for 
afterschool programs and has an amendment adopted, a sense of the 
Senate, saying we ought to do this.
  Mrs. BOXER. In fact, I decided not to do the sense of the Senate. We 
did the real thing. This Senate voted with about 60 votes to increase 
the funding for afterschool. We actually did a real amendment, not just 
a sense of the Senate, and for the first time in history this Senate 
actually voted to increase the funding.
  The reason I asked my friend to yield, if he would be willing to give 
me a minute of his time, I will pose a question. It has been a 
struggle, as he knows, because he has led the fight. When I came here, 
I joined him in this fight. We knew it did not take rocket science to 
understand that our kids are getting into trouble after school. We now 
have the exact percentages. That is why the police all over the 
country, as was pointed out, support this. We know it does help kids 
with their academic performance, although that is not the main reason 
we have afterschool. We know, as has been pointed out, there is an 
overwhelming number of applications for these grants.
  Now, finally, under President Clinton, we have seen this program go 
from $10 million to $600 million; and now with the amendment my friend 
helped me with, it is over $1 billion, and we will be able to help 
millions of kids.
  My question is, On the one hand, how can we vote to support real 
funding for this program and then turn around and vote to take it away 
and put it into some nebulous experiment which may turn out to be 
great--I have my problems with it--or may not?
  By the way, John Ensign, a Republican from Nevada, my primary 
cosponsor, told a moving story about how he used to get in trouble as a 
kid. He had no place to go. He had a single mom.
  We take this stand, make a wonderful statement, and put real dollars 
behind it. Is it not the case we turn around and pull some of that 
money out; and isn't that just a contradiction in how we feel about 
afterschool?
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for raising the point. It is a very 
good point she raised.
  Before my friend from California arrived, we heard our good friend 
from Tennessee talk about how much he supports, as most Members do, the 
21st Century Learning Centers. Senator Jeffords of Vermont is the 
principal author. I joined him with that several years ago. This is an 
overwhelmingly popular program at a local level. Now grant applications 
are made at a local level for funds which leverage, by the way, United 
Way, funds for nonprofits, churches and so forth. Without this seed 
money and what we do in the grants, it is difficult to get the other 
organizations to support it.
  Now for those 7 States and 25 school districts, which, by the way, I 
happen to believe are probably going to comprise a significant 
percentage of the 50 million kids who go to school each day, if you 
take the 7 most populous States and 25 school districts, I can get you 
to over 50 percent of the student population of the country. I presume 
every State is going to apply because what Governor--and I am looking 
at our Presiding Officer, who knows more about Governors, I suppose, 
than either my good friend from California or I do--when States get a 
chance to get Federal money with no strings attached would not take 
that deal. I presume every State will apply.
  The Secretary of Education wants to get the maximum number of 
students under this pilot program. Obviously, they will choose one of 
the largest States and largest school districts, which means for the 
next 7 years we will take a significant percentage of kids into a pilot 
program, a demonstration program, and we will say that afterschool is 
part of that. We are not going to provide a separate pot of resources 
for which localities can apply.
  We are going to say, no, now as a locality if you are within those 7 
States or 25 districts, you have to go up to the State education 
authority or the Governor, whichever it is, and they may or may not 
accept it. They can reject it out of hand. When you are competing for 
scarce dollars in poor areas, in many cases, of course, where the 
working poor live, how well do they do in that competition? The 
Presiding Officer knows how difficult those decisions can be. Her late 
husband was a great Governor of the State of Missouri. How difficult 
those decisions may be.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator raises an important point. Now we have a 
situation where, instead of being able to apply for these funds, these 
local school districts--and I thought my colleagues on the other side 
loved local control--now have to go through the States.
  Am I correct, I ask my friend, this will take a piece off for 
administration? In other words, if they decide to say to a local 
district, OK, we will allow you to use some of this, they are going to 
take some money off the top. This is inefficient.

[[Page 10602]]

  I say to some colleagues who may be listening from their offices--
maybe a few are--if you are a fan of afterschool programs, if you think 
they are important, if you think they are a silver bullet that we have 
to keep our kids out of trouble, don't disrupt this program just when 
it is starting to reach kids. You have not done it with Head Start. You 
should not do it with afterschool.
  Isn't this a point that should be considered that the State will pull 
some money off the top for administration whereas under our normal 
program the money goes straight to the local districts?
  Mr. DODD. That is correct. Again, here it is not a question of sort 
of dumping the money out there. Localities have to apply for it. You 
have to ask for it. If you ask for it, there is only a small chance you 
may actually get it.
  I would like to see us put in more resources. As my colleague from 
California points out, this program started as a $10 million program, 
but because of local mayors and county executives, the YMCAs, the Boys 
and Girls Clubs, the church-based organizations, the police, they said: 
Look, this works so well, we went from $10 million to $600 million. We 
are flattening that line out, and for 25 States and 7 districts we are 
dumping it all out on a roulette wheel.
  All I am saying is, in those pilot areas, carve this one out and let 
the localities apply directly. It reduces the amount of money in the 
pilot program by 5.7 percent. That is all.
  Those are not my numbers, those are numbers determined by the 
Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan organization that makes 
those calculations.
  So on the notion somehow that I am destroying the Straight A's 
Program, I am destroying this delicately balanced coalition here, I 
merely point out: I do not think 1,000 police chiefs, I don't think 
2,500 YMCAs, I do not think Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs all across 
America are in the business of destroying here.
  I am looking at my good friend from Ohio over here, with whom I 
drafted Safe and Drug Free Schools. He knows the numbers I put up; 70 
percent of the police chiefs say this works. As the Senator from New 
Jersey pointed out, we have done metal detectors, hiring more police, 
trying juveniles as adults in some areas--that is controversial--but in 
these 7 States and 25 districts we are reducing the number by 5.7 
percent. That is not gutting Straight A's, that is just saying don't 
deprive these local communities for the next 7 years of the opportunity 
to do something that every community in this country believes has great 
value.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. I have a lot of time here. I reserve those 30 seconds for 
closing argument, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, let me talk for a moment, if I may, 
about a part of the bill that is not very controversial but I think is 
very significant. It is that part of the bill that Senator Dodd just 
mentioned, and that is the drug-free school component of the bill.
  Let me congratulate Senator Dodd. I really enjoyed working with him, 
with his team, to get language in this bill that will really improve 
the current Drug Free Schools Program. I believe we have done that. I 
salute him for that very excellent work. I also thank Senator Murray 
and Senator Grassley for their work on this language as well.
  I think we all understand when we talk about our drug problem, we 
have to have a coordinated, consistent, and a balanced approach. A 
balanced approach means drug treatment, drug education, prevention. It 
means international interdiction of drugs. It also means domestic law 
enforcement. Those are the four basic components. We have to do them 
all. We have to consistently do them all.
  The drug-free schools provision in this bill and the money it 
represents is really virtually the only thing the Federal Government 
does in the area of education.
  This bill authorizes $925 million which will go down to the local 
school districts across this country. The current Drug Free Schools 
Program is in virtually every school district in the country. 
Interestingly and sadly, in many school districts it is the only money 
that is being spent on drug education. So it is important to do what we 
have done in this bill, and that is continue the program. But it is 
also important to improve the program.
  I had the opportunity, when I was in the House of Representatives 
over a decade ago, to serve on the National Commission on Drug Free 
Schools. We issued a report in 1990. We talked about how this program 
needed to be improved. Some improvements have been made in the last 
decade, but unfortunately not all the recommendations have been 
followed.
  What we do with the language in this bill is take that decade-old 
report and, frankly, bring it to life, use some of the recommendations, 
and improve the current law. One thing we determined at that time was 
if antidrug efforts in our schools are to be effective at all, they 
must be coordinated, they must be consistent, and they must be 
community oriented. We recommended a number of things including the 
following four items:
  No. 1, every school district should develop and conduct drug 
eradication and prevention programs for all students from kindergarten 
through grade 12, every single year.
  No. 2, parent and community groups should take a more active role in 
developing and selecting drug prevention programs.
  No. 3, the Department of Education should ensure that schools conduct 
periodic evaluations of all drug education and prevention programs.
  No. 4, Federal and State governments should fund only those education 
and prevention program efforts that are likely to be effective. There 
should be scientific data behind the decision to use a particular 
program.
  The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program that is contained in this bill 
incorporates these recommendations. This program helps prevent our 
children from ever becoming involved with drugs and supports efforts to 
create violence-free learning environments.
  The language we have written into the education bill that is before 
us today further improves this program. It gives States greater 
flexibility to target assistance to schools in need, and it increases 
accountability measures to ensure that this assistance actually goes 
towards programs that really work.
  Furthermore, the language we have written in the bill would improve 
coordination of Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs with other 
community-based antidrug programs by requiring schools to work directly 
with parents, with local law enforcement agencies, with local 
government agencies, with faith-based organizations, and other 
community groups in the development and implementation of antidrug and 
violence strategies. That community coordination is absolutely 
essential. It has, tragically and unfortunately, in the past, sometimes 
been missing from local communities. This bill says we have to have 
that coordination.
  Drug abuse and violence against young people is a community problem, 
a national problem. It requires a community-based solution. That is why 
we need the entire community to be involved in the creation and in the 
execution of programs to fight youth drug abuse and violence.
  Our language would allow afterschool programs to apply for Safe and 
Drug Free School grants as long as they meet the same standards as any 
other applicant. If afterschool programs use research-based drug and 
violence prevention programs, and if they prove they reduce drug and 
violence in schools, then they will have fair access to Safe and Drug 
Free School funding.
  I really cannot talk about the Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs 
without mentioning one of the most tough

[[Page 10603]]

and effective fighters against youth drug abuse and school violence, 
and that is the first lady of my home State of Ohio, Hope Taft. Hope 
Taft has dedicated years of her life to help make our schools safer and 
drug free, and she was instrumental in the development of this language 
that is in front of us today, language we have written into the 
education bill. She is really the voice for community-based 
organizations. I commend her for the great contribution she made to 
this bill. Through her efforts, she has raised awareness of the dangers 
of youth drug abuse and violence in our schools.
  Let me also applaud President Bush for his support of this program. 
During the campaign, President Bush promised to increase funding for 
the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program by over $100 million over 5 
years. I commend him for that commitment. It is truly the kind of 
commitment we need to continue to improve this very vital program.
  The Safe and Drug Free Schools program is a critical part of 
restoring effectiveness and balance in our national drug policy. And 
ultimately, if we don't restore effectiveness, more and more children 
will use drugs, leading to greater levels of violence, criminal 
activity, and delinquency. Unless we take action--unless we take the 
necessary steps to reverse these disturbing trends--we will be 
sacrificing today's youth and our country's future.
  Quite frankly, children simply cannot learn when they are under the 
influence of drugs or alcohol. Children cannot learn when they more 
worried about their safety than their homework. Children cannot learn 
when they are scared. That's why we must ensure that children and the 
adults who work in our schools are safe--that they are free from drugs 
and violence.
  As we continue to debate education reforms in this nation, we need to 
remember that improvements to our school buildings, increased 
professional development efforts for our teachers and administrators, 
and changes in education policies will not help our young people 
realize their true potential as long as drugs and violence are in their 
schools. It's that simple.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
  Mr. DeWINE. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Ohio. He no 
longer serves on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. 
But he did serve on it. I have enjoyed my work in the Senate over the 
years, but never as much as I have enjoyed working with the Senator 
from Ohio on a number of different issues, and this one in particular 
which he just addressed, and that is the problem of substance abuse and 
children.
  We managed to put together a pretty good bill a few years ago on safe 
and drug free schools, largely because of the efforts of the Senator 
from Ohio. I commend him publicly for his present work and over the 
years. He brings a lot of personal experience as well. He has a pretty 
good size clan in his own right. I think it is almost a baseball team.
  Mr. DeWINE. We are one short of a baseball team.
  Mr. DODD. He brings a great deal of passion and understanding. So 
much of what he is talking about bears directly on the subject matter 
to which he has dedicated a good part of his service. I thank him for 
it and look forward to working with him in the future.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague. Again, I compliment him for the 
great deal of work he did. It was a great pleasure to work with him and 
his staff. I think the language in the bill improves the current law 
and is a significant improvement. I think it is going to make a 
difference. I appreciate his great work.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, my time has about expired. I wonder if my 
friend from New Hampshire will offer to yield me time, and I ask 
unanimous consent that just prior to the vote, which I think is going 
to occur around 2 o'clock, that I be given a couple of minutes to make 
a final summation of my argument.
  Mr. GREGG. Two minutes on both sides.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I withhold that for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I have listened with interest and have 
been impressed by the enthusiasm, energy, and commitment of the Senator 
from Connecticut to the 21st century program, which is something I 
strongly support myself. In fact, during my prior life when I was 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Commerce, State, Justice 
and working with Senator Hollings, we essentially funded what amounted 
to the afterschool program initiatives in different areas, especially 
in the Boys and Girls Clubs and programs with Big Brothers and Big 
Sisters.
  I was able to put into this bill language which I am very excited 
about because I think it will significantly improve the 21st century 
program, which allows community-based organizations to participate in 
the program for the first time, instead of having programs which are 
totally managed by the local educational organization. The schools 
basically weren't working all that well, quite honestly, in many areas 
because basically at the end of the schoolday, teachers were tired, and 
developing programs that kept teachers around the school building after 
the schoolday was hard to do, and understandably so.
  Now we are going to infuse the afterschool programs with community-
based organizations. Some of them can be faith-based organizations, 
which is very exciting. You will get, I am sure, Boys and Girls Clubs, 
and again Big Brothers and Big Sisters, that will actually physically 
be on site for the afterschool programs.
  There is a major educational component in that amendment which was 
adopted in committee. I think you will also get groups such as the CYO 
that might be involved in things like this, or other faith-based groups 
that basically won't be in the school teaching religious values--that 
would be inappropriate--but will be in the school teaching life-needed 
skills or organizing sports programs perhaps in the school period.
  After-the-schoolday is something I have worked very hard on as a 
Member of the Senate on the committee and admire and appreciate the 
commitment of the Senator from Connecticut to the after-the-schoolday 
programs. We all understand that the period from 3 to 6 is a period 
where youth are at risk, unfortunately, in many of our communities. And 
for them to have some place constructive to go is very important.
  This amendment doesn't really address that issue because, in my 
humble opinion, this amendment goes to the question of management. Who 
makes the decision as to how the after-the-schoolday is controlled, 
whether it is going to be a categorical program coming from the Federal 
Government that says you must have an afterschool program or the 
alternative, which I think makes much more sense--whether a State or a 
community decides to take all the educational formula funding programs, 
merge them together, and set them up as a program, the purpose of which 
is to make sure the children participating in those programs actually 
exceed the academic success of the children who are not in those 
programs.
  As a result, we get a better return for the dollars spent in these 
various areas. We get better students who are better prepared for life. 
We get students who are coming through the school year with a better 
academic achievement level.
  That should be, of course, our goal in this bill. It is the goal of 
the Straight A's Program.
  The question as to how the day is structured would be left at the 
local community level, or the State level, and wouldn't be directed 
from within the Federal Government.
  This is the difference. It is not a question of whether there will be 
an afterschool program. It is a question of who will make the decision 
as to how funds are allocated within the formula grant program for 
designing the afterschool program and the schoolday program.
  To step back, I think it is important to understand the basic concept 
of

[[Page 10604]]

Straight A's. The concept of Straight A's is that we give the local 
school districts and the States, or those who wish to apply anyway, the 
opportunity--it is only a limited number--to set up a program where 
they actually commit that the low-income child will do better--this is 
the important point--than the other children in the school district in 
academic achievement, and, therefore, getting prepared for life and 
being competitive in our society and having a chance to participate in 
the American dream.
  In exchange for making that commitment to the kids who are from low-
income families to actually exceed the average yearly progress in the 
community generally for students, we will allow the local school 
districts and the States to design the program free of stress on the 
input side.
  The 21st century program, along with the other 16 formula programs 
that are put into this proposal for the development of Straight A's, 
are all strong, oriented programs. It has significant restrictions. 
They are very categorical and very directive. They are very top-down 
command and control programs. They all have specific purposes, but the 
fundamental goal of all of them is to get a child up to speed 
academically and at a level where they are actually going to be 
constructive and productive citizens in our society.
  We have said, with the Straight A's experiment--in a few States; in a 
very few States, potentially 7 States and 25 school districts--let's 
try an experiment. Let's say to the local communities, rather than 
having the top-down command and control, the traditional Federal 
control of strings-attached dollars, we will take all those dollars, 
put them in a basket and give them to the local communities, but the 
condition of you taking those dollars is that you are going to have to 
commit to prove that the children those dollars are directed towards 
are going to do better than the other children in the community.
  So it is not as if the States and the local school districts are 
getting some huge influx of dollars with no restrictions or no 
responsibilities. The responsibility is even greater, but it is at the 
end of the system versus at the beginning. Instead of saying how they 
will do it, we expect results; and then we are going to test them to 
make sure those results are actually being achieved.
  It is a very creative approach. It really is part of the essence of 
the underlying agreement and bill which we negotiated and which was the 
result of the impetus that came from the President. The President's 
concept on education is really pretty simple. It is that we should 
focus on the child, and that we should expect the child to obtain 
academic achievement, and that we should do that by giving flexibility 
to the local school districts; in exchange for the flexibility, we are 
going to have strict accountability to see that the children have 
attained academic achievement.
  So the concept is to create an initiative and demonstration programs 
which will, at least with these 16 categorical programs, put them in a 
basket and give those dollars to the States with great flexibility, or 
give those dollars to the communities with great flexibility, but in 
exchange expect academic achievement subject to strict accountability, 
focused on the child.
  This program, this Straight A's Program, meets all the conditions and 
all the ideas that have been put forward by the President as one of the 
key purposes of his educational initiatives. That is why there is such 
an intense discussion about it today.
  If you listen to the Senator from Connecticut, you obviously have to 
be drawn to his ability to present his case well, but the point is, if 
we go back to the approach offered by the Senator from Connecticut, 
then we will have fundamentally undermined what is one of the primary 
thrusts of the President's initiatives in trying to break out of this 
mold into which we have put education for the last 25 years, where for 
generation after generation we have seen low-income kids being left 
behind, which isn't acceptable.
  So the President has come up with this idea. Actually, it is an idea 
that was developed by the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, a couple 
of years ago. The President adopted it. He has taken this idea and put 
it into his package. That is why it is so critical that this amendment 
be defeated. Because if it is adopted, it basically takes the heart out 
of the Straight A's Program and as a result undermines one of the key 
thrusts of the President's initiatives to try to bring low-income kids 
not only up to speed but, in this case, actually putting them ahead of 
their peers in education.
  I see the Senator from Nevada is trying to get my attention. 
Obviously, he wishes to make a point. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator from New Hampshire yielding for a 
brief unanimous consent request.


                 Amendment No. 518, As Further Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
518, as modified, and previously agreed to, be further modified with 
the language at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:

     ``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.''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the consent 
with respect to the Dodd amendment be modified to provide that the vote 
in relation to the Dodd amendment occur upon disposition of the 
Cantwell amendment No. 630, provided that the previous consent with 
respect to the Nelson amendment No. 533, and other amendments within 
that consent agreement, reflect this change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to clarify for Members exactly where we are 
now, the Senate will debate the other amendments in a previous order, 
and the Senate will vote in relation to the Dodd amendment at about 
2:15.
  Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, prior to the 
vote on the Dodd amendment, the Senator from New Hampshire be 
recognized for 2 minutes and the Senator from Connecticut be recognized 
for 2 minutes in the appropriate order. Senator Dodd would go last. 
That vote would occur at about 2:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the other amendments in this order are going 
to be disposed of by voice vote by virtue of a previous agreement we 
have. I appreciate very much my friend from New Hampshire yielding. I 
know it was awkward, but I appreciate it very much.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. NELSON of Nebraska. 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. 533, As Modified, To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 533 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Hampshire yield back 
all time on the Dodd amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we reserve our time. I ask unanimous 
consent that our time be reserved and it be set aside until after the 
Nelson amendment has been completed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 533, as modified.


[[Page 10605]]


  The amendment is as follows:

       (Purpose: To provide for mentoring programs for students)

       On page 586, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 405. MENTORING PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

                      ``PART E--MENTORING PROGRAMS

     ``SEC. 4501. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Child with greatest need.--The term `child with 
     greatest need' means a child at risk of educational failure, 
     dropping out of school, or involvement in criminal or 
     delinquent activities, or that has lack of strong positive 
     adult role models.
       ``(2) Mentor.--The term `mentor' means an individual who 
     works with a child to provide a positive role model for the 
     child, to establish a supportive relationship with the child, 
     and to provide the child with academic assistance and 
     exposure to new experiences and examples of opportunity that 
     enhance the ability of the child to become a responsible 
     adult.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

     ``SEC. 4502. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this part are to make assistance 
     available to promote mentoring programs for children with 
     greatest need--
       ``(1) to assist such children in receiving support and 
     guidance from a caring adult;
       ``(2) to improve the academic performance of such children;
       ``(3) to improve interpersonal relationships between such 
     children and their peers, teachers, other adults, and family 
     members;
       ``(4) to reduce the dropout rate of such children; and
       ``(5) to reduce juvenile delinquency and involvement in 
     gangs by such children.

     ``SEC. 4503. GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--In accordance with this section, the 
     Secretary may make grants to eligible entities to assist such 
     entities in establishing and supporting mentoring programs 
     and activities that--
       ``(1) are designed to link children with greatest need 
     (particularly such children living in rural areas, high crime 
     areas, or troubled home environments, or such children 
     experiencing educational failure) with responsible adults, 
     who--
       ``(A) have received training and support in mentoring;
       ``(B) have been screened using appropriate reference 
     checks, child and domestic abuse record checks, and criminal 
     background checks; and
       ``(C) are interested in working with youth; and
       ``(2) are intended to achieve 1 or more of the following 
     goals:
       ``(A) Provide general guidance to children with greatest 
     need.
       ``(B) Promote personal and social responsibility among 
     children with greatest need.
       ``(C) Increase participation by children with greatest need 
     in, and enhance their ability to benefit from, elementary and 
     secondary education.
       ``(D) Discourage illegal use of drugs and alcohol, 
     violence, use of dangerous weapons, promiscuous behavior, and 
     other criminal, harmful, or potentially harmful activity by 
     children with greatest need.
       ``(E) Encourage children with greatest need to participate 
     in community service and community activities.
       ``(F) Encourage children with greatest need to set goals 
     for themselves or to plan for their futures, including 
     encouraging such children to make graduation from secondary 
     school a goal and to make plans for postsecondary education 
     or training.
       ``(G) Discourage involvement of children with greatest need 
     in gangs.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--Each of the following is an 
     entity eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a):
       ``(1) A local educational agency.
       ``(2) A nonprofit, community-based organization.
       ``(3) A partnership between an agency referred to in 
     paragraph (1) and an organization referred to in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each entity receiving a grant under this 
     section shall use the grant funds for activities that 
     establish or implement a mentoring program, including--
       ``(A) hiring of mentoring coordinators and support staff;
       ``(B) providing for the professional development of 
     mentoring coordinators and support staff;
       ``(C) recruitment, screening, and training of adult 
     mentors;
       ``(D) reimbursement of schools, if appropriate, for the use 
     of school materials or supplies in carrying out the program;
       ``(E) dissemination of outreach materials;
       ``(F) evaluation of the program using scientifically based 
     methods; and
       ``(G) such other activities as the Secretary may reasonably 
     prescribe by rule.
       ``(2) Prohibited uses.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an 
     entity receiving a grant under this section may not use the 
     grant funds--
       ``(A) to directly compensate mentors;
       ``(B) to obtain educational or other materials or equipment 
     that would otherwise be used in the ordinary course of the 
     entity's operations;
       ``(C) to support litigation of any kind; or
       ``(D) for any other purpose reasonably prohibited by the 
     Secretary by rule.
       ``(d) Term of Grant.--Each grant made under this section 
     shall be available for expenditure for a period of 3 years.
       ``(e) Application.--Each eligible entity seeking a grant 
     under this section shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application that includes--
       ``(1) a description of the mentoring plan the applicant 
     proposes to carry out with such grant;
       ``(2) information on the children expected to be served by 
     the mentoring program for which such grant is sought;
       ``(3) a description of the mechanism that applicant will 
     use to match children with mentors based on the needs of the 
     children;
       ``(4) an assurance that no mentor will be assigned to 
     mentor so many children that the assignment would undermine 
     either the mentor's ability to be an effective mentor or the 
     mentor's ability to establish a close relationship (a one-on-
     one relationship, where practicable) with each mentored 
     child;
       ``(5) an assurance that mentoring programs will provide 
     children with a variety of experiences and support, 
     including--
       ``(A) emotional support;
       ``(B) academic assistance; and
       ``(C) exposure to experiences that children might not 
     otherwise encounter on their own;
       ``(6) an assurance that mentoring programs will be 
     monitored to ensure that each child assigned a mentor 
     benefits from that assignment and that there will be a 
     provision for the assignment of a new mentor if the 
     relationship between the original mentor is not beneficial to 
     the child;
       ``(7) information on the method by which mentors and 
     children will be recruited to the mentor program;
       ``(8) information on the method by which prospective 
     mentors will be screened;
       ``(9) information on the training that will be provided to 
     mentors; and
       ``(10) information on the system that the applicant will 
     use to manage and monitor information relating to the 
     program's reference checks, child and domestic abuse record 
     checks, and criminal background checks and to its procedure 
     for matching children with mentors.
       ``(f) Selection.--
       ``(1) Competitive basis.--In accordance with this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall select grant recipients from 
     among qualified applicants on a competitive basis.
       ``(2) Priority.--In selecting grant recipients under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to each 
     applicant that--
       ``(A) serves children with greatest need living in rural 
     areas, high crime areas, or troubled home environments, or 
     who attend schools with violence problems;
       ``(B) provides background screening of mentors, training of 
     mentors, and technical assistance in carrying out mentoring 
     programs;
       ``(C) proposes a mentoring program under which each mentor 
     will be assigned to not more children than the mentor can 
     serve effectively; or
       ``(D) proposes a school-based mentoring program.
       ``(3) Other considerations.--In selecting grant recipients 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall also consider--
       ``(A) the degree to which the location of the programs 
     proposed by each applicant contributes to a fair distribution 
     of programs with respect to urban and rural locations;
       ``(B) the quality of the mentoring programs proposed by 
     each applicant, including--
       ``(i) the resources, if any, the applicant will dedicate to 
     providing children with opportunities for job training or 
     postsecondary education;
       ``(ii) the degree to which parents, teachers, community-
     based organizations, and the local community have 
     participated, or will participate, in the design and 
     implementation of the applicant's mentoring program;
       ``(iii) the degree to which the applicant can ensure that 
     mentors will develop longstanding relationships with the 
     children they mentor;
       ``(iv) the degree to which the applicant will serve 
     children with greatest need in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 
     8th grades; and
       ``(v) the degree to which the program will continue to 
     serve children from the 4th grade through graduation from 
     secondary school; and
       ``(C) the capability of each applicant to effectively 
     implement its mentoring program.
       ``(4) Grant to each state.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this subsection, in selecting grant recipients 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select not less than 
     1 grant recipient from each State for which there is a 
     qualified applicant.
       ``(g) Model Screening Guidelines.--

[[Page 10606]]

       ``(1) In general.--Based on model screening guidelines 
     developed by the Office of Juvenile Programs of the 
     Department of Justice, the Secretary shall develop and 
     distribute to program participants specific model guidelines 
     for the screening of mentors who seek to participate in 
     programs to be assisted under this part.
       ``(2) Background checks.--The guidelines developed under 
     this subsection shall include, at a minimum, a requirement 
     that potential mentors be subject to reference checks, child 
     and domestic abuse record checks, and criminal background 
     checks.

     ``SEC. 4504. STUDY BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study to identify successful school-
     based mentoring programs, and the elements, policies, or 
     procedures of such programs that can be replicated.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this part, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     a report to the Secretary and Congress containing the results 
     of the study conducted under this section.
       ``(c) Use of Information.--The Secretary shall use 
     information contained in the report referred to in subsection 
     (b)--
       ``(1) to improve the quality of existing mentoring programs 
     assisted under this part and other mentoring programs 
     assisted under this Act; and
       ``(2) to develop models for new programs to be assisted or 
     carried out under this Act.

     ``SEC. 4505. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     section 4503 $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003 through 
     2006.''.
       (b) Grant for Training and Technical Support.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Education shall make a 
     grant, in such amount as the Secretary considers appropriate, 
     to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America for the purpose of 
     providing training and technical support to grant recipients 
     under part E of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as added by subsection (a), through 
     the existing system regional mentoring development centers 
     specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) Regional mentoring development centers.--The regional 
     mentoring development centers referred to in this paragraph 
     are regional mentoring development centers located as 
     follows:
       (A) In Phoenix, Arizona.
       (B) In Atlanta, Georgia.
       (C) In Boston, Massachusetts.
       (D) In St. Louis, Missouri.
       (E) In Columbus, Ohio.
       (F) In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
       (G) In Dallas, Texas.
       (H) In Seattle, Washington.
       (3) Purpose.--The purpose of the training and technical 
     support provided through the grant under this subsection is 
     to enable grant recipients to design, develop, and implement 
     quality mentoring programs with the capacity to be sustained 
     beyond the term of the grant.
       (4) Services.--The training and technical support provided 
     through the grant under this subsection shall include--
       (A) professional training for staff;
       (B) program development and management;
       (C) strategic fund development;
       (D) mentor development; and
       (E) marketing and communications.
       (5) Funding.--Amounts the grant under this subsection shall 
     be derived from the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 4505 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, as added by subsection (a), for fiscal year 2002.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to ask the Senate's 
support for the Mentoring for Success Act, the amendment that is before 
the Senate today.
  This amendment concerns the welfare of our Nation's most precious 
asset, our children. Children comprise only 20 percent of our 
population, but they are 100 percent of our future. I am hopeful my 
colleagues will carefully consider their significance. This amendment 
gives us the opportunity to support our children and the future of our 
country at the same time.
  The environment in which many of our children are raised looks 
nothing like the one in which I and many of my colleagues grew up. 
Close to 50 percent of our children are raised in single-parent 
households. In most cases, single parents work long hours. Their energy 
and resources are stretched thin. While there are many successful 
single parents, there are some cases where a single parent simply 
cannot and does not, for a variety of reasons, adequately serve as the 
role model a child might need. As a consequence, many of these children 
replace that void with drugs, alcohol, and violence. Other children who 
may not come from single families are faced with a home life that may 
be particularly difficult because of an abusive parent or maybe a 
parent incapacitated due to illness. This amendment is for these 
children.
  Of course, it can't fix family problems or bring broken families back 
together, but it can help change these children's lives and brighten 
their future.
  I am proud to say that this amendment is inspired by the success of a 
mentoring program in my State which was originally started by 
Congressman Tom Osborne, the sponsor of companion legislation adopted 
by the House.
  As many know, before my friend and fellow Nebraskan Tom Osborne 
became a Congressman this last year, he was coach of the beloved 
University of Nebraska Huskers football team. This man knows a thing or 
two about winning strategies and how to implement them, not just on the 
field but in the community as well.
  In 1991, he and his wife Nancy began the Team Mates Program in 
Lincoln, NE, which paired members of the University of Nebraska 
football team with middle school students. He had such great success 
with the program that he expanded it across the State of Nebraska in 
1998. I was proud to assist him in that effort as Governor at that 
time, and I joined the Team Mates board of directors so I could 
continue my involvement with such an effective and important mission.
  Now Congressman Osborne has taken his experience and turned it into 
worthwhile legislation. This amendment would authorize $50 million for 
a new competitive grant program to award local school districts, 
community-based organizations, or a partnership between the two to find 
mentoring initiatives. Each State would receive at least one grant 
under this program. I am pleased to be here today and to continue my 
support for mentoring programs.
  Mentoring programs funded by grants made available through this 
legislation would pair children with role models who could provide 
stable emotional support, academic assistance, and exposure to positive 
experiences that they may not otherwise receive.
  The mentors are not parental replacements. Rather, they are helping 
hands who offer a glimmer of hope to kids who are forced, through no 
fault of their own, to contend with tough situations and bleak 
prospects.
  Priority would be given to programs that serve children with the 
greatest need in rural areas, high crime areas, or troubled home or 
school environments, and only programs that require thorough background 
screening of participating adults would be eligible to receive funding.
  Mentoring for Success is intended to provide guidance to children in 
need, to promote personal and social responsibility, to improve 
academic achievement, to discourage use of illegal drugs, alcohol, 
violence, gang involvement, or other harmful behavior, and to encourage 
children to set goals for themselves, including postsecondary training 
or education.
  Young people today are confronted on a daily basis with situations 
that my generation simply didn't know could exist. I was fortunate 
enough to be raised in a loving and caring household. My generation 
needed support, encouragement, and stability. Today our kids need it, 
too. That is one thing that simply has not changed. Mentors can provide 
that support. I know it works. It has in Nebraska. I am convinced that 
Mentoring for Success will prove it will work everywhere.
  What began as a spark in Nebraska has the potential to become a flame 
of optimism for at-risk children all across the country. I am proud 
today to be able to convey that this measure will in fact help our 
children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I thank the good Senator for bringing this issue to our attention. I 
might mention, I was with their superintendent of schools in Boston a 
week ago during our break, Tom Payzant. He

[[Page 10607]]

was talking about eight kinds of mentors working in schools there and 
the positive impact they are having in terms of the discipline in the 
schools and helping to resolve some of the tensions in the schools.
  He said that 10 years ago he never would have thought this kind of 
need would be there, but it is there. He said he could use eight more 
very quickly and easily. It is a good idea. It is a good suggestion. 
Obviously, it will be voluntary. Communities will have to apply but it 
is another way of trying to help resolve some of the tensions that 
exist in many of the schools and provide a safer environment. There are 
a lot of different ways of trying to do it. This is a very positive and 
constructive way.
  We welcome the amendment and urge the passage of it at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
  The amendment (No. 533), as modified, was agreed to.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the bipartisan leadership that has brought this 
education bill to us in a most timely manner, at a most important time 
in the history of public education in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, under the 
previous order, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, was to be 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida has spoken to me 
for 2 days about being able to address the Senate on the importance of 
education. I mentioned that during the lunch hour there is not as much 
of a clamor for floor time. He has a short speech. Would it be 
agreeable to my colleague from Massachusetts if he is able to complete 
his statement for a brief time, 4 or 5 minutes?
  Mr. KERRY. I have no objection if the definition of ``brief'' is 4 or 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida may continue.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank both of the Senators from 
Massachusetts. Indeed, as a new Senator, I am learning that the 
definition of ``brief'' is generally not understood in this Chamber. 
Yet I will adhere to the common understanding in Webster's Dictionary 
of the term ``brief'' and keep it to less than 5 minutes. I thank the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  As a product of public education, I am very privileged to be a part 
of the debate and what I think is going to be part of the solution. One 
of the major components of the future quality of that is now being 
considered before this body. This legislation that we are now 
considering marks a victory for many and, most especially, for the 
American people who have overwhelmingly said that the education of 
their children is their No. 1 priority.
  I have been guided through this debate by the experiences that I 
bring to this Chamber by my own educational upbringing, and what I 
experienced in the public schools of Brevard County, FL, was due in 
large part to having highly qualified teachers.
  Who among us does not have some significant life-changing or life-
steering experience by the interaction with a quality teacher? Those 
teachers, in my case, were in schools that were in good repair and in 
an environment that was conducive to learning. So during debate on this 
bill many of us have pushed for those same goals--reducing class size 
by putting more teachers in our classrooms, funding to help build and 
repair our schools, accountability to monitor the progress of each of 
our schools, and accountability to monitor the progress of every child 
in those schools.
  Those principles have been incorporated in the many amendments that 
have now strengthened this bill, such as increased funding to put a 
highly qualified teacher in every classroom and to support teacher 
recruitment; full funding for special education; full funding for title 
I for disadvantaged students; modernization of school libraries; and 
also targeting of funds to low-income children. Another example of an 
amendment that we have is an incentive for schools to adopt high-
quality assessments to chart student progress.
  Today, in this country, some 90 percent of our children attend public 
schools. To continue that strong and important legacy of our public 
schools, and now to strengthen them for the many challenges ahead, we 
must ensure that our public schools are safe and conducive to learning 
for all students from all walks of life.
  I believe this bill creates a framework through which we can reach 
every student, be it an inner-city student, a rural student, a 
physically challenged student, a low-income student, a suburban 
student, or a learning impaired student.
  Our goal is to provide each of those students with the opportunity to 
achieve. In the end, reaching every student and improving every school 
is our goal, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction--
an important step.
  But as we complete action on this bill, we must ensure that our 
commitment to better education is backed by the appropriations needed 
to make it happen. That part of the debate won't end this week, or even 
this year. So at every step of the way I intend to stand up for the 
Federal assistance needed to ensure a high-quality education for all of 
our children.
  I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share my heart on this 
subject that is of most importance to the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a second, I thank the good 
Senator for his comments. Senator Nelson has been very much involved in 
the debate on education and has taken a great interest. We have 
benefited from this involvement. We welcome his continued ideas and 
recommendations, and we hope he will be even more active as we are 
dealing with additional educational issues. I am very grateful to him 
for all his good work and for his excellent statement. I thank the 
Senator.


            Amendments Nos. 423 and 455 to Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, is 
recognized to offer two amendments en bloc, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 423.
       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Carper, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 455.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 423

(Purpose: To provide for professional development and other activities 
                            for principals)

       On page 383, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS.

       Part A of title II (as amended in section 201) is further 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the title heading and all that follows 
     through the part heading for part A and inserting the 
     following:

                  ``TITLE II--TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

                ``PART A--TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL QUALITY;

       (2) in section 2101(1)--
       (A) by striking ``teacher quality'' and inserting ``teacher 
     and principal quality''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon ``and highly 
     qualified principals in schools'';
       (3) in section 2102--
       (A) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``and'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) with respect to an elementary school or secondary 
     school principal, a principal--
       ``(i)(I) with at least a master's degree in educational 
     administration and at least 3 years of classroom teaching 
     experience; or
       ``(II) who has completed a rigorous alternative 
     certification program that includes instructional leadership 
     courses, an internship under the guidance of an accomplished 
     principal, and classroom teaching experience;
       ``(ii) who is certified or licensed as a principal by the 
     State involved; and
       ``(iii) who can demonstrate a high level of competence as 
     an instructional leader with

[[Page 10608]]

     knowledge of theories of learning, curricula design, 
     supervision and evaluation of teaching and learning, 
     assessment design and application, child and adolescent 
     development, and public reporting and accountability.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``teachers'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``teachers, principals,'';
       (4) in section 2112(b)(4), by striking ``teaching force'' 
     and inserting ``teachers and principals'';
       (5) in section 2113(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``teacher'' and inserting ``teacher and principal'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'';
       (II) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(ii) principals have the instructional leadership skills 
     to help teachers teach and students learn;''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, and principals 
     have the instructional leadership skills,'' before 
     ``necessary'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the initial teaching 
     experience'' and inserting ``an initial experience as a 
     teacher or a principal'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``of teachers'' and inserting ``of teachers 
     and principals'';
       (ii) by striking ``degree'' and inserting ``or master's 
     degree''; and
       (iii) by striking ``teachers.'' and inserting ``teachers or 
     principals.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (7), by striking ``teacher'' and inserting 
     ``teacher and principal'';
       (6) in section 2122(c)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``and, where appropriate, 
     administrators,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and to give principals the instructional 
     leadership skills to help teachers,'' after ``skills,'';
       (7) in section 2123(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and principal'' before 
     ``mentoring'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), striking the period and inserting ``, 
     nonprofit organizations, local educational agencies, or 
     consortia of appropriate educational entities.''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``teachers'' and inserting ``teachers and 
     principals''; and
       (ii) by striking ``teaching'' and inserting ``employment as 
     teachers or principals, respectively'';
       (8) in section 2133(a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``, paraprofessionals, and, if appropriate, 
     principals'' and inserting ``and paraprofessionals''; and
       (B) by striking the semicolon and inserting the following: 
     ``and that principals have the instructional leadership 
     skills that will help the principals work most effectively 
     with teachers to help students master core academic 
     subjects;'';
       (9) in section 2134--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``teachers'' and 
     inserting ``teachers and principals''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``teachers'' and inserting ``teachers and 
     principals''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``a principal organization,'' after 
     ``teacher organization,''; and
       (10) in section 2142(a)(2), by striking subparagraph (A) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(A) shall establish for the local educational agency an 
     annual measurable performance objective for increasing 
     retention of teachers and principals in the first 3 years of 
     their careers as teachers and principals, respectively; 
     and''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 455

 (Purpose: To modify provisions of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 with respect to alternative education)

       On page 505, line 18, insert after ``intervention,'' the 
     following: ``high quality alternative education for 
     chronically disruptive and violent students that includes 
     drug and violence prevention programs,''.
       On page 528, line 11, strike ``and''.
       On page 528, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       ``(15) developing, establishing, or improving alternative 
     educational opportunities for chronically disruptive and 
     violent students that are designed to promote drug and 
     violence prevention, reduce disruptive behavior, to reduce 
     the need for repeat suspensions and expulsions, to enable 
     students to meet challenging State academic standards, and to 
     enable students to return to the regular classroom as soon as 
     possible;
       ``(16) training teachers, pupil services personnel, and 
     other appropriate school staff on effective strategies for 
     dealing with chronically disruptive and violent students; 
     and''.
       On page 528, line 12, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(17)''.
       On page 541, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``(15) the provision of educational supports, services, and 
     programs, including drug and violence prevention programs, 
     using trained and qualified staff, for students who have been 
     suspended or expelled so such students make continuing 
     progress toward meeting the State's challenging academic 
     standards and to enable students to return to the regular 
     classroom as soon as possible;
       ``(16) training teachers, pupil services personnel, and 
     other appropriate school staff on effective strategies for 
     dealing with disruptive students;''.
       On page 541, line 10, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(17)''.
       On page 541, line 18, strike ``(16)'' and insert ``(18)''.
       On page 550, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(10) the development of professional development programs 
     necessary for teachers, other educators, and pupil services 
     personnel to implement alternative education supports, 
     services, and programs for chronically disruptive and violent 
     students;
       ``(11) the development, establishment, or improvement of 
     alternative education models, either established within a 
     school or separate and apart from an existing school, that 
     are designed to promote drug and violence prevention, reduce 
     disruptive behavior, to reduce the need for repeat 
     suspensions and expulsions, to enable students to meet 
     challenging State academic standards, and to enable students 
     to return to the regular classroom as soon as possible;''.
       On page 550, line 17, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(12)''.
       On page 550, line 22, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(13)''.
       On page 551, line 3, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(14)''.
       On page 551, line 9, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(15)''.


                Amendments Nos. 423 and 455, As Modified

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send two modifications to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are so modified.
  The amendments, as modified, are as follows:


                     AMENDMENT NO. 423, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To provide for professional development and other activities 
                            for principals)

       On page 383, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS.

       Part A of title II (as amended in section 201) is further 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the title heading and all that follows 
     through the part heading for part A and inserting the 
     following:

                  ``TITLE II--TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

               ``PART A--TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL QUALITY'';

       (2) in section 2101(1)--
       (A) by striking ``teacher quality'' and inserting ``teacher 
     and principal quality''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon ``and highly 
     qualified principals and assistant principals in schools'';
       (3) in section 2102--
       (A) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``and'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) with respect to an elementary school or secondary 
     school principal, a principal--
       ``(i)(I) with at least a master's degree in educational 
     administration and at least 3 years of classroom teaching 
     experience; or
       ``(II) who has completed a rigorous alternative 
     certification program that includes instructional leadership 
     courses, an internship under the guidance of an accomplished 
     principal, and classroom teaching experience;
       ``(ii) who is certified or licensed as a principal by the 
     State involved; and
       ``(iii) who can demonstrate a high level of competence as 
     an instructional leader with knowledge of theories of 
     learning, curricula design, supervision and evaluation of 
     teaching and learning, assessment design and application, 
     child and adolescent development, and public reporting and 
     accountability.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``teachers'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``teachers, principals, and 
     assistant principals,'';
       (4) in section 2112(b)(4), by striking ``teaching force'' 
     and inserting ``teachers, principals, and assistant 
     principals'';
       (5) in section 2113(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``teacher'' and inserting ``teacher and principal'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'';
       (II) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(ii) principals have the instructional leadership skills 
     to help teachers teach and students learn;''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, and principals 
     have the instructional leadership skills,'' before 
     ``necessary'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the initial teaching 
     experience'' and inserting ``an initial experience as a 
     teacher, principal, or an assistant principal'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``of teachers'' and inserting ``of teachers 
     and principals'';
       (ii) by striking ``degree'' and inserting ``or master's 
     degree''; and

[[Page 10609]]

       (iii) by striking ``teachers.'' and inserting ``teachers or 
     principals.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (7), by striking ``teacher'' and inserting 
     ``teacher and principal'';
       (6) in section 2122(c)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``and, where appropriate, 
     administrators,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and to give principals and assistant 
     principals the instructional leadership skills to help 
     teachers,'' after ``skills,'';
       (7) in section 2123(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and principal'' before 
     ``mentoring'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), striking the period and inserting ``, 
     nonprofit organizations, local educational agencies, or 
     consortia of appropriate educational entities.''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``teachers'' and inserting ``teachers, 
     principals, and assistant principals''; and
       (ii) by striking ``teaching'' and inserting ``employment as 
     teachers, principals, or assistant principals, 
     respectively'';
       (8) in section 2133(a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``, paraprofessionals, and, if appropriate, 
     principals'' and inserting ``and paraprofessionals''; and
       (B) by striking the semicolon and inserting the following: 
     ``and that principals and assistant principals have the 
     instructional leadership skills that will help such 
     principals and assistant principals work most effectively 
     with teachers to help students master core academic 
     subjects;'';
       (9) in section 2134--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``teachers'' and 
     inserting ``teachers and principals''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``teachers'' and inserting ``teachers and 
     principals''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``a principal organization,'' after 
     ``teacher organization,''; and
       (10) in section 2142(a)(2), by striking subparagraph (A) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(A) shall establish for the local educational agency an 
     annual measurable performance objective for increasing 
     retention of teachers, principals, and assistant principals 
     in the first 3 years of their careers as teachers, 
     principals, and assistant principals respectively; and''.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 455, AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To modify provisions of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 with respect to alternative education)

       On page 505, line 18, insert after ``intervention,'' the 
     following: ``high quality alternative education for 
     chronically disruptive, drug-abusing, and violent students 
     that includes drug and violence prevention programs,''.
       On page 528, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       ``(15) developing, establishing, or improving alternative 
     educational opportunities for chronically disruptive, drug-
     abusing, and violent students that are designed to promote 
     drug and violence prevention, reduce disruptive behavior, to 
     reduce the need for repeat suspensions and expulsions, to 
     enable students to meet challenging State academic standards, 
     and to enable students to return to the regular classroom as 
     soon as possible;
       ``(16) training teachers, pupil services personnel, and 
     other appropriate school staff on effective strategies for 
     dealing with chronically disruptive, drug-abusing, and 
     violent students;''.
       On page 541, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``(15) the provision of educational supports, services, and 
     programs, including drug and violence prevention and 
     intervention programs, using trained and qualified staff, for 
     students who have been suspended or expelled so such students 
     make continuing progress toward meeting the State's 
     challenging academic standards and to enable students to 
     return to the regular classroom as soon as possible;
       ``(16) training teachers, pupil services personnel, and 
     other appropriate school staff on effective strategies for 
     dealing with disruptive students;''.
       On page 541, line 10, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(17)''.
       On page 541, line 18, strike ``(16)'' and insert ``(18)''.
       On page 550, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(10) the development of professional development programs 
     necessary for teachers, other educators, and pupil services 
     personnel to implement alternative education supports, 
     services, and programs for chronically disruptive, drug-
     abusing, and violent students;
       ``(11) the development, establishment, or improvement of 
     alternative education models, either established within a 
     school or separate and apart from an existing school, that 
     are designed to promote drug and violence prevention, reduce 
     disruptive behavior, to reduce the need for repeat 
     suspensions and expulsions, to enable students to meet 
     challenging State academic standards, and to enable students 
     to return to the regular classroom as soon as possible;''.
       On page 550, line 17, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(12)''.
       On page 550, line 22, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(13)''.
       On page 551, line 3, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(14)''.
       On page 551, line 9, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(15)''.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing not just my 
gratitude, but the gratitude of everybody in the Senate who understands 
the dynamics of this process, and to my senior colleague from 
Massachusetts; there is no stronger, more forceful, more committed 
advocate for the schools of our country than my colleague, Ted Kennedy. 
I think his work in leading this for weeks now on the floor will speak 
for itself in the end when we will pass a bill that this country will 
be proud of--providing, of course, that we ultimately provide the 
resources necessary to empower this framework to take hold. I salute my 
colleague for his leadership and thank him for what he has been doing.
  I also thank my friend from Florida for his gracious comments and for 
his strict adherence to the common understanding of Webster's 
Dictionary.
  These are two amendments which I have offered today with my good 
friend from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. One deals with the quality 
and supply of our Nation's principals, and one deals with the provision 
of alternative educational opportunities for chronically violent and 
disruptive students.
  I am pleased to have Senator Carper, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, 
and Senator Levin joining us as original cosponsors of the principals 
amendment.
  The fact is very straightforward. In the next year, we are going to 
be faced with a leadership crisis in our schools. Many of today's 
principals are reaching the age of retirement, and there is clear 
evidence that reveals a decline in the number of candidates for each 
opening. For example, by the end of this school year, more than 400 New 
York City principals will have retired. In Washington State, nearly 300 
principals, or 15 percent of the total, left their jobs at the end of 
the last school year. The Dallas Morning News reported that Texas is 
about to face the greatest shortage of principals it has ever 
encountered, with some studies predicting a 50-percent turnover rate 
among the State's 8,500 principals and assistant principals within the 
next 10 years.
  Schools all over the country are faced with the question of who will 
replace these retiring principals, who will provide the critical 
leadership for our educational system.
  Qualified candidates are becoming increasingly hard to find. In the 
1998 survey of school districts, half of the districts reported a 
shortage of qualified candidates. The attrition rate for elementary 
school principals now stands at 42 percent for the decade from 1988 to 
1998, and it is expected to remain at least as high through this 
decade.
  Indeed, some predictions are it could reach as high as 60 percent as 
principals of the baby boom generation reach retirement age.
  This is happening at a time when the U.S. Department of Labor 
estimates that the need for principals in our country will grow with 
rising school enrollments through at least 2005. If we do not stem the 
flow of retirees and buoy up the number of aspiring principals, we will 
face a critical school leadership crisis, one that could debilitate any 
of the other reform efforts we are making today.
  Not only, however, is the supply of principals vital to the success 
of education reform, but obviously the quality of our principals is 
also critical. A good principal can create the climate that fosters 
excellence in teaching and learning while an ineffective one can 
quickly thwart the progress of the most dedicated reformers.
  I think any of us who has been to any school in this country, 
particularly when we walk into a blue ribbon school, we will 
acknowledge that if the school is working, if the school is 
particularly a blue ribbon school, that school has a blue ribbon 
principal.
  Every school in this country that works begins with the leadership in 
the school itself. Without a good leader, it is hard to instigate or 
sustain any meaningful change, and schools will not be transformed, 
restructured, or reconstituted absent that leadership.

[[Page 10610]]

  Education reform policies, such as the ones we hope will be 
instituted as a result of the BEST Act, are meaningless without strong 
leadership to implement them in school. Today we all know principals 
face a whole different set of challenges than their predecessors. One 
of the greatest challenges is providing a positive learning environment 
for a highly diverse student population. By the middle of the new 
century, more than half of the population will be made up of those 
whose families originated in Africa, Asia, or Latin America.
  Principals will certainly need to understand and be prepared to 
integrate into their schools a new generation of sophisticated 
technology which, in turn, will require them to place a high priority 
on staff development for teachers and for themselves. I do not believe 
it is possible to underestimate the impact technology will continue to 
have on teaching and administration.
  Increased responsibilities without increased support will continue to 
hamper school districts' abilities to attract qualified principals. It 
is another reason the resource issue is so critical ultimately to the 
success of the legislation we will pass.
  The amendment the Senator from Oregon and I are offering addresses 
this critical problem by giving States greater flexibility in the use 
of their title II dollars so that funding can be used to retain high-
quality principals and improve principal quality.
  I point out that with respect to the second amendment we are 
offering, Senator Smith and I and others share a twofold concern. The 
quality of teaching and learning suffers significantly when one or two 
disruptive students or violent students monopolize a classroom and the 
attention of a teacher, and that violent and disruptive student is 
often in desperate need of services, supports, and greater levels of 
attention than are provided in the traditional classroom.
  We have a choice: We can either deal with the problems of these young 
people while they are in school, while we know where to find them, 
while we have them under our control, while we have the opportunity to 
provide them services, or we can wait for them to drop out or turn to 
the streets or encounter them later in the juvenile justice system of 
the country.



  The intent of this amendment is to ensure that our classrooms are 
safe, drug free, and that all students are provided with a meaningful 
opportunity to learn.
  The amendment we are offering amends the Safe and Drug Free Schools 
Program and expands its purpose to include the provision of alternative 
education opportunities. This amendment will allow the list of 
allowable Federal, State, and local uses of funds under the Safe and 
Drug Free Schools Program to include the option of providing 
alternative education, supports to chronically disruptive, drug 
abusing, and violent students.
  One option to ensure that classrooms and schools are safe and 
manageable has been to require removal of disruptive and dangerous 
students. Typically this is accomplished through expulsions and long-
term suspensions. However, while expelling and suspending may make 
schools safer and more manageable, students' problems do not go away 
when they are removed from the classroom--the problems just go 
somewhere else.
  School districts across the country report experiencing significant 
increases in both the number of students expelled and the length of 
time they are excluded from their schools. The consensus among 
educators and others concerned with at-risk youth is that it is vital 
for expelled students to receive educational counseling or other 
services to help modify their behavior while they are away from school.
  Without such services, students generally return to school no better 
disciplined and no better able to manage their anger or peaceably 
resolve disputes. They will also have fallen behind in their education, 
and any underlying causes of their violent behavior may be unresolved. 
Research has shown a link between suspension/expulsion and later 
dropping out of school, with resulting personal and social costs.
  Alternative education works. My home State of Massachusetts has some 
excellent alternative education programs. The superintendent of the 
Boston Public Schools created an Alternative Education Task Force in 
Octeober, 1998. A recent report of this Task Force found that 
alternative education programs have helped to reduce the dropout rate 
both in Boston Public Schools and in other community-based programs.
  One Boston Public Schools alternative education program, the 
Community Academy, has been recognized by the U.S. Department of 
Education as one of the top nine exemplary programs in the country. The 
students enrolled in the Community Academy are from grades 6-12 and are 
referred by principals, guidance counselors, and parents. The Community 
Academy's small, highly structured and closely monitored program 
provides a setting where these students can receive the attention and 
services they need to get their lives on track and enable them to focus 
on learning. All students of Community Academy are monitored through 
intervention stragtegies by the program's staff, including case 
managers, clinicians, instructors, and parents.
  The school system in Springfield, MA, has established six alternative 
schools. And since they began their alternative sites, the dropout rate 
in Springfield has declined from 11.8 percent to 4.9 percent. The 
superintendent of the Springfield schools made a commitment that all 
students in Springfield will receive an education, including suspended 
or expelled students, he has stood by that commitment, and in 
Springfield they are seeing real results.
  An example of alternative education is Springfield Academy, 
Springfield, MA. The principal is Alex Gillat.
  Gertrude is a teenager who does not have contact with her parents and 
resides with her older sister and two younger siblings. While enrolled 
in a local high school, Gertrude had many difficulties both in and out 
of school and ultimately was expelled because she attacked another 
student with a hammer. Gertrude spent a little over a year at the 
Springfield Academy. I am very happy to report that Gertrude graduated 
last year and is currently enrolled in a university. She is supported 
in her studies by a number of scholarships.
  Daniev came from a family with a history of drug abuse. His father 
died of a heroin overdose and he too became a heavy user of drugs and 
alcohol. Chronically truant, Daniev one day witnessed a friend get 
killed as they walked along the railroad tracks in Springfield. After 
that incident, Daniev suffered post traumatic stress disorder. Around 
this time, Daniev was enrolled at Springfield Academy. With the aid of 
the staff, counselors, and a Navy recruiter, Daniev quit using drugs 
and alcohol, successfully completed high school, and is now enlisted in 
the Navy.
  Another example is Bridge Academy, Springfield, MA. The principal is 
Allen Menkell.
  Cyrus is a senior in high school and is literally on the cusp of 
graduation, but Cyrus almost didn't make it. In addition to problems 
with substance abuse, Cyrus' father passed away, and soon thereafter, 
his younger brother died of leukemia. Cyrus was about to drop out of 
his ``last chance school,'' but teachers at Bridge Academy rallied 
around him, and helped him to see how much he had accomplished. Cyrus 
will graduate this month, and may go on to community college.
  It is shocking to think where these young people would be without the 
opportunities that alternative schools like those in Springfield and 
Boston provided them with. But what is all too common is that these 
alternative learning environments do not exist. What is all too common 
is that these young people would not have anywhere to turn.
  I call attention to the fact that the superintendent of Boston Public 
Schools created an alternative education task force in October of 1998. 
A recent report of the task force found it has helped reduce the 
dropout rate both in the Boston public schools and in other community-
based programs.

[[Page 10611]]

  One alternative program has been recognized by the Department of 
Education as one of the exemplary programs in the country.
  In addition, in Springfield, MA, they have established six 
alternative schools, and since they began their alternative sites, the 
dropout rate in Springfield has declined from 11.8 percent to 4.9 
percent.
  An alternative education opportunity makes a difference--a difference 
to the child who needs it and a difference to the children who are 
often trapped in a classroom that will not work because of the 
disruptive student.
  I urge my colleagues to embrace both of these amendments as 
supportive of the intentions and goals of this legislation.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen seconds.
  Mr. CARPER. May I have 8 of those 19 seconds?
  Mr. KERRY. I ask for an additional minute for my colleague. I 
apologize.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am grateful to both Senators.
  Senator Kerry offered two wonderful amendments. I am pleased to be an 
original cosponsor of both of them. I thank him for his leadership.
  We have spent a fair amount of time talking about academic standards 
we have set in our schools and other States have set in their schools. 
We have spent a fair amount of time acknowledging tests are being taken 
to measure student progress and we need to hold folks accountable--
schools, school districts, and teachers.
  It has been acknowledged again and again how important having a good 
teacher in a classroom is to enable all students to reach the standards 
that are being set in their respective States.
  Professional development of teachers is critical in my State of 
Delaware, obviously Massachusetts, and other places. Senator Kerry put 
his finger on it. It is not enough just to work on the professional 
development of the teachers or to make sure we have teachers who know 
their business, know their stuff, love to teach, love kids in our 
classrooms, but it is critically important that the men and women 
leading those schools, the principals and assistant principals, learn 
how to do their jobs well.
  One of the toughest jobs going these days is not as a Member of the 
Senate, not even President of the United States. I think one of the 
toughest jobs in America today is trying to be principal of a school 
and run the school with all of its challenges--the kids, the 
curriculum, Federal and State regulations coming at them, dealing with 
the parents, many of whom are not present in the lives of their 
children, passing referendums. It is a tough job.
  The idea that we acknowledge not just that it is a tough job but say 
to States, you can use some of this Federal money to make sure more of 
the people leading our schools know how to do their tough job well, is 
just a wonderful step we are taking.
  The second thing I want to say with respect to funding, providing the 
possibility for Federal funds for alternative schools for chronically 
disruptive students, is that every child can learn. Children who are 
chronically disruptive came to school behind, started behind, and fell 
further behind. In many cases they did not have parents engaged in 
their lives and may not have had the right teachers. Even those kids 
can learn. They may need to be in a classroom other than the one they 
are sitting in today or this year. They may need to be in a different 
school, but they can learn in a different school. If we include in the 
alternative for disruptive students trained educators and leaders who 
know how to work with those students who come from tough backgrounds, 
those kids can learn and can meet the standards, as well.
  Our role is not to say to States that they have to use this money to 
train school leaders and principals; our job is not to say they have to 
use this to provide for alternative schools for disruptive students; 
but with the amendments we make it an option.
  I commend Senator Kerry and Senator Smith from Oregon for joining in 
offering this amendment. I am pleased to stand in support.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership as a 
Governor. He did a superb job in the State of Delaware, leading in some 
of the reforms incorporated herein. We appreciate and respect that and 
thank him for his support and comments with respect to these 
amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I urge the acceptance of these amendments.
  The amendment, as my friend and colleague has pointed out, using the 
Safe and Drug Free Schools for the development of alternative 
educational opportunities for these students causing problems in school 
makes a great deal of sense. This is a problem.
  One of the things we understand is that children do not learn when 
they are distracted and there is violence. Even though schools are one 
of the safest places to be at any time, we know there are incidents 
which occur. The Senator has made an excellent recommendation.
  On the issue of the principals, as we have learned very well with the 
Jeremiah Burke School, a principal took a school that lost 
accreditation and within 6 years, this last year--and it is the only 
high school in Boston that is eligible for title I funds, which means 
it has to have 70 percent eligibility which, in economic terms, are the 
neediest children probably in the city --this year, 100 percent of the 
graduates were accepted into college. I think it was as much the 
principal's leadership in that as anything else.
  The Senator has for a long time talked about the importance of the 
quality of principals. This is a particular area he has spent a great 
deal of time on and has visited a lot of the schools and spoken 
eloquently and effectively on the issue.
  These are two very good amendments. I thank the Senator for the good 
work he does on education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor 
with Senator Kerry today and am grateful that the manager of this bill 
has accepted our amendments. I will speak to No. 423. This is something 
Senator Kerry and I worked on for some time because of our fundamental 
belief that principals shape the environment in which teachers and 
students ultimately succeed or fail. We believe improving the quality 
of school is the most effective way to make systematic improvements in 
our educational system.
  The school principal of today is more than a manager. Today's 
principal needs to be an effective instructional leader. Instructional 
leaders develop and implement strategies for improving teaching and 
learning; they develop a vision and establish clear goals for student 
performance.
  School principals provide direction in achieving state goals; 
encourage others to contribute to goal achievement; secure commitment 
to a course of action from individuals and groups in the school and 
community. They are instrumental to the success of a school, and we 
have a responsibility to help them succeed in this role.
  To be effective, principals need more than workshops or other one-
time professional development ``events.'' They need high quality, 
ongoing professional development focused on student achievement.
  There is no doubt that teacher quality is important, but it is the 
collection of teachers working with a unified purpose that transforms a 
school. That critical development comes only with a skilled effective 
leader at the helm.
   A 1999 report issued by the National Association of State Boards of 
Education characterized effective principals as the ``lynchpins of 
school improvement'' and the ``gatekeepers of change.'' The National 
Association of State Boards of Education views principals as impacting 
both the implementation and sustainability of reforms focused on 
student achievement.
  Principals have a powerful effect on the culture of a school: 
Teachers will model the behavior of a principal whom they trust and who 
has knowledge about good instruction.

[[Page 10612]]

  Currently, professional development funding is available to teachers, 
but far too few principals receive similar professional development 
options because school districts often decide to devote limited funding 
to teacher programs first. That is why this amendment allows principals 
to access federal professional development funds.
  Not only do we need to help our current principals be more effective, 
we also need to address the critical shortage of school administrators.
  Too many schools opened this fall without a principal. Although the 
teacher shortage is well known, discussions about the lack of qualified 
school leaders to fill the position of principal have just begun, and 
they have begun with this amendment.
  In Vermont, one of every five principals has retired or resigned 
since the end of the last school year.
  In Washington State, 15 percent of principals did the same last year.
  In 1999, New York City had 200 schools that opened with temporary 
leaders.
  School districts face a monumental task of finding effective leaders 
for our nation's schools. Cities and states nationwide report principal 
vacancies and only a trickle of qualified applicants, if any, willing 
to fill the positions.
  A recent study by the Educational Research Service estimates that 
more than 40 percent of public school principals will retire over the 
next ten years. Our school leaders are graying and we are not replacing 
them with enough qualified candidates.
  Leadership plays a pivotal role in all spheres of our national life, 
but we have not yet made it a priority in schools. The business and 
corporate community has long considered enlightened leadership a 
prerequisite for successful change. It cultivates young leaders and 
provides extraordinary resources for their development. The commitment 
to developing and ensuring strong leadership extends to the armed 
forces, where we provide officer-training programs and service 
academies for preparing leaders for all military services.
  We need to do the same for the potential leaders of our schools. This 
amendment does exactly that, by allowing funds to be used for mentoring 
aspiring principals and recruiting leadership candidates.
  There are excellent programs around the country, like Portland State 
University's Graduate School of Education, ready to help train 
administrators, if necessary funds are made available.
  The role of the principal must be recognized if schools are going to 
improve on a national level. The new policies being implemented here in 
Congress will, for the most part, have to be implemented at the school 
level by principals.
  We have a responsibility to equip principals to carry out the 
achievement goals we have set for them.
  I am asking my colleagues along with Senator Kennedy and others to 
support our Principals amendment. This amendment will allow states to 
use Teacher Quality funds to improve the quality of elementary and 
secondary principals and assistant principals.
  This could include such state options as reforming principal 
certification, ensuring that principals have the instructional skills 
to help educators teach, and mentoring principals. These functions 
could help states ensure that enough high quality principals are ready 
to lead our children and our schools into the 21st century.
  I would also like to address the need for alternative education in 
our children's schools. Senator Kerry and I have been working together 
for several years to address the problem of educating troubled and 
chronically disruptive children in schools.
  Today we offer an amendment, number 455, which will allow states to 
use Title VI Safe and Drug Free Schools money for alternative 
education, when it relates to drug and violence prevention, and to try 
to prevent these students from dropping out of school.
  Alternative education options need to exist for the benefit of all 
students--both the disruptive students and their classmates.
  Removing potentially violent or chronically disruptive children from 
the classroom can leave other students free to learn.
  But more than that, just removing these difficult students from the 
classroom without providing alternative placements simply leaves them 
unsupervised. It also leaves them without opportunities to learn the 
skills they will need in life. This puts the students at even higher 
risk for failure later in life.
  What these children need is appropriate, intensive assistance that 
can only be provided outside the regular classroom. Alternative 
education can meet their needs for supervision, remediation of 
behavior, maintenance of academic progress, and it can help prevent 
them from dropping out.
  Clearly, alternative education will not be a ``magic bullet''; 
however, it can serve a number of very important purposes. First, it 
can improve safety in schools, by working with students who may be a 
danger to themselves, other children, and staff.
  Second, alternative education can also prevent disruptions to 
learning for the overwhelming majority of students who come to school 
to learn.
  Third, as I have already mentioned, it can provide appropriate help 
to chronically disruptive and violent students. According to 
administrators in Multnomah County's Department of Community Justice, 
half the youth who are on probation or parole are also enrolled in 
alternative schools. Just think of the implications for society and 
these individuals and their families later in life if these troubled 
youngsters are denied the support they need to grow both academically 
and behaviorally.
  Finally, alternative education options can prevent high risk students 
from dropping out of school. This gives them a much better chance of 
becoming contributing members of society.
  Research from the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, based in 
my home state of Oregon, has shown that at least two thirds of the 
students in community based alternative schools--all former dropouts--
have found academic and social success after being enrolled in the 
program.
  Last winter, I talked with 150 Oregon educators about the best ways 
to prevent students from dropping out. Among the solutions, they 
recommended alternative education as a critical tool for keeping kids 
in school.
  Despite the fact that we know that alternative education is so 
critical, there are simply not enough dollars available to reach all 
the students who need it.
  I am holding letters from educators in my home state telling me of 
their great need for federal help to fund alternative school options. I 
know this need for funds exists across the country as well.
  Therefore, I ask you to join my distinguished colleague, Senator 
Kerry, and me in support of our alternative education amendment. 
Allowing states to use Safe and Drug Free Schools funds for alternative 
education will help ensure that no children, even the ones at highest 
risk, are left behind.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has all time been yielded?
  Mr. KENNEDY. We are prepared to yield back the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc, No. 423, as modified, and No. 455, as modified.
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 423 and 455), as modified) were agreed to, en 
bloc.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider and lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 630, As Modified

  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent to call up previously proposed 
amendment No. 630, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bipartisan 
amendment that was made possible

[[Page 10613]]

with the help of my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, 
Mr. Enzi, and I also express my appreciation to Senators Kennedy and 
Gregg for their help on this amendment. They have done a terrific job 
of moving this education bill through the process this year.
  We have all experienced going home and hearing from teachers that too 
often technology is simply not well integrated into the classrooms. 
While we spend billions on technology in schools, too often these funds 
do not have the full potential impact because the technology dollars 
often are focused just on equipment itself.
  This bipartisan amendment simply requires that school districts which 
seek to use Federal technology dollars do so in a way that explicitly 
details how they are going to integrate teacher training and 
professional development, curriculum development, and proper system 
resources.
  Furthermore, the amendment will ask the Department of Education to 
report on these strategies to identify the BEST practices on bringing 
technology and training into the classroom so schools that are 
successful can be used as a model to scale BEST education practices and 
technology at the national level.
  This amendment has been supported by a number of national teaching 
organizations as well as many of the technology industry, such as AOL-
Time Warner, Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, Computer and Communications 
Industry Alliance, and many others.
  I ask unanimous consent their letters in support of this amendment be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Computer & Communications


                                         Industry Association,

                                     Washignton, DC, June 7, 2001.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell, On behalf of the Computer & 
     Communications Industry Association (CCIA), I write to 
     express support for the Developing Best Practices for 
     technology in Education Amendment to S. 1, the Better 
     Education for Students and Teachers Act. CCIA applauds your 
     leadership efforts in introducing this amendment.
       The Cantwell-Enzi bipartisan education technology amendment 
     to ESEA is a positive step forward in ongoing efforts to 
     bring technology to the classroom in a comprehensive and 
     effective way. This amendment will enable schools across the 
     country to integrate technology into classrooms to give all 
     our children the opportunity to take advantage of the many 
     benefits that technology and the Internet can provide.
       Our schools will most benefit by the development of 
     programs that employ technology effectively and can be 
     implemented by any school or district. This amendment 
     recognizes that to be successful we must integrate 
     technological resources with two other crucial elements: 
     teacher training and professional development and curriculum 
     development.
       We are pleased to support the Cantwell-Enzi amendment and 
     believe it will encourage the development of best practices 
     for the use of scalable technology in states and local 
     districts around the country and assessment and evaluation of 
     the effectiveness of those strategies. we are delighted to 
     support this amendment as one important step in bringing 
     technology to the classroom and will pledge to work for its 
     passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                         EJ Black,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                   Business Software Alliance,

                                      Washingon, DC, June 7, 2001.
     Senator Maria Cantwell
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Cantwell: I am writing to commend you on your 
     initiative to ensure that teachers and students can take full 
     advantage of the opportunities presented to them by having 
     computers and Internet connections available as an integral 
     part of teaching. You have correctly identified a critical 
     need: it is not enough to make computers available in the 
     classroom, teachers must integrate them into their everyday 
     instructional activities.
       As you are well aware, technology companies often have a 
     hard time finding new employees that have the needed levels 
     of math and science training, as well as computer literacy. 
     In a survey conducted last year, BSA CEOs projected that, on 
     average, 9 percent of the openings for skilled workers went 
     unfilled in 2000. We believe a long-term approach is needed 
     that takes into account education policy, particularly in 
     regard to providing incentives for and increasing the 
     interest of our nation's youth to study math and science.
       We support your proposed amendment to the education bill 
     because it would promote more specific and rigorous use of 
     technology in the classroom. Today, while many classrooms 
     have a computer, too few of our teachers make use of it on a 
     systematic basis. We believe the Cantwell-Enzi amendment will 
     address these issues, changing the way our students improve 
     their computer skills.
       As we understand it, your proposal would require local and 
     state agencies to include in their education plans three 
     criteria: 1) teacher training and development in the use of 
     technology; 2) curricular development that incorporates 
     computers and the internet; and 3) a plan to rationally 
     allocate technology resources. Additionally, your proposal 
     would direct the Department of Education to develop plans and 
     programs on best ways to use technology in teaching.
       We applaud your leadership in this critical area, and we 
     stand ready to work with you.
           Sincerely,
                                              Robert W. Holleyman,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

                                                    Superintendent


                                        of Public Instruction,

                                        Olympia, WA, June 7, 2001.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: Thank you for your efforts to 
     improve the delivery of technology funding under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act by offering amendment 
     #630 regarding ``Developing Best Practices for Technology in 
     Education.''
       The federal government has been the largest single investor 
     in education technology in this nation over the past decade. 
     To further improve the effective integration of technology, 
     training, and research-based best practices will ensure that 
     our national investment continues to be prudent and targeted 
     to efforts that improve student learning.
       For state and local technology plans to miss connections to 
     the development of educator's skills, the development of the 
     curriculum they will use, or the development of best 
     practices in technology resources and systems, would be to 
     miss a tremendous opportunity to build student success. 
     Requiring these elements in plans makes eminent sense. In 
     addition, the national evaluation of technology plans will 
     allow the nation as a whole to learn from and to build on the 
     success of those, such as the many entrepreneurial educators 
     in Washington state, who have solved thorny problems of 
     technology integration with creativity, wisdom, and vision. I 
     do not want to suggest that in any way schools are not making 
     progress in effectively using technology. We have examples of 
     effective uses of technology from around the country, and 
     particularly in the state of Washington, through the use of 
     our K-20 Network (dozens of examples are described at http://
www.wa.gov/k20/).
       Washington state, as a leader in technology innovation and 
     in the integration of technology into effective use in the 
     classroom, has much to gain by the passage of the Cantwell-
     Enzi amendment to ESEA.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Terry Bergeson,
     State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
                                  ____



                                              AOL Time Warner,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2001.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: I am writing to voice AOL-Time 
     Warner's enthusiastic support for your National Digital 
     School District Amendment to S. 1, the BEST Act. We believe 
     that your amendment furthers the goals of this bill as well 
     as those of Congress and the Administration by encouraging 
     innovative education strategies and public/private 
     partnerships, and mandating program effectiveness 
     assessments. We applaud your understanding of the importance 
     of the use of technology to educate America's youth.
       As you know, AOL-Time Warner has a deep and abiding 
     interest in ensuring that all students receive an education 
     that not only grounds them in the basics--reading, writing, 
     and arithmetic--but simultaneously prepares them for 
     employment in the global, high-technology economy. To achieve 
     these goals, we believe that all students must gain access to 
     21st Century learning tools and skills, and that teachers 
     must receive training in how to use new technologies and 
     integrate them into their classrooms. Through our 
     establishment of AOL@School, a free online learning tool that 
     helps administrators, teachers, and students gain quick and 
     easy access to the best educational content available on the 
     Web, and our support of PowerUP, a non-profit organization 
     that provides underserved youth with access to technology and 
     mentoring, AOL-TW has made 21st Century technology literacy a 
     cornerstone of our business and philanthropic efforts.
       We believe that your amendment will not only complement 
     these and other education technology projects in which AOL-
     Time Warner has been involved, but will leave a legacy of 
     best practices for states and school districts to emulate.

[[Page 10614]]

       Thank you again for your demonstrated leadership on this 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jill A. Lesser,
     Senior Vice President, Domestic Public Policy.
                                  ____



                                       Sun Microsystems, Inc.,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2001.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: On behalf of Sun Microsystems, Inc., 
     I would like to thank and congratulate both you and Senator 
     Enzi on the introduction of S.A. 630: ``Developing Best 
     Practices for Technology in Education.'' S.A. 630 is a worthy 
     addition to S.1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
     and we fully endorse your efforts. We believe that S.A. 630 
     is a logical and much needed step that will help schools, 
     school districts, teachers, and students all achieve 
     significant gains in performance and efficiency by requiring 
     the development of comprehensive strategies for technology.
       As schools move towards a greater dependence on computer 
     technology, they are continually faced with expensive 
     hardware and software expenditures, continual upgrades, 
     expensive technical support, and a constant need for teacher 
     re-training. By encouraging the adoption of ``best 
     practices,'' we believe more schools will move toward a web-
     based learning model, allowing anytime, anywhere access to 
     educational resources. Through web-based learning, our 
     schools can achieve greater efficiency, increase access to 
     educational resources and allow teachers to spend time doing 
     what they do best--teach.
       Therefore, we specifically support the Cantwell-Enzi 
     Amendment because it meets the challenges of brining 
     education to the classroom by:
       1. Requiring that local and state agencies develop 
     strategies that include teacher development and training; 
     curriculum development; and technology system resources to be 
     eligible for over $1 billion in federal technology funds;
       2. Encouraging the development of best practices for the 
     use of technology in schools that can be scalable in states 
     and local districts around the country.
       The single most important thing the federal government can 
     do to promote real educational reform is to encourage a shift 
     towards web-based learning. We believe this amendment is an 
     important step, and are proud to support your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                              Kim Jones,          
                          Vice President, Global Education and    
     Research.
                                  ____



                                          SchoolTone Alliance,

                                        Chicago, IL, June 6, 2001.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: On behalf of the members of the 
     SchoolTone Alliance, I write to express support for the 
     National Digital School Districts Amendment to S. 1, the 
     Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, SchoolTone 
     Alliance applauds your leadership efforts in introducing this 
     amendment.
       The amendment addresses the very real challenges faced in 
     effectively using technology in our nation's classrooms by 
     strengthening teacher training, improving curricular 
     development, allocating scarce resources and identifying best 
     practices. Last year the bipartisan Congressional Web-based 
     Education Commission released its report, The Power of the 
     Internet for Learning, and called upon policymakers to enact 
     an ``e-learning agenda.'' Your amendment implements the 
     vision articulated in that report and will act as a catalyst 
     in moving the power of the Internet for learning from promise 
     to practice.
       The SchoolTone Alliance is a not-for-profit, independent 
     consortium of companies promoting the benefits of Internet-
     based computing in schools. SchoolTone Alliance member 
     companies include: ACTV HyperTV Networks, Inc.; AOL@School; 
     bigchalk,com; Blackboard, Inc.; BritannicaSchool.com; 
     Broadware Technologies; HighWired.com; Isis Communications 
     Limited; JASON Foundation; Lucent Technologies; National 
     Semiconductor; Power School; SaskTel; SchoolCity.com; 
     SchoolCruiser/Timecruiser Computing; Simplexis.com; SRI 
     International; Sun Microsystems, Inc. and VIP Tone, Inc.
       SchoolTone Alliance and its members look forward to working 
     with you on a mutual agenda of bringing technology to all 
     students and in making it a more effective and efficient tool 
     for learning.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Irene K. Spero,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                     University of Washington,

                                        Seattle, WA, June 6, 2001.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Maria: We commend you for your leadership on the 
     Cantwell-Enzi Amendment of S.1, S.A. 630: ``Developing Best 
     Practices for Technology in Education.''
       There is widespread agreement that technology has the 
     potential to dramatically enhance teaching and learning.
       In the past few years, we have made great progress in 
     providing computers and connectivity in our classrooms, both 
     nationally and in Washington State. In Washington State, for 
     example, the proportion of K-12 classrooms with Internet 
     access increased from 64% to 87% between 1998 and 2000.
       However, just providing computers and connectivity is not 
     sufficient. In Washington State, nearly half of all schools 
     have no equipment replacement plan within a five-year cycle. 
     Three-fourths of all schools cannot meet an equipment 
     downtime goal of two days or less. The average time spent on 
     staff/teacher in-service technology training is one hour per 
     year. Per-student expenditures on all aspects of technology 
     range from an average of $22/student in the bottom 10% of 
     Washington's 297 school districts, to an average of $357/
     student in the top 10%. Curriculum lags tremendously. So does 
     research on educational outcomes--measured as a fraction of 
     total expenditures, computer chip manufacturers spend 200 
     times as much on R&D, and potato chip manufacturers spend 20 
     times as much!
       Your amendment will encourage the thoughtful and effective 
     integration of technology into the classroom, in a way that 
     truly does enhance teaching and learning. Again, thank you 
     for your leadership.
           Sincerely,
     Edward D. Lazowska,
       Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science, Department 
     of Computer Science & Engineering.
     Patricia M. Wasley,
       Dean and Professor, College of Education.
                                  ____



                                        Microsoft Corporation,

                                    Washington, DC, June 12, 2001.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: On behalf of Microsoft Corporation, 
     I would like to commend you on the introduction of your 
     amendment, ``Developing Best Practices for Technology in 
     Education,'' to S.1, the ``Better Education for Students and 
     Teachers Act.'' As strong supporters of bipartisan education 
     reform, Microsoft applauds your leadership and vision on this 
     important issue, and we share your commitment to providing 
     educators with the tools and training they need to integrate 
     technology effectively into their classrooms.
       Using technology to raise student achievement and improve 
     professional development is vital as we seek to reform our 
     education system. Our own initiative to promote professional 
     development, the Microsoft Classroom Teacher Network, has 
     helped provide technology training to nearly 1.5 million 
     teachers annually. In addition, Microsoft has developed a 
     suite of software tools, particularly the Encarta Class 
     Server, Web-based curriculum development platform designed to 
     aid teachers in classroom management. Microsoft also supports 
     the Boys & Girls Club of America Club Tech program which 
     gives students access to technology after school thereby 
     providing particularly low-income children, with access to a 
     wide array of educational technology experiences and 
     opportunities.
       By helping to provide teachers with the resources necessary 
     to succeed, and by ensuring that educators nationwide will 
     have access to information regarding the most effective uses 
     of technology in raising student achievement, your amendment 
     will help promote creativity and innovation in our education 
     system and ensure that no child is left behind.
           Sincerely,
                                         Jack Krumholtz,          
                         Director, Federal Government Affairs,    
                                        Associate General Counsel.

  Ms. CANTWELL. I also ask the support of my colleagues in passing this 
legislation to make sure our technology dollars at the national level 
are used efficiently and effectively, that some of the models being 
established even in the private sector be considered as we move forward 
on getting the best for education under this amendment. I encourage my 
colleagues to support it, and again thank Senator Enzi, my staff and 
Senator Enzi's staff on their bipartisan effort in passing this 
legislation.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Washington for this proposal. 
She brings enormous experience in this area as one who has 
demonstrated, in another life, great perception about the possibilities 
of the computer world and what it can mean for enhancing education. Her 
recommendations in the form of this amendment are something we value. 
We have provisions reflected in the legislation, as the Senator has 
noted, but I think this perception that she has brought with this 
amendment will be enormously useful and valuable.
  We had a good description of the proposal earlier last evening. She 
has

[[Page 10615]]

given us additional comments today. We are prepared to recommend the 
amendment be accepted. I do so at this time. I think we are prepared to 
accept it.
  I thank the Senator for her diligence in pursuing this matter. She 
has been enormously cooperative with the floor managers in arranging to 
bring this to the attention of the Senate. We are grateful to her for 
her accommodation but most importantly for the substance of this 
proposal, which will add to the enhancement of children's knowledge in 
the area of computer technology.
  We are prepared to accept that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. KENNEDY. We yield the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 630) as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are expecting a vote in a few moments 
on the Dodd amendment. Sometime after that, we will be dealing with the 
Hutchinson amendment and then the Schumer proposal. There will be the 
Schumer proposal and then there will be another first-degree amendment. 
Then later in the afternoon, after those, we hope to consider the 
Clinton amendments.
  This gives an idea on how we are going to be spending the early 
afternoon, midafternoon. That ought to bring us into mid-late 
afternoon. We are making very important progress. We still have some 
important measures yet to address. But we are making good progress. We 
are very grateful for the cooperation of our colleagues.
  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. FRIST. 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. 382

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will vote in about 7 minutes. I 
understand the Senator from Connecticut has 2 minutes reserved prior to 
the vote. I will use several minutes in opposition to the amendment 
that has been put forth by the Senator from Connecticut. I have had the 
opportunity to make some main points and speak in opposition to this 
amendment.
  It really boils down to two things. The first is the area of 
procedure. The Dodd amendment strips out what has been agreed to in a 
bipartisan way, Democrats, Republicans, and the White House, in 
negotiations that went on for days and weeks. Our colleagues absolutely 
must understand that this reaches into the agreement we have and strips 
out and really destroys a program called Straight A's, a program we 
feel very strongly about, a program that captures many of the 
fundamental reforms and principles that I believe will strongly change 
the nature of education so that we will no longer have this increasing 
achievement gap. Those principles are flexibility, accountability, and 
local control.
  The substance of what is in the underlying bill is that we have 
basically taken about nine categorical programs, non-title I, money for 
the low-income, non-title I funds. There are about 18 to 20 categorical 
programs. We took nine of those programs and basically said a State can 
apply, or a district can actually apply, and basically say we will use 
that money in such a way that we can identify locally with the 
flexibility and local control--which is so important--we will address 
the needs we see that are putting up a roadblock for us to educate our 
children.
  Linked to that is our agreement that the accountability of student 
achievement we will demand by entering into this arrangement in order 
to obtain those funds with such flexibility is that we are going to 
meet higher standards than anywhere else in the bill. That was 
negotiated.
  The other things we have not been talking about very much in terms of 
this whole concept of being a block grant. Let me just basically say it 
was negotiated that the standards are high, performance has to be 
demonstrated, or you drop out of that program.
  The second point I want to make is that we have come together to 
negotiate this part of the bill. The fact that you would strip out a 
part of the bill where people say that is just one program, it needs to 
be understood that of the overall funding that is in this pilot 
program--a pilot program we would like to see opened to all States, 
but, no, we negotiated if from 50 to 40 to 30 to 20 to 10 to 7; so we 
already negotiated the categorical programs down. We all debated and 
decreased that from 18 to 9, so it is as small as it can possibly be in 
this negotiated way. And if you remove a program that accounts for 
about 40 percent of the funding, that destroys Straight A's, this 
innovative program that is set before us.
  Therefore, I would argue that if our goal is to leave no child 
behind, we should leave at least one element of hope in this bill to 
capture the flexibility, the local control, and the strong 
accountability in which we, as Republicans, believe so strongly.
  Adoption of the Dodd amendment guts Straight A's, guts this 
flexibility, guts this local control, and guts this opportunity to 
truly leave no child behind. Thus, I urge defeat of this amendment by 
the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself a minute and a half.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with respect to the amendment No. 431, as 
modified, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendments Nos. 433, 436, 431 As Modified, and 419, en bloc, to 
                           Amendment No. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are again in a position to clear 
amendments by unanimous consent. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc, and 
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.
  They are Reed amendment No. 433, Reed amendment No. 436, Reed 
amendment No. 431, as modified, and Specter amendment No. 419.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 433

                    (Purpose: To amend a definition)

       On page 307, line 16, strike ``and''.
       On page 307, line 18, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 307, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(V) encourage and provide instruction on how to work with 
     and involve parents to foster student achievement.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 436

     (Purpose: To make a technical correction relating to parental 
                              involvement)

       On page 90, line 5, after ``problems'' insert the 
     following:
       ``including problems, if any, in implementing the parental 
     involvement requirements described in section 1118, the 
     professional development requirements described in section 
     1119, and the responsibilities of the school and local 
     educational agency under the school plan''.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 431, AS MODIFIED

         (Purpose: To provide for greater parental involvement)

       On page 125, line 6, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section''.
       On page 127, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (b) Grants.--Section 1118(a)(3) (20 U.S.C. 6319(a)(3)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C)(i)(I) The Secretary is authorized to award grants to 
     local educational agencies to enable the local educational 
     agencies to supplement the implementation of the provisions 
     of this section and to allow for the expansion of other 
     recognized and proven initiatives and policies to improve 
     student

[[Page 10616]]

     achievement through the involvement of parents.
       ``(II) Each local educational agency desiring a grant under 
     this subparagraph shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(ii) Each application submitted under clause (i)(II) 
     shall describe the activities to be undertaken using funds 
     received under this subparagraph, shall set forth the process 
     by which the local educational agency will annually evaluate 
     the effectiveness of the agency's activities in improving 
     student achievement and increasing parental involvement shall 
     include an assurance that the local educational agency will 
     notify parents of the option to transfer their child to 
     another public school under section 1116(c)(7) or to obtain 
     supplemental services for their child under section 
     1116(c)(8), in accordance with those sections.
       ``(iii) Each grant under this subparagraph shall be awarded 
     for a 5-year period.
       ``(iv) The Secretary shall conduct a review of the 
     activities carried out by each local educational agency using 
     funds received under this subparagraph to determine whether 
     the local educational agency demonstrates improvement in 
     student achievement and an increase in parental involvement.
       ``(v) The Secretary shall terminate grants to a local 
     educational agency under this subparagraph after the fourth 
     year if the Secretary determines that the evaluations 
     conducted by such agency and the reviews conducted by the 
     Secretary show no improvement in the local educational 
     agency's student achievement and no increase in such agency's 
     parental involvement.
       ``(vi) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this subparagraph $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such 
     sums as may be necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 419

    (Purpose: To improve the provisions related to initiatives for 
              neglected, delinquent, or at risk students)

       On page 233, strike lines 9 through 14, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) Transition Services.--Each State agency shall reserve 
     not less than 5 percent and not more than 30 percent of the 
     amount such agency receives under this chapter for any fiscal 
     year to support--
       ``(1) projects that facilitate the transition of children 
     and youth from State-operated institutions to local 
     educational agencies; or
       ``(2) the successful reentry of youth offenders, who are 
     age 20 or younger and have received a secondary school 
     diploma or its recognized equivalent, into postsecondary 
     education and vocational training programs through strategies 
     designed to expose the youth to, and prepare the youth for, 
     postsecondary education and vocational training programs, 
     such as--
       ``(A) preplacement programs that allow adjudicated or 
     incarcerated students to audit or attend courses on college, 
     university, or community college campuses, or through 
     programs provided in institutional settings;
       ``(B) worksite schools, in which institutions of higher 
     education and private or public employers partner to create 
     programs to help students make a successful transition to 
     postsecondary education and employment;
       ``(C) essential support services to ensure the success of 
     the youth, such as--
       ``(i) personal, vocational, and academic counseling;
       ``(ii) placement services designed to place the youth in a 
     university, college, or junior college program;
       ``(iii) health services;
       ``(iv) information concerning, and assistance in obtaining, 
     available student financial aid;
       ``(v) exposure to cultural events; and
       ``(vi) job placement services.
       On page 233, strike lines 20 through 24.
       On page 234, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 1419. EVALUATION; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; ANNUAL MODEL 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``The Secretary shall reserve not more than 5 percent of 
     the amount made available to carry out this chapter for a 
     fiscal year--
       ``(1) to develop a uniform model to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of programs assisted under this chapter;
       ``(2) to provide technical assistance to and support the 
     capacity building of State agency programs assisted under 
     this chapter; and
       ``(3) to create an annual model correctional youthful 
     offender program event under which a national award is given 
     to programs assisted under this chapter which demonstrate 
     program excellence in--
       ``(A) transition services for reentry in and completion of 
     regular or other education programs operated by a local 
     educational agency;
       ``(B) transition services to job training programs and 
     employment, utilizing existing support programs such as One 
     Stop Career Centers;
       ``(C) transition services for participation in 
     postsecondary education programs;
       ``(D) the successful reentry into the community; and
       ``(E) the impact on recidivism reduction for juvenile and 
     adult programs.
       On page 242, line 19, strike ``and''.
       On page 242, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 242, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       ``(5) participate in postsecondary education and job 
     training programs.
       On page 243, line 6, insert ``and the Secretary'' after 
     ``agency''.


                           Amendment No. 382

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me inquire. I gather we have a unanimous 
consent agreement to have 4 minutes equally divided to make closing 
arguments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FRIST. We are done.
  Mr. DODD. I have 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, I had printed in the Record letters 
in support of my afterschool amendment, letters from Fight Crime: 
Invest in Kids, from 1,000 chiefs of police, prosecutors, crime 
survivors, and police organizations. Their letters are strong letters 
in terms of the value of afterschool programs.
  Seventy percent of the chiefs of police have said the best method for 
reducing the problems of afterschool violence is a good afterschool 
program.
  There have been almost 3,000 applications for 21st century learning 
centers since the concept was introduced a number of years ago. It has 
been the largest single request from local communities and community-
based organizations in the history of the Department of Education.
  My point is simply this. I am willing to support, and I support the 
Straight A's block grant program. I want to take out, however, the 5.7 
percent of funding--that is all it amounts to--for afterschool 
programs. That program ought not end up subject to the vagaries of what 
happens to a State education agency.
  We ought to let local communities decide whether or not they want an 
afterschool program. We are going to say in 7 States, in 25 school 
districts--that could comprise as many as 26 million children--for the 
next 7 years, that afterschool programs will be left to a jump ball, in 
effect.
  This is a program that is supported by Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs. I 
have strong letters from the YMCAs, YWCAs--the 2,500 across the 
country--that urge--in fact, beg in this letter--that we adopt this 
amendment. It isn't me asking for this. This is not D's and R's 
fighting with each other. These are people every day who are out there 
trying to make sure that kids can be in a safe environment after 
school. That is really what this amounts to. Chiefs of police say it is 
important. School administrators will tell you it is important.
  This does not destroy the block grant program at all. This idea that 
it does is not based on any independent analysis of it at all. So I 
urge this amendment be adopted. It means a lot to our local 
communities. We now have 11 million kids who are home alone at the end 
of each school day. We need to do better by these children.
  An afterschool program, based on the 21st century concept, certainly 
is deserving of that support. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just 15 seconds. We are going to hold 
Members accountable on the amount of time for the vote on this 
amendment. So I hope all Members will make it their business to be in 
the Chamber on time because we have to accommodate other Members who 
have accommodated our schedule. We are making good progress. We are 
going to conform to the Senate rules in relation to the time for the 
vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Dodd amendment 
No. 382. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 10617]]


  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--51

     Allard
     Allen
     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
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Biden
     Landrieu
       
  The amendment (No. 382) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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 Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I missed this vote by a couple seconds. I 
was conducting a hearing on the Balkans. It was my fault. I am not 
suggesting that it is anybody's fault but mine. But if I had been here 
in time to vote, I want the Record to reflect that I would have voted 
for the Dodd amendment. I realize I cannot have my vote recorded, but I 
want to be recorded as being in favor of the Dodd amendment if I had 
been here in time. I apologize to my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. 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. 555, As Modified

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order in 
relation to amendment No. 555.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, and the amendment 
is now pending.


                 Amendment No. 555, As Further Modified

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I send a further modification to 
amendment No. 555 to the desk and ask unanimous consent it be so 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request to further 
modify the amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title IX add the following:

     902. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE ACCESS OF 
                   ARMED FORCES RECRUITERS TO STUDENT DIRECTORY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Service in the Armed Forces of the United States is 
     voluntary.
       (2) Recruiting quality persons in the numbers necessary to 
     maintain the strengths of the Armed Forces authorized by 
     Congress is vital to the United States national defense.
       (3) Recruiting quality servicemembers is very challenging, 
     and as a result, Armed Forces recruiters must devote 
     extraordinary time and effort to their work in order to fill 
     monthly requirements for immediate accessions.
       (4) In meeting goals for recruiting high quality men and 
     women, each of the Armed Forces faces intense competition 
     from the other Armed Forces, from the private sector, and 
     from institutions offering postsecondary education.
       (5) Despite a variety of innovative approaches taken by 
     recruiters, and the extensive benefits that are available to 
     those who join the Armed Forces, it is becoming increasingly 
     difficult for the Armed Forces to meet recruiting goals.
       (6) A number of high schools across the country have denied 
     recruiters access to students or to student directory 
     information.
       (7) In 1999, the Army was denied access on 4,515 occasions, 
     the Navy was denied access on 4,364 occasions, the Marine 
     Corps was denied access on 4,884 occasions, and the Air Force 
     was denied access on 5,465 occasions.
       (8) As of the beginning of 2000, nearly 25 percent of all 
     high schools in the United States did not release student 
     directory information requested by Armed Forces recruiters.
       (9) In testimony presented to the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate, recruiters stated that the single 
     biggest obstacle to carrying out the recruiting mission was 
     denial of access to student directory information, as the 
     student directory is the basic tool of the recruiter.
       (10) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to 
     student directory information unfairly hurts the youth of the 
     United States, as it prevents students from receiving 
     important information on the education and training benefits 
     offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students' 
     decisionmaking on careers by limiting the information on the 
     options available to them.
       (11) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to 
     student directory information undermines United States 
     national defense, and makes it more difficult to recruit high 
     quality young Americans in numbers sufficient to maintain the 
     readiness of the Armed Forces and to provide for the national 
     security.
       (12) Section 503 of title 10, United States Code, requires 
     local educational agencies, as of July 1, 2002, to provide 
     recruiters access to secondary schools on the same basis that 
     those agencies provide access to representatives of colleges, 
     universities, and private sector employers.
       (b) Campaign To Promote Access.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each State shall transmit to the 
     Secretary of Education a list of each school, if any, in that 
     State that--
       (A) during the 12 months preceding the date of enactment of 
     this Act, has denied access to students or to student 
     directory information to a military recruiter; or
       (B) has in effect a policy to deny access to students or to 
     student directory information to military recruiters.
       (2) Education program.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Education, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall, not later 
     than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, make 
     awards to States and schools using funds available under 
     section 6201(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     to educate principals, school administrators, and other 
     educators regarding career opportunities in the Armed Forces, 
     and the access standard required under section 503 of title 
     10, United States Code.
       (B) Targeted schools.--In selecting schools for awards 
     required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give 
     priority to selecting schools that are included on the lists 
     transmitted to Congress under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 903. MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

       (a) Denial of funds.--
       (1) Prohibition.--No funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be provided by grant or contract to any 
     institution of higher education (including any school of law, 
     whether or not accredited by the American Bar Association) 
     that has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, 
     the Secretary of Defense from obtaining for military 
     recruiting purposes--
       (A) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
       (B) access to directory information pertaining to students.
       (2) Covered students.--Students referred to in paragraph 
     (1) are individuals who are 17 years of age or older.
       (b) Procedures for Determination.--The Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, 
     shall prescribe regulations that contain procedures for 
     determining if and when an educational institution has denied 
     or prevented access to students or information described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``directory information'' means, with respect to a student, 
     the student's name, address, telephone listing, date and 
     place of birth, level of education, degrees received, and the 
     most recent previous educational institution enrolled in by 
     the student.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to make a brief presentation on

[[Page 10618]]

this amendment and the need for this amendment. Senator Sessions may 
also wish to make a brief statement regarding this amendment.
  I believe in discussions with Senator Kennedy and Senator Reid this 
amendment has been agreed to, but I do want to make a brief statement 
about it and give Senator Sessions an opportunity to do likewise.
  In my role last year as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee on 
Armed Services, we held two hearings regarding recruitment to our armed 
services. One of the tragedies I became aware of was there are 
literally thousands of high schools across the United States that have 
denied access to our military recruiters. That is a national shame.
  In fact, we found that in 1999, which is the last year figures are 
available, the Army was denied access to 4,515 high schools; The Navy 
was denied access to 4,364 high schools; The Marine Corps was denied 
access to 4,884 high schools; and the Air Force was denied access to 
5,465 high schools.
  These same high schools across the country are providing student 
directory information to college recruiters. They are providing routine 
access to employers, to class ring companies. I was very concerned 
about this. As a result, I put a provision in last year's Defense 
authorization bill that required those high schools that want to deny 
access to go through a process in which the publicly elected school 
board members would have to vote proactively to deny access on a 
discriminatory basis to military recruiters.
  I do not think many are going to do that. The thousands of schools 
that are denying access are doing so usually at the whim of a principal 
or superintendent who, for one reason or another, does not believe 
recruiters should come on campus.
  I believe they should have equal access. To the extent they allow 
college recruiters and employers to recruit, then our military 
recruiters should be able to come on that campus and tell their story, 
and they have a great story to tell. They have a story to tell about 
career opportunities in our armed services. They have a story to tell 
about educational benefits that are offered in the armed services. They 
have a story to tell about what Congress has done to enhance health 
care benefits for those who make a career in the armed services. They 
have a great story to tell young people, and young people need to have 
this career option laid out before them. The military should not be 
discriminated against.
  We put those provisions in, and Senator Kennedy worked closely with 
us ensuring it was not too heavy handed. In fact, there is a whole 
process set up in which schools that are denying access will have 
everyone clear up to the Secretary of Defense notified. The Governor of 
the State will be notified, and a process is put in place whereby 
whatever problems may have led to that discriminatory denial of access 
can be addressed and hopefully amicably addressed so recruiters can get 
into the schools again.
  Only when a publicly elected school board votes publicly to deny 
access will they be able to opt out of the bill. If they ignore the 
law, which was passed by the Congress last year and signed into law, 
they open themselves to a Federal lawsuit.
  What we are finding out now is we are approaching the 1 year out from 
when the law takes effect. Recruiters have told me this year, personnel 
chiefs have told me this year that they are finding principals do not 
know there has been a change in the law. Superintendents simply do not 
know that this is the new law of the land.
  My amendment tells the Secretary of Education that he must begin an 
educational campaign in the course of this next year so superintendents 
and principals are not going to have the excuse that they did not know. 
They are going to know what the new policy is. They are going to know 
what the new law is and begin, hopefully, to prepare for July 1, 2001, 
when that law takes effect. I am very pleased that on both sides of the 
aisle, in a bipartisan way, there is an agreement. This has been a good 
step to take. This is a good vehicle for this provision in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  I am also pleased Senator Sessions of Alabama called to my attention 
another problem that has developed. I yield to Senator Sessions for a 
statement about that provision he has added in a modification to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his leadership on 
this important issue. The U.S. military has been a guardian of liberty 
for the United States and for freedom-loving people all over the world. 
It has preserved our freedom. I wish it were not so that we had to have 
a military, but we do, and it is critically important the men and women 
in the military have the best education, and they recruit the best 
young people in America, urging them to consider a career in the 
military.
  There is a group that is active in America that sometimes is hostile 
to that. One of the most astounding things I learned a few years ago as 
attorney general of the State of Alabama, a young man I hired to work 
in my office went to law school, and the law school he attended would 
not allow military recruiters to come on the law school campus to 
solicit lawyers to join the military. I was astounded. He said the 
students got up a petition to protest it. I thought he was kidding. He 
was not kidding. In fact, that was the circumstance.
  I talked to the dean and I later drafted legislation to require that 
law schools allow recruiters on campus. They told me apparently it is a 
problem, and it may be a reality all over America. They said the reason 
this was occurring was because the accrediting agencies for law schools 
take the position that the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy of the U.S. 
military, approved by former President Bill Clinton, is discriminatory 
and, therefore, law schools cannot allow anybody who discriminates to 
come on campus. So they have made that an accrediting factor and have 
intimidated law schools.
  This unelected group--who they are, I am not sure; perhaps they are 
leftover antiwar activists--is dictating this around the country.
  I think this legislation will be a healthy signal that the Senate 
says, as I told this law school dean: You have freedom. We have a rule 
of law in America today because men and women in uniform have defended 
against the Communist totalitarians, the Nazi oppressors, and defeated 
them and preserved liberty. The very concept, the very idea that a 
legal arm of the Defense Department, the JAG officers, are not 
respected and cannot recruit on the campus of the best law schools is 
unacceptable.
  I appreciate the opportunity that Senator Hutchinson has provided to 
allow this amendment be included as a part of his legislation. I think 
it is good public policy. I think it is wrong to allow this to happen 
in America today. I think this legislation could make a big step in 
eliminating the problem. If it does not, we may have to have more 
specific legislation in the future.
  I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Hutchinson. I thank Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Gregg.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that the final modification 
may take a moment or two. There is the question about out of which fund 
the resources will come. I understand the proponents want it out of the 
Secretary's discretionary fund rather than the initial funding, which 
was about $125 million that was going to be used for bonuses for States 
and communities that meet their responsibilities in developing their 
tests. We are just checking on the cross-reference number.
  That aside, I thank Senator Hutchinson and Senator Sessions for their 
cooperation in working this amendment through. We have a procedure in 
place now so we can focus responsibility if there is a denial for 
access to the campuses of this country. It does seem to me that the 
armed services ought to have the same ability for access to students as 
other groups that are recruiting at these universities and colleges and 
schools. I think that is a rather basic and fundamental concept and one 
with which I agree.

[[Page 10619]]

  I think we have a proposal to try to move that process forward. There 
is some existing legislation in place. This is a restatement of that 
legislation because there has been some question in some minds whether 
the existing legislation did the job. I thought the member of the 
Committee on Armed Services, the one who had visited this issue 
previously, thought it did, but we have some additional ways of 
encouraging schools and colleges and law schools to give consideration 
to recruiters. That has been included in this amendment. That is 
acceptable to me, and I hope when it is finalized, which should be in a 
moment, we will move ahead and accept the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, and I especially 
thank the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Alabama for 
bringing this amendment forward. I think it is absolutely essential 
that we, as the Senate, put ourselves unalterably on the record, in a 
clear manner, that we believe the armed services have every right, and 
in fact colleges have an obligation to allow them, to recruit on their 
campuses, whether they be law schools, whether they be graduate 
schools, or whether they be undergraduate schools.
  The attempt to exclude the military services from different colleges 
is an example of political correctness run to its extreme. As the 
branch of government which funds the armed services and which has a 
critical obligation of making sure the armed services is filled with 
talented citizens, it is our obligation to recruit aggressively. The 
natural place to recruit is in the higher system of education and in 
our high schools.
  I congratulate the Senator. It is an excellent amendment. I look 
forward to its passage.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Hutchinson 
amendment be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment which I 
believe will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 456, As Modified, to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. DODD. I send a modification of the early childhood educator 
professional development amendment No. 456 to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and 
     Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 456, as modified.

  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 383, after line 21, add the following:

      ``PART E--EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

     ``SEC. 2501. PURPOSE.

       ``In support of the national effort to attain the first of 
     America's Education Goals, the purpose of this part is to 
     enhance the school readiness of young children, particularly 
     disadvantaged young children, and to prevent them from 
     encountering difficulties once they enter school, by 
     improving the knowledge and skills of early childhood 
     educators who work in communities that have high 
     concentrations of children living in poverty.

     ``SEC. 2502. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Grants to Partnerships.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out the purpose of this part by awarding grants, on a 
     competitive basis, to partnerships consisting of--
       ``(1)(A) one or more institutions of higher education that 
     provide professional development for early childhood 
     educators who work with children from low-income families in 
     high-need communities; or
       ``(B) another public or private entity that provides such 
     professional development;
       ``(2) one or more public agencies (including local 
     educational agencies, State educational agencies, State human 
     services agencies, and State and local agencies administering 
     programs under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act 
     of 1990), Head Start agencies, or private organizations; and
       ``(3) to the extent feasible, an entity with demonstrated 
     experience in providing training to educators in early 
     childhood education programs in identifying and preventing 
     behavior problems or working with children identified or 
     suspected to be victims of abuse.
       ``(b) Duration and Number of Grants.--
       ``(1) Duration.--Each grant under this part shall be 
     awarded for not more than 4 years.
       ``(2) Number.--No partnership may receive more than 1 grant 
     under this part.

     ``SEC. 2503. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Applications Required.--Any partnership that desires 
     to receive a grant under this part 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 such application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the high-need community to be served 
     by the project, including such demographic and socioeconomic 
     information as the Secretary may request;
       ``(2) information on the quality of the early childhood 
     educator professional development program currently conducted 
     by the institution of higher education or other provider in 
     the partnership;
       ``(3) the results of the needs assessment that the entities 
     in the partnership have undertaken to determine the most 
     critical professional development needs of the early 
     childhood educators to be served by the partnership and in 
     the broader community, and a description of how the proposed 
     project will address those needs;
       ``(4) a description of how the proposed project will be 
     carried out, including--
       ``(A) how individuals will be selected to participate;
       ``(B) the types of research-based professional development 
     activities that will be carried out;
       ``(C) how research on effective professional development 
     and on adult learning will be used to design and deliver 
     project activities;
       ``(D) how the project will coordinate with and build on, 
     and will not supplant or duplicate, early childhood education 
     professional development activities that exist in the 
     community;
       ``(E) how the project will train early childhood educators 
     to provide services that are based on developmentally 
     appropriate practices and the best available research on 
     child social, emotional, physical and cognitive development 
     and on early childhood pedagogy;
       ``(F) how the program will train early childhood educators 
     to meet the diverse educational needs of children in the 
     community, including children who have limited English 
     proficiency, disabilities, or other special needs; and
       ``(G) how the project will train early childhood educators 
     in identifying and preventing behavioral problems or working 
     with children identified as or suspected to be victims of 
     abuse;
       ``(5) a description of--
       ``(A) the specific objectives that the partnership will 
     seek to attain through the project, and how the partnership 
     will measure progress toward attainment of those objectives; 
     and
       ``(B) how the objectives and the measurement activities 
     align with the performance indicators established by the 
     Secretary under section 2506(a);
       ``(6) a description of the partnership's plan for 
     continuing the activities carried out under the project, so 
     that the activities continue once Federal funding ceases;
       ``(7) an assurance that, where applicable, the project will 
     provide appropriate professional development to volunteers 
     working directly with young children, as well as to paid 
     staff; and
       ``(8) an assurance that, in developing its application and 
     in carrying out its project, the partnership has consulted 
     with, and will consult with, relevant agencies, early 
     childhood educator organizations, and early childhood 
     providers that are not members of the partnership.

     ``SEC. 2504. SELECTION OF GRANTEES.

       ``(a) Criteria.--The Secretary shall select partnerships to 
     receive funding on the basis of the community's need for 
     assistance and the quality of the applications.
       ``(b) Geographic Distribution.--In selecting partnerships, 
     the Secretary shall seek to ensure that communities in 
     different regions of the Nation, as well as both urban and 
     rural communities, are served.

     ``SEC. 2505. USES OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each partnership receiving a grant under 
     this part shall use the grant funds to carry out activities 
     that will improve the knowledge and skills of early childhood 
     educators who are working in early childhood programs that 
     are located in high-need communities and serve concentrations 
     of children from low-income families.
       ``(b) Allowable Activities.--Such activities may include--
       ``(1) professional development for individuals working as 
     early childhood educators, particularly to familiarize those 
     individuals with the application of recent research on child, 
     language, and literacy development and on early childhood 
     pedagogy;
       ``(2) professional development for early childhood 
     educators in working with parents, based on the best current 
     research on child social, emotional, physical and cognitive 
     development and parent involvement, so that the educators can 
     prepare their children to succeed in school;
       ``(3) professional development for early childhood 
     educators to work with children who have limited English 
     proficiency, disabilities, and other special needs;
       ``(4) professional development to train early childhood 
     educators in identifying and

[[Page 10620]]

     preventing behavioral problems in children or working with 
     children identified or suspected to be victims of abuse;
       ``(5) activities that assist and support early childhood 
     educators during their first three years in the field;
       ``(6) development and implementation of early childhood 
     educator professional development programs that make use of 
     distance learning and other technologies;
       ``(7) professional development activities related to the 
     selection and use of screening and diagnostic assessments to 
     improve teaching and learning; and
       ``(8) data collection, evaluation, and reporting needed to 
     meet the requirements of this part relating to 
     accountability.

     ``SEC. 2506. ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) Performance Indicators.--Simultaneously with the 
     publication of any application notice for grants under this 
     part, the Secretary shall announce performance indicators for 
     this part, which shall be designed to measure--
       ``(1) the quality and accessibility of the professional 
     development provided;
       ``(2) the impact of that professional development on the 
     early childhood education provided by the individuals who are 
     trained; and
       ``(3) such other measures of program impact as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(b) Annual Reports; Termination.--
       ``(1) Annual reports.--Each partnership receiving a grant 
     under this part shall report annually to the Secretary on the 
     partnership's progress against the performance indicators.
       ``(2) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate a grant 
     under this part at any time if the Secretary determines that 
     the partnership is not making satisfactory progress against 
     the indicators.

     ``SEC. 2507. COST-SHARING.

       ``(a) In General.--Each partnership shall provide, from 
     other sources, which may include other Federal sources--
       ``(1) at least 50 percent of the total cost of its project 
     for the grant period; and
       ``(2) at least 20 percent of the project cost in each year.
       ``(b) Acceptable Contributions.--A partnership may meet the 
     requirement of subsection (a) through cash or in-kind 
     contributions, fairly valued.
       ``(c) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive or modify the 
     requirements of subsection (a) in cases of demonstrated 
     financial hardship.

     ``SEC. 2508. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) High-need community.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `high-need community' means--
       ``(i) a municipality, or a portion of a municipality, in 
     which at least 50 percent of the children are from low-income 
     families; or
       ``(ii) a municipality that is one of the 10 percent of 
     municipalities within the State having the greatest numbers 
     of such children.
       ``(B) Determination.--In determining which communities are 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use such 
     data as the Secretary determines are most accurate and 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Low-income family.--The term `low-income family' 
     means a family with an income 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 for the most recent fiscal year 
     for which satisfactory data are available.
       ``(3) Early childhood educator.--The term `early childhood 
     educator' means a person providing or employed by a provider 
     of non-residential child care services (including center-
     based, family-based, and in-home child care services) that is 
     legally operating under State law, and that complies with 
     applicable State and local requirements for the provision of 
     child care services to children at any age from birth through 
     kindergarten.

     ``SEC. 2509. FEDERAL COORDINATION.

       ``The Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall coordinate activities under this part and 
     other early childhood programs administered by the two 
     Secretaries.

     ``SEC. 2510. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6 
     succeeding fiscal years.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. DODD. I have cleared the modification with the manager and the 
ranking member. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator 
Corzine of New Jersey. It is the early childhood educator professional 
development amendment.
  We have been talking a lot in the last few days about raising the 
quality of education for all children. Learning starts, as we all know, 
very early--earlier than most people imagined a few years ago. If we 
want to succeed with educational reform, we have to help those 
educators work with very young children.
  We know from research that quality child care makes a difference in 
children's readiness for school, their behavior, and their social and 
emotional development.
  A study following children in Chicago enrolled in the Child Parent 
Program and other early childhood programs over a 15 year period, 
reported in the May 9, 2001 Journal of the American Medical 
Association, shows that low-income children in high-quality, 
comprehensive early childhood education programs have lower rates of 
juvenile arrests and violent arrests.
  The National Academy of Sciences' report, Neurons to Neighborhoods, 
also stressed the importance of quality early childhood education to 
child development.
  And, many other studies confirm that children who attend early 
childhood education programs led by highly qualified educators are more 
likely to have better behavior skills, more enriched vocabularies and 
pre-reading skills, and to succeed in school.
  Yet we do not give the caregivers and teachers who nurture 13 million 
children outside of their homes every day the training that they want 
and need.
  Many child care and preschool teachers have only a high school 
diploma. And, often, preschool teachers receive only ten hours of 
training each year.
  Children who can't interact well with other children or their 
teachers are going to have a better chance at learning to read if we 
develop their reading skills in conjunction with their other 
developmental needs.
  For children to be ready for school and to learn to read, their early 
childhood educators must have the training to help them develop 
intellectually and socially.
  This amendment would provide for grants to local partnerships to 
train early childhood educators in children's social, emotional, 
cognitive, and physical development, including ways to identify and 
prevent behavior problems and children who are victims of abuse.
  Violence prevention must begin with very young children. With the 
skills and knowledge on how to effectively help young children deal 
with anger and conflict without violence and to support their learning, 
many more children will succeed in school and beyond.
  If we can deal with these issues early in life, we can help prevent 
negative, even violent, behavioral problems later.
  We must invest in the teachers of our young children.
  This amendment is supported by a long list of organizations 
representing the early childhood educator community, including the 
American Federation of Teachers, the Children's Defense Fund, the 
Departments of Education in Maryland, New York State, Oregon, Rhode 
Island, and South Carolina, the National Association for the Education 
of young Children, the National Head Start Association, the YMCA, the 
YWCA, and many others.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in Senator Corzine in supporting this 
important amendment.
  I think the amendment is being agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut 
for his initiative in this area. He makes a number of good points about 
the need for high-quality teachers being involved in early childhood 
education programs. The amendment is acceptable to the managers on this 
side.
  If there is no other debate, I will urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 456), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Previously Submitted Amendment No. 458

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am not going to offer this amendment. I 
will

[[Page 10621]]

ask unanimous consent the amendment be printed in the Record, the one I 
was about to offer on equity for Puerto Rico, amendment No. 458. I ask 
unanimous consent this amendment be printed in the Record.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001, under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DODD. I do not intend to offer this amendment, but I wanted to 
raise it as a subject matter that has been discussed both in the other 
body and here. As we all know, Puerto Rico is part of America. They do 
not have Senators here, so from time to time those of us who have been 
involved and care about the hundreds of thousands, millions of people 
who live on the island of Puerto Rico, and the 600,000 children on that 
island, and the quality of education they receive, take on the 
responsibility of trying to raise the issues that are important to 
these fellow Americans.
  This amendment I will not offer right now. The House has included 
some language to deal with title I education in Puerto Rico. I am 
hopeful in conference maybe we can work out some accommodation that 
will serve these children.
  Title I is very important to Puerto Rico because of the island's high 
concentration of low-income children. Mr. President, 93 percent of 
Puerto Rico's public schools participate in title I. More than 600,000 
children benefit from the title I program. The cost of educating 
children in Puerto Rico is comparable to the cost of educating children 
in the 50 States. In fact, the cost of living in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 
its capital, is higher than the cost of living in most other major 
American cities. Failure to provide equitable treatment to Puerto Rico 
and its children who are American citizens, American children, 
perpetuates a system that denies those children the access to quality 
education that every child deserves.
  The President has articulated in his statements that we should be 
leaving no child behind in this country. The Puerto Rican children, as 
I said, have no Senators to represent them. They do have a very fine 
Representative in the other body, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, who represents 
the island of Puerto Rico in the other body. He does not have a vote, 
but he has a voice. He votes in committees. He has talked to me and 
other Members about the importance of title I funding in Puerto Rico.
  So on behalf of my colleague in the other body, on behalf of the 
600,000 children in Puerto Rico and their families, I put this 
amendment in the Record. I raise the issue here to let them know we 
will continue to pursue this matter when it comes up in conference.
  Puerto Rico is working very hard to help its children compete. Over 
the last 5 years, it has increased its per pupil investment in 
education by 58 percent. That is more than any State in the United 
States and more than the national average, but because of the unfair 
treatment we give this group of Americans, Puerto Rican children 
receive only three-quarters of the resources they would receive were 
they to move to Connecticut, Rhode Island, or any other State. Even 
though they are American citizens, we do not provide them the full 
funding every other State gets under title I under proportionality, so 
these fellow citizens of ours are not treated as equally as others.
  On behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, I hope that situation will be 
corrected. We will fight very hard for it in conference, but 
recognizing the realities here on the floor, I am fearful such an 
amendment might fail. I think there is a better chance of working out 
something with the other body in conference that will accommodate these 
people.
  The 516,000 poor children in Puerto Rico should know we have not 
given up and we will carry on this battle in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with my friend and colleague from 
Connecticut in pointing out to this body the unfairness of the 
treatment of Puerto Rico.
  If I am not mistaken, I think they have a greater participation in 
the military forces of this country than any State or other territory. 
I remember at one time when we were battling on questions of the Food 
Stamp Program pointing out the number of Puerto Rican Congressional 
Medal of Honor winners in the conflicts of this Nation. They are, in 
many instances, the earliest units that get called up to the service of 
this country. They have served all over the globe and have proudly worn 
the American uniform. Yet they are being constantly shortchanged in 
this extraordinarily important area, important to families in our 50 
States. But these families in Puerto Rico care as deeply as any 
families do in any part of the United States about their children, and 
the hopes and dreams of those children are just as real as the hopes 
and dreams of children here.
  So I give assurance to the Senator. We have talked about this. It was 
raised briefly in the markup of our committee. We will work with our 
colleagues on the other side and with our friends in Puerto Rico and 
hopefully with the administration to move us in the direction of 
treating them equitably and fairly. They are not so treated at this 
time. I think the American people would certainly support that.
  If we are able to get the additional funding, which I am hopeful we 
are able to do, the opportunities will be even greater. But I thank the 
Senator for bringing up this subject.
  We want to give full notice to all of our colleagues that we are 
going to try to find a way to treat Puerto Rico fairly, as they should 
be treated and as they are not being treated at the present time.
  I thank the Senator for bringing this matter to our attention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts in saluting the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator 
from New Jersey for this outstanding amendment. I think it has been 
summed up well by both speakers. The funding in Puerto Rico is not what 
it should be. Certainly given that every Puerto Rican is an American 
citizen, given the fact that we have, particularly with my State and so 
many of the others, people who are going back and forth, educated in 
one, work in the other, and go back home to retire, we want the best 
educated people in Puerto Rico that we can have.
  Title I said we are going to do that for people who are less 
advantaged than the rest of us. To exclude Puerto Rico from that 
formula is both unfair to their birthright as citizens, to the fact 
they fight in the military, to the fact that they do all the things all 
of us do, and at the same time it is also foolish because a better 
educated Puerto Rico makes a stronger America and a stronger American 
economy.
  Certainly it affects the State that I represent very directly.
  This is an excellent amendment. I think the Senator from Connecticut 
has done the right thing by not forcing the debate. I join him in an 
earnest wish that the conferees will take care of this problem in 
conference so that we will finally do right by the children of Puerto 
Rico, American citizens as are we.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Schumer be recognized to offer an amendment regarding funding with 40 
minutes for debate; further, that when Senator Domenici offers his 
amendment regarding funding, which is at the desk, the debate be 
limited to 40 minutes; further, that the debate on the two amendments 
be divided as follow: Senators Schumer, Domenici,

[[Page 10622]]

Gregg, and Kennedy; further, that upon the use or yielding back of the 
time, the Senate vote in relation to the Domenici amendment followed by 
4 minutes for closing debate, and a vote in relation to the Schumer 
amendment with no second-degree amendments be in order.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object. I wonder if we could add ``or their designee.''
  Mr. KENNEDY. I so add ``or their designee.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 800 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 800.

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

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should 
appropriate all funds authorized for elementary and secondary education 
                          in fiscal year 2002)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON APPROPRIATION OF ALL FUNDS 
                   AUTHORIZED FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) President George W. Bush has said that bipartisan 
     education reform will be the cornerstone of his 
     administration and that no child should be left behind;
       (2) the Bush administration has said that too many of the 
     neediest students of our Nation are being left behind and 
     that the Federal Government can, and must, help close the 
     achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their 
     peers;
       (3) more of the children of our Nation are enrolled in 
     public school today than at any time since 1971;
       (4) math and science skills are increasingly important as 
     the global economy transforms into a high tech economy;
       (5) last year's Glenn Commission concluded that the most 
     consistent and powerful predictors of student achievement in 
     math and science are whether the student's teacher had full 
     teaching certification and a college major in the field being 
     taught; and
       (6) Congress increased appropriations for elementary and 
     secondary education by 20 percent in fiscal year 2001.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should appropriate all funds authorized for 
     elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2002.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded 10 minutes of the 
pending time to the Schumer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself and my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. We have worked 
hard on this amendment. I very much appreciate her efforts and 
inspiration on this amendment.
  Our amendment is very simple. I am going to read it to the body so 
there can be no mistake about it. After a bunch of whereas clauses, on 
line 23, page 2, it says:

       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should appropriate all funds authorized for 
     elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2002.

  The amendment is very simple. Basically it says to this body, to the 
other body, and to the White House: Put your money where your mouth is.
  We have been talking about education, as we should, for the last 2 
weeks. We have been saying how important education is to the future of 
America. We have been debating--and I think in a rather good debate--
the various new programs we wish to add to education. We have talked 
about modifying other programs. As a result, so that these will not be 
empty promises, we have added over $10.6 billion to the authorization 
level if you just count the five major programs: IDEA, title I, teacher 
quality, bilingual immigrant, and afterschool. There are several more 
billion that have been added as well.
  What a hollow promise it would be if we passed this bill and then did 
not appropriate the money. To those who have been listening to this 
debate in the gallery and elsewhere, an authorization brings no new 
money to a program. It is simply an ability to open up a bank account 
up to a certain level. It is the appropriation that actually puts the 
money in the bank account. It is only the appropriation that will fund 
the special education or the teachers for underachieving children or 
the teachers of high quality throughout America or the afterschool 
programs.
  If we were to authorize a beautiful shiny bill and put it in a nice 
box and put a ribbon on it and send it to the White House, and the 
President were to have a big signing ceremony, and then in the summer, 
when the appropriations process began, we were to not appropriate even 
close to the amount of money we have authorized, all our talk the last 
few weeks would be a hollow promise. We would be saying, yes, we care 
about education, but we do not care enough about education to fund it.
  All the things that make the public cynical about this city, and even 
about this Chamber, would come to be realized in those two 
contradictory acts: One, great debate and discussion about programs, 
and then later in the summer, no money to fund all the programs we are 
talking about.
  Why is this amendment necessary? It is certainly true that we do not 
always appropriate every dollar we authorize. But it is quite glaring 
in the actions we have taken thus far. The President has run on a 
platform as an education President. This Senate debates this bill and 
says we are going to be the education Senate. Yet in the budget we 
passed--in the President's budget--the increase in the amount of money 
actually proposed for education is considerably less than last year and 
the year before and the year before.
  So are we serious or are we just fooling the American people? Is this 
a real debate or is this just for show to make us feel good and make 
our constituents feel good? That is the fundamental question with which 
this amendment deals.
  I know there are many in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle who 
believe so strongly in this matter that they don't want to allow this 
bill to actually get to the President's desk until we see if there is 
going to be money for it.
  This amendment that I have authored with the Senator from California 
says that. It says, very simply, that we are going to put our money 
where all our verbiage has been. It says, very simply, that we care 
enough, as hard and tight as this budget is, that we are going to find 
room to pay for quality teachers, to pay for special education.
  It says we realize that the local property tax, which funds education 
throughout America, is so high for almost all of our constituents that 
if we do not come to their aid, the quality of our schools will 
certainly decline.
  I know the Senator from New Mexico has an amendment, but it is a 
meaningless amendment; I do not know why he even offered it because all 
his amendment says--let me read it--is: the Senate make funding 
consistent with the President's budget.
  I would not advise people to vote for it if they have been voting for 
these increased programs because the President's budget does not fund 
them.
  I say to my colleagues, we just have finished 2 weeks of a debate 
where we have debated how this program should be changed, whether this 
one should get $500 million or $600 million. That is not much when you 
consider it is all of America, with the tens of millions of 
schoolchildren we have in this great country. How can we then just go 
ahead and vote for the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico which 
says we are not going to fund it? Because that is what Senator 
Domenici's amendment says. It says, we are not going to fund education 
to the extent that we have just voted in the last 2 weeks we should 
fund education.
  Are we going to make this the bill of fulfilled dreams for so many 
schoolchildren or the bill of broken promises? That is what the 
contrast is. The Schumer-Boxer amendment says we are

[[Page 10623]]

going to try to help you reach your dream; we are going to help you 
fund your schools to make your schools better. The Domenici amendment 
says it is already a broken promise even though we are voting for an 
authorization for the kids in special ed, which consumes such a high 
percentage of local school budgets; for the kids in title I who need a 
little help to read up to grade level; for teacher quality so that our 
kids get the best teachers, and teaching is an elite profession in the 
21st century. The Schumer amendment says we are going to deliver. The 
Domenici amendment says we are not, so don't pay any attention to what 
we have done over the last 2 weeks.
  Mr. President, I yield to my colleague and coauthor of this 
amendment, the Senator from California, 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. As 
usual, he has really cut through a lot of the fussiness surrounding 
this debate and made the point clear. That is why I was so proud to 
team up with him.
  All we are saying in this amendment is, fund the programs you just 
voted to fund. It is as simple as that. And just so everybody 
understands it, I will explain it one more time. In every program that 
we put forward in the Federal Government, no matter what it is, you 
basically have an authorization, which is the nod. It says to the 
appropriators: It is OK to fund the military up to this amount; it is 
OK to fund education up to this amount, highways up to this amount. 
That is the authorization.
  The next step that makes it all a reality is the funding, the actual 
funding of those programs. That is called appropriations. So the 
Schumer-Boxer amendment simply says--and I am going to say it in his 
words because they come from the heart and soul of Brooklyn, NY--put 
your money where your mouth is.
  Everyone understands what that means. We can all give the greatest 
speeches coming out of our mouths--golden words, beautiful words. What 
does it mean if you do not back it up with reality, with substance, 
and, in this case, with funding?
  It doesn't mean anything for amendments to pass and then not to fund 
them. I guess the senatorial way to say it would be, fulfill your 
commitments that you made on this ESEA bill. That is all it says.
  We have been debating this for weeks. Senator Domenici's alternative 
to Schumer-Boxer essentially says: All this was wasted time. We are not 
going to fund all of this. We are just going to go back to the 
President's budget which shorts all of these programs.
  The next chart shows what we have voted to fund in this bill. By the 
way, I have not included everything, but Senator Collins will recognize 
this because she worked hard on some of these items. Senator Cochran 
will recognize it because he worked hard on this, as well as Senators 
Lincoln, Akaka, Mikulski, Reed, and Domenici. I worked with Senator 
Ensign. These are quite bipartisan. As a matter of fact, the first one, 
title I, full funding, is a Dodd-Collins amendment. So look at what we 
have done.
  The authorizing level we just passed for the current year is $15 
billion, and the Bush budget is $9 billion. So there is a gap we need 
to fill. IDEA, which is for special education, the kids who need the 
help, it is funded at $8.8 billion for next year; the President's 
budget is $7.3 billion. There is a shortfall. Continuing the list: 
Teacher quality, $3 billion compared to $2.6 billion; the Boxer-Ensign 
bill on afterschool, $1.5 billion compared to $846 million; grants for 
enhanced testing, $200 million, a new program; math and science 
education, Dick Durbin's amendment, up $400 million; bilingual 
education, up, that was Lincoln Chafee; small programs, Thad Cochran, 
that is zero in the President's budget, $416 million here; economic 
education, $10 million, a new program; community technology, $100 
million to zero; school libraries, $500 million to zero in the Bush 
budget; and mental health grants, I say to my friend, Senator Domenici, 
$50 million, a new program. He doesn't even say we ought to fund his 
own amendment. He says stick to the President's budget. He would not 
fund the program he brought here, and he worked with Senator Kennedy on 
it. It was done by unanimous consent. It was that popular.
  So here we have it in black and white. This is only $10.4 billion. I 
understand the difference now is $12.3 billion because after we made 
this chart, we approved some other programs.
  I say to the Senator from New York and to the Senator from 
Massachusetts and to Senator Collins, who is managing the floor for the 
Republicans: We have to do more than just say nice words. We have to do 
more than stand here and say ``our children are our future.'' How many 
of us have said that? Probably all of us at one time, that we care 
about them. We have to say more than just education is our priority. 
What we have to do is come behind those words with the resources.
  This bill is about reform. If you want results, you need the 
resources. It is kind of like the three R's. This next chart is the 
essence of the Schumer-Boxer amendment. On our side of the aisle what 
we are saying is--and we hope Republicans will join us--we want reform. 
We have proven that by this bill. We want resources. We have proven 
that by this amendment. And we expect results. We are going to hold 
people accountable for results.
  So far, our Republican friends support reform. But if they back the 
Domenici alternative to Schumer-Boxer, I think we can truly say they 
don't support resources and they cannot possibly expect results.
  Every one of these programs I have shown you has been brought to the 
Senate by various Senators. Now is the time when the rubber meets the 
road. Another saying, one we hear a lot: The rubber meets the road. How 
are you going to bring into effect these wonderful programs, such as 
teacher quality, title I, grants for enhanced testing, math and 
science, bilingual ed, small programs, economic education, community 
technology centers, school libraries, mental health clinics, 
afterschool programs, if you don't bring to the fore the resources? Or, 
said in a better way in the Schumer-Boxer amendment: It is the sense of 
the Senate that Congress should appropriate all funds authorized for 
elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2002.
  To my colleagues who may be listening in their offices, if you vote 
against the Schumer-Boxer amendment, I have to say, I don't understand 
why you voted for this wonderful list of enhancements for our children. 
It just does not make sense. We are saying, you voted for the 
authorizing of these programs; now vote for the appropriations.
  As my colleague Senator Schumer has stated: Some Members feel so 
strongly about it, they did not even want to bring this bill to the 
floor until we had a meeting of the minds with our Republican friends 
and the President that these programs would be funded or at least some 
of them would be funded.
  I urge my colleagues to come together, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, and give the thumbs up to this bill. You all say you like it. 
President Bush has held meetings. He has had Congressman Miller on one 
side and Ted Kennedy on the other. That is great. Photo ops are great. 
We all love them. You show you are for the kids and then your budget 
falls $12 billion short next year of what we need to do to carry out 
all this important work we have done over weeks and weeks on this bill.
  I thank my colleague from New York. We have joined together, east 
coast, west coast. We hope all those in the middle will join us and 
defeat the Domenici amendment. If all we are going to do is appropriate 
the money in the President's budget, we can't really do this.
  The most important thing, regardless of what we do with Domenici, is 
to support the Schumer-Boxer amendment. That will show that we mean 
what we say and we say what we mean. And we should be a model to our 
children. I look up in the galleries and see a lot of kids here. They 
are watching us. We had better mean what we say.

[[Page 10624]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know my friend and colleague from Iowa 
wanted some time as well. I do not see him on the floor. Do I 
understand now I have up to 10 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes on the two 
amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I yield myself 7 minutes.
  The end is in sight in terms of the completion of this legislation 
and this phase of the legislative process. It has been on the floor now 
for several weeks. We have had good debates on a number of very 
important measures. We still have some remaining items through the 
afternoon, hopefully recessing at a reasonable hour this evening. Then 
we will have a full morning and early afternoon tomorrow with a series 
of amendments by Senators Helms, Murray, and Sessions. Hopefully, we 
will be able to conclude the legislation by tomorrow at a reasonable 
time.
  It is appropriate, as we are coming into the final hours of 
consideration of the legislation, to take stock of where we are, to 
take stock of the legislation, and then to look down the road in terms 
of the future.
  We are going to be completing this legislation. We will move to the 
conference with the House of Representatives, which has a somewhat 
different approach than we have, but we have a fundamental agreement on 
what we are going to do. We will have an opportunity to address those 
issues and to find common ground with the House. Then we will come back 
here with a final product.
  I am strongly committed and will work very hard to make sure we are 
going to come back with a program that is going to, in this instance, 
include the funding for the IDEA programs, which make such a difference 
for children in my State and across the country. By that I mean the 
mandatory spending for the IDEA. We have had bipartisan support to 
include that in the legislation. It was reflected here during the 
discussion, not only on that amendment but on others, as well, by 
Republicans and Democrats. It is vitally important. It makes a great 
deal of difference in terms of the results on this whole program.
  When you take the funding of IDEA and also the funding in terms of 
title I, plus what we have done with other elements in terms of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and if we are going to move 
toward a real funding and investment in our children, I think we have 
the most unique opportunity we have had in recent times to make a major 
difference in terms of the neediest children in our country. We should 
not miss it.
  What we have seen over the period of these past several weeks is the 
attempt to try and get it right in terms of working to make sure that 
children in local communities are going to have available to them 
tried, tested, and proven programs that can provide academic 
achievement and advancement. That is what this legislation is really 
all about. We know what needs to be done. The question is, do we have 
the willpower to be able to do it? That is what this amendment of 
Senator Schumer and Senator Boxer really is all about--to put the 
Senate on record in the final hours of this debate that we believe we 
need the resources made available to the children in this country that 
otherwise would be denied it.
  Mr. President, we have to understand that this legislation isn't 
going to solve all of the problems. We will be back in another 6 years 
trying to deal with these issues again. But what the proponents of this 
amendment understand is that what is really essential is the investment 
in the early education of the children of this country, to invest in 
Early Start, Healthy Start, early learning, and children in terms of 
the Head Start Program. We are strongly committed to that. We are all 
strongly committed to the concept of having a child ready to learn when 
they go into school. That is a given. The funding is not there. The 
funding is not there for those programs.
  Many of us are greatly disappointed because when we are talking about 
the children, particularly the very small children and the children who 
will be affected by this legislation, we are defining the future of 
this Nation. We are defining the future of our democracy, the future of 
our economy, and the future of the relationships these individuals are 
going to have with their families.
  This is about America's future. For my money, there isn't a more 
important investment that we can make. This is about our children and 
about our future.
  This chart reflects the progress we have made in recent times in the 
elementary and secondary education budget increases. We have seen that 
over the period of the last 7 years it has gone up by 8.6 percent. We 
have heard it said that money isn't everything, money doesn't solve all 
the problems, and let's not just throw money at education. We 
understand that. The fact is, though, the investment here is a clear 
reflection about our Nation's priorities.
  As a matter of national priority, do we think investing in the 
neediest children in our country is a priority in which we ought to 
invest?
  This amendment says, yes, there is no higher priority. What we have 
had and what we are looking at is the budget that has been proposed by 
this administration, by this President, supported by this Republican 
Party and its Republican leadership. When you look at that record, the 
proposed ESEA budget increases that will be incorporated, this concept 
in the Domenici amendment, there is a 2.6 percent increase in 2002. 
That is a $1 billion addition for IDEA and $700 million for the title I 
program--$700 million for the title I program.
  We are only reaching a third of the children at the present time. And 
then if you look at this chart for the years 2003, zero; 2004, zero; 
2005, zero; 2006, zero; 2007, zero; 2008, zero; 2009, zero; 2010 zero. 
The number of children at the end of the next 10 years is going to be 
the same number that we have at the present time. There will be no 
increase in the total number of children who will be there, in contrast 
to the amendment of the Senator from New York and the Senator from 
California, which says we are going to build to make sure that if we do 
have something in here, and the funding for the IDEA program, we are 
going to see an expansion in investing in those children. We are going 
to make sure that all of the children who are eligible--the 10 million 
children--will participate in the whole range of programs.
  Who wants to make the choice today about which child is going to get 
supplementary services and which will not, or which will get a summer 
school program and which will not, or which will get the afterschool 
program and which one will not? What are we going to say about that? 
This amendment says that our Nation's priorities are clear and they 
should be expressed on the floor of the Senate in a bipartisan way.
  Seventy percent of the Members of this body, Republican and Democrats 
alike, supported the idea for full funding for the title I program. We 
have brought about the reforms that many of the critics have stated. 
The real question is, are we going to be true to the concept that we 
are going to leave no child behind? Without this amendment, and without 
the resources here, we are leaving two out of three children behind, 
make no mistake about it.
  Finally, in our elementary and secondary education bill, we 
effectively guarantee that every child that is eligible for the title I 
program in the ESEA will reach proficiency by the time this legislation 
expires. That is an empty promise if we are only going to fund this 
program to reach one out of three. We should not represent to the 
American people that we are committed to not leaving children behind if 
we are not going to back that up with the kinds of American resources 
that we have available at this time and which should be invested in 
these children. That is the way I read this amendment.

[[Page 10625]]

  I thank the Senators for bringing this measure up. I hope it is going 
to get strong support because it is really a reflection of the kind of 
commitment that this body has for the future of our Nation and, most 
important, the future of the children of our country.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time not to be charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. 801, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an 
amendment I send to the desk be a substitute for the amendment that has 
been previously stated to be a Domenici amendment. This is the Domenici 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Findings.--
       (1) This bill currently authorizes at least $30 billion in 
     discretionary spending on elementary and secondary education 
     programs in fiscal year 2002.
       (2) Over the 2002-8 period, this bill authorizes more than 
     $300 billion for these same programs.
       (3) Congress currently provides $18.4 billion for these 
     same programs.
       It is therefore the Sense of the Senate that:
       (1) The Appropriations Committee shall fund the 
     authorizations in this bill to the maximum extent possible.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to read this to everyone so there 
will be an understanding of where we are.
  First, I did not have enough time this afternoon or I would have 
searched the records of legislation we passed that comes out of 
committees that have authorizing authority. Clearly, the committee that 
reported this bill that has been debated so mightily on or about May 3, 
with intervening time used for some other bills, is an authorizing 
committee. There is no authority in the committee that my good friend 
Senator Kennedy chairs to appropriate money. I do not think anybody 
will argue with that point.
  The appropriators each year appropriate money in various 
appropriations bills, one of which will contain the appropriated money 
for education.
  What we have been doing in the meantime on this education bill is 
very typical of what we do on any new authorization bill.
  People bring to the floor amendments to the authorizing bill that 
says we want to authorize a different program with different amounts of 
money covering different groups of people so that historically in the 
U.S. Congress, whenever authorizing legislation has been passed, it is, 
for the most part, substantially higher than the amount appropriated by 
the Appropriations Committee, which has the single and sole authority 
to appropriate money.
  I do not believe anyone is going to stand in this Chamber today and 
say the education committee appropriated this money and each Senator 
who offered an amendment that was voted on, whether it was adopted 95-0 
or by 2 votes, whatever the case may be--nobody is going to say that 
amendment was appropriating money, making money available to the 
Department of Education to do certain things.
  Those amendments and the basic underlying bill create a policy or an 
authorizing gamut from which the appropriators fund some or all of what 
is in authorizing legislation.
  We have set about in the Senate to adopt many amendments. I am quite 
certain that when the appropriations bill comes to the floor, if we 
want to take every one of these amendments and stand up before the 
Senate and say, ``I want to offer this amendment to the appropriations 
bill because I want to add more money,'' I am sure it will be 
considered. The question is, will it be adopted? The question is, will 
it be automatic? I think the answer is, we do not know whether it will 
be adopted when it comes to appropriating, and certainly there is no 
question that it has not yet been appropriated.
  I say in this amendment--and I think everybody who is concerned about 
education funding ought to vote for it--the following: This bill before 
us, without the remaining amendments that are still to be adopted, 
currently authorizes at least $30 billion in discretionary spending for 
elementary and secondary education programs in fiscal year 2002--$30 
billion at least that we voted on in the bill and with the authorizing 
amendments.
  Likewise, if you take the multiple years covered by this 
authorization bill, 2002 to 2008, the bill authorizes more than $300 
billion for these same programs, the ones we are currently funding in 
the next finding I made. Currently we are funding these programs at 
$18.4 billion a year. We are almost doubling that, and then over a 
number of years we are more than doubling the funding that is currently 
being applied to these programs.
  After I make these findings, I conclude very simply:

       It is therefore the Sense of the Senate that: The 
     Appropriations Committee shall fund the authorizations in 
     this bill to the maximum extent possible.

  That means that is exactly what is going to happen, and we ought to 
go ahead and recognize it and urge the appropriators to do this. It 
does not matter what we say in this bill. Unless we choose to take over 
the reins of appropriating and put it in this bill, it does not matter 
what we vote for, it matters what the appropriators give to fund this 
bill.
  They already know that whatever the budget is, education is given the 
highest priority. In fact, education of a comparable nature to what I 
have been speaking of goes up 11.4 percent in the basic budget of the 
President and in the basic budget that was adopted by the Congress.
  Even those numbers are not binding because the appropriators will 
decide out of all the priorities how much they want to take away from 
other programs or exceed the budget to put more of that in education. 
That is the prerogative of the committee with the consensus and, in 
some instances, perhaps a 60-vote majority being required. The Senate 
and the House will decide how much of the authorizing bill that is 
going to be adopted either Friday or next week shall be funded by the 
appropriators.
  I certainly do not come before the Senate saying I know which 
programs ought to be funded by the appropriators. I happen to be on the 
Appropriations Committee, but in due course they will have their own 
hearings, as we do all the time. This is not a rarity, to pass an 
authorizing bill that has much more in it than the appropriators pay 
for, and they are not doing anything wrong by not funding it as much as 
is authorized. That is the prerogative of the appropriators.
  In simple language, I hope everybody who is interested in maximizing 
the appropriation of money to the education programs, all of which are 
encapsulated in this bill which Senator Kennedy has been managing since 
they took the majority and Senator Judd Gregg has managed on our side--
it is a very good bill, one that for the first time has some major 
changes. We might, in fact, look back in a few years and say that bill 
that was debated all those days caused us to do some things very 
differently than we have in the past. Who knows, if you listen to the 
President, if you listen to some in this Chamber who advocate these new 
ideas, it may very well be that we will have improved the results of 
our National Government's money going to States for school systems that 
are either run by the district or by county.
  I compliment those who have participated in this bill. I voted for a 
number of the amendments, but certainly the truth is that the 
Appropriations Committee will decide how much of that they can afford 
under the budget they will have before them, and the Senate will decide 
on an appropriations bill as the matter comes up: How many more of 
these new programs do you want to fund in the year 2002?

[[Page 10626]]

  I believe the Senate has adopted many provisions that will not be 
funded. Certainly, I am not talking about title I, but I am talking 
about many of the amendments, maybe even some that this Senator has 
offered that are part of this very large authorizing bill. But I will 
not be surprised if some of those I have offered and some of those 
others have offered will not be funded by the appropriators as we work 
our way through the 13 appropriations bills.
  It is all right with me if Senators want to say everything else will 
have to be reduced and changed because we are going to fund in 
appropriations every single amendment that has been offered to this 
bill, we will fund them in their entirety. If one wants to vote for 
that, that is fine. Perhaps one can vote for that, and perhaps one can 
vote for the Domenici amendment that says, do the maximum 
appropriators; do the maximum amount you can under the budget 
restraints you will be living under as appropriators.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for the courtesy. The Senator from 
California and I offered this amendment not for every time the 
authorization strays from the appropriation--we know it does that a 
lot--but for two reasons: One, we wish to make education a top 
priority. That is what the President has said, that is what some 
Members in speeches have said. Yet when we look at what has been newly 
authorized, it brings us to a level of $37 billion.
  What is in the budget that the then-chair of the Budget Committee 
proposes was $20.1 billion, which is only $1.7 billion higher than last 
year? So I ask my friend from New Mexico to give a little elaboration 
on what the phrase ``to the maximum extent possible'' means. Is only 
$1.7 billion possible? We have walled off military spending in the 
budget the good Senator has proposed. We have a separate offset for 
agriculture.
  The Senator from California and I fear, if left on its own, education 
will get no new funding or very little new funding and this debate will 
be for naught. I ask my colleague to elaborate, since he is our expert 
from that side of the aisle on the budget, what does ``to the maximum 
extent possible'' mean? How much money is left for education? Is it 
closer to the $37 billion level in this authorization or to what I 
consider very small and not sufficient $20 billion, a $1.7 billion 
increase over last year?
  I thank the Senator for yielding for that question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask the Senator if he has better numbers than I 
do. The bill currently authorizes at least 30. Are you suggesting that 
is 37? I will live with your numbers. Does the Senator think it is $37 
billion we have authorized in this bill?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I say to my colleague, it is probably a little more than 
37, but we added up everything we could get our hands on, and it comes 
to 37.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let's say it is somewhere between 30 and 37 and perhaps 
even between 30 and 40 is authorized in this bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will yield, I think that number is less 
important than the number that we think we will actually appropriate. 
That is the purpose of the amendment.
  In the budget we have only appropriated an additional $1.7 billion as 
opposed to $20 billion more that is authorized. I would like to come 
closer to the $20 billion than the $1.7 billion, particularly if we 
want to be the ``education Senate,'' particularly if the President 
wants to be the ``education President.''
  In talking about education, pictures going to school are not going to 
educate our kids. It is the real dollars that do. I ask my colleague, 
just with his knowledge, which far exceeds my knowledge, to give us 
some ballpark of what ``to the maximum extent possible,'' might mean.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First of all, I am certainly not trying to avoid that. 
I am very prepared to answer it. If you will relax for a minute and let 
me answer it, we will all have a nice afternoon.
  First, let me say it may shock everyone to hear this, but frankly the 
Appropriations Committee will decide what that number is. In all 
honesty, they will decide that. But they won't decide it based on this 
authorization bill. They will do it based upon what they want to 
establish as the priorities for expenditures for fiscal year 2002.
  But if the Senator wants to know what numbers were offered by the 
budget as it cleared the Congress--and these are not binding; these are 
assumptions--then I will tell you that the budget resolution assumed 
$6.2 billion more than the President. So it is $6.2 billion added to 
$18.4 billion which makes it a total of $24.6 billion that is assumed 
in the budget resolution as being fundable.
  I am not going to stand here and say they will fund that much, nor am 
I going to say they will fund that little. The truth is, unless the 
Senate chose today to pass a statute and it got signed by the President 
and it said the appropriators are going to appropriate and they are 
hereby ordered to appropriate the amount of money contained in this 
bill, then there is nothing we can do about it. They are going to do 
what they think is right based upon the available resources and what 
the Senate at large decides as these appropriations come forward.
  I did not come to the floor to prejudge what they would do. I came to 
the floor to make sure everybody understands that an authorizing bill 
is very different than an appropriations bill. It has been different 
forever. I shouldn't say forever, but essentially for about 70 years we 
have had both appropriations and authorizations. They really are not 
the same. I regret to say we have even appropriated when there is no 
authorization for many parts of our Government. We have not authorized 
for years and the appropriators pay for the function of Government 
anyway.
  I am comfortable that this Senate and the Appropriations Committee 
will maximize, as I indicated, the resources they put into education. I 
am confident because it has been the will of this Senate over and over 
as we vote that we put more rather than less in education. So I think 
that will happen.
  Having said that, I think it is pretty clear that ``maximum'' is a 
dictionary definition. It is not a number definition. It just says the 
most you can. Whatever you are looking at, do to the extent possible. 
Do the most for education. That is what I put in my resolve clause 
because I think, honestly, to vote for anything other than that is to 
deny the reality of what is going to happen, prejudged, preordained by 
the rules we follow in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts 
has yielded to me his 10 minutes. How much time remains on our side, 
which I believe is my time plus the time of the Senator from 
Massachusetts?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 12 minutes. The 
Senator from New Mexico has 4 minutes 12 seconds. The Senator from New 
Hampshire has 20 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask my colleague from New Hampshire if he wants to 
take some of his time now since we are down on our side and the Senator 
from New Hampshire has the full 20 minutes, unless he desires to yield 
most of it back. I will take 5 minutes, and I know the Senator from 
California will take 5 minutes, and that is it. We are finished on our 
side.
  Mr. GREGG. I say to the Senator from New York, that seems reasonable. 
I will speak for a few minutes and reserve time. I will reserve 10 
minutes to balance out with that side.
  We are into a numbers game obviously. I am not sure that will have a 
positive impact on how this bill is perceived because the essence of 
this bill is the policy. Authorizing bills are about policy. I think 
people need to understand that. Authorizing committees tend to put 
numbers on bills but appropriating committees spend the money.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I can state that as much 
as we admire the authorizing committees, sometimes we act independently 
of the authorizing committee. The key to an

[[Page 10627]]

authorizing bill is the policy that is laid down relative to 
educational reform.
  In this bill, there is a lot of very interesting, very significant 
policy, the purpose of which is to depart from a course that has 
regrettably produced year after year of failure in educating our low-
income children, and move on a course which will hopefully give our 
children from low-income families a better opportunity to learn and be 
competitive with their peers, and therefore participate in America and 
the prosperity of our Nation.
  The basic themes of the policy in this bill, as I have outlined a 
number of times, is that it is child centered. It involves giving more 
flexibility to local communities and the teachers and the parents and 
the principals. In exchange for that flexibility, it builds in a desire 
to see much greater academic achievement on the part of low-income kids 
who today, regrettably, read at two or three grade levels less than 
their peers and graduate at a 50-percent rate from high school. It has 
significant accountability standards to make sure those academic 
achievements are accomplished.
  The policy in this bill is strong. It is unique in the sense of the 
tradition of Federal involvement in education in that it takes a new 
road to a large degree.
  The authorizing levels in this bill, however, are really not that 
relevant to what is going to happen, in my humble opinion. The reason I 
say that is because it has become almost a form of gamesmanship on this 
floor to constantly throw more money into the number at the authorizing 
level. All you have to do is look at what we have done in the last few 
weeks to recognize that.
  Over the last few weeks we have added into this budget, into this 
bill, literally huge increases in the authorized level. We have 
increased the authorization level by 47 percent in the mandatory area, 
adding $112 billion. Over the term of the bill, which would be 7 years, 
we have added $211 billion, for a 101-percent increase.
  In the year 2000, we have increased the authorizing level by $11 
billion, bringing the total to $38.8 billion, or a 120-percent 
increase. That has all been done in about a week's time, maybe a week 
and a half, as we picked up speed over the last few days.
  We need to put that in context. This bill has been on this floor 
before. We have heard from the other side that we have to authorize and 
then we have to appropriate to the highest level possible to achieve 
the most significant results because money translates into achievement. 
Of course we know money doesn't translate into achievement. But even if 
we were to accept that argument, and we were to go back a few years--
for example, the last time this bill was authorized, back in 1994-
1995--we would find the enthusiasm for bumping up the authorizations 
when we had a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress was not 
quite so high. It could have been at that time they were dealing with 
reality versus politics.
  At that time, when the authorizing bill came through, the ESEA 
authorizing bill came through, the actual increase in educational 
spending that resulted from it was .012 percent--.012 percent. In fact, 
the actual educational funding was cut in that year by $484 million. 
The increase in title I specifically was less than 6 percent in that 
year.
  You might say there was a deficit then so Congress had to be much 
more restrained in its activity. But I would point out that at that 
time the Senator from Massachusetts represented that the bill as it was 
passed and authorized--remember the authorization levels were 
essentially no increase at all--he said it was the most important 
reauthorization of ESEA since that landmark act was passed in 1965. So, 
obviously, at that time at least the chairman of the committee thought 
it achieved the goals it was supposed to have achieved. In fact, he 
went on to hail its academic accountability standards. It would achieve 
those levels at the levels it was authorized or else he would not have 
said it was such a great bill.
  I do not know what has changed in 6 years, other than we have a 
different President and a different Congress. Yes, we do have a 
surplus. But as a practical matter, if the bill was so good and strong 
when there was virtually no authorization increase, why today do we 
have to have an authorization increase which has, just in 7 days, 
jumped so radically? Remember when this bill came out of committee the 
authorization increases in it were already exceeding 100 percent of 
what the underlying authorized levels were when we started out. So we 
are talking about 100 percent on top of 100 percent.
  I also note if spending on education has to be so aggressively 
pursued in order to accomplish the goals of better education, somebody 
must not have informed the prior President of that. The prior 
President's increases in title I spending, President Clinton's 
increases, were rather small--not only during the period that we had a 
deficit but during the period that we had the surplus, from 1998-1999. 
In the period of surplus, the increased proposal was $36 million; in 
1999 his increased proposal was $219 million; in the year 2000-2001 he 
proposed a $401 million increase in title I funding.
  In the area of special education, he essentially proposed no increase 
in 1998, 1999, 1999-2000, and then in 2000-2001 he proposed an 
increase.
  As a practical matter, President Clinton, who I believe was committed 
to education--in fact, when I was Governor and he was Governor we held 
an education conference down in Charlottesville, as I recall--was one 
of the leaders on the issue. I state he certainly maintained that view 
throughout his Presidency. He thought he could accomplish his goals on 
education during a period of surplus with the dollars he outlined.
  What is President Bush suggesting? I think that brings us sort of 
into a complete circle. President Bush has suggested a very significant 
increase in funding. Remember, President Clinton's request was $401 
million. President Bush's funding request in this area is $500 million. 
That was his request.
  In negotiations leading up to bringing this bill to the floor, the 
President went well beyond that request and, in fact, has offered an 
increase in title I funding which represents a 50-percent increase in 
funding in 1 year.
  In the special education area, President Bush has proposed the 
largest single increase ever proposed by a President in special 
education funding. President Bush has proposed a 50-percent increase, 
or offered a 50-percent increase in title 1 funding as part of the 
negotiations leading up to this bill. He has proposed in his budget a 
$500 million increase, which is $100 million more than President 
Clinton proposed, and he has proposed the single largest increase in 
special education funding ever proposed by a President.
  It is reasonably disingenuous to take the position that this 
President isn't committed to education on the policy side, and also on 
the spending side, to support that policy, because he has walked the 
walk and made the proposals to accomplish it, which brings us to the 
question of what is the purpose of this sense of the Senate amendment.
  It is to ask the appropriating committee to fully fund authorizations 
which have come at us on this floor for the last 5 or 7 or 8 days--it 
has in actuality been 14 days since we really went on the bill in an 
intense way--authorizations which, as I mentioned earlier, represent in 
those few days an over 120-percent increase in this year's budget, a 
100-percent increase in the 7-year budget representing $211 billion, 
and a 47-percent increase in special education funding. I think you are 
going to have trouble with the appropriating committee to accomplish 
that. We have to be realistic.
  I suppose when the defense authorizers come to the floor they might 
offer the same type of SOS, and they might say we want defense 
authorizations fully appropriated also. They would probably have a 
pretty good case for that because the obligation of the National 
Government is national defense.
  Then I suspect when the health committee, which I happen to be a 
member

[[Page 10628]]

of, and which this committee comes out of, comes forward with the 
authorization levels for NIH, for which we have significantly increased 
the appropriations, or for some other health activity which is very 
important, such as prescription drugs, or whatever the item might be, 
we are going to ask for full appropriations their, too.
  The list goes on and on. The obligations of the Federal Government 
are significant.
  But when you increase the authorizations on the floor of the Senate 
by 120 percent in 7 days on a bill that came out which had almost a 
100-percent increase in it to begin with, and you increase the 
authorization by $200 billion on a bill which came out with already 
$235 billion in it when it hit the floor, which was a significant 
increase, a dramatic increase over present law, I think you are making 
a statement: Yes; that you want a commitment to education, but I think 
you are also probably acknowledging realistically that you are never 
going to hit those goals.
  It is just not reasonable to expect that the appropriations committee 
is going to have that type of change sitting in its pocket to move into 
this area. But when the President of the United States comes forward 
and says he is committed to a 50-percent increase in funding for title 
I, that is pretty significant.
  When the President of the United States comes forward and offers the 
biggest increase in history that a President has ever asked in special 
education, I think the Appropriations Committee will take that 
position.
  In the end, I believe these accounts will receive the very 
significant dramatic increases that they deserve. In fact, it is very 
obvious from the President's proposal that the education accounts are 
going to receive the largest rate increase ever by a factor probably of 
100 percent or maybe more--200 or 300 percent--of any accounts in the 
Federal Government. The only agency that will probably be able to 
compete and the only area where competition will be even close will be 
NIH where we are committed to doubling funding over a period of time. 
But I don't think even the NIH increases as a percentage are going to 
be anywhere near the percentage of increases we are going to see coming 
as a result of this President's commitment to education.
  Once again, I suspect that this amendment, although well-intentioned, 
is going a bit beyond what reality is as far as the Congress functions 
because I think we all understand that the appropriating committees do 
not necessarily listen to authorizing committees when it comes to 
money. Authorizing committees define policy. That is our primary 
responsibility. We have done a good job of it in this bill.
  Because of the President's commitment in this area, I am pretty 
confident that the appropriating committee will make a dramatic 
increase in the spending commitment to education which will allow us to 
accomplish policies that we hopefully are going to pass with this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New 
Hampshire have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 3 and a 
half minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this is really where the rubber 
meets the road. Are we serious about the work we have accomplished? I 
went over this in great detail. I don't know if the Chair can read this 
from his seat. I have listed all the bipartisan programs that we have 
added to this bill, beautiful programs such as IDEA, increasing 
funding, teacher quality, some of these my colleague worked very hard 
on himself, mental health programs, these were all added in a 
bipartisan fashion. It adds up here to $10 billion more than is in the 
Bush budget. We know that we even have done more.
  The Schumer-Boxer amendment is important because what we say is all 
of this hard work, all of this coming together, all of this 
bipartisanship, all of this work for the children of America should be 
funded. Very simply put, that is exactly what Senator Schumer and I are 
doing in this amendment. It is a sense of the Senate.
  What is the argument that the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, 
has lodged against the Schumer-Boxer amendment? First he looked at the 
Senator from New York, and I guess the Senator will remember, and he 
said: I hope the Senator from New York will relax and we will all have 
a happy afternoon. Then he went on to say: It is impossible to fund 
this. That is not a happy afternoon for any of us who care about kids. 
But I also want to say to my friend from New York, do not relax until 
every child in New York, every child in New Jersey, every child in 
California, every child in Mississippi, Louisiana and every other State 
has a good quality public education.
  I hope you will not listen to that advice. I hope you will stay 
focused, as you always do, on these issues and keep giving us these 
kinds of amendments so we make sure we mean what we say and we say what 
we mean.
  The Senator from New Mexico said some other things too. He said to 
the Senator from New York and to the Senator from California: You can't 
tell the Appropriations Committee what to do. That is ridiculous. And 
in your amendment you are saying, fund these programs to the extent of 
the authorization. We are not telling them what to do. We are passing a 
sense of the Senate.
  One, we are not telling them what to do. We are asking them to 
consider the sense of the Senate that these programs should be fully 
funded.
  I want to make another point and I wish the Senator from New Mexico 
was on the floor. His comments were really disingenuous. He was 
chairman of the Budget Committee when the Budget Committee came out 
with the budget. Do you know what he did? My friend from New York knows 
it well. He not only set the size of the tax cut, which the Finance 
Committee has jurisdiction over, but he also made that whole debate 
filibuster-proof. Did he tell us what to do? Oh, yes, he did. Did he 
also make sure that agriculture spending would be protected? He sure 
did. Do you know that the chairman of the Budget Committee had the 
authority to decide the increases in agriculture, not the 
Appropriations Committee, and do you know that the chairman of the 
Budget Committee--it is no longer Senator Domenici; it is now Senator 
Conrad, a sort of twist of fate--said that the chairman of the Budget 
Committee is now going to decide how much we are going to spend on the 
military. So when the Senator from New Mexico chastises the Senator 
from New York and the Senator from California and says----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the Senator from California one additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 additional 
minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when the Senator from New Mexico tells 
these two Senators--who have a simple sense of the Senate that we agree 
only carries moral authority, doesn't tell them exactly what to do--we 
are overstepping our bounds, I have to say that is amazing to me 
because that is coming from my friend--I served with him on the Budget 
Committee for many years--who actually gave power to the chairmen of 
the committees to say what the appropriate level should be for military 
spending and ag expending. I do not see it.
  You will note, that committee did not stand up for education. They 
said we could have a piece of the extra $6 billion that may be lying 
around. All we are saying is, give education a chance to be fully 
funded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I hope my colleagues will support the Schumer amendment.

[[Page 10629]]

  I thank my colleague from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, our leader on education, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair tell me when there are 30 seconds 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what this debate is really about is 
whether we, as a body, are going to be satisfied with the budget that 
has been proposed by the President and the Republicans that gives a $1 
billion increase in IDEA and a $700 million increase for the title I 
program, or whether we are going to try to fund ESEA, the title I 
program, for the full funding, whether we are going to fund ESEA the 
way bipartisan votes over the last 3 days have indicated is the desire 
of this body.
  I hear a great deal about the budget, but the budget isn't law. Do we 
understand that? The budget isn't law. In this body, we have the 
ability and the power--if we believe in something--to pass legislation 
that is going to fund the programs the way they should be funded. That 
is what this battle is about.
  With all respect to my good friend from New Mexico, his proposal is a 
cop-out. It says: As much as possible. We know what is possible. He was 
the chairman of the Budget Committee. They are going to follow the 
Budget Committee, and that is going to be peanuts for educating the 
children of this country. You cannot educate children with a tin cup. 
You cannot do it on the cheap. You have to invest in them.
  That is what the Schumer amendment is all about. That is why, if we 
believe that education is important, and that we want to reach all of 
the children--not just a third--if you want to reach just a third in 
fiscal year 2008, you vote with Senator Domenici. That is exactly what 
you are going to do. But don't make any more speeches about ``we are 
not going to leave any child behind.'' Put those speeches away. Put 
those speeches away forever. That is what this vote is about.
  We have the opportunity of funding it so no child is left behind. It 
is as simple as that. One is just a cop-out. The other is a 
reaffirmation and statement of what has happened in the Senate Chamber 
over the period of these past weeks. And it is a statement and a 
comment that we are going to commit ourselves to work every single day 
for the remaining time of this session, and during the appropriations 
battles, and after that every single time, to invest in the children 
and the future of this Nation. That is what the Schumer amendment is 
all about. That is why it should be supported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Almost 4 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts. One day, if I am here a long time, I might be able to 
reach 10 percent of his eloquence. And I would be happy with that. He 
sums it up just perfectly.
  Let me say, first, in reference to my good friend from New Mexico, he 
says the budget does not have room to appropriate all that is 
authorized. In the budget he put together, they walled off military 
spending, they walled off transportation spending, they walled off 
agriculture spending. They said they are going to get what they need.
  What is really wounding to those of us who believe so much in 
education is not simply that education was not walled off but the 
doublespeak that is going on in this Capitol.
  The President did not campaign as the military President. He did not 
campaign as the agriculture President. He is not busy taking pictures 
with big trucks as the transportation President. He campaigned as the 
education President.
  Then they hand up a budget whose increase in actual spending is 
miserly. To say this is doublespeak is kind. This is why the American 
people despise Washington, because there are all the photo 
opportunities and all the slogans, and then when it comes to actually 
putting the money on the table to help keep our country No. 1--by 
educating it--we come up with 100 excuses.
  Where are the excuses for the military? Where are the excuses for 
agriculture? Where are the excuses for transportation? This is just not 
right. This is just not fair.
  We spent 2 weeks debating education in a bipartisan way. We talked 
about how we are coming together. And then we find that the amount of 
money the budget will allow is a $1.7 billion increase. That is what 
the President proposed? Less than President Clinton, much less than 
President Clinton's increase in the previous 3 years when we had a 
surplus.
  If you don't want to fund education, don't say you are the 
``education President.'' If you don't want to fund education, don't say 
you are the ``education Senate.'' Don't talk about leaving no child 
behind when you are leaving 80 percent of the children behind with this 
budget.
  Is this amendment that the Senator from California and I have put 
together a foolproof amendment? Is it foolproof? No. It is a sense of 
the Senate. It is saying: Let's live up to our promises, our promises 
not to ourselves but our promises to the children of America and the 
people of America who we said we were going to help.
  This amendment simply says: Put your money where your mouth is. Don't 
give a lot of speeches, don't do a lot of photo opportunities unless 
you spend it. We know they can do it if they want. The Domenici 
amendment, which says ``do as much as possible,'' is the most elastic 
check I have ever seen. No one will cash it.
  So, my colleagues, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Domenici amendment, 
which will not provide the necessary funding for our kids, and a 
``yes'' vote on the Schumer-Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Is that all the time remaining on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is all the time remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the energy of the Senator from 
New York, but I cannot agree with his position. The fact is, we finally 
have a President who is focused on education, who is focused on the 
fact that we, as a nation, and as a federal government, have totally 
failed in our responsibility to low-income children. We have spent over 
$120 billion of taxpayers' money, and we have still left the low-income 
child behind in America.
  We finally have a President who has said: No longer are we going to 
tolerate this. We are not going to tolerate taking taxpayers' money and 
allegedly using it to benefit the low-income child, and finding out 
that generation after generation of low-income children have not been 
able to realize the American dream because they have not been able to 
get an education. We have a President who has finally stood up for the 
low-income child and his or her right to receive a decent education in 
our country.
  We brought a bill to this Chamber. It isn't exactly what I wanted, I 
know it isn't exactly what the other side wanted, but it has, as its 
essence, the elements that will bring about some significant changes in 
the way we deliver education in this country, especially on behalf of 
low-income children. And, more importantly--or equally as important--
the President has said: I am going to support that policy with dollars. 
He has put on the table more dollars than the prior President ever put 
on the table, by a factor, in the area of title I, of about, by my 
calculations, 10. In the area of special ed, he has proposed the single 
largest increase ever proposed by a President.
  The simple fact is, this President has backed up his commitment to 
education with a commitment of dollars. What we have seen on the floor 
for the last 12 days is a lot of Members who want to put out a press 
release saying they have increased it even more. And so they know when 
we are using authorization money, that we are using

[[Page 10630]]

funny money to some degree. The real money comes out of the 
Appropriations Committee. We know that when the Appropriations 
Committee meets, it is going to make its decisions no matter what the 
authorization committee says because that is the way it has worked 
around here since time immemorial, or at least in this century.
  As a practical matter, what we can do that is constructive is pass a 
good bill that has good policy and also make it clear to the 
Appropriations Committee that we expect them to fund education to the 
fullest extent possible, which is what the Domenici amendment requests 
and what is reasonable.
  We have somebody backing us up on this, and that is the President, 
who has already said that the number proposed in the budget is 
something he is going to exceed, again by a factor of potentially 10, 
or somewhere in that range, in the area of title I.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico had an additional 4 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from New Mexico has yielded his time to me, so 
I claim the Senator's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield back the time and ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Domenici amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Schumer-Boxer amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Domenici 
amendment No. 801, as modified. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The amendment (No. 801), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 800

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 4 minutes is evenly 
divided between the Senators from New York and the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I assume I have 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield 1 minute to my colleague on this amendment, the 
Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have been working for 7 or 8 weeks on 
this bill. What is wonderful about it is we have worked on it under the 
Republican leadership and now under the Democratic leadership. What we 
have done is quite extraordinary. We have truly made education a 
priority in this Nation.
  This chart lists all of the good things we have added to this bill 
over and above the Bush budget. Members from both sides of the aisle 
have added these amendments, whether afterschool, IDEA, title I, 
teacher quality. I don't even have time to go through the whole list in 
a minute.
  In our amendment, the Schumer-Boxer amendment, we are saying we 
should fund this bill. We should fund these programs. We should lift 
these kids up and deliver on the rhetoric and the promises we have 
made.
  It is a very simple amendment. I urge the support of Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It says we 
ought to do what we say we are going to do. We have made and the 
President has made education a hallmark of this election campaign and 
this new Congress, beginning in Washington. It would be the cruelest of 
broken promises to have a debate for weeks and then not actually 
appropriate the money we say we are going to appropriate.
  The present budget resolution cannot do it. It has a paltry $1.7 
billion increase, not enough to even do one-quarter of what we say we 
are going to do on title I, let alone all the other priorities.
  If Members want to put their money where their mouth is, if Members 
want to give the people in America faith in the system, that we do not 
just debate things but we do things, Members will vote for this 
amendment that says it is the sense of the Senate that we ought to 
appropriate what we are authorizing. This is for the kids of America. I 
urge a bipartisan vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it has been the history of the Senate 
that we authorize legislation and we appropriate or pay for legislation 
that has been adopted. In this case, this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution stands that on its head and says, whatever it is we voted on 
to be authorized, we shall fund. The appropriators shall pay for it.
  Now, historically we always authorize more than we can afford. We are 
doing the same thing in this bill. As a matter of fact, if that sense 
of the Senate were adopted, we would increase education 100 percent in 
the first year--not 10, not 20, not 30, but 100 percent. Over the next 
7 years, we would increase it by $300 billion. This has nothing to do 
with the President's commitments. It has to do with the Senate taking a 
typical authorization bill and adding all kinds of nice, good, 
wholesome, wonderful amendments that we are not going to pay for 
because we don't have the money. The appropriators will pay for what 
they can afford. We cannot tell the appropriators in advance; they have 
a myriad of programs to look at in terms of priorities, and we would be 
telling them it is the sense of the majority of Members saying: 
Appropriators, you will; you shall; there is no escape; you will pay 
for every amendment that has been adopted as if it were appropriated.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed, I am pleased to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while I support many of the provisions in 
this bill, and I support increased Federal aid for education, I think 
this amendment is premature. I did not vote for the previous amendment 
upon which

[[Page 10631]]

the Senate just acted. At this time, appropriators have no idea what 
the conference report on this bill will resemble. We have no idea what 
the final dollar amount for this bill will be. We may not know that 
final amount for several weeks. It would be misleading to commit to any 
particular dollar figure before we see where the conference report on 
this bill shows us to be. To do otherwise is to ask the Appropriations 
Committee to buy a pig in a poke.
  I will not support this amendment. I did not support the previous 
amendment.
  To jump in now and to commit to an unknown funding level, I think, as 
an appropriator, is irresponsible. As an appropriator, I cannot do 
that. I will not do that. And if this continues, we will see more and 
more of these amendments that try to put the Senate on record and 
committing the Appropriations Committee to bind itself to a money 
figure before we really know all the facts.
  Resources are scarce this year and we will have to stretch and strain 
to meet this Nation's needs. Premature commitments will only make the 
difficult job of appropriating more difficult. To use an old West 
Virginia expression: I'll roll up my britches when I get to the creek. 
We will do the best we can when we have more information.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 800. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The amendment (No. 800) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand, if there is going to be 
a little lull in the routine right now, I thought I would take 
advantage of this opportunity to advise the Senate that, at my request, 
the managers' amendment, No. 585, to this bill includes a new provision 
in the Early Reading First Program. The Early Reading First Program is 
designed to improve the language and early literacy development of 
children ages 3 through 5. Reading, as we all know, is the most 
important and fundamental skill for children to learn.
  This new provision in the bill will allow the use of Federal funds 
and authorize the appropriation of funds for dissemination of a reading 
readiness screening tool that is based on top quality research for 
children in this age group.
  The National Council on Learning Disabilities has developed such a 
tool which is based on the report and research that was reviewed by the 
National Reading Panel.
  To acquaint the Senate with the work that has been done in this area, 
the National Reading Panel was created at our suggestion as a result of 
legislation that was introduced back in 1997. Subsequently, the report 
accompanying the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor-HHS and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act called on the National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development and the Department of Education to form a panel to 
evaluate existing research on the teaching of reading to children, to 
identify proven methodologies, and suggest ways for dissemination of 
this information to teachers, parents, universities, and others.
  As a result of that initiative and the work that was done, there has 
been published one example of this initiative. It is prepared by the 
National Center for Learning Disabilities.
  With this legislation that is identified by me in this amendment in 
the managers' package, this is the kind of material that will be 
disseminated with the use of Federal funds to schools, to universities, 
to departments of education at universities, and others who are 
interested in the latest and best information about how to teach young 
children who have reading difficulties, and new techniques for teaching 
those who will acquire developmental skills at a faster rate and more 
efficiently, to equip them to be successful in the early grades of 
school.
  So I bring this to the attention of the Senate to let everyone know 
that there has been, over time, a very successful effort, first by the 
research institutes at the National Institutes of Health, to do some 
fundamental research into why children have difficulties learning to 
read, and things that can be done to help overcome those difficulties.
  That research has now been used by the Department of Education 
because of legislation we adopted in the past, and now we have come to 
the point where there are some specific programs and practices that are 
being recommended throughout the country as a result of the work of the 
National Reading Panel whom we charged with the job of translating 
those research findings into teaching practices and techniques.
  What this research has told us--just as an example--is that 75 
percent of children with reading difficulties who are not identified by 
the time they reach age 9 will still have poor reading skills at the 
end of high school; 80 to 90 percent of children identified with 
learning disabilities have their primary deficits in reading and 
language-based processes; research provides reliable ways to determine 
whether children as young as age 4 are developing the fundamental 
skills necessary to learn to read; and last, early identification and 
effective, early intervention can dramatically reduce the numbers of 
students failing in reading.
  Back in April of last year, the panel submitted its report to 
Congress at a hearing of our Senate Appropriations subcommittee chaired 
by Senator Specter of Pennsylvania. Some of the most important research 
that I hoped could be made available to teachers and parents is the 
information about the skills young children need to have in order to be 
ready to read and, beyond that, how to help them attain those skills. 
This dissemination of a user-friendly predictor of reading readiness 
will ensure that more children arrive at school with the skills they 
need, and early identification of those children who need extra help 
will be possible.
  This amendment will finally ensure that parents and teachers have 
available the first tool they need to begin

[[Page 10632]]

the important steps to learning to read.
  The Department of Education's monthly publication ``Community 
Update'' for April 2001 features an article by Dr. Reid Lyon, chief of 
the Child Development and Behavior Branch at the National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development. He says in the article:

       Today's teachers have a number of resources that can help 
     them discriminate between research that can be trusted and 
     research that cannot be. One such resource is The Report of 
     the National Reading Panel.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Dr. Reid Lyon's 
article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Solid Research, Solid Teaching

                           (By G. Reid Lyon)

       Teachers frequently tell me that they see little value in 
     basing their teaching practices on the results of 
     ``educational research.'' They point out that the research 
     reports are difficult to understand, frequently do not apply 
     to the specific children they are teaching, and often reflect 
     ``turf battles'' between academics espousing different 
     research philosophies.
       I know firsthand the devastating effect that poor quality 
     research has on teaching practices and the trust teachers 
     have in educational research. As a brand new third-grade 
     teacher in the mid-1970s, I was responsible for teaching 28 
     students of varying abilities and backgrounds. Unfortunately, 
     many of my students had not yet learned basic reading skills 
     and were clearly floundering in almost every aspect of their 
     academic work.
       However, the university courses that I had taken to become 
     certified as an elementary school teacher led em to believe 
     these youngsters would learn to read when they were ready. 
     Likewise, my school's reading curriculum was based on the 
     assumption that learning to read was a natural process, 
     similar to learning to listen and speak. Thus children did 
     not need to be taught basic reading skills in a systematic or 
     direct manner.
       At the beginning of the year, a third of my students read 
     so slowly and inaccurately that they could not comprehend 
     what they read. Their spelling was also nothing to write home 
     about. Unfortunately, by the end of the year, these same 
     students continued to read slowly and inaccurately. The only 
     change I could discern was that their motivation to read had 
     waned--they would actually avoid reading--and their self-
     esteem had suffered considerably. Likewise, I felt like a 
     failure as a teacher.
       It wasn't until later in my research career that I learned 
     that the way I was trained to teach reading, and the way that 
     the reading series recommended that literacy concepts should 
     be taught, were based upon research that was questionable at 
     best. Indeed, I came to learn later that the assumptions upon 
     which the instructional philosophy and methods rested had 
     never been adequately tested through well-designed studies.
       Today's teachers have a number of resources that can help 
     them discriminate between research that can be trusted and 
     research that cannot be. Now, when almost every reading 
     program and set of instructional materials are said to be 
     ``research-based,'' teachers need to know that many of these 
     products are based upon beliefs and dogma rather than on 
     scientific data.
       One such resource is the The Report of the National Panel--
     An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research 
     Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading 
     Instruction, available free by request at 
     www.nationalreadingpanel.org. The report is published jointly 
     by the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
     Development, the U.S. Department of Education, and the 
     National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). NIFL, a government 
     agency that disseminates evidence-based information on 
     reading, is also developing information and tools 
     specifically for teachers.
       All teachers want to do the best for their students. When 
     our children learn, everyone wins. Solid, research-based 
     approaches can help children do just that!

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                 Amendment No. 516, As Further Modified

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 516, as modified, and ask 
that it be further modified with the language I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 586, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS OF 
                   DILAPIDATED OR ENVIRONMENTALLY UNHEALTHY PUBLIC 
                   SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN AND THE 
                   HEALTHY AND HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS PROGRAM.

       Title IV, as amended by this title, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                   ``PART E--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 4501. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS 
                   OF DILAPIDATED OR ENVIRONMENTALLY UNHEALTHY 
                   PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Study Authorized.--The Secretary of Education, in 
     conjunction with the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention and in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
     Secretary of Energy, shall conduct a study on the health and 
     learning impacts of dilapidated or environmentally unhealthy 
     public school buildings on children that have attended or are 
     attending such schools.
       ``(b) Study Specifications.--The following information 
     shall be included in the study conducted under subsection 
     (a):
       ``(1) The characteristics of public elementary and 
     secondary school buildings that contribute to unhealthy 
     school environments, including the prevalence of such 
     characteristics in public elementary and secondary school 
     buildings. Such characteristics may include school buildings 
     that--
       ``(A) have been built on contaminated property;
       ``(B) have poor in-door air quality;
       ``(C) have high occurrences of mold;
       ``(D) have ineffective ventilation, heating or cooling 
     systems, inadequate lighting, drinking water that does not 
     meet health-based standards, infestations of rodents, 
     insects, or other animals that may carry or cause disease;
       ``(E) have dust or debris from crumbling structures or 
     construction efforts; and
       ``(F) have been subjected to use of pesticides, 
     insecticides, chemicals, or cleaners, lead-based paint, or 
     asbestos or have radon or other hazardous substances 
     prohibited by Federal or State Codes.
       ``(2) The health and learning impacts of dilapidated or 
     environmentally unhealthy public school buildings on students 
     that are attending or that have attended a school described 
     in subsection (a), including information on the rates of such 
     impacts where available. Such health impacts may include 
     higher than expected incidence of injury, infectious disease, 
     or chronic disease, such as asthma, allergies, elevated blood 
     lead levels, behavioral disorders, or ultimately cancer. Such 
     learning impacts may include lower levels of student 
     achievement, inability of students to concentrate, and other 
     educational indicators.
       ``(3) Recommendations to Congress on how to assist schools 
     that are out of compliance with Federal or State codes to 
     achieve healthy and safe school environments, how to improve 
     the overall monitoring of public school building health, and 
     a cost estimate of bringing all public schools up to such 
     standards.
       ``(4) The identification of the existing gaps in 
     information regarding the health of public elementary and 
     secondary school buildings and the health and learning 
     impacts on students that attend dilapidated or 
     environmentally unhealthy public schools, including 
     recommendations for obtaining such information.
       ``(5) The capacity (such as the district bonded 
     indebtedness or the indebtedness authorized by the district 
     electorate and payable from the general property taxes levied 
     by the district) of public schools that are dilapidated or 
     environmentally unhealthy to provide additional funds to meet 
     some or all of the school's renovation, repair, or 
     construction needs.
       ``(6) The degree to which funds expended by public schools 
     to implement improvements or to address the conditions 
     examined under this study are, or have been, appropriately 
     managed by the legally responsible entities.
       ``(c) Study Completion.--The study under subsection (a) 
     shall be completed by the earlier of--
       ``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act; or
       ``(2) not later than December 31, 2002.
       ``(d) Public Dissemination.--The Secretary shall make the 
     study under this section available for public consumption 
     through the Educational Resources Information Center National 
     Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities of the Department of 
     Education.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the 
     conduct of the study under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 4502. HEALTHY AND HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     `Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001'.
       ``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist 
     local educational agencies

[[Page 10633]]

     in the production of high performance elementary school and 
     secondary school buildings that are energy-efficient and 
     environmentally healthy.
       ``(c) Program Establishment and Administration.--
       ``(1) Program.--There is established in the Department of 
     Education the High Performance Schools Program (in this 
     section referred to as the `Program').
       ``(2) Grants.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, may, through the Program, 
     award grants to State educational agencies to permit such 
     State educational agencies to carry out paragraph (3).
       ``(3) State use of funds.--
       ``(A) Subgrants.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this section shall use the grant funds made 
     available under subsection (d)(1)(A) to award subgrants to 
     local educational agencies to permit such local educational 
     agencies to carry out the activities described in paragraph 
     (4).
       ``(ii) Limitation.--A State educational agency shall award 
     subgrants under clause (i) to the neediest local educational 
     agencies as determined by the state and that have made a 
     commitment to use the subgrant funds to develop healthy, high 
     performance school buildings in accordance with the plan 
     developed and approved pursuant to clause (iii)(I).
       ``(iii) Implementation.--

       ``(I) Plans.--A State educational agency shall award 
     subgrants under subparagraph (A) only to local educational 
     agencies that, in consultation with the State educational 
     agency and State offices with responsibilities relating to 
     energy and health, have developed plans that the State 
     educational agency determines to be feasible and appropriate 
     in order to achieve the purposes for which such subgrants are 
     made.
       ``(II) Supplementing grant funds.--The State educational 
     agency shall encourage qualifying local educational agencies 
     to supplement their subgrant funds with funds from other 
     sources in the implementation of their plans.

       ``(B) Administration.--A State educational agency receiving 
     a grant under this section shall use the grant funds made 
     available under subsection (d)(1)(B)--
       ``(i) to evaluate compliance by local educational agencies 
     with the requirements of this section;
       ``(ii) to distribute information and materials on healthy, 
     high performance school buildings for both new and existing 
     facilities;
       ``(iii) to organize and conduct programs for school board 
     members, school district personnel, and others to disseminate 
     information on healthy, high performance school buildings;
       ``(iv) to obtain technical services and assistance in 
     planning and designing healthy, high performance school 
     buildings; and
       ``(v) to collect and monitor information pertaining to the 
     healthy, high performance school building projects funded 
     under this section.
       ``(4) Local use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--A subgrant received by a local 
     educational agency under paragraph (3)(A) shall be used for 
     renovation projects that--
       ``(i) achieve energy-efficiency performance that reduces 
     energy use to at least 30 percent below that of a school 
     constructed in compliance with standards prescribed in 
     Chapter 8 of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code, 
     or a similar State code intended to achieve substantially 
     equivalent results; and
       ``(ii) achieve environmentally healthy schools in 
     compliance with Federal and State codes intended to achieve 
     healthy and safe school environments.
       ``(B) Existing buildings.--A local educational agency 
     receiving a subgrant under paragraph (3)(A) for renovation of 
     existing school buildings shall use such subgrant funds--
       ``(i) to achieve energy efficiency performance that reduces 
     energy use below the school's baseline consumption, assuming 
     a 3-year, weather-normalized average for calculating such 
     baseline
       ``(ii) and to help bring schools into compliance with 
     Federal and State health and safety standards.
       ``(d) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State receiving a grant under this 
     section shall use--
       ``(A) not less than 70 percent of such grant funds to carry 
     out subsection (c)(3)(A); and
       ``(B) not less than 15 percent of such grant funds to carry 
     out subsection (c)(3)(B).
       ``(2) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve up to 1% per 
     year from amounts appropriated under subsection (f) to assist 
     State educational agencies in coordinating and implementing 
     the Program.
       ``(e) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a biennial 
     review of State actions implementing this section, and shall 
     report to Congress on the results of such reviews.
       ``(2) Reviews.--In conducting such reviews, the Secretary 
     shall assess the effectiveness of the calculation procedures 
     used by State educational agencies in establishing 
     eligibility of local educational agencies for subgrants under 
     this section, and may assess other aspects of the Program to 
     determine whether the aspects have been effectively 
     implemented.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out 
     this section--
       ``(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2011.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Healthy, high performance school building.--The term 
     `healthy, high performance school building' means a school 
     building which, in its design, construction, operation, and 
     maintenance, maximizes use of renewable energy and energy-
     efficient practices, is cost-effective, uses affordable, 
     environmentally preferable, durable materials, enhances 
     indoor environmental quality, and protects and conserves 
     water.
       ``(2) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means 
     energy produced by solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or 
     biomass power.''.
       (f) Limitations.--No funds received under this section may 
     be used for--
       (1) payment of maintenance of costs in connection with any 
     projects constructed in whole or in part with Federal funds 
     provided under this Act;
       (2) the construction of new school facilities;
       (3) stadiums or other facilities primarily used for 
     athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which 
     admission is charged to the general public.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last week I offered this amendment to 
address two critical concerns faced by our schools that often do not 
rise to the forefront of our education debate but frequently have a 
direct impact on how well our children can learn and how much it costs 
to run the average school in our country.
  The first issue is ensuring that our children attend schools that are 
environmentally sound in order to protect their health and well-being.
  The second issue is helping schools save money on their energy bills 
by providing them with resources to become more energy efficient. Our 
schools can then reinvest those energy savings where they belong, into 
educational resources such as books or computers or more training for 
teachers, which can really make a difference in the lives of children.
  I understand that since the time I offered this amendment, there has 
been some concerns that the amendment might help to fund new school 
construction or renovation projects. Let me be very clear that while I 
do support a Federal role in school modernization, construction, and 
renovation, this amendment is not intended to address the unmet needs 
of our Nation's schools when it comes to construction and renovation.
  I have offered this amendment because I am very concerned that we 
simply do not have a comprehensive understanding of the problems 
children face who attend environmentally unhealthy or dilapidated 
schools. There are no nationwide statistics or in-depth research to 
help us know and understand the extent of the problems in our schools.
  While the majority in this body may not agree that the Federal 
Government should have a role in helping States and localities 
construct and renovate public schools, I do strongly believe--and 
believe there should be broad support for the proposition--that we must 
understand better the health and educational impacts children may face 
if they attend schools that have environmentally unhealthy conditions, 
or that the deterioration of the schools are such that it affects a 
child's health.
  Every day, in old or poorly maintained school buildings around the 
country, students of all ages sit in classrooms where they are forced 
to breathe in stale air or even mold spores that make them sick and 
could have long-term debilitating effects on their abilities to learn.
  We know from a 1996 GAO study that 15,000 schools in our country have 
indoor pollution or ventilation problems affecting over 11 million 
children and that, furthermore, as many as 25 million children 
nationwide are attending schools with at least one unsatisfactory 
environmental condition. But we often have no idea whatsoever what 
effects these so-called ``sick" schools have on the students who attend 
them.
  At least once a week I read stories in the press such as the one I 
found in the New York Post this morning. The Post reported that while 
doing work on subway stations in the Bronx, transit

[[Page 10634]]

crews chipped lead paint into the air, with no protection to catch that 
paint, which then fell into the yard of a public school filled with 
students from kindergarten through to the seventh grade.
  I also know the Presiding Officer is deeply concerned about something 
we recently learned, which is that playground equipment is sometimes 
treated with arsenic and that arsenic-treated playground equipment is 
then put into the playgrounds of our schools. The Presiding Officer has 
been a leader in trying to end this terrible practice so that we 
protect our children who, based on my experience--being one once a very 
long time ago, but having raised my own and going to many playgrounds--
children do the strangest things. They roll on the ground. They put the 
dirt in their mouths. They bite the playground equipment. You never 
know what a child may do. That is my point. We have to be sure the 
environment in which our children attend school and the playgrounds on 
which they play are not causing them harm.
  In that 1996 GAO study, we found that two-thirds of the schools that 
were investigated were not in compliance with requirements to remove or 
correct hazardous substances, including asbestos, lead, underground 
storage tanks, and radon.
  Experts believe that exposures during the early years, when children 
are developing, can have severe long-term effects. Even more alarming, 
a recent study indicates that children exposed to levels of lead now 
considered safe may be at risk of lead poisoning from peeling paint.
  Listen to this new research conducted by the Children's Hospital 
Medical Center of Cincinnati, OH, showing that children who have less 
than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood experience a decline 
in their IQs. There was an average of a 5.5-percent drop in a child's 
IQ for every 10-microgram increase in lead. Children in this study 
experienced hearing loss, speech delay, balance difficulties, and even 
tendencies toward acting out and violent behavior.
  I am also concerned that we are facing a soaring rate of asthma 
across the country. The epicenter is in New York City and California, 
but it affects every State in the Union. The indoor air quality of our 
schools must be examined to find out whether or not it is contributing 
to this skyrocketing rate of asthma, which is the leading cause of 
school absenteeism.
  These bits and pieces of research, only a few of which I have shared 
in these remarks, paint a picture of a problem that we must learn more 
about. Groups around the country have done a great job bringing this to 
our attention.
  I, again, applaud the Healthy Schools Network in Albany, NY, for all 
the tremendous work it has done to document this problem in New York 
State. Since I introduced this amendment, I have been pleased to 
receive the endorsement of the American Lung Association, the Asthma 
and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Public Health 
Association, the Institute of Children's Environmental Health, the 
Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network, the New York City Board of 
Education, the Parent Teacher Association, the American Federation of 
Teachers, and the Children's Environmental Health Network.
  The American Public Health Association recently passed a resolution 
calling for further research on the extent and impact of children's 
environmental health and safety risks and exposures at school and 
prevention measures, including research sponsored by the U.S. 
Department of Education. This amendment would authorize $2 million for 
a study conducted by the Department of Education, in conjunction with 
the Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection 
Agency, to evaluate the health and learning impacts of environmentally 
unhealthy and dilapidated public school buildings, the impacts on 
children who have attended or are attending such schools. We would ask 
the researchers specifically to determine the characteristics of our 
public elementary and secondary school buildings that contribute to any 
unhealthy environment.
  In addition to this study, I have also called for resources to help 
our States and local school districts make their schools healthier and 
more energy efficient. I am very pleased I was able to work closely 
with Senator Murkowski to align my amendment with a concept he had 
included in his comprehensive energy bill to help our schools become 
more energy efficient.
  Both the chair of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, and the 
ranking minority member, Senator Murkowski, have offered their support 
for this amendment. They recognize the importance of helping our 
schools become more energy efficient and being able to increase our 
energy supply while paying for the cost of energy.
  The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that schools could save 25 to 
30 percent of the money they spend on energy. That is about $1.5 
billion. And they could achieve this through better building design, 
using energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies, and improving 
operations and maintenance.
  About 2 weeks ago, I went to Kingston, NY. I visited a school 
district that is ahead of the curve, which got a grant to do exactly 
what the grants in this amendment would provide. They have already 
saved--in this rather small school district--$400,000. Because of that, 
I put out this brochure, ``Smart Schools Save Energy.'' It is to 
promote energy efficiency in New York State schools. We have 
distributed it to every single superintendent in New York.
  It talks about what can be done to save energy costs. The catch is, 
as superintendents have told me, there is no money in their current 
budgets to do this. It is kind of a catch-22 problem. If they could 
save the money from energy use, then they would have the money to put 
into other needs, such as better teacher training and the like.
  This amendment provides the grants that will help schools make their 
buildings healthier and more energy efficient. By incorporating 
provisions of legislation I recently introduced, the Healthy and High 
Performance Schools Act of 2001, we will be able to provide more 
information about the materials to be used and to help districts 
organize and conduct programs for school board members and personnel 
and to help provide compliance with Federal and State codes to make 
each of our schools healthier and more energy efficient.
  I stress that, while these funds could not be used to construct new 
buildings, they would help schools assess how they can become more 
energy efficient when and if they do renovate their schools, which 
would save money in the long run.
  This is the kind of common sense help we could provide to our schools 
around the country. I believe we owe it to our students and certainly 
to the parents who send their children off to school every day to make 
sure there is nothing at all in any schoolroom in any school building 
or on any school playground that could harm their child. If we 
undertake this study, we will be able to give the kind of information 
and help that every parent and every school district needs, and we will 
be able to provide assistance to make sure schools are energy 
efficient, which will save money.
  As we have talked now for weeks, trying to provide the resources to 
enable our children to learn is the primary goal of every single one of 
us here.
  I would be very grateful for support for this amendment to enable 
this to come about as part of our overall educational reform efforts.
  I ask for a vote on the amendment, and I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the order of business at this 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Clinton amendment 
No. 416.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now turn 
to amendment No. 604, an amendment I have offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Clinton 
amendment? The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page 10635]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are ready for action on the Clinton 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Sessions now be recognized to call up amendment No. 604, as modified, 
and that following the reporting of the amendment by the clerk, Senator 
Harkin or his designee be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment 
regarding IDEA, which is at the desk; further, that there be 1 hour for 
debate on the amendments with 15 minutes under the control of each of 
the following Senators: Harkin, Sessions, Kennedy, and Gregg; further, 
when the Senate resumes consideration of the education bill at 9 a.m. 
on Thursday, there will be an additional 60 minutes for closing remarks 
provided as above; further, upon the use or yielding back of the time, 
the Senate vote in relation to the Harkin amendment, followed by 4 
minutes of debate, 2 minutes on each side, and a vote in relation 
thereafter to the Sessions amendment.
  Following that, the Senate will resume consideration of the Helms 
amendments Nos. 574 and 648.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, my 
concern would be if I may give my remarks first, before Senator Harkin. 
I am concerned about that. That would be my request.
  Mr. REID. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alabama object?
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator withdraw his objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. My request was that I be allowed to speak first.
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the pending amendment is laid aside, and the 
Senator from Alabama is recognized.


          Amendment No. 604, As Modified, To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 604, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 604, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:


                     AMENDMENT NO. 604, AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
                         regarding discipline)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

                TITLE __--INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

     SEC. __01. DISCIPLINE.

       Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(n) Uniform Policies.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State 
     educational agency or local educational agency may establish 
     and implement uniform policies regarding discipline and order 
     applicable to all children under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency to ensure the safety of such children and an 
     appropriate educational atmosphere in the schools under the 
     jurisdiction of the agency.
       ``(2) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A child with a disability who is removed 
     from the child's regular educational placement under 
     paragraph (1) shall receive a free appropriate public 
     education which may be provided in an alternative educational 
     setting if the behavior that led to the child's removal is a 
     manifestation of the child's disability, as determined under 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (k)(4).
       ``(B) Manifestation determination.--The manifestation 
     determination shall be made immediately, if possible, but in 
     no case later than 10 school days after school personnel 
     decide to remove the child with a disability from the child's 
     regular educational placement.
       ``(C) Determination that behavior was not manifestation of 
     disability.--If the result of the manifestation review is a 
     determination that the behavior of the child with a 
     disability was not a manifestation of the child's disability, 
     appropriate school personnel may apply to the child the same 
     relevant disciplinary procedures as would apply to children 
     without a disability.''.

     SEC. __02. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.

       Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) (as amended by section __01) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Discipline Determinations by Local Authority.--
       ``(1) Individual determinations.--In carrying out any 
     disciplinary policy described in subsection (n)(1), school 
     personnel shall have discretion to consider all germane 
     factors in each individual case and modify any disciplinary 
     action on a case-by-case basis.
       ``(2) Defense.--Nothing in subsection (n) precludes a child 
     with a disability who is disciplined under such subsection 
     from asserting a defense that the alleged act was 
     unintentional or innocent.
       ``(3) Limitation.--
       ``(A) Review of manifestation determination.--If the 
     parents or the local educational agency disagree with a 
     manifestation determination under subsection (n)(2), the 
     parents or the agency may request a review of that 
     determination through the procedures described in subsections 
     (f) through (i).
       ``(B) Placement during review.--During the course of any 
     review proceedings under subparagraph (A), the child shall 
     receive a free appropriate public education which may be 
     provided in an alternative educational placement.''.

     SEC. __03. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       (a) In General.--At the written request of a parent (as 
     defined in section 602(19)(A) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act) of a child with a disability (as 
     defined in section 602(3) of such Act), a local educational 
     agency in which the child resides, or a State educational 
     agency that is responsible for educating the child, may 
     transfer the child to any accredited school that--
       (1) is specifically designed to serve children with 
     disabilities;
       (2) is selected by the child's parents;
       (3) agrees to accept the child; and
       (4) carries out a program that the local educational 
     agency, or State educational agency, if appropriate, 
     determines will benefit the child.
       (b) Payment to School; Limitation on Further 
     Responsibility.--
       (1) In general.--For each year for which a child with a 
     disability attends a school pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     local educational agency or State educational agency shall 
     pay the school, from amounts available to the agency under 
     part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, an 
     amount equal to the per-pupil expenditure for all children in 
     its public elementary and secondary schools, or, in the case 
     of a State educational agency, the average per-pupil 
     expenditure for the State, as defined in section 3(2) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (2) Transfer.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     a local educational agency or State educational agency that 
     transfers a child with a disability to a school under 
     subsection (a) shall have no other responsibility for the 
     education of the child while the child attends that school.
       (c) Use of Funds; Additional Charges to Parents.--A school 
     receiving funds under subsection (b)(1)--
       (1) shall use the funds only to meet the costs of the 
     child's attendance at the school; and
       (2) may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, charge 
     the child's parents for the costs of the child's attendance 
     at the school that exceed the amount of those funds.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is a real problem in education 
today in kindergarten through 12th grade. Anybody who talks to teachers 
at any length, as I have, will realize that discipline is a key problem 
for teachers, principals, and administrators. It undermines the ability 
of learning in the classroom, and it is not a healthy environment too 
often. It is a real challenge today.
  Children are always difficult to manage, and in today's world I think 
it is more so than in the past. I have been to quite a number of 
schools in my State over the last year--maybe as many as 20. Each time, 
I spent a good deal of time with teachers and principals and sometimes 
superintendents

[[Page 10636]]

and board members. We talked about what is going on. I can say with 
absolute certainty that they told me over and over again that the 
biggest problem they see from the Federal Government is the discipline 
rules that have been set forth under the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act.
  I suggest that if anybody is doubtful about that, call a 
schoolteacher they know and talk to them about what is being said and 
what is occurring within their schools. I was amazed. It is a Federal 
mandate. It is a law that has the best of all intentions to deal with 
disabled children, and I support it entirely. But there have been some 
unintended consequences in how children are disciplined in a classroom. 
We have absolutely created two classes of children for the purpose of 
discipline.
  I have had teachers tell me: Jeff, last year in this very school a 
child who was a disabled child sold marijuana to two other children. 
The two who bought it were removed from school. The one who sold it, 
because he was disabled, could not be removed from school under Federal 
law. I have had circumstances where another teacher told me about two 
children who brought a gun to the parking lot. They didn't bring it 
into the school, but they violated the school rules, and one that was 
disabled was able to stay in school. The teacher said: Every time I see 
that other child who was removed from our classroom, I know and he 
knows that another who did the very same act was not removed from the 
school.
  In addition to that, there are extraordinary problems within the 
classroom. I want to share some comments and letters I received from 
teachers in my State. I don't believe it is different from around the 
country. At one of our hearings that Senator Jeffords chaired last 
year, a superintendent from Vermont came and testified that 20 percent 
of his school district's budget goes to IDEA students. It is a matter 
of great importance. We want to give them the highest possible 
opportunity to succeed, but we also want to be sure we aren't creating 
a circumstance that makes learning more difficult in the classroom than 
it ought to be.
  Let me read to you from a special education program coordinator's 
letter. This person works with special ed kids. He said:

       Thank you for your efforts to amend IDEA 97.

  We thought that was going to help when it passed in 1997. Teachers 
and principals are telling me it made the situation worse. It didn't 
help.

       The restrictions inherent in this legislation have the 
     potential to cripple a school system beyond repair. Although 
     my job is to advocate for students with disabilities, I also 
     feel a responsibility to protect the rights of all children 
     to an appropriate education.

  An elementary school principal wrote:

       Today, general educators at all grade levels must deal with 
     a large number of students who are challenged. Having to deal 
     with these behavior problems and to constantly change 
     behavior interventions not only takes away from important 
     instructional time, but inadvertently reinforces a disabled 
     child's behavior. All class rules should apply to all 
     students. Therefore, they should have the same disciplinary 
     actions.

  A middle school principal wrote:

       I am a middle school principal of a great school with 
     wonderful children. I have witnessed the evolution of IDEA 
     and am very concerned about the impact these regulations have 
     on public education. This issue is causing many fine teachers 
     to reconsider their choice of professions after a few years 
     in education.

  Most of us know that most teachers who decide to give up the 
profession do so because of discipline problems and the frustrations of 
trying to maintain discipline in the classroom.
  A high school principal wrote:

       I am writing to support your efforts to change some of the 
     current special education laws. The current laws are very 
     frustrating in dealing with disruptive pupils. In order for 
     us to maintain and provide a safe environment for all 
     students, your provisions must be made in the law.

  A city school superintendent wrote this:

       In the short time since these regulations have been in 
     effect, numerous instances have taken place involving special 
     ed students where hardships, disruptions, and chaos have 
     resulted from restraints placed on the administrators by the 
     new regulations.

  Another superintendent wrote:

       We have written to advise you of our frustrations with 
     trying to implement the 1997 amendments to IDEA relating to 
     classroom discipline of disabled students. Classroom teachers 
     must devote a significant amount of time and attention to 
     address behaviors that interfere with the learning of 
     students with disabilities or their required disciplinary 
     action. Often this time and attention is to the detriment of 
     the other students in the classroom and valuable 
     instructional time is lost.
       It is of a particular concern to me as a superintendent to 
     know that the roles and responsibilities of both our general 
     and special educators have been redefined to the degree that 
     teachers and administrators cannot act immediately when the 
     situation demands it.
       Our teachers and administrators are committed to serving 
     all children, regardless of needs, in a fair and equitable 
     manner. If we don't teach these children right from wrong at 
     a young age, how can they learn to act as good law-abiding 
     citizens as adults.

  Another one writes:

       There have been several students with disabilities at our 
     school who totally disrupt the learning environment of the 
     regular classroom. They yell out, try to run away, are 
     defiant and create havoc in the classroom. The teachers are 
     required to spend so much time with these disruptive students 
     that the other students are missing out on the quality 
     instruction they need to be successful. I hope that when you 
     consider changes in IDEA, you will not lose sight of those 
     other students who need to be provided with quality 
     education.

  The letters go on. I will add one more:

       I have dealt with several instances over the last 3 years 
     in which special education students have disrupted classrooms 
     and threatened administrators and teachers.

  I have heard that more than once.

       In many cases, their parents use psychologists and lawyers 
     to create a climate of intimidation.

  Another teacher wrote me this letter. I thought it was particularly 
poignant:

       As a special educator of 6 years, I consider myself on the 
     front lines of the ongoing battles that take place on a daily 
     basis in our Nation's schools. I strongly believe that part 
     of the ammunition that fuels these struggles are the rights 
     guaranteed to certain individuals by IDEA 97. The law, though 
     well-intentioned, has become one of the single greatest 
     obstacles that educators face in their fight to provide all 
     our children with a quality environment education delivered 
     in a safe environment.
       There are examples that I can offer firsthand. However, let 
     me reiterate, I am a special educator. I have dedicated my 
     life to helping children with special needs. It is my job to 
     study and know the abilities and limitations of such 
     children. I have a bachelor's degree in psychology and 
     master's degree in special education and a Ph.D. in good old 
     common sense. Nowhere in my educational process have I been 
     taught that a certain few disabled students should have a 
     right to endanger the right to an education of all other 
     disabled children. It's nonsense, it's wrong, it's dangerous, 
     and it must be stopped.
       There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost 
     by teachers in dealing with behavioral problems. In times of 
     an increasing competitive global society, it is no wonder 
     that American students fall short. Certain students are 
     allowed to remain in the classroom robbing the other children 
     of hours that can never be replaced. There is no need to 
     extend the school day. There is no need to extend the school 
     year.
       If the politicians would just make it possible for 
     educators to take back the time lost on a daily basis, there 
     is no doubt we could have a better educated student. It is 
     even more frustrating when it is a special education child 
     who knows and boasts that ``they can't do anything to me,'' 
     and he is placed back in the classroom to disrupt it day 
     after day, week after week.
       It is clear that IDEA 97 not only undermines the 
     educational process, it also undermines the authority of 
     educators. In a time when our profession is being called upon 
     to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources, 
     our credibility is being stripped from us. I am sure you have 
     heard the saying that teachers are scared of the principals, 
     the principals are scared of the superintendents, the 
     superintendents are scared of the parents, the parents are 
     scared of the children, and the children are scared of no 
     one. And why should they be?
       I have experienced the ramifications of the new and 
     improved law firsthand. I had one child attempt to assault 
     me. He had been successful with two other teachers. He was 
     suspended for 1 day. I had another child make sexual gestures 
     to me in front of the entire class. Despite the fact that 
     every child in my class and a majority of the children in the 
     school knew of it, I was told by my assistant principal that 
     nothing could be done because special-ed kids have rights.
       I literally got in my car to leave that day, but my 
     financial obligations to my family and my moral 
     responsibility to my children I had in my class kept me 
     there. The particular child I spoke about frequently made

[[Page 10637]]

     vulgar comments and threats to my girls in my class on every 
     opportunity he had when there was no adult present. 
     Fortunately, the girls, also special-ed, could talk to me 
     about it. Unfortunately they had to put up with it because 
     nothing could be done.
       I know of a learning disabled child who cut a girl in a 
     fight. The child and her parents then attempted to sue the 
     school system because the child was burned when she grabbed a 
     coffee pot to break it over another child's head.
       I know of another specific incident where three children 
     brought firearms to school. The two regular children were 
     expelled; the special-ed student was back in school the 
     following week.
       I fully expect that you and your colleagues in Washington 
     will do what it takes to take our schools back from this 
     small group of children who feel it is their right to 
     endanger the education of every other child in the school. As 
     my grandmother said, right is right and wrong is wrong, and 
     to enable this to continue is wrong.

  There are other letters. I want to read one more from a student. It 
makes the point, I think, very well:

       I am a 14-year-old 8th grader. I have a problem. There is 
     this girl that goes to school with me, and she is an ADD 
     student.

  A disabled student.

       She has been harassing me for no reason. She has pretty 
     much done everything from breaking my glasses to telling me 
     she is going to kill me. This really bothers me because she 
     is an ADD student and the only punishment she ever gets is a 
     slap on the hand. My principal says there is not much he can 
     do because of her status. I asked, what would happen if I 
     threatened her back? And he told me I would be suspended from 
     school and forced to stay away. The most she has ever gotten 
     is 3 days in-school suspension. I think this is wrong. She 
     scares me, and I'm tired of this. It has been going on for 5 
     months, and it's really getting scary.

  Mr. President, it is a very small percentage of disabled students who 
are behaving in this way, but even a few who would do so make it very 
difficult for the schoolteachers and principals to conduct a safe 
class. It is an important issue for us. In terms of all the things we 
are doing here, if you talk to your teachers in your school systems, if 
we can make some improvement in this situation, they would feel as 
though Congress has listened to them and has responded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for an additional 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time did I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You asked for an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Originally, when I began.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You had 15 minutes when you began.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry, I thought it was 30.
  I conclude by saying this amendment I offer will say this, and this 
is very important. It is a very modest attempt at improving the 
situation. If a child is a disabled child and their misbehavior is not 
connected to their disability, then they can, and I think should, be 
treated like any other child in the school.
  If a child has a nervous condition and cannot control himself, then 
that child ought to be placed in an environment within the school that 
is healthy for him, and this law would require that. They could not be 
removed from school if their actions or misbehavior were connected to 
that disability, but if they had perhaps a movement disability and they 
are selling dope, they ought to be treated like any other child in the 
school. That is what this amendment says.
  No. 2, it says if a school acts on a child, that they can take them 
out of a mainstream classroom and place them in another classroom until 
a hearing has been conducted about an individual educational plan for 
that child so they can be provided special education. Under current 
law, they have to be back in the classroom at least within 45 days, and 
in other circumstances, less than that. They go right back in before a 
determination can be made. This will give more flexibility to 
principals and teachers.
  Finally, under current law, if a school believed that a student could 
be sent to a school for the blind, for example, and this doesn't have 
anything to do with discipline, the State or local school system could 
pay the tuition and let that child go to the school for the blind. The 
trouble is, the special schools often cost a lot of money. The school 
system does the best they can with their own programs. My parent would 
expand options for these parents. If parents think others might be 
better, this amendment says if the school agrees and if the parents 
agree, they can take the value of the tuition that child has and go to 
a special school that has the ability to deal with that disability.
  There are some superior schools for the blind, for the deaf, perhaps 
better than most public schools. A lot of families sacrifice to send 
their children there. This funding could assist them in making that 
choice, to the benefit of the child. It is purely an option that, I 
think, is healthy and benefits disabled children. I can't imagine 
anyone not supporting it.
  I believe this is a modest amendment that will begin to help in some 
way to deal with an unfortunate situation. So many of the children do 
so well. The vast majority of our disabled children do exceedingly 
well, and we have great programs.
  This bill we are passing today provides unprecedented new funding for 
IDEA. We are excited about those possibilities, but we ought to deal 
with this particular problem that is disrupting our schools.



  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator be good enough to help 
me understand the Senator's amendment? Is it the Senator's position 
that if the child is disciplined and the discipline is a reflection of 
the form of disability, does the Senator agree there should be 
alternative educational services available to that child?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do. In fact, to that extent, we continue a double 
standard for a child. The school would have the option to move the 
child to an alternative setting, but not remove him from the school or 
not deny educational services.
  My amendment does that. It says if the discipline problem is a 
product or related to their disability then the child may not be denied 
educational services.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If it falls under that category, you are still for 
providing the services, which I think is very important.
  As I understood the amendment, would the services be required to be 
provided in a school that was just for the disabled?
  Mr. SESSIONS. No.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Page 4 of the amendment suggests they have alternative 
educational services and that may be in some other setting, some 
alternative setting.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say it this way: Most school systems are required 
under Federal law to provide educational services. If they have special 
needs, they have to provide them. Many children have an individual, one 
single individual who goes with that single child all day long to help 
them.
  Our amendment gives one little option that, I think, would be helpful 
to parents or teachers. It says if the parents came in and believed a 
school for the blind or a school for the deaf down the street has a 
better program than public education, and the school agreed, and it is 
a certified school for that disability, they could ask for, if the 
school agreed, funding to go to that other school.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I know the Senator has included ``is selected by the 
child's parents,'' so you have parental involvement. It is not the 
concern that many have, that the child might just be put in a setting 
which would be just for special needs children and then it would be the 
resegregation of disabled children. I see in this language you have 
``selected by the child's parents.'' It is designed to serve children 
with disabilities, and if the place agrees to accept the child and it 
carries out a program that a local or State educational agency finds is 
appropriate and will benefit the child.
  The Senator can see the concern about whether that would be a dumbing 
down kind of a process in education. It would be a quality educational 
opportunity that would be

[[Page 10638]]

suitable for that child. That is the concern. I don't know whether 
there are ways of addressing that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. First, let me say thank you so much, and to your staff, 
for giving careful attention to this. Many items have been included 
because you have suggested them. You are asking questions that are 
important.
  As a result of our discussions with lawyers who deal with these 
issues, school people, your staff and others, we made this language 
crystal clear. It says a local educational agency responsible for 
educating a child may transfer the child to an accredited school if it 
is selected by the child's parents and carries out the program and the 
school determines that program would benefit the child. In other words, 
both the parents and the school must agree. The parents cannot say: I 
want to take my money and take my child to this school. The school 
would have to agree. The parents would have to agree. That provides the 
protection from abuse that might otherwise occur.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is where the payment comes into effect because you 
would have to offset the expenses for that child and there would be the 
allocations of resources for offsetting the payment and for education 
for that institution; is that right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. It could not exceed the average daily 
expenditure cost of the child and it could be only used for the 
education of the child.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What happens to the child with a disability who has a 
behavioral problem that is not related to the disability?
  Mr. SESSIONS. If their discipline or behavioral problem is not 
related to their misbehavior, then this language will say they would be 
treated like any other child who misbehaves in school, subject to 
discipline, suspension, or other disciplinary action a school would 
normally impose.
  I know you would like to say any child, perhaps, could have an 
alternative, but I am not sure we have the funding to do that. But I 
don't think in this instance if their misbehavior is not connected to 
their disability, they should be treated preferentially to another 
child.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What is the experience in the Senator's own State as to 
how school districts deal with the children? Do they provide 
alternative educational experiences or not?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think most schools are doing a pretty good job. As 
the Senator knows, the Federal Government committed to pay 40 percent 
of IDEA costs and never paid much more than 10 percent or 15 percent of 
that. This bill would fully fund that 40 percent.
  But under the law--and there are groups of parents who meet, advocacy 
groups, and lawyers who are active in Alabama and every State--if they 
are emotionally disturbed children and they cannot control themselves, 
they cannot be removed from school as a result of that. If they are a 
danger to themselves or others then they can be provided services in an 
alternative setting, perhaps, but they cannot be denied educational 
services. That is the universal in the United States.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his response to the questions. 
There are some others maybe I could talk about with the Senator in the 
morning. There is an alternative to the Sessions amendment. But we will 
look forward to the presentations in the morning. As I understand it, 
the Senator will have a half hour, Senator Harkin or his designee will 
have a half hour to get into the description of the alternative. Then 
we will make a judgment.
  I appreciate the response of the Senator to the questions. I thank 
him.


   Amendments Nos. 369 As Further Modified, 484 As Modified, 441 As 
 Modified, 549 As Modified, 446 As Modified, 555 As Further Modified, 
                And 609, en block, to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this evening we are in a position to 
clear amendments by unanimous consent. I therefore ask unanimous 
consent it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc, 
any modifications where applicable be agreed to, the amendments be 
agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. These include amendments No. 369, Feinstein; No. 484, 
Bingaman; No. 441, Lugar-Bingaman; No. 549, Hagel; No. 446, DeWine; No. 
555, Hutchison; No. 609, Feinstein. And I ask unanimous consent to 
vitiate the yeas and nays on No. 555.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                 amendment no. 369, as further modified

   (Purpose: To specify the purposes for which funds provided under 
              subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used)

       On page 137, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC.   . LIMITATIONS ON FUNDS.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 1120B (20 U.S.C. 6323) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1120C. LIMITATION OF FUNDS.

       ``An LEA may not use funds received under this subpart for:
       ``(A) purchase or lease of privately owned facilities;
       ``(B) purchase or provision of facilities maintenance, 
     gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the 
     payment of utility costs:
       ``(C) the construction of facilities;
       ``(D) the acquisition of real property;
       ``(E) the payment of travel and attendance costs at 
     conferences or other meetings other than travel and 
     attendance necessary for professional development; or
       ``(F) the purchase or lease of vehicles.''
                                  ____



                      amendment no 484 as modified

           (Purpose: To amend education technology programs)

       On page 16, line 4, insert ``servers and storage devices,'' 
     before ``video''.
       On page 16, line 5, insert ``and other digital'' after 
     ``web-based''.
       On page 16, line 7, strike ``environments for problem-
     solving'' and insert ``learning environments,''.
       On page 182, line 16, insert ``, including education 
     technology such as software and other digital curricula,'' 
     after ``materials''.
       On page 317, line 16, insert ``, including through a grant 
     or contract with a for-profit or nonprofit entity'' after 
     ``activities''.
       On page 317, line 26, insert ``, including technology 
     literacy'' after ``skills''.
       On page 319, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       ``(12) Encouraging and supporting the training of teachers 
     and administrators to effectively integrate technology into 
     curricula and instruction, including the ability to collect, 
     manage, and analyze data to improve teaching, decision making 
     and school improvement efforts and accountability.
       ``(13) Developing or supporting programs that encourage or 
     expand the use of technology to provide professional 
     development, including through Internet-based distance 
     education and peer networks.
       On page 325, line 18, insert ``, including through a grant 
     or contract with a for-profit or nonprofit entity'' after 
     ``activities''.
       On page 326, line 2, strike ``and''.
       On page 326, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 326, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       ``(D) effective integration of technology into curricula 
     and instruction to enhance the learning environment and 
     improve student academic achievement, performance, technology 
     literacy; and
       ``(E) ability to collect, manage, and analyze data, 
     including through use of technology, to inform teaching.
       On page 326, line 11, insert ``, other for profit or 
     nonprofit entities, and through distance education'' after 
     ``education''.
       On page 344, line 5, strike ``and''.
       On page 344, line 10, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 344, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       ``(5) improve and expand training of math and science 
     teachers, including in the effective integration of 
     technology into curricula and instruction.
       On page 348, line 8, strike ``and''.
       On page 348, line 15, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 349, line 10, insert ``and technology-based 
     teaching methods'' after ``methods''.
       On page 349, line 19, strike ``experiment oriented'' and 
     insert ``innovative''.
       On page 356, line 21, strike the period and insert ``, and 
     to improve the ability of institutions of higher education to 
     carry out such programs''.
       On page 358, line 17, insert ``both'' after ``would''.
       On page 358, line 24, strike the semi colon and insert 
     ``and to improve the ability of at least 1 participating 
     institution of higher education as described in section 
     2232(a)(1) to ensure such preparation;''.
       Beginning on page 360, strike line 23 through line 7, page 
     361, and insert the following:

[[Page 10639]]

       ``(A) learn the full range of resources that can be 
     accessed through the use of technology;
       ``(B) integrate a variety of technologies into the 
     curricula and instruction in order to expand students' 
     knowledge;
       ``(C) evaluate educational technologies and their potential 
     for use in instruction;
       ``(D) help students develop their technical skills; and
       ``(F) use technology to collect, manage and analyze data to 
     inform their teaching and decision-making;''.
       On page 361, strike lines 22 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(6) subject to section 2232(c)(2), acquiring technology 
     equipment, networking capabilities, infrastructure and 
     software and digital curriculum to carry out the project.
       On page 365, line 10, insert ``and teacher training in 
     technology under section 3122'' before ``prior''.
       On page 367, line 24, strike the period and insert ``and 
     have a substantial demonstrated need for assistance in 
     acquiring and integrating technology.''.
       On page 369, strike line 3 through line 22, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) outlines the long-term strategies for improving 
     student performance, academic achievement, and technology 
     literacy, through the effective use of technology in 
     classrooms throughout the State, including through improving 
     the capacity of teachers to effectively integrate technology 
     into the curricula and instruction;
       ``(2) outlines long-term strategies for financing 
     technology education in the State to ensure all students, 
     teachers, and classrooms will have access to technology, 
     describes how the State will use funds provided under this 
     part to help ensure such access, and describes how business, 
     industry, and other public and private agencies, including 
     libraries, library literacy programs, and institutions of 
     higher education, can participate in the implementation, 
     ongoing planning, and support of the plan;
       ``(3) provides assurance that financial assistance provided 
     under this part shall supplement, not supplant, State and 
     local funds; and
       ``(5) meets such other criteria as the Secretary may 
     establish in order to enable such agency to provide 
     assistance to local educational agencies that have the 
     highest numbers or percentages of children in poverty and 
     demonstrate the greatest need for technology, in order to 
     enable such local educational agencies, for the benefit of 
     school sites served by such local educational agencies, to 
     improve student academic achievement and student performance.
       On page 370, strike line 5 through line 26, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) acquiring, adapting, expanding, implementing and 
     maintaining existing and new applications of technology, to 
     support the school reform effort, improve student academic 
     achievement, performance, and technology literacy;
       ``(2) providing ongoing professional development in the 
     integration of quality educational technologies into school 
     curriculum;
       ``(3) acquiring connectivity with wide area networks for 
     purposes of accessing information, educational programming 
     sources and professional development, particularly with 
     institutions of higher education and public libraries;
       ``(4) providing educational services for adults and 
     families;
       ``(5) repairing and maintaining school technology 
     equipment;
       ``(6) acquiring, expanding, and implementing technology to 
     collect, manage, and analyze data, including student 
     achievement data, to inform teaching, decision-making, and 
     school improvement efforts, including the training of 
     teachers and administrators; and
       ``(7) using technology to promote parent and family 
     involvement and support communications between parents, 
     teachers, and students.
       Beginning on page 371, strike line 14 through line 13, page 
     373, and insert the following:
       ``(1) a description of how the activities to be carried out 
     by the local educational agency under this part will be based 
     on a review of relevant research and an explanation of why 
     the activities are expected to improve student achievement, 
     and technology literacy;
       ``(2) an explanation of how the acquired technologies will 
     be integrated into the curriculum to help the local 
     educational agency improve student academic achievement, 
     student performance, and teaching;
       ``(3) a description of the type of technologies to be 
     acquired, including services, software, and digital 
     curricula, including specific provisions for interoperability 
     among components of such technologies;
       ``(4) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will ensure ongoing, sustained professional development for 
     teachers, administrators, and school library media personnel 
     served by the local educational agency to further the 
     effective use of technology in the classroom or library media 
     center, including a list of those entities that will partner 
     with the local educational agency in providing ongoing 
     sustained professional development;
       ``(5) the projected cost of technologies to be acquired and 
     related expenses needed to implement the plan;
       ``(6) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will coordinate the technology provided pursuant to this part 
     with other grant funds available for technology from other 
     Federal, State, and local sources;
       ``(7) a description of a process for the ongoing evaluation 
     of how technologies acquired under this part will be 
     integrated into the school curriculum; and will affect 
     technology literacy and student academic achievement, 
     performance, as related to challenging State content 
     standards and State student performance standards in all 
     subjects; and
       ``(8) a description of the evaluation plan that the local 
     educational agency will carry out pursuant to section 
     2308(a).
       Beginning on page 374, strike line 19 through line 2, page 
     375, and insert the following:
       ``(1) increased professional development and increased 
     effective use of technology in educating students;
       ``(2) increased;
       ``(3) increased access to technology in the classroom, 
     especially in low-income schools; and
       ``(5) other indicators reflecting increased student 
     academic achievement or student performance, as a result of 
     technology.
       On page 375, line 13, strike ``in all of the areas''.
       On page 379, strike line 4 through line 19, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(5) Exchange.--The plan shall describe the manner in 
     which the Secretary will promote the exchange of information 
     among States, local educational agencies, schools, consortia, 
     and other entities concerning the conditions and practices 
     that support effective use of technology in improving 
     teaching and student educational opportunities, academic 
     achievement, and technology literacy.
       ``(6) Goals.--The plan shall describe the Secretary's long-
     range measurable goals and objectives relating to the 
     purposes of this part.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 441, AS MODIFIED

         (Purpose: To provide for comprehensive school reform)

       On page 34, line 8, strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$500,000,000''.
       On page 86, line 22, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``and may include a strategy for the 
     implementation of a comprehensive school reform model that 
     meets each of the components described in section 1706(a)''.
       On page 258, line 22, strike ``and''.
       On page 258, line 25, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 258, after line 25, add the following:
       ``(iii) 3 percent to promote quality initiatives described 
     in section 1708.''.
       On page 260, strike lines 5 through 9, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) how the State educational agency will ensure that 
     funds under this part are limited to comprehensive school 
     reform programs that--
       ``(A) include each of the components described in section 
     1706(a);
       ``(B) have the capacity to improve the academic achievement 
     of all students in core academic subjects within 
     participating schools; and
       ``(C) are supported by technical assistance providers that 
     have a successful track record, and the capacity to deliver 
     high quality materials, professional development for school 
     personnel and on-site support during the full implementation 
     period of the reforms.''.
       On page 260, line 15, insert ``annually'' before 
     ``evaluate''.
       On page 261, line 7, insert before the period the 
     following: ``to support comprehensive school reforms in 
     schools that are eligible for funds under part A''.
       On page 261, line 11, strike ``for the particular'' and 
     insert ``of''.
       On page 261, line 12, strike ``reform plan'' and insert 
     ``reforms''.
       On page 263, line 1, strike ``and''.
       On page 263, line 2, strike ``reform model selected and 
     used'' and insert ``reforms selected and used, and a copy of 
     the State's evaluation of the implementation of comprehensive 
     school reforms supported under this part and the student 
     results achieved''.
       On page 263, strike lines 15 through 17, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) describe the comprehensive school reforms based on 
     scientifically-based research and effective practices that 
     such schools will implement;''.
       On page 264, line 1, insert ``comprehensive'' after 
     ``such''.
       On page 264, line 10, strike ``innovative'' and insert 
     ``proven''.
       On page 264, line 14, strike ``schools with diverse 
     characteristics'' and insert ``schools''.
       On page 265, line 18, strike ``and''.
       On page 265, line 22, strike ``school reform effort.'' and 
     insert ``comprehensive school reform effort; and''.
       On page 265, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       On page 265, line 25 strike ``the approaches identified'' 
     and all that follows through

[[Page 10640]]

     ``Secretary'' on line 1 of page 266, and insert ``nationally 
     available''.
       On page 266, line 2, strike ``programs'' and insert 
     ``program''.
       On page 266, after line 23, add the following:

     ``SEC. 1708. QUALITY INITIATIVES.

       ``The Secretary, through grants or contracts, shall 
     promote--
       ``(1) a public-private effort, in which funds are matched 
     by the private sector, to assist States, local educational 
     agencies, and schools, in making informed decisions upon 
     approving or selecting providers of comprehensive school 
     reform, consistent with the requirements described in section 
     1706(a); and
       ``(2) activities to foster the development of comprehensive 
     school reform models and to provide effective capacity 
     building for comprehensive school reform providers to expand 
     their work in more schools, assure quality, and promote 
     financial stability.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 549, as modified

(Purpose: To provide for the awarding of school facility modernization 
                     grants on a competitive basis)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SCHOOL FACILITY MODERNIZATION GRANTS.

       Subsection (b) of section 8007 (20 U.S.C. 7707(b)) (as 
     amended by section 1811 of the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act 
     of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1 of Public Law 106-
     398)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) School Facility Modernization Grants Authorized.--
       ``(1) Funding and allocation.--
       ``(A) Funding.--From 60 percent of the amount appropriated 
     for each fiscal year under section 8014(e), the Secretary 
     shall award grants in accordance with this subsection to 
     eligible local educational agencies to enable the local 
     educational agencies to carry out modernization of school 
     facilities.
       ``(B) Allocation.--From amounts made available for a fiscal 
     year under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall allocate--
       ``(i) 10 percent of such amount for grants to local 
     educational agencies described in paragraph (2)(A);
       ``(ii) 45 percent of such amount for grants to local 
     educational agencies described in paragraph (2)(B), of which, 
     10 percent shall be available for emergency grants that shall 
     not be subject to the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (4); and
       ``(iii) 45 percent of such amount for grants to local 
     educational agencies described in paragraph (2)(C), of which, 
     10 percent shall be available for emergency grants that shall 
     not be subject to the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (4).
       ``(C) Special rule.--A local educational agency described 
     in clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (B) may use grant 
     funds made available under this subsection for a school 
     facility located on or near Federal property only if the 
     school facility is located at a school where not less than 25 
     percent of the children in average daily attendance in the 
     school for the preceding school year are children for which a 
     determination is made under section 8003(a)(1).
       ``(2) Eligibility requirements.--A local educational agency 
     is eligible to receive funds under this subsection only if--
       ``(A) such agency received assistance under section 8002(a) 
     for the fiscal year and has an assessed value of taxable 
     property per student in the school district that is less than 
     the average of the assessed value of taxable property per 
     student in the State in which the local educational agency is 
     located;
       ``(B) such agency had an enrollment of children determined 
     under section 8003(a)(1)(C) which constituted at least 25 
     percent of the number of children who were in average daily 
     attendance in the schools of such agency during the school 
     year preceding the school year for which the determination is 
     made; or
       ``(C) such agency had an enrollment of children determined 
     under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of section 8003(a)(1) 
     which constituted at least 25 percent of the number of 
     children who were in average daily attendance in the schools 
     of such agency during the school year preceding the school 
     year for which the determination is made.
       ``(3) Award criteria.--In awarding grants under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall review applications submitted 
     with respect to each type of agency represented by local 
     educational agencies that qualify under each of subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2). In evaluating an 
     application, the Secretary shall consider the following 
     criteria:
       ``(A) The extent to which the local educational agency 
     lacks the fiscal capacity to undertake the modernization 
     project without Federal assistance.
       ``(B) the extent to which property in the local educational 
     agency is nontaxable due to the presence of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(C) The extent to which the local educational agency 
     serves high numbers or percentages of children described in 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 8003(a)(1).
       ``(D) the need for modernization to meet--
       ``(i) the threat that the condition of the school facility 
     poses to the health, safety, and well-being of students;
       ``(ii) overcrowding conditions as evidenced by the use of 
     trailers and portable buildings and the potential for future 
     overcrowding because of increased enrollment; and
       ``(iii) facility needs resulting from actions of the 
     Federal Government.
       ``(E) The age of the school facility to be modernized.
       ``(4) Other award provisions.--
       ``(A) Amount.--In determining the amount of a grant awarded 
     under this subsection; the peer group and Secretary shall 
     consider the cost of the modernization and the ability of the 
     local educational agency to produce sufficient funds to carry 
     out the activities for which assistance is sought.
       ``(B) Federal share.--The Federal funds provided under this 
     subsection to a local educational agency shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the total cost of the project to be assisted under 
     this subsection. A local educational agency may use in-kind 
     contributions, excluding land contributions, to meet the 
     matching requirement of the preceding sentence.
       ``(C) Maximum grant.--A local educational agency described 
     in this subsection may not receive a grant under this 
     subsection in an amount that exceeds $5,000,000 during any 2-
     year period.
       ``(5) Applications.--A local educational agency that 
     desires to receive a grant under this subsection shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary, who shall forward such 
     application to the appropriate peer group under paragraph 
     (3), at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may require. Each application 
     shall contain--
       ``(A) a listing of the school facilities to be modernized 
     including the number and percentage of children determined 
     under section 8003(a)(1) in average daily attendance in each 
     school facility;
       ``(B) a description of the ownership of the property on 
     which the current school facility is located or on which the 
     planned school facility will be located;
       ``(C) a description of how the local educational agency 
     meets the award criteria under paragraph (3);
       ``(D) a description of the modernization to be supported 
     with funds provided under this subsection;
       ``(E) a cost estimate of the proposed modernization; and
       ``(F) such other information and assurances as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(g) Emergency grants.--
       ``(A) Applications.--Each local educational agency applying 
     for a grant under paragraph (1)(B)(ii) or (1)(b)(iii) that 
     desires a grant under this subsection shall include in the 
     application submitted under paragraph (5) a signed statement 
     from an appropriate local official certifying that a health 
     or safety emergency exists.
       ``(B) Special rules.--The Secretary shall make every effort 
     to meet fully the school facility needs of local educational 
     agencies applying for a grant under paragraph (1)(B)(ii) or 
     (1)(B)(iii).
       ``(C) Priority.--If the Secretary receives more than one 
     application from local educational agencies described in 
     paragraph (1)(B)(ii) or (1)(B)(iii) for grants under this 
     subsection for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to local educational agencies based on the severity 
     of the emergency, as determined by the peer review group and 
     the Secretary, and when the application was received.
       ``(D) Consideration for following year.--A local 
     educational agency described in paragraph (2) that applies 
     for a grant under this subsection for any fiscal year and 
     does not receive the grant shall have the application for the 
     grant considered for the following fiscal year, subject to 
     the priority described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(7) General limitations.--
       ``(A) Real property.--No grant funds awarded under this 
     subsection shall be used for the acquisition of any interest 
     in real property.
       ``(B) Maintenance.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to authorize the payment of maintenance costs in 
     connection with any school facility modernized in whole or in 
     part with Federal funds provided under this subsection.
       ``(C) Environmental safeguards.--All projects carried out 
     with Federal funds provided under this subsection shall 
     comply with all revelant Federal, State, and local 
     environmental laws and regulations.
       ``(D) Athletic and similar school facilities.--No Federal 
     funds received under this subsection shall be used for 
     outdoor stadiums or other school facilities that are 
     primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions, or other 
     events, for which admission is charged to the general public.
       ``(8) Supplement not supplant.--An eligible local 
     educational agency shall use funds received under this 
     subsection only to supplement the amount of funds that would, 
     in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from 
     non-Federal sources for the modernization of school 
     facilities used for educational purposes, and not to supplant 
     such funds.''.

[[Page 10641]]

     
                                  ____
                     amendment no. 446 As modified

  (Purpose: To modify provisions relating the the Safe and Drug Free 
     Schools and Communities Act of 1994 with respect to violence 
                              prevention)

       On page 514, line 10, insert ``, suspended and expelled 
     students,'' after ``dropouts''.
       On page 524, line 7, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``including administrative incident reports, 
     anonymous surveys of students or teachers, and focus 
     groups''.
       On page 535, line 21, strike ``violence problem'' and 
     insert ``and violence problems''.
       On page 537, line 15, by inserting `` and violence'' after 
     ``use,''.
       On page 539, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       ``(6) administrative approaches to promote school safety, 
     including professional development for principals and 
     administrators to promote effectiveness and innovation, 
     implementing a school disciplinary code, and effective 
     communication of the school disciplinary code to both 
     students and parents at the beginning of the school year;''.
       On page 545, line 9, insert ``, that is subject to 
     independent review,'' after ``data''.
       On page 545, lines 10 and 11, strike ``social disapproval 
     of''.
       On page 545, line 12, after the period add the following: 
     ``The collected data shall include incident reports by 
     schools officials, anonymous student surveys, and anonymous 
     teacher surveys.''.
       On page 549, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(4) the provision of information on violence prevention 
     and education and school safety to the Department of Justice, 
     for dissemination by the National Resource Center for Safe 
     Schools as a national clearinghouse on violence and school 
     safety information;''.
       On page 550, line 14, insert ``administrative approaches, 
     security services,'' after ``include''.
       On page 553, line 2, insert ``to'' after ``research''.
       On page 553, after line 24, add the following:
       ``(J) Researchers and expert practitioners.
                                  ____



                 amendment no. 555 as further modified

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Education to establish a campaign 
   to educate principals, school administrators, and other educators 
regarding access to secondary schools for military recruiting purposes, 
                        and for other purposes)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 902. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE ACCESS 
                   OF ARMED FORCES RECRUITERS TO STUDENT DIRECTORY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Service in the Armed Forces of the United States is 
     voluntary.
       (2) Recruiting quality persons in the numbers necessary to 
     maintain the strengths of the Armed Forces authorized by 
     Congress is vital to the United States national defense.
       (3) Recruiting quality servicemembers is very challenging, 
     and as a result, Armed Forces recruiters must devote 
     extraordinary time and effort to their work in order to fill 
     monthly requirements for immediate accessions.
       (4) In meeting goals for recruiting high quality men and 
     women, each of the Armed Forces faces intense competition 
     from the other Armed Forces, from the private sector, and 
     from institutions offering postsecondary education.
       (5) Despite a variety of innovative approaches taken by 
     recruiters, and the extensive benefits that are available to 
     those who join the Armed Forces, it is becoming increasingly 
     difficult for the Armed Forces to meet recruiting goals.
       (6) A number of high schools across the country have denied 
     recruiters access to students or to student directory 
     information.
       (7) In 1999, the Army was denied access to students or 
     student directories on 4,515 to students or student 
     directories occasions, the Navy was denied access on 4,364 
     occasions, the Marine Corps was denied access on to students 
     or student directories 4,884 occasions, and the Air Force was 
     denied access to students or students directories on 5,465 
     occasions.
       (8) As of the beginning of 2000, nearly 25 percent of all 
     high schools in the United States did not release student 
     directory information requested by Armed Forces recruiters.
       (9) In testimony presented to the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate, recruiters stated that the single 
     biggest obstacle to carrying out the recruiting mission was 
     denial of access to student directory information, as the 
     student directory is the basic tool of the recruiter.
       (10) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to 
     student directory information unfairly hurts the youth of the 
     United States, as it prevents students from receiving 
     important information on the education and training benefits 
     offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students' 
     decisionmaking on careers by limiting the information on the 
     options available to them.
       (11) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to 
     student directory information undermines United States 
     national defense, and makes it more difficult to recruit high 
     quality young Americans in numbers sufficient to maintain the 
     readiness of the Armed Forces and to provide for the national 
     security.
       (12) Section 503 of title 10, United States Code, requires 
     local educational agencies, as of July 1, 2002, to provide 
     recruiters access to secondary schools on the same basis that 
     those agencies provide access to representatives of colleges, 
     universities, and private sector employers.
       (b) Campaign to Promote Access.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each State shall transmit to the 
     Secretary of Education a list of each school, if any, in that 
     State that--
       (A) during the 12 months preceding the date of enactment of 
     this Act, has denied access to students or to student 
     directory information to a military recruiter; or
       (B) has in effect a policy to deny access to students or to 
     student directory information to military recruiters.
       (2) Education program.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Education, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall, not later 
     than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, make 
     awards to States and schools using no more than $3 million of 
     funds available under section 6203(c) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act to educate principals, school 
     administrators, and other educators regarding career 
     opportunities in the Armed Forces, and the access standard 
     required under section 503 of title 10, United States Code.
       (B) Targeted schools.--In selecting schools for awards 
     required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give 
     priority to selecting schools that are included on the lists 
     transmitted to Congress under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 903. MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

       (a) Denial of funds.--
       (1) Prohibition.--No funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be provided by grant or contract to any 
     institution of higher education (including any school of law, 
     whether or not accredited by the American Bar Association) 
     that has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, 
     the Secretary of Defense from obtaining for military 
     recruiting purposes--
       (2) institutions in paragraph (1) shall be exempt if they 
     have a long-standing policy of pacifism based on historical 
     religious affiliation.
       (A) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
       (B) access to directory information pertaining to students.
       (3) Covered students.--Students referred to in paragraph 
     (1) are individuals who are 17 years of age or older.
       (b) Procedures for Determination.--The Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, 
     shall prescribe regulations that contain procedures for 
     determining if and when an educational institution has denied 
     or prevented access to students or information described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``directory information'' means, with respect to a student, 
     the student's name, address, telephone listing, date and 
     place of birth, level of education, degrees received, and the 
     most recent previous educational institution enrolled in by 
     the student.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 609

 (Purpose: To require audits of local education agencies to determine 
                     how funds are being expended)

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY SPENDING AUDITS.

       (a) Audits.--The Office of the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Education shall conduct not less than 6 audits 
     of local education agencies that receive funds under part A 
     of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 in each fiscal year to more clearly determine 
     specifically how local education agencies are expending such 
     funds. Such audits shall be conducted in 6 local educational 
     agencies that represent the size, ethnic, economic and 
     geographic diversity of local educational agencies and shall 
     examine the extent to which funds have been expended for 
     academic instruction in the core curriculum and activities 
     unrelated to academic instruction in the core curriculum, 
     such as the payment of janitorial, utility and other 
     maintenance services, the purchase and lease of vehicles, and 
     the payment for travel and attendance costs at conferences.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 3 months after the completion 
     of the audits under subsection (a) in each year, the Office 
     of the Inspector General of the Department of Education shall 
     submit a report on each audit to the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the 
     Senate.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see none of my colleagues here to make 
further comments and statements on

[[Page 10642]]

this. We will resume the debates tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. I thank 
all our colleagues for their help and their cooperation. We have made 
good progress and we look forward to a final passage sometime tomorrow 
afternoon.
  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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the 
situation on the floor at the present time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Sessions 
amendment No. 604, as modified.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is there a time agreement on that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is to be recognized to 
call up an amendment, and he has 15 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
then at this time. I may ask for a bit more.
  Mr. President, I looked at this amendment, and all I can say is here 
we go again. How many times do we have to go down this road of saying 
that the disciplinary problems in our schools are because of kids with 
disabilities, and if we only can get ahold of those kids with 
disabilities and do something about them, then we can straighten out 
the discipline problem in our schools?
  We have been down this road many times before. Fortunately, this body 
has recognized the importance of IDEA's protections in the past, and I 
hope we will do so again.
  We as a nation decided sometime ago that segregation was wrong. I am 
not talking about segregation of races. We decided that a long time 
ago. That was wrong. I am talking about the segregation of people with 
disabilities from our society. We as a country said it was wrong to 
take kids from their families and send them halfway across the State to 
some alternative setting, when they could have had a decent, adequate 
education right in their own community, in their own school district, 
in their own neighborhood, if they were just given some appropriate 
support.
  The reason I feel so deeply about this is that it is very personal to 
me. My brother was sent away halfway across the State from our small 
hometown when he was a kid because he was deaf. He was put in an 
institution to get his education--segregated from society, from his 
family, from his friends, from the town in which he grew up.
  Well, those were the old days. I thought we as a society had 
progressed beyond that. When we passed the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act in 1975--my first year here in the 
Congress--we said we are not going to do that anymore; to the maximum 
extent possible, we are going to integrate kids with disabilities into 
our local educational institutions, and we are going to provide the 
support services those kids need to get an education.
  I can remember when my oldest daughter was in grade school and when 
the first couple of kids with disabilities came into the classroom. 
There was a bit of a hue and cry. Some of the parents didn't like it. 
They thought it was going to take attention away from the other kids 
because they would have to pay more attention to the kids with 
disabilities. But because of the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act, the school had to take these kids and provide the 
services. A wonderfully amazing thing happened. These young kids in 
that classroom, who perhaps had never associated with anyone their age 
with a disability, all of a sudden became drawn to these two kids who 
were in the classroom with their disabilities.
  They became more sensitive to these kids, and the kids with 
disabilities found they could associate with kids without disabilities.
  I saw a wonderful thing happen, and I saw the families who later on 
said: This is not a bad deal. It sensitized them to the fact that this 
could happen to any one of them any day of the week. Any one of us 
could become disabled--mentally or physically--at any time. It shows 
the vulnerability of human nature, but it also shows that kids with 
disabilities can learn and reach their maximum potential.
  Do we want to turn the clock back? Do we want to go back to those 
days when we took those kids out of that setting and put them in a 
separate setting and said: No, you can't be in a classroom with other 
kids.
  I do not mean to overblow this amendment, but that is exactly what 
this amendment will do. This amendment, in section 2(A), says:

       A child with a disability who is removed from the child's 
     regular educational placement under paragraph (1) shall 
     receive a free appropriate public education which may be 
     provided in an alternative education setting if the behavior 
     that led to the child's removal is a manifestation of the 
     child's disability as determined under subparagraphs--

  And so on.
  What that says is that a child with disabilities can be removed. Yes; 
schools must continue to give him a free appropriate public education--
but in an alternative education setting. I read that to mean a 
segregated setting, someplace across town, someplace where they 
segregate kids with disabilities.
  Under current law, you have to provide a free appropriate public 
education but before you remove a child you have to consider certain 
factors, including whether the behavior was a result of their 
disability. This would turn the clock back to days when schools could 
segregate.
  You say: What if that kid acted up and harmed someone? Don't you want 
him removed, put in a setting where they cannot harm someone? Yes, I 
want safety in the classroom, too, but think about this before you vote 
on this. This is an example I will tell you that occurs every single 
day in classrooms all over America with kids with disabilities.
  I will use a young deaf kid again because I am so familiar with that. 
A young deaf kid is in a classroom. They are using a TV monitor to show 
some educational programs. The classroom teacher inadvertently or 
advertently did not provide for captioning or the school did not 
provide for the captioning. The student who is deaf cannot understand 
what is going on.
  This may go on for a couple of days until finally the kid who is deaf 
starts acting up. He may reach over and hit the kid next to him, may 
grab the kid next to him, may throw something. So a school takes that 
kid out of the classroom.
  Under the Sessions amendment, there is no inquiry as to whether or 
not the kid was provided the adequate appropriate supportive services. 
Instead, this deaf child could be segregated based on the fact that the 
school failed to provide appropriate services.
  Under present law, there would be a due process hearing as to why 
that kid acted up. They might bring in a counselor and a deaf 
interpreter. Maybe the kid will say: I am mad because I can't 
understand what is going on.
  The Sessions amendment says: We don't care; get him out of here.
  In addition, I have a great deal of empathy with our elementary and 
secondary school teachers all over America, many of whom have not been 
trained and who do not really know how to handle kids with 
disabilities. They have big classrooms. They have 28, 30 kids in a 
classroom, and they get a couple of kids with disabilities in their 
classroom. What are they going to do?
  The real problem is that teachers aren't getting trained and no one 
is providing supportive services to these kids as is supposed to be 
done under law. They create a disturbance. They are not provided the 
appropriate supportive services so they can learn in that setting.
  The teacher is at wits end. He or she would say: I've got to get 
these kids out of here. I can't teach the rest of these kids.
  The kids tell the parents: We have kids acting up all the time; they 
are disturbing the classroom; I can't study. The parents call the 
principal. The

[[Page 10643]]

principal says get those kids out of there.
  I feel sorry for those teachers. The answer is not to segregate the 
kids. The answer is to meet our obligations--our moral obligations and 
our legal obligations--to make sure these kids get the supportive 
services they need to learn in that environment.
  It seems to be cost is no objection when they want to segregate kids 
and put them in an institution. We don't care what it costs. But in 
order to provide the kind of supportive services they may need in an 
integrated classroom, why, well, that costs too much money.
  It does not cost too much money. It can cost more to segregate those 
kids than to provide the services they need to help them.
  As I said, I have a lot of empathy with these teachers because I have 
been in those classrooms. I feel sorry for those teachers. They do not 
have the support. But, now they are going to get help because on this 
bill, under an amendment offered by Senator Hagel and this Senator, 
adopted unanimously by the Senate, we are finally going to provide full 
funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which we 
have been talking about since 1975.
  That amounts, over the next 10 years to about $181 billion that the 
Federal Government has now said to the States: We are now going to give 
the money out we have been talking about for the last 26 years.
  Now we can get the supportive services these teachers need, and if we 
couple that with class size reduction and reducing the number of kids 
in classrooms, then we have the right formula. We have the right 
formula not only for kids with disabilities, but for kids without 
disabilities.
  I know people get disturbed. They hear about all the discipline 
problems in our classrooms, and I am not saying there are not 
discipline problems. But I have sat in this Senate Chamber, and I have 
heard Senator after Senator in the past talk about the gun incidents at 
Columbine, San Diego, Pennsylvania--and then they talk about 
discipline, and it always comes down to kids with disabilities.
  I challenge them or anybody else to show me one of those violent 
instances where a child under an IEP, an Individualized Education 
Program, a kid with a disability was involved. Why is it when we have 
shootings, we have guns, and we have things that happen in the schools, 
the first thing that comes on the floor of the Senate is to beat up on 
the kids with disabilities? The discipline amendments don't go after 
kids without disabilities; they always go after kids with disabilities. 
I ask: Why? Why? They are the most vulnerable in our society.
  We had a tough time reauthorizing IDEA a few years ago. Senator 
Jeffords and I, Senator Kennedy and others, worked hard on it. We got 
all sides to agree on what we would do when we finally reauthorized. 
And now we have the funds in this bill to pay for it. Before we go 
after kids with disabilities, let's identify the real problems.
  The Sessions amendment says to parents with kids with disabilities, 
tough luck, you are out of the picture. We will take those kids and 
kick them out and segregate them and you don't have anything to say 
about it.
  Why are we picking on the kids with disabilities? Honest to God, I 
just don't understand this.
  Do I disagree we have some discipline problems in school? No, we do 
have discipline problems in school. Of course we do. But it is not 
because of kids with disabilities. I challenge someone, please, step 
forward and show me the data that it is kids with disabilities causing 
these problems.
  I don't want kids in the classroom who will hurt themselves or hurt 
others. If a kid is truly violent and can't be controlled, even with 
supportive services, that kid should not be there. We have set up 
through a long history of 26 years processes and procedures to ensure 
that kids with disabilities have due process, as do their families.
  IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, allows schools 
to remove those kids. A GAO report released in January concluded that 
special education students who are involved in serious misconduct are 
being disciplined in generally a similar manner to regular education 
students based on information that principals reported to us in our 
review of the limited extant research. That means IDEA is not limiting 
a school's ability to discipline children with disabilities.
  Again, what does the Sessions amendment do? I repeat, under the guise 
of discipline, it allows us to resegregate these kids, to turn back the 
clock. The second thing it does is allow schools to cease services to 
these kids. Section C allows the children not only to be taken out but 
to cease services.
  A kid with a disability needs services, needs support; a kid can be 
not only segregated but have services cease. That is adding insult to 
injury. What are you going to do, throw them out on the street? Think 
about a kid with a serious disability, who is already frustrated by 
their disability. And now you will stop the services and throw them out 
on the street? Talk about a timebomb waiting to happen.
  The one thing we have always mandated under discipline procedures for 
kids with disabilities is you have to keep the services going to these 
kids. Nobody is going to throw them out on the streets. But the 
Sessions amendment allows services to cease.
  The Sessions amendment also creates a program that allows parents to 
take money from the public schools to go into private schools. Under 
the amendment, the local educational agency could wash its hands of 
responsibility for that child. Again, the Federal dollars end up in 
private schools without any accountability as to how those dollars get 
spent. The local educational agency washes its hands.
  We have been down this road before. If I had a dollar for every 
iteration of this amendment we have had on this floor in 20 years, I 
would be a rich man. They always say, ``We will tweak it here and tweak 
it there,'' but it always comes down to the same two or three things: 
segregate them out, cut out the services, and let them go out on the 
streets. It always comes down to that.
  I have had my say. I will continue to speak out on this as long as I 
am on this Senate floor. I don't mean tonight; I mean as long as I am 
in the Senate. These families with kids with disabilities, a lot of 
times families are at their wit's end. A lot of times the parents are 
working. A lot of times it is a single parent. They are working hard, 
have a kid with a disability who requires a lot of attention, a lot of 
care, a lot of love, and the last thing they need is to get kicked in 
the teeth by the Senate. The last thing they need is to have to go out 
and try to find a lawyer to fight it in court.
  I thank the Chair's indulgence, but this is an issue I care very 
deeply about. There are ways of addressing this issue. This is not the 
way to do it. Don't go after the most vulnerable kids when it cannot be 
proven. You cannot show me the data. That is all I ask. Show me the 
data where it is kids with disabilities who are causing these problems. 
Show me the data and make me a believer. I have lived with this too 
long. I have worked on this issue too long. The data is not there. If 
you can show it to me, I will change my mind.


                 Amendment No. 802 to Amendment No. 358

  My amendment is at the desk and I ask my amendment be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 802.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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:


                           amendment no. 802

  (Purpose: To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
                         regarding discipline)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

                TITLE __--INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

     SEC. __01. DISCIPLINE.

       Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

[[Page 10644]]

       ``(n) Uniform Policies.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State 
     educational agency or local educational agency may establish 
     and implement uniform policies regarding discipline 
     applicable to all children under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency to ensure the safety of such children and an 
     appropriate educational atmosphere in the schools under the 
     jurisdiction of the agency.
       ``(2) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A child with a disability who is removed 
     from the child's regular educational placement under 
     paragraph (1) shall receive a free appropriate public 
     education which may be provided in an alternative educational 
     setting pursuant to Sec 615K, if the behavior that led to the 
     child's removal is a manifestation of the child's disability, 
     as determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection 
     (k)(4).
       ``(B) Manifestation determination.--The manifestation 
     determination shall be made immediately, if possible, but in 
     no case later than 10 school days after school personnel 
     decide to remove the child with a disability from the child's 
     regular educational placement.
       ``(C) Determination that behavior was not manifestation of 
     disability.--If the result of the manifestation review is a 
     determination that the behavior of the child with a 
     disability was not a manifestation of the child's disability, 
     appropriate school personnel may apply to the child the same 
     relevant disciplinary procedures as would apply to children 
     without a disability.'', except as provided in 612(a)(1).

     SEC. __02. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.

       Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) (as amended by section __01) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Discipline Determinations by Local Authority.--
       ``(1) Individual determinations.--In carrying out any 
     disciplinary policy described in subsection (n)(1), school 
     personnel shall have discretion to consider all germane 
     factors in each individual case and modify any disciplinary 
     action on a case-by-case basis.
       ``(2) Defense.--Nothing in subsection (n) precludes a child 
     with a disability who is disciplined under such subsection 
     from asserting a defense that the alleged act was 
     unintentional or innocent.
       ``(3) Limitation.--
       ``(A) Review of manifestation determination.--If the 
     parents or the local educational agency disagree with a 
     manifestation determination under subsection (n)(2), the 
     parents or the agency may request a review of that 
     determination through the procedures described in subsections 
     (f) through (i).
       ``(B) Placement during review.--During the course of any 
     review proceedings under subparagraph (A), the child shall 
     receive a free appropriate public education which may be 
     provided in an alternative educational placement.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I want to make it clear what my 
amendment does. It basically takes the Sessions amendment, leaves most 
of it the way it is, but it just says, No. 1, you cannot segregate; you 
cannot segregate these kids--unless you follow the law. Under the 
present law, you can segregate kids if they are violent. But before you 
segregate you have to follow certain processes and procedures.
  The second thing my amendment says is you cannot cease services; you 
cannot stop the services to these kids even if they have been removed 
from the classroom.
  Finally, it deletes the last section that would allow local school 
districts to hand over federal dollars, without any accountability on 
how those dollars are being spent.
  I think it is a reasonable and a logical approach to this problem, as 
I have said many times before. I do not mind people who want to have 
better discipline in the classrooms. I sent two kids through public 
schools. Yes, I want discipline in the classrooms. I want a well-
structured classroom just as the Presiding Officer does for his kids 
and grandkids, I am sure. But this is not the way to do it. This is not 
the way to do it.
  The way to do it is to do it under the procedures and processes that 
will ensure the kids with disabilities have the services and the 
support they need so they will not be segregated ever again in our 
society.
  I thank the Chair for his indulgence. I yield the floor and 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            vote explanation

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this morning I was not present during 
rollcall vote number 182, the Santorum amendment. I was attending a 
meeting in the Russell building. Unfortunately, the mechanism designed 
to alert Members of votes was malfunctioning. Therefore, I was unaware 
that a vote was in progress.
  Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted in favor of the 
Santorum amendment.


                 Amendment No. 634, As Further Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously 
modified Stevens-Inouye amendment, which was agreed to, No. 634, be 
further modified with the changes I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:


                 amendment no. 634 as further modified

   (Purpose: To make amendments with respect to programs for Alaska 
 Natives and Native Hawaiians, and with respect to Impact Aid payments 
        for certain heavily impacted local educational agencies)

       On page 872, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert the 
     following:

     part;
       ``(L) construction, renovation, and modernization of any 
     elementary school, secondary school, or structure related to 
     an elementary school or secondary school, run by the 
     Department of Education of the State of Hawaii, that serves a 
     predominantly Native Hawaiian student body; and
       ``(M) other activities, consistent with the purposes of 
     this part, to meet the educational needs of Native Hawaiian 
     children and adults.
       On page 873, strike line 18 and insert the following:
     $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may
       On page 879, strike lines 8 through 15, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     make grants to, or enter into contracts with, Alaska Native 
     organizations, educational entities with experience in 
     developing or operating Alaska Native programs or programs of 
     instruction conducted in Alaska Native languages, cultural 
     and community-based organizations with experience in 
     developing or operating programs to benefit Alaska Natives, 
     and consortia of organizations and entities described in this 
     paragraph to carry out programs that meet the purposes of 
     this part.
       On page 881, strike lines 22 through 25, and insert the 
     following:
     part;
       ``(I) remedial and enrichment programs to assist Alaska 
     Native students in performing at a high level on standardized 
     tests;
       ``(J) education and training of Alaska Native students 
     enrolled in a degree program that will lead to certification 
     or licensing as teachers;
       ``(K) parenting education for parents and caregivers of 
     Alaska Native children to improve parenting and caregiving 
     skills (including skills relating to discipline and cognitive 
     development), including parenting education provided through 
     in-home visitation of new mothers;
       ``(L) cultural education programs operated by the Alaska 
     Native Heritage Center and designed to share the Alaska 
     Native culture with students;
       ``(M) a cultural exchange program operated by the Alaska 
     Humanities Forum and designed to share Alaska Native culture 
     with urban students in a rural setting, which shall be known 
     as the Rose Cultural Exchange Program;
       ``(N) activities carried out through Even Start programs 
     carried out under subpart 1 of part B of title I and Head 
     Start programs carried out under the Head Start Act, 
     including the training of teachers for programs described in 
     this subparagraph;
       ``(O) other early learning and preschool programs;
       ``(P) dropout prevention programs such as the Cook Inlet 
     Tribal Council's Partners for Success program;
       ``(Q) an Alaska Initiative for Community Engagement 
     program;
       ``(R) career preparation activities to enable Alaska Native 
     children and adults to prepare for meaningful employment, 
     including programs providing tech-prep, mentoring, training, 
     and apprenticeship activities;
       ``(S) provision of operational support and construction 
     funding, and purchasing of equipment, to develop regional 
     vocational schools in rural areas of Alaska, including 
     boarding schools, for Alaska Native students in grades 9 to 
     12, and higher levels of education, to provide the students 
     with necessary resources to prepare for skilled employment 
     opportunities; and

[[Page 10645]]

       ``(T) other activities, consistent with the purposes of 
     this part, to meet the educational needs of Alaska Native 
     children and adults.
       On page 882, strike lines 16 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(c) Priorities.--In awarding grants or contracts to carry 
     out activities described in subsection (a)(2), except for 
     activities listed in subsection (d)(2), the Secretary shall 
     give priority to applications from Alaska Native regional 
     nonprofit organizations, or consortia that include at least 1 
     Alaska Native regional nonprofit organization.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2002 and each of the 6 
     succeeding fiscal years, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section the same amount as is 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 7205 for 
     activities under that section for that fiscal year.
       ``(2) Availability of funds.--Of the funds appropriated and 
     made available under this section for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall make available--
       ``(A) not less than $1,000,000 to support activities 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(K);
       ``(B) not less than $1,000,000 to support activities 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(L);
       ``(C) not less than $1,000,000 to support activities 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(M);
       ``(D) not less than $2,000,000 to support activities 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(P); and
       ``(E) not less than $2,000,000 to support activities 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(Q).
       On page 883, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(e) Reporting Requirements.--Each recipient of a grant or 
     contract under this part shall, not later than March 15 of 
     each fiscal year in which the organization expends funds 
     under the grant or contract, prepare and submit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, summary 
     reports, of not more than 2 pages in length. Such reports 
     shall describe activities undertaken under the grant or 
     contract, and progress made toward the overall objectives of 
     the activities to be carried out under the grant or contract.
       On page 886, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

                         TITLE VIII--IMPACT AID

     SEC. 801. ELIGIBILITY UNDER SECTION 8003 FOR CERTAIN HEAVILY 
                   IMPACTED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Eligibility.--Section 8003(b)(2)(C) (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(b)(2)(C)) is amended--
       (1) in clauses (i) and (ii) by inserting after ``Federal 
     military installation'' each place it appears the following: 
     ``(or the agency is a qualified local educational agency as 
     described in clause (iv))''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) Qualified local educational agency.--A qualified 
     local educational agency described in this clause is an 
     agency that meets the following requirements:

       ``(I) The boundaries are the same as island property 
     designated by the Secretary of the Interior to be property 
     that is held in trust by the Federal Government.
       ``(II) The agency has no taxing authority.
       ``(III) The agency received a payment under paragraph (1) 
     for fiscal year 2001.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall consider an 
     application for a payment under section 8003(b)(2) for fiscal 
     year 2002 from a qualified local educational agency described 
     in section 8003(b)(2)(C)(iv), as added by subsection (a), as 
     meeting the requirements of section 8003(b)(2)(C)(iii), and 
     shall provide a payment under section 8003(b)(2) for fiscal 
     year 2002, if the agency submits to the Secretary an 
     application for payment under such section not later than 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________