STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - September 30, 1999)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S11726-S11734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 1669. A bill to require country of origin labeling of peanuts and 
peanut products and to establish penalties for violations of the 
labeling requirements; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                    the Peanut Labeling Act of 1999

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor today to 
introduce the Peanut Labeling Act of 1999. This bill will require 
country of origin labeling for all peanut and peanut products sold in 
the United States; specifically

[[Page S11727]]

it will require that consumers be notified whether the peanuts are 
grown in the United States or in another country. The main purpose of 
this bill is to provide American consumers with information about where 
the peanuts they purchase are grown. This bill will allow consumers to 
make informed food choices and support American farmers. And, with the 
labeling requirement, should a health concern be raised about a 
specific country's products, such as the Mexican strawberry scare we 
witnessed a few year's back, consumers would have the information they 
need to make their own choices about the products they buy at the 
market.
  Family farmers in America are facing dire circumstances. Farmers' 
ability to grow and sell their products have been severely affected by 
bad weather conditions, poor market prices, and trade restrictions. 
This bill allows consumers to help American farmers in the best way 
that they can--with their food dollar. Consumers are provided with 
information about the country of origin of a wide range of products, 
including clothes, appliances and automobiles. It only seems 
appropriate and fair that consumers should receive the same information 
about agricultural products, specifically peanuts. In fact, because 
consumers purchase agricultural products, including peanuts, based on 
the quality and safety of these items for their families, it seems even 
more important to provide them with this basic information.
  By providing country of origin labels, consumers can determine if 
peanuts are from a country that has had pesticide or other problems 
which may be harmful to their health. This is true particularly during 
a period when food imports are increasing, and will continue to 
increase in the wake of new trade agreements such as the WTO and GATT. 
As I previously mentioned, recent outbreaks linked to strawberries in 
Mexico, and European beef related to ``mad cow disease'' have raised 
the public's awareness of imported foods and their potential health 
impacts. Consumers should not have to wait for the same thing to happen 
with peanuts before they have the information they need to make wise 
food choices. With the labeling requirement, should such an outbreak 
occur, consumers would have the information to not only avoid harmful 
products, but to continue to purchase unaffected ones.
  The growth of biotechnology in the food arena necessitates more 
information in the marketplace. Research is being conducted today on 
new peanut varieties. These research efforts include seeds that might 
deter peanut allergies, tolerate more drought, and be more resistant to 
disease. As various countries use differing technologies, consumers 
need to be made aware of the source of the product they are purchasing. 
GAO recently pointed out that FDA only inspected 1.7 percent of 2.7 
million shipments of fruit, vegetables, seafood and processed foods 
under its jurisdiction. Inspections for peanuts can be assumed to be in 
this range or less. This lack of inspection does not provide consumers 
of these products with a great deal of assurance.
  Another purpose of this bill is to provide consumers with the ability 
to gain benefit from the investments of their hard earned taxes paid to 
the U.S. government. The federal government spends a large sum of money 
on peanut research infrastructure that is by far the most advanced in 
the world. This research not only increases the productivity of peanut 
growers, but provides growers with vital information about best 
management practices, including pesticide and water usage. It assists 
growers in their efforts to more effectively and efficiently grow a 
more superior and safer product for American consumers. Consumers 
should be able to receive a return on this investment by being able to 
purchase U.S. peanuts.
  Polls have shown that consumers in America want to know the origin of 
the products they buy. And, contrary to the arguments given by 
opponents of labeling measures that such requirements would drive 
prices up, consumers have indicated that they would be willing to pay 
extra for easy access to such information. I believe that this is a 
pro-consumer bill that will have wide support.
  I am also very pleased that peanut growers in America strongly 
support my proposal. I have endorsement letters for my bill from the 
Georgia Peanut Commission, the National Peanut Growers Group, the 
Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, the Alabama Peanut Producers 
Association, and the Florida Peanut Producers Association.
  In conclusion, as my colleagues know, we live in a global economy 
which creates an international marketplace for our food products. I 
strongly believe that by providing country of origin labeling for 
agricultural products, such as peanuts, we not only provide consumers 
with information they need to make informed choices about the quality 
of food being served to their family but we also allow American farmers 
to showcase the time and effort they put into producing the safest and 
finest food products in the world. I believe this bill represents these 
principles and I ask my colleagues for their support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1669

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Peanut Labeling Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. INDICATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Peanut product.--The term ``peanut product'' means any 
     product more than 3 percent of the retail value of which is 
     derived from peanuts contained in the product.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (b) Notice of Country of Origin Required.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a retailer of 
     peanuts or peanut products produced in, or imported into, the 
     United States (including any peanut product that contains 
     peanuts that are not produced in the United States) shall 
     inform consumers, at the final point of sale to consumers, of 
     the country of origin of the peanuts or peanut products.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the application of 
     paragraph (1) to a retailer of peanuts or peanut products if 
     the retailer demonstrates to the Secretary it is 
     impracticable for the retailer to determine the country of 
     origin of the peanuts or peanut products.
       (c) Method of Notification.--
       (1) In general.--The information required by subsection (b) 
     may be provided to consumers by means of a label, stamp, 
     mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the peanuts 
     or peanut products or on the package, display, holding unit, 
     or bin containing the peanuts or peanut products at the final 
     point of sale to consumers.
       (2) Existing labeling.--If the peanuts or peanut products 
     are already labeled regarding country of origin by the 
     packer, importer, or another person, the retailer shall not 
     be required to provide any additional information in order to 
     comply with this section.
       (d) Violations.--If a retailer fails to indicate the 
     country of origin of peanuts or peanut products as required 
     by subsection (b), the Secretary may impose a civil penalty 
     on the retailer in an amount not to exceed--
       (1) $1,000 for the first day on which the violation occurs; 
     and
       (2) $250 for each day on which the violation continues.
       (e) Deposit of Funds.--Amounts collected under subsection 
     (d) shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States 
     as miscellaneous receipts.
       (f) Application.--This section shall apply with respect to 
     peanuts and peanut products produced in, or imported into, 
     the United States after the date that is 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

                                    Georgia Agricultural Commodity


                                       Commission for Peanuts,

                                   Tifton, GA, September 22, 1999.
     Hon. Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: On behalf of the Georgia Peanut 
     Commission, I strongly support your efforts to introduce the 
     ``Peanut Labeling Act of 1999.'' Origin labeling of peanuts 
     and peanut products is extremely important to our peanut 
     industry in Georgia. It will not only benefit our Georgia 
     growers, but it will be an asset for growers across our 
     nation.
       Requiring an origin of label allows our consumers the 
     choice to buy American products. Because our quality and 
     safety standards are among the best, our peanuts and peanut 
     products should be labeled in order to differentiate from 
     other foreign products. The consumer should have information 
     that allows them to discern which peanut and peanut product 
     is best for them.
       We support and appreciate your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Billy Griggs,
                              Chairman, Georgia Peanut Commission.

[[Page S11728]]

     
                                  ____
                                National Peanut Growers Group,

                                   Gorman, TX, September 22, 1999.
     Hon. Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: The National Peanut Growers Group 
     endorses the ``Peanut Labeling Act of 1999.'' Our group, 
     which consists of grower representation from our peanut 
     producing regions across the nation, fully supports your 
     efforts to introduce this legislation. We believe origin 
     labeling of peanuts and peanut products is vital to our 
     industry's survival. Because our quality and safety standards 
     are the best in the world, our peanuts and peanut products 
     should be labeled in order to differentiate from other 
     foreign products. The consumer should have information that 
     allows them to discern which peanut and peanut product is 
     best for them.
       Thank you for your support. We appreciate your efforts to 
     strengthen our peanut industry.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Wilbur Gamble,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                   Southern Peanut


                                           Farmers Federation,

                                               September 22, 1999.
     Hon. Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: The Southern Peanut Farmers 
     Federation, an alliance of Alabama Peanut Producers 
     Association, Georgia Peanut Commission, and Florida Peanut 
     Producers Association, strongly supports the ``Peanut 
     Labeling Act of 1999.'' We appreciate the opportunity to 
     review the bill, and we believe its enactment will strengthen 
     our peanut industry.
       This bill is very important to us for several reasons. 
     First, we believe that like most products made in America, 
     peanuts and peanut products should have a label of origin. 
     Secondly, we believe that by giving American consumers this 
     information, it allows them to buy American products. The 
     numbers of imported peanuts and peanut products continue to 
     rise each year. We believe that by labeling our products, our 
     growers will have a tool that keeps them at a level playing 
     field with the competition. The American consumer will want 
     to purchase products of high quality and that meets stringent 
     safety standards.
       The labeling of peanuts and peanut products would alleviate 
     the numbers of peanuts and peanut products coming into the 
     country illegally. Many products are imported into our 
     country without trade restrictions, due to NAFTA, and sold to 
     our American consumer. Yet, some of those peanut products 
     originated from our domestic growers. With a labeling 
     requirement, we would be able to identify whether our 
     exported products are returned to our domestic market. 
     Alleviating this problem would keep our peanut market from 
     being saturated.
       The ``Peanut Labeling Act'' is a tremendous step in the 
     right direction for our industry. It is a vital tool that 
     will allow our industry to compete in the future as our 
     country's trade policy is expanded.
           Sincerely,
     Billy Griggs,
       Georgia Peanut Commission.
     Carl Sanders,
       Florida Peanut Producers Association.
     Gregg Hall,
       Alabama Peanut Producers Association.
                                  ____

                                                    Florida Peanut


                                        Producers Association,

                                 Marianna, FL, September 21, 1999.
     Hon. Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: The Florida Peanut Producers 
     Association Board of Directors, representing 1,100 peanut 
     farmers in Florida, without reservations, endorse your 
     ``Peanut Labeling Act of 1999''. Mr. Bob Redding of the 
     Redding Firm in Washington has kept our board informed on the 
     language and movement of this bill. We feel strongly that a 
     Peanut Labeling Bill will once again give the American peanut 
     farmer the edge to compete with imported competition. We are 
     convinced the safety and quality of American grown will 
     always be the choice of our consumers, if given a choice by 
     origin labeling.
       We appreciate your efforts concerning this issue, as well 
     as your over-all interest in Southern agriculture.
           Sincerely,
     Greg Hall,
       President.
     Jeff Crawford, Jr.,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    Alabama Peanut


                                        Producers Association,

                                   Dothan, AL, September 22, 1999.
     To: Senator Max Cleland.
     From: H. Randall Griggs.
       On behalf of the peanut producers in Alabama, we appreciate 
     your efforts to introduce labeling legislation pertaining to 
     peanuts and peanut products. As the marketplace becomes more 
     globalized, the U.S. industry should be allowed to 
     differentiate itself from other origins. Also, consumers 
     should have the information necessary to choose and know 
     where their food products originate.
       Again, we support and appreciate your efforts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 1671. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.


                 Campaign Finance Integrity Act of 1999

 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senate is again considering 
campaign finance reform. The problem is that almost every Senator has a 
different definition of--and goal for--reform. Today I am introducing 
the ``Campaign Finance Integrity Act.'' I believe this bill can 
actually be agreed upon by a majority of this body that would want to 
ensure that we improve the campaign finance system (a nearly 
universally acknowledged goal) without being unconstitutional and 
attempting measures that fly in the face of the First Amendment.
  Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire 
for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict, 
and that you can't have both. But fortunately for those of us who 
believe in the First Amendment rights of all American citizens, the 
founding fathers and the Supreme Court are on our side. They believe, 
and I believe, that we can have both.
  I would hope that celebrating the value of the First Amendment on the 
floor of the United States Senate is preaching to the choir, as the 
expression goes, but let me go ahead and do it anyway. Thomas Jefferson 
repeatedly stated the importance of the First Amendment and how it 
allows the people and the press the right to speak their minds freely. 
Jefferson clearly described its significance back in 1798 with, ``One 
of the amendments to the Constitution * * * expressly declares that 
`Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of 
speech or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and 
under the same words, the freedom of religion, speech, and of the 
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary 
which covers the others.'' Again in 1808, he stated that ``The liberty 
of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And in 1823, 
Jefferson stated, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when 
permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be 
submitted to.'' Jefferson knew and believed that if we begin 
restricting what people say, how they say it, and how much they can 
say, then we deny the first and fundamental freedom given to all 
Citizens.
  The Supreme Court has also been very clear in its rulings concerning 
campaign finance and the First Amendment. Since the post-Watergate 
changes to the campaign finance system began, 24 Congressional actions 
have been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the 
First Amendment. Out of those nine, 4 dealt directly with campaign 
finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that 
political spending is equal to political speech.
  In the now famous decision, or infamous to some, Buckley vs. Valeo, 
the Court states that, ``The First Amendment denies government the 
power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our 
Constitution it is not the government but the people--individually as 
citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political 
committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of 
debate on public issues in a political campaign.''

  Simply stated, the government cannot ration or regulate political 
speech of an American through campaign spending limits any more than it 
can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print or what it 
can print. This reinforces Jefferson's statement that to impede one of 
these rights is to impede all First Amendment rights.
  Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills believe 
that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force giveaways of 
public and private resources then all will be fine with the campaign 
finance system. The Supreme Court agrees and is again very clear in its 
intent on campaign spending. The Buckley decision says, ``. . . the 
mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of

[[Page S11729]]

itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quantity 
of campaign spending. . . .''
  Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how 
great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' 
to the ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable 
instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one 
sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more 
expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable 
the cost of campaigns are, the Supreme Court has stated that this is 
not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other 
groups involved in political speech.
  We need a campaign finance bill that does not violate the First 
Amendment, while providing important provisions to open the campaign 
finances of candidates up to the scrutiny of the American people. I 
believe the Campaign Finance Integrity Act does that.
  My bill would:
  Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their 
contributions from individuals in the state or district in which they 
are running.
  Equalize contributions from individuals and political action 
committees (PACs) by raising the individual limit from $1000 to $2500 
and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to $2500.
  Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation.
  Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing 
political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal 
contribution of a candidate above $5000.
  Require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, 
voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or 
payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and 
requires annual full disclosure of those activities to members and 
shareholders.
  Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless 
the individual's profession and employer are reported.
  Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports 
by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that 
information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours 
of receipt.
  Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings.
  This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate 
back into his district or state to raise money from individual 
contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure 
requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or 
the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the 
best disinfectant.
  The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what 
they want in a political campaign is preserved by the right of the 
public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is 
also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own 
decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely 
information.
  Many of the proponents of other campaign finance bills try to reduce 
the influence of interests by suppressing their speech. I believe the 
best ways to reduce the special interests influence is to suppress and 
reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special 
interest funding and corporate subsidies, then there would be less 
reason for influence-buying donations.
  Objecting to the popular quest of the moment is very difficult for 
any politician, but turning your back on the First Amendment is more 
difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense 
of the First Amendment. My legislation does this. Not everyone will 
agree with the Campaign Finance Integrity Act, and many of us still 
disagree on this issue, but the First Amendment is the reason we can 
disagree and it must be honored here rather than just the 
Courts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 1673. A bill to amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to 
protect unborn victims of violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 unborn victims of violence act of 1999

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on behalf of 
unborn children who are the victims of violence. I am here to be their 
voice; I am here to fight for their rights.
  We live in a violent world, Mr. President. Sadly, sometimes--perhaps 
more often than we realize--even unborn babies are the targets, 
intended or otherwise, of violent acts. I'll give you some disturbing 
examples.
  In 1996, Airman, Gregory Robbins, and his family were stationed in my 
home state of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At 
that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a 
daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, 
Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt (to reduce the chance that 
he would inflict visible injuries) and savagely beat his wife by 
striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. 
Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus 
ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal 
cavity, causing Jasmine's death.
  Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute the Airman for Jasmine's 
death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal 
code makes criminal such an act which results in the death or injury of 
an unborn child. The only available federal offense was for the assault 
on the mother. This was a case in which the only available federal 
penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio 
fetal homicide law to convict Mr. Robbins of Jasmine's death. This case 
currently is pending appeal, and we do hope that justice will prevail.
  Mr. President, if it weren't for the Ohio law that is already in 
place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish 
Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. We need a federal 
remedy to avoid having to bootstrap state laws and to provide recourse 
when a violent act occurs during the commission of a federal crime--
especially in cases when the state in which the crime occurs does not 
have a fetal protection law in place. A federal remedy will ensure that 
crimes against unborn victims are punished.
  There are other sickening examples of violence against innocent 
unborn children, Mr. President. An incident occurred in Arkansas just a 
few short weeks ago. Nearly nine months pregnant, Shawana Pace of 
Little Rock was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her 
pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy 
and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric Bullock wanted the baby to die. So, he 
hired three thugs to beat Shawana so badly that she would lose the 
unborn baby.
  During the vicious assault against mother and child, one of the hired 
hitmen allegedly said: ``Your baby is going to die tonight.'' Shawana's 
baby did die that night. She named the baby Heaven. Mr. President, I am 
saddened and sickened by the sheer inhumanity and brutality of this act 
of violence.

  Fortunately, the State of Arkansas, like Ohio, passed a fetal 
protection law, which allows Arkansas prosecutors to charge defendants 
with murder for the death of a fetus. Under previous law, such 
attackers could be charged only with crimes against the pregnant woman. 
As in the case of Baby Jasmine's death in Ohio, but for the Arkansas 
state law, there would be no remedy--no punishment--for Baby Heaven's 
brutal murder. The only charge would be assault against the mother.
  In the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings--here too--
federal prosecutors were able to charge the defendants with the murders 
of or injuries to the mothers--but not to their unborn babies. Again, 
federal law currently only criminalizes crimes against born humans. 
There are no federal provisions for the unborn.
  This is wrong.
  It is wrong that our federal government does absolutely nothing to 
criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We must correct this 
loophole in our law, for it allows criminals to get away with violent 
acts--and sometimes even murder.
  We, as a civilized society, should not--with good conscience--stand 
for that.

[[Page S11730]]

  So, today, I am introducing legislation, along with my distinguished 
colleagues, Senator Tim Hutchinson and Senator Abraham, to provide 
justice for America's unborn victims of violence. Our bill, the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act, would hold criminals liable for conduct that 
harms or kills an unborn child. It would make it a separate crime under 
the Federal code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to kill or 
injure an unborn child during the commission of certain existing 
federal crimes.
  The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would create a separate offense 
for unborn children--it would acknowledge them as individual victims. 
Our bill would no longer allow violent acts against unborn babies to be 
considered victimless crimes. At least twenty-four (24) states already 
have criminalized harm to unborn victims, and another seven (7) states 
criminalize the termination of pregnancy.
  Mr. President, in November of 1996, a baby, just three months from 
full-term, was killed in Ohio as a result of road rage. An angry driver 
forced a pregnant mother's car to crash into a flatbed truck. Because 
the Ohio Revised Code imposes criminal liability for any violent 
conduct which terminates a pregnancy of a child in utero, prosecutors 
successfully tried and convicted the driver for recklessly causing the 
baby's death. Our bill would make an act of violence like this a 
federal crime. It would be a simple step, but one with a dramatic 
effect.
  Mr. President, we purposely have drafted this legislation very 
narrowly. For example, it would not permit the prosecution for any 
abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the 
prosecution of a woman for any action (legal or illegal) in regard to 
her unborn child. This legislation would not permit the prosecution for 
harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical 
treatment. And, the bill would not allow for the imposition of the 
death penalty under this Act.
  Mr. President, it is time that we wrap the arms of justice around 
unborn children and protect them against criminal assailants. Those who 
violently attack unborn babies are criminals. The federal penalty 
should fit the crime. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of this legislation. We have an obligation to our unborn 
children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S 1674. A bill to promote small schools and smaller learning 
communities; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                        small, safe schools act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 1675. A bill to provide for school drop out prevention, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                national dropout prevention act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1676. A bill to improve accountability for schools and local 
educational agencies under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 school improvement accountability act

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last week I introduced two 
education bills related to raising standards and ensuring 
accountability for the teachers in our schools. Today, I am pleased to 
introduce three bills that relate to raising standards and ensuring 
accountability for the performance of our schools--the Small, Safe 
Schools Act, the National Dropout Prevention Act and the School 
Improvement Accountability Act. Next week, I will introduce two bills 
which relate to raising standards and ensuring accountability for 
student achievement. All of these bills, which I hope to incorporate 
into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
form the foundation for a comprehensive plan to improve the quality of 
our public education system. The three bills that I am introducing 
today focus on improving school performance.
  The Small, Safe Schools Act would help to ensure that children have a 
sense of belonging in their school by providing incentives for the 
construction of smaller schools and providing resources to create 
smaller learning communities in existing larger schools. In this way, 
we can create school environments that keep our children safe and make 
it easier for them to meet high standards for achievement. Research 
demonstrates that small schools outperform large schools on every 
measure of school success.
  In the wake of the tragedy at Columbine High School, one of the most 
important concerns regarding school quality is school safety. Issues of 
school safety can be effectively addressed by creating smaller schools 
or smaller learning communities within larger schools. Behavorial 
problems, including truancy, classroom disruption, vandalism, 
aggressive behavior, theft, substance abuse and gang participation are 
all more common in larger schools. Teachers in small schools learn of 
disagreements between students and can resolve problems before problems 
become severe. Based on studies of high school violence, researchers 
have concluded that the first step in ending school violence must be to 
break through the impersonal atmosphere of large high schools by 
creating smaller communities of learning within larger structures, 
where teachers and students can come to know each other well.
  School size also can have a critical impact on learning. Small school 
size improves students grades and test scores. This impact is even 
greater for ethnic minority and low income students. Small 
institutional size has been found to be one of the most important 
factors in creating positive educational outcomes. Studies on school 
dropout rates show a decrease in the rates as schools get smaller. 
Students and staff at smaller schools have a stronger sense of personal 
efficacy, and students take more of the responsibility for their own 
learning, which includes more individualized and experimental learning 
relevant to the world outside of school.
  Small schools can be created cost effectively. Larger schools can be 
more expensive because their sheer size requires more administrative 
support. More importantly, additional bureaucracy translates into less 
flexibility and innovation. In addition, because small schools have 
higher graduation rates, costs per graduate are lower than costs per 
graduate in large schools.
  The Small, Safe Schools Act would establish three programs designed 
to promote and support smaller schools and smaller learning communities 
within large schools. Schools or LEAs could apply for funds to help 
develop smaller learning communities within larger schools. The bill 
also authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to LEAs 
and schools seeking to create smaller learning communities. In 
addition, the bill would provide funding for construction and 
renovation of schools designed to accommodate no more than 350 students 
in an elementary school, 400 students in a middle school, and 800 
students in a high school.
  On behalf of myself and Senator Reid, I also offer the National 
Dropout Prevention Act, which is a bill designed to reduce the dropout 
rate in our nation's schools. While much progress has been made in 
encouraging more students to complete high school, the nation remains 
far from its goal of a 90 percent graduation rate for students by 2000. 
In fact, none of the states with large and diverse student populations 
have yet come close to this goal, and dropout rates approaching 50 
percent are commonplace in some of the most disadvantaged communities 
during the period from ninth grade to senior year. The bill is based on 
many of the findings of the National Hispanic Dropout Project, a group 
of nationally recognized experts assembled during 1996-97 to help find 
solutions to the high dropout rate among Hispanic and other at-risk 
students. In addition to widespread misconceptions about why so many 
students drop out of school and lack of familiarity with proven dropout 
prevention programs, one of the main factors contributing to the lack 
of progress in this area is that there is currently no concerted 
federal effort to provide or coordinate effective and proven dropout 
prevention programs for at-risk children. In fact, there is currently 
no federal agency or office that is responsible for the multitude of 
programs that include dropout prevention as a component.

[[Page S11731]]

  The Act makes lowering the dropout rate a national priority. Efforts 
to prevent students from dropping out would be coordinated on the 
nation level by an Office of Dropout Prevention and Program Completion 
in the Department of Education. The Office would disseminate best 
practices and models for effective dropout programs through a national 
clearinghouse and provide support and recognition to schools engaged in 
dropout prevention efforts. In addition, this bill provides funds to 
pay the startup and implementation costs of effective, sustainable, 
coordinated, and whole school dropout prevention programs. Funds could 
be used to implement comprehensive school-wide reforms, create 
alternative school programs or smaller learning communities. Grant 
recipients could contract with community-based organizations to assist 
in implementing necessary services.
  The School Improvement Accountability Act, the third bill I am 
introducing today, sets more rigorous standards for States and LEAs 
receiving Title I funds by strengthening the accountability provisions 
in Title I. The Title I program provides supplemental services to 
disadvantaged students and schools with high concentrations of 
disadvantaged students. These students and these schools are often 
short-changed by our educational system. The bill seeks to ensure that 
all schools are often short-changed by our educational system. The bill 
seeks to ensure that all schools receiving Title I funding achieve 
realistic goals for student achievement and that all students reach 
those goals, narrowing existing achievement gaps. Recipients will be 
required to set goals for student achievement which will result in all 
students (in Title I schools) passing state tests at a ``proficiency'' 
standard within 10 years of reauthorization. The bill also requires 
States, LEAs and schools to focus on elimination of the achievement gap 
between LEP, disabled & low-income students and other students and to 
ensure inclusion of all students in state assessments.
  The bill also modifies the corrective action section of the bill, 
which is the section that is triggered when schools identified as being 
in need of improvement, have not made sufficient gains towards the 
goals set out in the schools Title I plan. The School Improvement 
Accountability act would require schools failing to meet standards must 
take one of three actions affecting personnel and/or management of the 
schools: (1) decreasing decision-making authority at the school level; 
(2) reconstituting the school staff; or (3) eliminating the use of 
noncredentialed staff. Students in failing schools also would have a 
right to transfer to a school which is not failing.
  In order to ensure equal educational opportunities for all our 
children, we must ensure that schools are safe, welcoming places. We 
also must ensure that students in danger of dropping out of school are 
not lost, but instead graduate high school with the skills that they 
need to be productive members of our society. We must provide special 
support to students with greater obstacles to learning, such as 
disadvantaged students, students whose first language is not English, 
and disabled students. We must ensure that schools serving these 
students can provide high quality educational programs and that those 
schools are held accountable for the success of all students. The bills 
I offer today will do much to achieve these goals. I hope that my 
colleagues will support these efforts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1677. A bill to establish a child centered program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


            child centered program establishment legislation

 Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I am joined with Senator Hagel 
in introducing a bill to allow States and schools districts to switch 
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education from a school-based 
to a child-based program.

  We will soon take up the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. The centerpiece of which is Title I which was 
created in 1965 to provide extra educational assistance to low-income 
students. Since its inception, Title I has grown into the largest 
federal education program for elementary and secondary school students 
with funding, in this year alone, at $7.7 billion.
  Unfortunately, after more than 30 years and expenditures of $118 
billion, national evaluations indicate that Title I has failed to 
achieve its primary aim of reducing the achievement gap between 
advantaged and disadvantaged students.
  Reading scores in 1998 showed that only 6 States made progress in 
narrowing the gap between White and African American students and just 
3 made progress narrowing the gap between White and Hispanic students. 
While the gap actually grew in 16 States. In math, nine year olds in 
high poverty schools remain 2 grade levels behind students in low-
poverty schools.
  In reading, nine year old students in high poverty schools remain 3 
to 4 grade levels behind students in low poverty schools. Seventy 
percent of children in high poverty schools score below even the most 
basic level of reading. Two out of every three African American and 
Hispanic 4th graders can barely read.
  It is time to take a fresh look at this important program to ensure 
that our neediest students are receiving the services they need. We 
must provide enough flexibility in Title I for students to receive high 
quality supplemental educational services, wherever those services are 
offered.
  In order to enable needy students to access high quality supplemental 
services, States and school districts should be given the opportunity 
to transform Title I from a school-based program to a child-centered 
program. Which is exactly what my bill does. Let me explain.
  Currently, Title I dollars are sent to States, then distributed to 
school districts, and ultimately to schools--this is known as a school-
based program. Aid goes to the school, rather than directly to the 
eligible child.
  This process of sending dollars to districts and schools rather than 
students has a serious unintended consequence--millions of eligible 
children never receive the educational services promised to them by 
this program.
  To make matters worse, even schools which have been identified by 
their States and communities as chronic poor performers continue to 
receive Title I dollars, despite that fact that well over one-third of 
eligible children (about 4 million children) receive no services.
  Today, 4 million children generate Title I revenue for their school 
district, but never receive Title I services; despite the fact that the 
school district received federal funds to provide supplemental 
educational services to those very children.
  We should not continue the practice of sustaining failed schools at 
the expense of our nation's children.
  The very serious problem of under serving our neediest students can 
be alleviated by giving States and school districts the ability to 
focus their efforts by directly serving Title I eligible students 
through a child-centered program.
  This bill permits interested States and school districts to use Title 
I dollars to create a child-centered program.
  Here is how it would work. Interested states and school districts 
could use their Title I dollars to establish a per pupil amount for 
each eligible child--any child between the ages of 5-17 from a family 
at or below the poverty line. The per pupil amount would then follow 
the child to the school they attend. The per pupil amount would be used 
to provide supplemental educational (``add-on'' or ``extra'') services 
to meet the individual educational needs of children participating in 
the program.
  Since some schools continue to fail to provide high quality 
educational services to their neediest students, students could use 
their per-pupil amount to receive supplemental educational (``add-on'') 
services from either their school or a tutorial assistance provider, be 
that a Sylvan learning center, a charter school or a private school. 
The idea behind this provision is to allow parents to use their per-
pupil amount to purchase extra tutorial assistance for before or after 
school.
  There are numerous benefits to turning Title I into a child-centered 
program. It increases the number of disadvantaged children served by 
Title I. It ensures that federal dollars generated by a particular 
student actually

[[Page S11732]]

benefit that student. It rewards good schools and penalizes failing 
schools, as children would have the option to go the schools that best 
meet their needs and take their Title I money with them. A child-
centered program decreases the practice of financially rewarding 
schools that consistently fail to provide a high quality education to 
their students. And, it ensures that students who are stuck in a bad 
school have access to educational services outside the school, by 
permitting parents to use their child's per-pupil allotment for 
tutorial assistance.
  In short, this bill creates a much-needed market for change in that 
it gives families the ability to take their federal dollars out of a 
school that is not using them effectively and purchase services 
somewhere else. Families are empowered and schools are compelled to 
improve in order to keep their students.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Turning Title I into a 
child-centered program puts Title I back on the right track, focusing 
on what is best for the child first and foremost.
  I ask that it be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1677

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHILD CENTERED PROGRAM.

       Part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                  ``Subpart 3--Child Centered Program

     ``SEC. 1131. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart:
       ``(1) Eligible child.--The term `eligible child' means a 
     child who--
       ``(A) is eligible to be counted under section 1124(c); or
       ``(B)(i) the State or participating local educational 
     agency elects to serve under this subpart; and
       ``(ii) is a child eligible to be served under this part 
     pursuant to section 1115(b).
       ``(2) Participating local educational agency.--The term 
     `participating local educational agency' means a local 
     educational agency that elects under section 1133(b) to carry 
     out a child centered program under this subpart.
       ``(3) School.--The term `school' means an institutional day 
     or residential school that provides elementary or secondary 
     education, as determined under State law, except that such 
     term does not include any school that provides education 
     beyond grade 12.
       ``(4) Supplemental education services.--The term 
     `supplemental education services' means educational services 
     intended--
       ``(A) to meet the individual educational needs of eligible 
     children; and
       ``(B) to enable eligible children to meet challenging State 
     curriculum, content, and student performance standards.
       ``(5) Tutorial assistance providers.--The term `tutorial 
     assistance provider' means a public or private entity that--
       ``(A) has a record of effectiveness in providing tutorial 
     assistance to school children; or
       ``(B) uses instructional practices based on scientific 
     research.

     ``SEC. 1132. CHILD CENTERED PROGRAM FUNDING.

       ``(a) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     each State or participating local educational agency may use 
     the funds made available under subparts 1 and 2, and shall 
     use the funds made available under subsection (c), to carry 
     out a child centered program under this subpart.
       ``(b) Participating Local Educational Agency Election.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a State does not carry out a child 
     centered program under this subpart or does not have an 
     application approved under section 1134 for a fiscal year, a 
     local educational agency in the State may elect to carry out 
     a child centered program under this subpart, and the 
     Secretary shall provide the funds that the local educational 
     agency (with an application approved under section 1134) is 
     eligible to receive under subparts 1 and 2, and subsection 
     (c), directly to the local educational agency to enable the 
     local educational agency to carry out the child centered 
     program.
       ``(2) Submission approval.--In order to be eligible to 
     carry out a child centered program under this subpart a 
     participating local educational agency shall obtain from the 
     State approval of the submission, but not the contents, of 
     the application submitted under section 1134.
       ``(c) Incentive Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (3) for a fiscal year the Secretary shall award 
     grants to each State, or participating local educational 
     agency described in subsection (b), that elects to carry out 
     a child centered program under this subpart and has an 
     application approved under section 1134, to enable the State 
     or participating local educational agency to carry out the 
     child centered program.
       ``(2) Amount.--Each State or participating local 
     educational agency that elects to carry out a child centered 
     program under this subpart and has an application approved 
     under section 1134 for a fiscal year shall receive a grant in 
     an amount that bears the same relation to the amount 
     appropriated under paragraph (3) for the fiscal year as the 
     amount the State or participating local educational agency 
     received under subparts 1 and 2 for the fiscal year bears to 
     the amount all States and participating local educational 
     agencies carrying out a child centered program under this 
     subpart received under subparts 1 and 2 for the fiscal year.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this subsection for fiscal year 2000 and each of 
     the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

     ``SEC. 1133. CHILD CENTERED PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Uses.--Each State or participating local educational 
     agency with an application approved under section 1134 shall 
     use funds made available under subparts 1 and 2, and 
     subsection (c), to carry out a child centered program under 
     which--
       ``(1) the State or participating local educational agency 
     establishes a per pupil amount based on the number of 
     eligible children in the State or the school district served 
     by the participating local educational agency; and
       ``(2) the State or participating local educational agency 
     may vary the per pupil amount to take into account factors 
     that may include--
       ``(A) variations in the cost of providing supplemental 
     education services in different parts of the State or the 
     school district served by the participating local educational 
     agency;
       ``(B) the cost of providing services to pupils with 
     different educational needs; or
       ``(C) the desirability of placing priority on selected 
     grades; and
       ``(3) in the case of a child centered program for eligible 
     children at a public school, the State or the participating 
     local educational agency makes available, not later than 3 
     months after the beginning of the school year, the per pupil 
     amount determined under paragraphs (1) and (2) to the school 
     in which an eligible child is enrolled, which per pupil 
     amount shall be used for supplemental education services for 
     the eligible child that are--
       ``(A) subject to subparagraph (B), provided by the school 
     directly or through a contract for the provision of 
     supplemental education services with any governmental or 
     nongovernmental agency, school, postsecondary educational 
     institution, or other entity, including a private 
     organization or business; or
       ``(B) if requested by the parent or legal guardian of an 
     eligible child, purchased from a tutorial assistance 
     provider, another public school, or a private school, 
     selected by the parent or guardian.
       ``(b) Schoolwide Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a public school in which 
     50 percent of the students enrolled in the school are 
     eligible children, the public school may use funds provided 
     under this subpart, in combination with other Federal, State, 
     and local funds, to carry out a schoolwide program to upgrade 
     the entire educational program in the school.
       ``(2) Plan.--If the public school elects to use funds 
     provided under this part in accordance with paragraph (1), 
     and does not have a plan approved by the Secretary under 
     section 1114(b)(2), the public school shall develop and adopt 
     a comprehensive plan for reforming the entire educational 
     program of the public school that--
       ``(A) incorporates--
       ``(i) strategies for improving achievement for all children 
     to meet the State's proficient and advanced levels of 
     performance described in section 1111(b);
       ``(ii) instruction by highly qualified staff;
       ``(iii) professional development for teachers and aides in 
     content areas in which the teachers or aides provide 
     instruction and, where appropriate, professional development 
     for pupil services personnel, parents, and principals, and 
     other staff to enable all children in the school to meet the 
     State's student performance standards; and
       ``(iv) activities to ensure that eligible children who 
     experience difficulty mastering any of the standards 
     described in section 1111(b) during the course of the school 
     year shall be provided with effective, timely additional 
     assistance;
       ``(B) describes the school's use of funds provided under 
     this subpart and from other sources to implement the 
     activities described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) includes a list of State and local educational agency 
     programs and other Federal programs that will be included in 
     the schoolwide program;
       ``(D) describes how the school will provide individual 
     student assessment results, including an interpretation of 
     those results, to the parents of an eligible child who 
     participates in the assessment; and
       ``(E) describes how and where the school will obtain 
     technical assistance services and a description of such 
     services.
       ``(3) Special rule.--In the case of a public school 
     operating a schoolwide program under this subsection, the 
     Secretary may, through publication of a notice in the Federal 
     Register, exempt child centered programs under

[[Page S11733]]

     this section from statutory or regulatory requirements of any 
     other noncompetitive formula grant program administered by 
     the Secretary, or any discretionary grant program 
     administered by the Secretary (other than formula or 
     discretionary grant programs under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act), to support the schoolwide 
     program, if the intent and purposes of such other 
     noncompetitive or discretionary programs are met.
       ``(c) Private School Children.--A State or participating 
     local educational agency carrying out a child centered 
     program under this subpart for eligible children at a private 
     school shall ensure that eligible children who are enrolled 
     in the private school receive supplemental education services 
     that are comparable to services for eligible children 
     enrolled in public schools provided under this subpart. The 
     supplemental education services, including materials and 
     equipment, shall be secular, neutral, and nonideological.
       ``(d) Open Enrollment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to carry out a 
     child centered program under this subpart a State or 
     participating local educational agency shall operate a 
     statewide or school district wide, respectively, open 
     enrollment program that permits parents to enroll their child 
     in any public school in the State or school district, 
     respectively, if space is available in the public school and 
     the child meets the qualifications for attendance at the 
     public school.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive paragraph (1) for a 
     State or participating local educational agency if the State 
     or agency, respectively, demonstrates that parents served by 
     the State or agency, respectively--
       ``(A) have sufficient options to enroll their child in 
     multiple public schools; or
       ``(B) will have sufficient options to use the per pupil 
     amount made available under this subpart to purchase 
     supplemental education services from multiple tutorial 
     assistance providers or schools.
       ``(e) Parent Involvement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any public school receiving funds under 
     this subpart shall convene an annual meeting at a convenient 
     time. All parents of eligible children shall be invited and 
     encouraged to attend the meeting, in order to explain to the 
     parents the activities assisted under this subpart and the 
     requirements of this subpart. At the meeting, the public 
     school shall explain to parents how the school will use funds 
     provided under this subpart to enable eligible children 
     enrolled at the school to meet challenging State curriculum, 
     content, and student performance standards. In addition, the 
     public school shall inform parents of their right to choose 
     to use the per pupil amount described in subsection (a) to 
     purchase supplemental education services from a tutorial 
     assistance provider, another public school or a private 
     school.
       ``(2) Information.--Any public school receiving funds under 
     this subpart shall provide to parents a description and 
     explanation of the curriculum in use at the school, the forms 
     of assessment used to measure student progress, and the 
     proficiency levels students are expected to meet.

     ``SEC. 1134. APPLICATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State or participating local 
     educational agency desiring to carry out a child centered 
     program under this subpart shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require. Each such 
     application shall contain--
       ``(1) a detailed description of the program to be assisted, 
     including an assurance that--
       ``(A) the per pupil amount established under section 
     1133(a) will follow each eligible child described in that 
     section to the school or tutorial assistance provider of the 
     parent or guardian's choice;
       ``(B) funds made available under this subpart will be spent 
     in accordance with the requirements of this subpart; and
       ``(C) parents have the option to use the per pupil amount 
     to purchase supplemental education services for their 
     children from a wide variety of tutorial assistance providers 
     and schools;
       ``(2) an assurance that the State or participating local 
     educational agency will publish in a widely read or 
     distributed medium an annual report card that contains--
       ``(A) information regarding the academic progress of all 
     students served by the State or participating local 
     educational agency in meeting State standards, including 
     students assisted under this subpart, with results 
     disaggregated by race, family income, limited English 
     proficiency, and gender, if such disaggregation can be 
     performed in a statistically sound manner; and
       ``(B) such other information as the State or participating 
     local educational agency may require;
       ``(3) a description of how the State or participating local 
     educational agency will make available, to parents of 
     children participating in the child centered program, annual 
     school report cards, with results disaggregated by race, 
     family income, limited English proficiency, and gender, for 
     schools in the State or in the school district of the 
     participating local educational agency;
       ``(4) in the case of an application from a participating 
     local educational agency, an assurance that the participating 
     local educational agency has notified the State regarding the 
     submission of the application;
       ``(5) a description of specific measurable objectives for 
     improving the student performance of students served under 
     this subpart;
       ``(6) a description of the process by which the State or 
     participating local educational agency will measure progress 
     in meeting the objectives;
       ``(7)(A) in the case of an application from a State, an 
     assurance that the State meets the requirements of 
     subsections (a), (b) and (e) of section 1111 as applied to 
     activities assisted under this subpart; and
       ``(B) in the case of an application from a participating 
     local educational agency, an assurance that the State's 
     application under section 1111 met the requirements of 
     subsections (a), (b) and (e) of such section; and
       ``(8) an assurance that each local educational agency 
     serving a school that receives funds under this subpart will 
     meet the requirements of subsections (a) and (c) of section 
     1116 as applied to activities assisted under this subpart.

     ``SEC. 1135. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Program Duration.--A State or participating local 
     educational agency shall carry out a child centered program 
     under this subpart for a period of 5 years.
       ``(b) Administrative Costs.--A State may reserve 2 percent 
     of the funds made available to the State under this subpart, 
     and a participating local educational agency may reserve 5 
     percent of the funds made available to the participating 
     local educational agency under this subpart, to pay the costs 
     of administrative expenses of the child centered program. The 
     costs may include costs of providing technical assistance to 
     schools receiving funds under this subpart, in order to 
     increase the opportunity for all students in the schools to 
     meet the State's content standards and student performance 
     standards. The technical assistance may be provided directly 
     by the State educational agency, local educational agency, 
     or, with a local educational agency's approval, by an 
     institution of higher education, by a private nonprofit 
     organization, by an educational service agency, by a 
     comprehensive regional assistance center under part A of 
     title XIII, or by another entity with experience in helping 
     schools improve student achievement.
       ``(c) Reports.--
       ``(1) Annual reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State educational agency serving 
     each State, and each participating local educational agency, 
     carrying out a child centered program under this subpart 
     shall submit to the Secretary an annual report, that is 
     consistent with data provided under section 1134(a)(2)(A), 
     regarding the performance of eligible children receiving 
     supplemental education services under this subpart.
       ``(B) Data.--Not later than 2 years after establishing a 
     child centered program under this subpart and each year 
     thereafter, each State or participating local educational 
     agency shall include in the annual report data on student 
     achievement for eligible children served under this subpart 
     with results disaggregated by race, family income, limited 
     English proficiency, and gender, demonstrating the degree to 
     which measurable progress has been made toward meeting the 
     objectives described in section 1134(a)(5).
       ``(C) Data assurances.--Each annual report shall include--
       ``(i) an assurance from the managers of the child centered 
     program that data used to measure student achievement under 
     subparagraph (B) is reliable, complete, and accurate, as 
     determined by the State or participating local educational 
     agency; or
       ``(ii) a description of a plan for improving the 
     reliability, completeness, and accuracy of such data as 
     determined by the State or participating local educational 
     agency.
       ``(2) Secretary's report.--The Secretary shall make each 
     annual report available to Congress, the public, and the 
     Comptroller General of the United States (for purposes of the 
     evaluation described in section 1136).
       ``(d) Termination.--Three years after the date a State or 
     participating local educational agency establishes a child 
     centered program under this subpart the Secretary shall 
     review the performance of the State or participating local 
     educational agency in meeting the objectives described in 
     section 1134(a)(5). The Secretary, after providing notice and 
     an opportunity for a hearing, may terminate the authority of 
     the State or participating local educational agency to 
     operate a child centered program under this subpart if the 
     State or participating local educational agency submitted 
     data that indicated the State or participating local 
     educational agency has not made any progress in meeting the 
     objectives.
       ``(e) Treatment of Amounts Received.--The per pupil amount 
     provided under this subpart for an eligible child shall not 
     be treated as income of the eligible child or the parent of 
     the eligible child for purposes of Federal tax laws, or for 
     determining the eligibility for or amount of any other 
     Federal assistance.

     ``SEC. 1136. EVALUATION.

       ``(a) Annual Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Contract.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall enter into a contract, with an evaluating entity 
     that has demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, 
     for the conduct of an ongoing rigorous evaluation of child 
     centered programs under this subpart.
       ``(2) Annual evaluation requirement.--The contract 
     described in paragraph (1) shall

[[Page S11734]]

     require the evaluating entity entering into such contract to 
     annually evaluate each child centered program under this 
     subpart in accordance with the evaluation criteria described 
     in subsection (b).
       ``(3) Transmission.--The contract described in paragraph 
     (1) shall require the evaluating entity entering into such 
     contract to transmit to the Comptroller General of the United 
     States the findings of each annual evaluation under paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(b) Evaluation Criteria.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States, in consultation with the Secretary, shall 
     establish minimum criteria for evaluating the child centered 
     programs under this subpart. Such criteria shall provide for 
     a description of--
       ``(1) the implementation of each child centered program 
     under this subpart;
       ``(2) the effects of the programs on the level of parental 
     participation and satisfaction with the programs; and
       ``(3) the effects of the programs on the educational 
     achievement of eligible children participating in the 
     programs.

     ``SEC. 1137. REPORTS.

       ``(a) Reports by Comptroller General.--
       ``(1) Interim reports.--Three years after the date of 
     enactment of this subpart the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit an interim report to Congress on 
     the findings of the annual evaluations under section 
     1136(a)(2) for each child centered program assisted under 
     this subpart. The report shall contain a copy of the annual 
     evaluation under section 1136(a)(2) of each child centered 
     program under this subpart.
       ``(2) Final report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a 
     final report to Congress, not later than March 1, 2006, that 
     summarizes the findings of the annual evaluations under 
     section 1136(a)(2).''.

     ``SEC. 1138. LIMITATION ON CONDITIONS; PREEMPTION.

       Nothing in this subpart shall be construed--
       ``(1) to authorize or permit an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, 
     local educational agency, or school's specific instructional 
     content or student performance standards and assessments, 
     curriculum, or program of instruction, as a condition of 
     eligibility to receive funds under this subpart; and
       ``(2) to preempt any provision of a State constitution or 
     State statute that pertains to the expenditure of State funds 
     in or by religious institutions.''.

                          ____________________