[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7767-7769]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 345--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT CONGRESS 
 SHOULD EXPAND THE SUPPORTS AND SERVICES AVAILABLE TO GRANDPARENTS AND 
OTHER RELATIVES WHO ARE RAISING CHILDREN WHEN THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS 
              HAVE DIED OR CAN NO LONGER TAKE CARE OF THEM

  Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Miller, Mr. 
Kerry, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, 
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lieberman, and Mrs. Lincoln) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

                              S. Res. 345

       Whereas, 4.5 million children in the United States are 
     living in grandparent-headed households--a 30% increase from 
     1990 to 2000--and an additional 1.5 million children are 
     living in households headed by other relatives;
       Whereas 70% of grandparents who report they are responsible 
     for the grandchildren living with them are under the age of 
     60, many of whom are still in the workforce and making a 
     valuable contribution to the national economy;
       Whereas, an increasing number of parents are unable to 
     raise their own children due to substance abuse, 
     incarceration, illnesses such as HIV/AIDS, child abuse and 
     neglect, domestic and community violence, unemployment and 
     poverty, and other serious community crises;
       Whereas, grandparents and other relatives raising children, 
     especially those without formal legal custody or guardianship 
     of the children under their care, face a variety of 
     unnecessary barriers, including difficulties enrolling 
     children in school, authorizing medical treatment, 
     maintaining their public housing leases, obtaining affordable 
     legal services, and accessing a variety of federal benefits 
     and services;
       Whereas, grandparents and other relatives have stepped 
     forward at great personal sacrifice to their financial and 
     health status, to provide safe and loving homes and keep 
     thousands of children from unnecessarily entering the formal 
     foster care system;
       Whereas children feel content to live in an environment 
     with people that they know, who are familiar, and who are 
     able to provide them with extended family as additional 
     support and a family history, which gives them a sense of 
     belonging.
       Whereas the time, effort, and unselfish commitment shown by 
     these family members is worthy of recognition.
       Whereas, almost one-fifth of grandparents who report that 
     they are responsible for the grandchildren living with them 
     live in poverty;
       Whereas, grandparents and other relatives have taken over 
     the care of abused and neglected children who have been 
     removed from their homes even though they often fail to 
     receive the same services and supports offered to non-related 
     foster parents.
       Whereas, grandparents and other relatives, whether raising 
     children inside or outside of the foster care system, need 
     better access to health insurance, respite care, child care, 
     special education, housing, and other benefits, and where 
     appropriate, support from Temporary Assistance For Needy 
     Families, federal foster care and subsidized guardianship 
     programs.
       Resolved, That--
       (1) it is the sense of the Senate that
       (A) Congress and all Americans should recognize and 
     publicly laud the commitment of grandparents, aunts, uncles, 
     and other relative caregivers raising children whose parents 
     are unable or unwilling to do so;
       (B) Congress urges institutions and government entities at 
     every level to promote public policies that support, and 
     remove barriers to these caregivers;
       (C) Congress should establish new and expanded appropriate 
     supports and services, such as respite care, housing, and 
     subsidized guardianship, for grandparents and other relatives 
     who are raising children inside and outside of the foster 
     care system.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be submitting a 
resolution that urges Congress to expand the supports and services 
available to grandparents and other relatives who are raising children 
when their biological parents can no longer take care of them. I am 
pleased to have worked with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia 
Snowe, in crafting this important bill.
  Today, in Albany, NY, there is a ``GrandRally'' going on to celebrate 
and honor the almost 300,000 children who live in grandparent-headed 
households--a total of 6.3 percent of all children in New York State. 
Another 112,000 children live in households headed by other relatives. 
I am so pleased that this resolution coincides with the GrandRally 
because they compliment each other nicely.
  Nationwide, four and a half million children are living in 
grandparent-headed households and an additional 1.5 million children 
are living in households headed by other relatives. This represents a 
30 percent increase between 1990 and 2000.
  Kinship care families came to be because there are many tragic 
instances when parents are unable to raise their own children. Serious 
illness, death, substance abuse, incarceration, domestic violence, and 
unemployment are

[[Page 7768]]

just some of the reasons that have forced grandparents and other 
relatives to step forward, often at great personal sacrifice, to 
provide safe and loving homes for the children in their care. This has 
allowed thousands of children to live with extended family rather than 
strangers.
  We know that children are better off living in an environment with 
people that they know, who are familiar, and who are able to provide 
them with extended family as additional support. When foster children 
are placed with family members rather than strangers, they gain a 
critical sense of belonging and a family history.
  Unfortunately, these grandparents and other relatives raising 
children often face a number of unnecessary barriers, including 
difficulties enrolling children in school, authorizing medical 
treatment, and accessing a variety of government benefits and services. 
Almost one-fifth of grandparents who are serving as the parents for 
their grandchildren are living in poverty.
  The time, effort, and unselfish commitment of these family members is 
worthy of recognition.
  This resolution encourages institutions and government entities at 
every level to promote public policies that support these caregivers by 
expanding existing services such as respite care, housing, and 
subsidized guardianship for grandparents and other relatives who are 
raising children inside and outside of the foster care system.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues who are cosponsors of this 
resolution. Senator Snowe and I are being joined by a diverse, 
bipartisan group of Senators whose commitment to this issue 
demonstrates the broad range of support for kinship care families.
                                 ______
                                 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 101--TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS 
 REGARDING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BROWN 
                    v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA

  Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Roberts) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration:

                            S. Con. Res. 101

       Whereas Oliver L. Brown is the namesake of the landmark 
     United States Supreme Court decision of 1954, Brown v. Board 
     of Education (347 U.S. 483, 1954);
       Whereas Oliver L. Brown is honored as the lead plaintiff in 
     the Topeka, Kansas case which posed a legal challenge to 
     racial segregation in public education;
        Whereas by 1950, African-American parents began to renew 
     their efforts to challenge State laws that only permitted 
     their children to attend certain schools, and as a result, 
     they organized through the National Association for the 
     Advancement of Colored People (the NAACP), an organization 
     founded in 1909 to address the issue of the unequal and 
     discriminatory treatment experienced by African-Americans 
     throughout the country;
       Whereas Oliver L. Brown became part of the NAACP strategy 
     led first by Charles Houston and later by Thurgood Marshall, 
     to file suit against various school boards on behalf of such 
     parents and their children;
       Whereas Oliver L. Brown was a member of a distinguished 
     group of plaintiffs in cases from Kansas (Brown v. Board of 
     Education), Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton), South Carolina 
     (Briggs v. Elliot), and Virginia (Davis v. County School 
     Board of Prince Edward County) that were combined by the 
     United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 
     and in Washington, D.C. (Bolling v. Sharpe), considered 
     separately by the Supreme Court with respect to the District 
     of Columbia;
       Whereas with respect to cases filed in the State of 
     Kansas--
       (1) there were 11 school integration cases dating from 1881 
     to 1949, prior to Brown v. Board of Education in 1954;
       (2) in many instances, the schools for African-American 
     children were substandard facilities with out-of-date 
     textbooks and often no basic school supplies;
       (3) in the fall of 1950, members of the Topeka, Kansas 
     chapter of the NAACP agreed to again challenge the ``separate 
     but equal'' doctrine governing public education;
       (4) on February 28, 1951, the NAACP filed their case as 
     Oliver L. Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka 
     Kansas (which represented a group of 13 parents and 20 
     children);
       (5) the district court ruled in favor of the school board 
     and the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court;
       (6) at the Supreme Court level, the case was combined with 
     other NAACP cases from Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia, 
     and Washington, D.C. (which was later heard separately); and
       (7) the combined cases became known as Oliver L. Brown et 
     al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, et al.;
       Whereas with respect to the Virginia case of Davis et al. 
     v. Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors--
       (1) one of the few public high schools available to 
     African-Americans in the State of Virginia was Robert Moton 
     High School in Prince Edward County;
       (2) built in 1943, it was never large enough to accommodate 
     its student population;
       (3) the gross inadequacies of these classrooms sparked a 
     student strike in 1951;
       (4) the NAACP soon joined their struggles and challenged 
     the inferior quality of their school facilities in court; and
       (5) although the United States District Court ordered that 
     the plaintiffs be provided with equal school facilities, they 
     were denied access to the schools for white students in their 
     area;
       Whereas with respect to the South Carolina case of Briggs 
     v. R.W. Elliott--
       (1) in Clarendon County, South Carolina, the State NAACP 
     first attempted, unsuccessfully and with a single plaintiff, 
     to take legal action in 1947 against the inferior conditions 
     that African-American students experienced under South 
     Carolina's racially segregated school system;
       (2) by 1951, community activists convinced African-American 
     parents to join the NAACP efforts to file a class action suit 
     in United States District Court;
       (3) the court found that the schools designated for 
     African-Americans were grossly inadequate in terms of 
     buildings, transportation, and teacher salaries when compared 
     to the schools provided for white students; and
       (4) an order to equalize the facilities was virtually 
     ignored by school officials, and the schools were never made 
     equal;
       Whereas with respect to the Delaware cases of Belton v. 
     Gebhart and Bulah v. Gebhart--
       (1) first petitioned in 1951, these cases challenged the 
     inferior conditions of 2 African-American schools;
       (2) in the suburb of Claymont, Delaware, African-American 
     children were prohibited from attending the area's local high 
     school, and in the rural community of Hockessin, Delaware, 
     African-American students were forced to attend a dilapidated 
     1-room schoolhouse, and were not provided transportation to 
     the school, while white children in the area were provided 
     transportation and a better school facility;
       (3) both plaintiffs were represented by local NAACP 
     attorneys; and
       (4) though the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 
     plaintiffs, the decision did not apply to all schools in 
     Delaware;
       Whereas with respect to the District of Columbia case of 
     Bolling, et al. v. C. Melvin Sharpe, et al.--
       (1) 11 African-American junior high school students were 
     taken on a field trip to Washington, D.C.'s new John Philip 
     Sousa School for white students only;
       (2) the African-American students were denied admittance to 
     the school and ordered to return to their inadequate school; 
     and
       (3) in 1951, a suit was filed on behalf of the students, 
     and after review with the Brown case in 1954, the United 
     States Supreme Court ruled that segregation in the Nation's 
     capitol was unconstitutional;
       Whereas on May 17, 1954, at 12:52 p.m., the United States 
     Supreme Court ruled that the discriminatory nature of racial 
     segregation ``violates the 14th Amendment to the 
     Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection 
     of the laws'';
       Whereas the decision in Brown v. Board of Education set the 
     stage for dismantling racial segregation throughout the 
     country;
       Whereas the quiet courage of Oliver L. Brown and his fellow 
     plaintiffs asserted the right of African-American people to 
     have equal access to social, political, and communal 
     structures;
       Whereas our country is indebted to the work of the NAACP 
     Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Howard University 
     Law School, the NAACP, and the individual plaintiffs in the 
     cases considered by the Supreme Court;
       Whereas Reverend Oliver L. Brown died in 1961, and because 
     the landmark United States Supreme Court decision bears his 
     name, he is remembered as an icon for justice, freedom, and 
     equal rights; and
       Whereas the national importance of the Brown v. Board of 
     Education decision had a profound impact on American culture, 
     affecting families, communities, and governments by outlawing 
     racial segregation in public education, resulting in the 
     abolition of legal discrimination on any basis: Now therefore 
     be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That--
       (1) the Congress recognizes and honors the 50th anniversary 
     of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education 
     of Topeka;
       (2) the Congress encourages all people of the United States 
     to recognize the importance of the Supreme Court decision in 
     Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka;

[[Page 7769]]

       (3) by celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. 
     Board of Education of Topeka, the Nation will be able to 
     refresh and renew the importance of equality in society; and
       (4) the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on 
     May 13, 2004 or June 17, 2004 for a ceremony to commemorate 
     the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision 
     in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 
     (1954);

     physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out 
     in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the 
     Capitol may prescribe.

                          ____________________