BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 147, No. 83
(Senate - June 14, 2001)

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 S6239-S6305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

  The ACTING 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.
       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.
       Clinton further modified amendment No. 516 (to amendment 
     No. 358), to provide for the conduct of a study concerning 
     the health and learning impacts of dilapidated or 
     environmentally unhealthy public school buildings on children 
     and to establish the Healthy and High Performance Schools 
     Program.

[[Page S6240]]

       Sessions modified amendment No. 604 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     regarding discipline.
       Harkin (for Kennedy/Harkin) amendment No. 802 (to amendment 
     No. 358), to amend the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act regarding discipline.


                      amendments nos. 604 and 802

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 60 minutes for remarks on the Sessions amendment No. 604 
and the Harkin amendment No. 802.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, is there any other agreement in terms of 
speaking between the votes? Are we going to speak and then vote? Will 
we just have an hour equally divided and then vote?
  Mr. REID. That is true.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. President, there will be 4 
minutes of debate followed by a vote on or in relation to the Sessions 
amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. On the second vote?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the issue we are dealing with today is a very 
important issue. I had no idea how significant teachers and principals 
and superintendents consider this issue. We have already in the course 
of this legislation approved a historic increase in funding for IDEA. 
That is going to help schools do a better job of providing specialized 
training for students with disabilities to a degree we have never seen 
before.
  In fact, 10 or 15 years ago, when the IDEA matter was settled and 
made a part of Federal law, Congress agreed to pay 40 percent of the 
cost that would fall on the school system. That agreement was never 
honored. Congress never appropriated that 40 percent. In fact, we are 
closer to 10 percent, or even under 10 percent. Now I think we are 
around 15 or 20 percent of that commitment under the legislation that 
passed here. I hope we will be able to fund it. We voted to fully fund 
IDEA. It would be a large increase in funding for school systems.
  But as I traveled my State, they expressed concern to me. I visited 
20 schools in Alabama recently, and I talked to principals and teachers 
at each one of those schools. They tell me that funding is important. 
They would like more funding. Many of them know that Congress has not 
fulfilled that agreement. They told me. Their frustration just pours 
out over the Federal regulations that deal with children with 
disabilities.
  This is the book that has the regulations in it with which they are 
required to comply. Lawyers, experts, testimony, and hearings occur on 
a regular basis. It is very difficult for teachers to be able to 
maintain discipline in their classrooms.
  Anyone who has talked to teachers in recent years--and perhaps 
forever, but now I think it is more of a problem--knows they are not 
able to maintain the level of discipline in a classroom they would 
like. As a result, it makes it more difficult for them to reach the 
children in the classroom. It makes learning more difficult. We know 
that in certain nations in the world they have classroom sizes three 
times or four times what we have in the United States. Yet they are 
able to maintain discipline. We need to do a better job of maintaining 
discipline in the classroom. If you talk to teachers and principals, 
they will tell you that.
  One of the greatest irritants to them is the regulation that comes 
out of this book. Teachers have left the profession based on it. They 
are incredibly frustrated. When you talk to them, their frustration 
pours out. They cite example after example of circumstances that you 
would think would not and could not happen but do happen in America. In 
fact, it does happen on a daily basis.
  We have been thinking about how to improve this. How can we improve 
the ability of school systems to confront a difficult situation with 
compassion, with consistency in the classroom so that it is clear that 
no one child can rule the roost, that no one child can just take charge 
and know they can't be disciplined and actually utilize that power to 
disrupt the classroom?

  We have talked with superintendents. We have talked to national 
leaders. We have talked to lawyers who handle these cases. We have 
proposed an amendment that is modest, that is less strong in some ways 
than others that have been adopted, but it will go a long way, if not 
all the way, in fixing this problem.
  This is what happens: A disabled child who is misbehaving is treated 
in an entirely different way than a child who is not a disabled child. 
They have extraordinary protections that, in effect, make it difficult 
for discipline to even occur. Lawyers are involved in it to an 
extraordinary degree.
  Let me read one letter from a special education coordinator who wrote 
about this problem. We tried to fix some of this in 1997 to improve it, 
but from what I am hearing in the field from the teachers, we made the 
situation worse, not better. This special education coordinator writes:

       The restrictions inherent in [the 1997] 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 writes:

       Today general educators at all grade levels must deal with 
     a large number of these students who are a challenge to 
     manage and instruct. Having to deal with these behaviors and/
     or to constantly change behavior interventions not only takes 
     away important instructional time from other students, but 
     inadvertently reinforces the disabled children's behavior. 
     All class rules should apply to all students and therefore 
     all students should share the same disciplinary action.

  I have maybe 50 or 60 letters to that effect. Let me read a letter 
from one teacher who shared her thoughts on this subject:

       As a special educator for six years I consider myself ``on 
     the front lines'' of the on-going 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.

  Remember this is a special educator.

       The law, though well intentioned, has become one of the 
     single greatest obstacles that educators face in our fight to 
     provide all of our children with a quality education 
     delivered in a safe environment. There are many examples that 
     I can offer first hand. However, let me reiterate that 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, a masters degree in special 
     education and a Ph.D. in good ole common sense. No where in 
     my educational process have I been taught a certain few 
     ``disabled'' students should have a ``right'' to endanger the 
     right to an education of all other disabled and nondisabled 
     children. It is nonsense. It is wrong. It is dangerous. It 
     must be stopped. There is no telling how many instructional 
     hours are lost by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. 
     In times of an increasingly competitive global society, it is 
     no wonder American students fall short. Certain children are 
     allowed to remain in the classroom robbing other children of 
     hours that can never be replaced. There is no need to extend 
     the schoolday, no need to extend the school year. If 
     politicians would just make it possible for educators to take 
     back the time that is lost on a daily basis, to contain 
     certain students, there is no doubt we would have better 
     educated students. It is even more frustrating when it is 
     a special education child who knows and boasts ``they 
     can't do anything to me'' and he is placed back in the 
     classroom to disrupt it day after day, week after week.

  And she goes on.
  There are many other letters. I thought I would share one from a 
student. I think it is particularly insightful into the problem with 
which we are dealing. We want to give every possible assistance to 
children with disabilities, but there are other children in the 
classroom also. We ought to think about them. Sometimes their very 
lives are at stake. Sometimes their safety is at stake. Sometimes their 
dignity is at stake.
  This is what this 14-year-old writes. It was sent to me earlier this 
year:

       I am a 14 year old eighth grader. I have a problem. There 
     is this girl that goes to school with me, she is an ADD 
     student [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 that he can do because of her status 
     as a special ed kid. I asked what would happen if I 
     threatened her back and he told me that I would be suspended 
     from school and forced to stay away. The most she has ever 
     gotten is three days ``in school'' suspension. I think this 
     is wrong. She scares me and I am tired

[[Page S6241]]

     of this. It has been going on for 5 months and it's really 
     getting scary.

  Unfortunately, that is not a rare event. Too often, that is what we 
are seeing today.
  Our legislation is a realistic attempt to deal with it.
  What it says is--and this is the core of it--if a child's misbehavior 
in the classroom is unconnected to the disability which they have, then 
they should be able to be disciplined like any other child in the 
classroom. We are not creating a permanent set of separate and unequal 
disciplinary actions in a classroom.
  If a child has a disability and that disability is connected to their 
disruptive activity, then we, as a society, have decided we will not 
remove them from the classroom; that it is something they cannot 
control, perhaps, and that we will provide them some form of education, 
whether it is in that classroom or in an alternative setting.
  But it is morally wrong and legally indefensible, in my view, to say 
that a child who has a mobility disability, who sells drugs in a class 
to other students, or who brings a gun to school--and that mobility 
disability has no connection whatsoever to the misconduct that they act 
out and do--they should not be protected and treated preferentially 
over the other students in the classroom.
  Let me tell you what I have heard from teachers in my State. I have 
two different examples I will share. There are many. Two children in a 
car bring a gun to a school campus. They did not bring it in the 
classroom, but it was a clear violation of the rules. It required a 
suspension from the school. The nondisabled student is suspended from 
school. The disabled student is not suspended, or is suspended just for 
a few days, because they are treated separately.
  Another example was told to me by teachers where one child sold 
marijuana to two other children on the school grounds. The seller was a 
disabled child. The purchasers or receivers were nondisabled children. 
Under the school rules, they were clearly in violation. The two who 
received the drugs were kicked out of school for a period of time. The 
one who sold the drugs was not. The teacher asked: How can we look 
those children in the eye? What kind of moral authority can we expect 
to have if we maintain discipline such as that? Isn't that wrong? It is 
mandated by Federal law, the IDEA regulations that are all over the 
country.
  We want to help children with disabilities, but we do not want to 
create a circumstance that frustrates teachers, that undermines 
learning, and really does not help the child involved.
  Over and over again, the letters I receive from teachers tell me they 
believe it is a bad learning process for a child to believe that they, 
in the classroom, can do things other children cannot. Then when they 
get out into the work world, they are treated like everybody else and 
end up having trouble on the job or with criminal activity.
  It is a problem we can confront. This legislation says you are 
entitled to a hearing, but if the hearing finds that your bad activity 
was not directly connected to your disability, then you could be 
treated for disciplinary purposes like any other child in the 
classroom. That is only common sense. It surprises me that anyone would 
object to that.
  Secondly, we found in the course of working on this matter that a 
number of parents are sacrificing to have their children take advantage 
of special schools. There is a great school, Talladega School for the 
Blind, in Alabama where a lot of children go. These are not inexpensive 
schools. Parents sacrifice to send their children there.
  Under Federal law, the school system must give each disabled child as 
much assistance as they can based on their disability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Torricelli). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this provision would say that if the 
school system believes an alternative school could help and if the 
parent agrees, if they both agree, they could take their daily 
allowance for funding for that student and allow the parent to apply to 
another school. I note that the House voted on a tougher bill than this 
just the other day by an overwhelming vote. The time has come to fix 
this problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Sessions 
amendment. I hope our colleagues will consider the alternative Senator 
Harkin has offered. Let me mention that briefly and then put this into 
some context.
  The amendment Senator Harkin and I are proposing ensures that 
students with disabilities will continue to receive services even if 
they are suspended or expelled. It retains the noncessation of services 
provision in current law.
  It ensures that behavioral supports are available to children so they 
may continue to learn. We are agreeing with Senator Sessions that a 
uniform policy of discipline for students with or without disabilities 
is appropriate. Where we differ is in the ultimate outcome.
  Our amendment continues the services while his amendment denies them. 
Our communities will be safer. Our children will become better 
citizens, if they have the full opportunity to learn. Conversely, 
expulsion from school with no alternatives will lead some children down 
a path where no one wants them to go. That is the alternative.
  I remind our colleagues of the history of the IDEA and where we have 
come from in terms of discrimination against those with disabilities. 
We have made remarkable progress on the road to free our Nation from 
the stains of discrimination. Discrimination was written into the 
Constitution. We fought a Civil War. Then again in the late 1950s, 
primarily with the leadership of Dr. King, and then in the early 1960s, 
we were able to pass landmark legislation that helped, to the extent 
that laws could, free us from discrimination on the basis of race, 
religion, national origin, gender discrimination, and discrimination on 
the basis of disabilities. Hopefully, we are going to free ourselves 
from discrimination on sexual orientation as well. It has been a very 
difficult march. No place has it been more difficult than trying to 
free the 5 million children who 25 years ago were more often locked in 
closets, not participating in the educational process. We have moved 
beyond that; we have proudly gone beyond that.

  We have seen slow but continuing progress. We saw it in 1974-1975, 
with the leadership at that time of President Ford. We made important 
progress. It was in response to Supreme Court decisions that recognized 
that when every State constitution guaranteed education to children, it 
didn't mean leaving out the disabled, leaving out the handicapped. The 
Supreme Court said we have a responsibility to provide for children who 
have certain mental and physical challenges. We have embraced that.
  As we have seen through this debate, we have recognized that many 
communities are attempting to deal with this problem. Given the 
complexity and the challenges of those disabilities, it is costly for 
many small communities. I know this is true in every State. Members 
have talked about small communities that have children with severe 
disabilities and what the impact has been in terms of taxes in the 
communities.
  What we stated a number of years ago--10 years ago--is that we were 
going to at least give the assurance that the Federal Government was 
going to provide 40 percent of the help for education. It still is a 
State requirement. Make no mistake about it. If we were not providing 
the funds, there is still the requirement under the State constitution, 
according to the Supreme Court. But we said we want to participate.
  That is what this legislation is about in terms of its focus on needy 
children. We are saying that that is a particular challenge for our 
country, that the poorest children, locked in rural and urban areas, 
are a special cause of America. We are also saying those children who 
have disabilities are a special cause.
  That is one of the most important parts of the bill, and I am going 
to do everything I possibly can to ensure that it comes back from 
conference

[[Page S6242]]

with the kinds of funding we have guaranteed in this legislation.
  There has been slow progress in giving assurance to children that 
they are going to have an opportunity to get a decent education in our 
public schools.
  This issue the Senator from Alabama has raised has been before the 
Senate on a number of occasions. The place to deal with it is when we 
do the reauthorization of the IDEA, which is going to occur next year. 
That is the appropriate place to deal with it. We haven't had the 
hearings. We haven't conducted the studies. We haven't had review. We 
have anecdotal evidence the Senator from Alabama has provided to us.
  Let's take the General Accounting Office. I listened to the Senator 
from Alabama talk about various letters. You can get letters on school 
behavior from any school in the country. Public schools are still the 
safest place in America for children, and we know the number of 
incidents taking place in public schools generally in any event. You 
could get 1,000 letters from many cities on kids and their concerns 
about safety.
  We have to do something about it. We are trying to do something about 
it. We have included that in the legislation. I will not spend the time 
in reviewing that at this moment, but we have taken many steps to 
ensure safer and better education in the community.
  Let's look at student discipline. In January 2000, just 2 years ago, 
we adopted new disciplinary procedures for the public schools. Here is 
the GAO report:

       Nevertheless, responding principals generally regarded 
     their overall special education discipline policy as having a 
     positive or neutral effect on the level of safety and 
     orderliness in their schools.

  That is the GAO. That is not anecdotal. That is not coming here to 
the Chamber and reading four or five letters from students. That is 
what the General Accounting Office said. They are not advocating my 
position or the position of the Senator from Alabama. They are trying 
to give us the facts, and these are the facts. The facts are not the 
anecdotal message of the Senator from Alabama.
  That is what is happening out there. Now, you can go through the 
study and you will find out that 27 percent of the principals report 
that a separate discipline policy for special education--20 percent 
reported that the disciplinary procedures for IDEA are burdensome and 
time consuming. I would like to do something about that, but we are not 
doing that here on the last 1-hour time distribution on the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. We ought to be able to do something on it.
  I would like to get the best people here, the GAO people who wrote 
that report. I would like to hear their testimony and get their 
recommendations. I would like to help those schools.
  But that isn't what this amendment is all about. That is not what 
this is all about. It is taking children who have, in these instances, 
a disciplinary problem--and note the words of art related to their 
particular disability. In fact, if you knock those children out, we 
know what happens. It is five or six times as likely that they will 
never come back to education once they lose that continuing education. 
Those are the statistics. We know what is going to happen. Those 
children are gone, out.
  Now, this is a difficult challenge, but it is a challenge that I 
think most of us think is worth it. What we have seen, as the Senator 
from Iowa pointed out very eloquently last night, is the extraordinary 
road to progress when local communities and school districts attempt to 
deal with these issues, with extraordinary kinds of results, incredible 
kinds of reactions. I could spend the time, which I don't have here, 
reading letters that have been written by parents who say their 
children have learned how to love because they have a child in the 
class who has learning disabilities, and we know the problems they 
have. We have spent time working with those children and other children 
who come together. Do you want to throw those kids out? Do you want to 
throw them out because they have had a cigarette outside in the lobby 
which was not related to their disability? Throw them out? My goodness. 
If we are going to have to have a full debate, let's do it, but do it 
on the reauthorization. Let's not take the final hours here to throw 
them out of school. That is what this amendment does, make no mistake 
about it.
  This is a basic major retreat, Mr. President, on the march of 
progress for disabled children. It is unworthy of this body, with the 
progress that we have made, to go backward. That is where this 
amendment takes us. We have a very solid alternative which is 
responsive to any of the continuing challenges. It has been offered by 
Senator Harkin. Every Member can vote for it with pride and hold their 
head high. I give assurance to the Senator from Alabama, if he wants to 
do that next year, he can be our first witness on the reauthorization 
of IDEA. If he wants other people on the panel that sustain his 
position, we will welcome them, too.
  Let's not effectively undermine the solid progress that we have made 
for children in this country over the period of the last 25 years. That 
is what the Sessions amendment does. We should reject it.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time 
remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has his own time, 15 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to associate myself fully with the 
statement just made by the chairman of our committee regarding the 
amendment I spoke on last night. I intend to speak a few more minutes 
this morning. First of all, sometimes good things happen, and we ought 
to take notice of them.
  Apropos of this debate we are having about kids with disabilities in 
schools, there is an article that recently appeared in the Washington 
Post on June 10th. It is a great story of the success of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is headlined, 
``Autistic Teen in DC School Goes to Head of Class.'' It talks about 
``Lee Alderman, a shy 19-year-old with autism, who will become the 
first special education student in the district, and perhaps in the 
metropolitan area, to graduate as valedictorian of his public high 
school class.'' This kid with a disability had a lot of problems going 
through school. He had the support of IDEA.
  Mr. President, I talk about that because in these debates we hear 
about discipline problems and all the things that are happening. We 
forget the hundreds of thousands of success stories that happen because 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, such as the one I 
just mentioned here with Lee Alderman. Yet we pick out a problem in 
this school or one in that school and we blame the kids with 
disabilities. I don't know why we continue to do that.
  I have pointed out many times how I have looked at schools where they 
have discipline problems, and they get a new principal and institute 
procedures according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, and their problems go away.
  The easy thing is always to get a kid with a disability out of the 
classroom, segregate them. My principal objection to the Sessions 
amendment is that it results in segregation--we are going to once again 
turn the clock back to the days when we segregated kids with 
disabilities, when we took kids from their homes and their communities 
and sent them sometimes halfway across the State to live in an 
institution to go to a special school.
  As I said last night, that is my personal story. My brother, who was 
deaf, was taken from his home, his community, his family, his friends, 
and sent halfway across the State to a boarding school for the deaf and 
the dumb, as they called it in those days. He was segregated from his 
family, his community, only because he was deaf. Mr. President, I don't 
want to go back to those days--back to the days when these kids were 
shuffled off to institutions.
  That is why we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act--to mainstream kids. That is why we passed the Americans with 
Disabilities Act--to say that it is wrong to discriminate against 
anybody, not just on the basis of race, sex, color, creed, national 
origin, but also disability. As a result of this, kids with 
disabilities have gone to school with their friends and their 
neighbors, kids they know

[[Page S6243]]

and with whom they associate. It has provided opportunities for these 
kids with disabilities. But more than that, it has provided the 
opportunities for kids without disabilities to be intimately associated 
in the classroom with kids who do have disabilities. I believe both 
have gained from this experience. I don't want to turn the clock back.
  The Sessions amendment basically would allow that segregation--take 
the kid out and put him in some segregated setting, without the 
protections of current law.
  Under IDEA, the law as it is presently constituted, can a child with 
a disability be segregated? The answer is yes. If that child is a 
safety risk to himself or herself, or to others. And, even if it is a 
manifestation of their disability, that child can be segregated, but 
only after a process in which the school has to show that they have 
provided adequate services for this kid.

  Last night, I gave an example of a child in a classroom. They had a 
TV monitor. He was watching it. The kid was deaf and some of the 
educational materials were put on the television monitor. But there was 
no captioning on it. So this went on, I don't know how long--a couple 
of days. Then the kid started throwing things. Then he started punching 
the kid next to him and things like that. Well, they kicked him out of 
the class. But, because of IDEA, there was a process to find out why 
that child acted out. When they brought in an interpreter, they found 
out the kid was frustrated because he could not understand what was 
going on. He was not getting the proper services. Under the Sessions 
amendment, that would not happen. That kid could be taken out, if he 
done something like that, without the protections of current law and 
could be segregated from that classroom.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question on that?
  Mr. HARKIN. Just one minute. Yes, I will yield, but I may ask for 
more time if I yield. I would not mind getting into a discussion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would not want the due process hearing to be 
eliminated. I don't intend to do that in the legislation. If there is 
any language there that does that, I will be glad to discuss it with 
the Senator. I do not believe it does.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if you look at my amendment, section 2, 
limitation, in general----
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator's amendment or mine?
  Mr. HARKIN. My amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator said mine eliminated a due process hearing. 
I would like for him to say where it does that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Right in ``(2) Limitation.--(A) In General.--'' where you 
say ``shall receive a free appropriate public education which may be 
provided in an alternative educational setting.'' My amendment adds the 
words ``pursuant to Sec 615K'' which does provide that. The Senator's 
amendment does not provide that. I ask him to look at that. That is not 
provided.
  To me, that was the biggest problem. I have other problems with his 
amendment. That is the single biggest problem right there. I point that 
out.
  Look at my amendment; I put in the words ``pursuant to Sec 615K.''
  That is one big problem with this amendment. The second problem is 
the cessation of services, and this is equally as important, perhaps, 
as the segregation.
  I agree with the Senator from Alabama; if a student with a disability 
violates a school rule and if that behavior is not related to his 
disability, that child should be disciplined in the same manner as any 
other child, and IDEA allows for that.
  Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, let's say a 
child with a disability is caught smoking in the parking lot and that 
is a violation of school rules but it is not a manifestation of that 
child's disability. That child can be disciplined just as any other 
child who was caught smoking in that parking lot. No ifs, ands, or buts 
about it.
  Here is the point: They can be disciplined, but the educational 
services cannot be stopped. We continue the services to this child.
  Here is the difference between the approach of the Senator from 
Alabama and mine. I do not believe educational services ought to be 
stopped for any child. Two years ago, we had the juvenile justice bill 
before the Senate. I offered an amendment at that time, which was 
adopted, which said that if a student with or without a disability was 
disciplined and was segregated or moved out of the school setting, 
educational services had to be continued.
  Why is it that if we are going to expel a student, we are just going 
to throw them out on the street? We shift the problem to the streets 
when it may be a family problem or it could be a host of reasons why 
this young person is acting up.
  The juvenile justice bill continued services for every child, not 
just kids with disabilities, but every child who was disciplined and 
removed from a school setting continued to receive educational 
services.
  My approach was to expand the concept of IDEA to all students. The 
approach of my friend from Alabama is let's take away everything, all 
of the services, even from kids with disabilities. That is the 
difference in approach. If one believes that a kid with a disability 
who is caught smoking in the parking lot and is kicked out of school 
because that is the school policy ought to be thrown on the street and 
receive no educational support, no educational services, then that is 
what the Sessions amendment does. But if one thinks that child should 
continue to receive educational services, that is not contained in his 
amendment; he wipes that out. Under IDEA, as the law is constituted 
today, that child will continue to get services.
  Two years ago when I offered this amendment on the juvenile justice 
bill, I had major police and law enforcement agencies of America 
supporting my amendment because they wanted to continue educational 
services to these kids.
  Law enforcement and parents all agree that ceasing services is the 
wrong answer, and yet I point out to my friend from Alabama, under 
paragraph (C) of his amendment, all of these services are ceased. My 
amendment leaves the same language as the Senator from Alabama, except 
I say ``except as provided in 612(a)(1)'' which means they continue the 
services. They can still be kicked out of school, make no mistake about 
it. They can be kicked out, but educational and other services that a 
disabled child needs will continue.

  I have lived with this now for most of my life. I have lived with 
IDEA for 26 years. It just seems as if every year we get some amendment 
that comes up to do something about kids with disabilities and 
discipline in school. Look, I do not mind, I say to my friend from 
Alabama, if he wants to do something about discipline in schools. I am 
sure there is something we can do about discipline in schools without 
encroaching on local control. But why focus on kids with disabilities? 
Why pick on the most vulnerable of our society? When we look at all of 
the school shootings from Columbine to Oregon to Pennsylvania, and I 
think there was one in Arkansas, not a one of those involved a child 
with a disability--not one. Yet every time we have something like that 
flare up, there is always an amendment that comes out that goes after 
kids with disabilities. It is not right. It is not fair.
  We have been through this before. We have been through it time and 
time again. I repeat for emphasis' sake what the Senator from 
Massachusetts said. We had a GAO study done of this. I wanted to get a 
study done to find out whether or not kids in special education were 
getting special treatment in the schools. Here is what the GAO report 
said in January, and I quote:

       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 and our review of the limited 
     extent research.

  That means IDEA is not limiting the ability to discipline children 
with disabilities. Really, what the Sessions amendment does is, under 
the guise of discipline, it will allow schools to turn the clock back 
and segregate these kids again. It will allow us to turn the clock back 
and stop services to these kids.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts said, we know a lot of times 
families with kids with disabilities are struggling. They do not have a 
lot of wherewithal. Kids get kicked out, they get

[[Page S6244]]

disciplined, families throw up their hands, the kids get thrown on the 
streets, and they never come back. They do not come back. We all know 
what happens then, and we know what happens to them after that. They 
wind up in our jails, in our prisons.
  We have taken major steps in this country to integrate kids with 
disabilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Objection. Five minutes is a bit much at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. OK. Three on each side?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I think we should have 3 
minutes for the opposition to this amendment also.
  Mr. HARKIN. Sure, that is all right.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Three minutes a side is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I was saying, we have come a long way, 
and we should not turn the clock back. On this very bill we are 
discussing, Senator Hagel and I offered an amendment that fully funds 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that we passed 26 years 
ago. That is in this bill. It is not an authorization; it is actually 
an appropriation in this bill, and it was adopted unanimously by the 
Senate by voice vote. That means school districts now will have more 
Federal funds coming in to help them provide the services these kids 
need.
  Let's not resegregate these kids until we see the outcomes of full 
funding. We are now going to give the schools the support and the 
finances they need to make sure they get the appropriate services for 
these kids with disabilities.

  The amendment I have pending in many ways is similar to the amendment 
of the Senator from Alabama, but it does not segregate and it does not 
stop services. It does allow schools to discipline kids with 
disabilities, it allows them to even kick them out, but it does not 
allow them to segregate or stop services to the kids with disabilities. 
I think that is a vital, important difference between these two 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will take managers' time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama was yielded 3 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will take that time.
  Let me respond first to the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I know 
how deeply he cares about this issue. I understand his concerns. We are 
not trying to undertake anything that would be detrimental to children 
with disabilities.
  I want him to understand clearly that under the example cited about a 
child who was frustrated because they could not hear the television--
and some of those things happen--under this amendment I have presented, 
that child could not be removed without a manifest determination 
hearing, and if in any hearing that would occur it is clearly shown 
there was a connection between his disability and his behavior, he 
could not be denied school services.
  That is the difference between our amendment and the one that passed 
the House a few weeks ago in May that does not provide for the hearing. 
Under the House bill that passed by 250 or 40-some-odd votes, they 
would be treated as any other child for disciplinary purposes.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield such time as I may have under this amendment to 
the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. For example, it says for disciplinary purposes the 
children shall be treated equally.

       ``(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.

  I wanted to get that straight. I know the Senator cares deeply about 
that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I point out to the Senator, in all fairness, the 
paragraph just quoted leaves our ``pursuant to section 615(k)'' of the 
underlying bill which provides for that due process hearing. That is 
not in your amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Our amendment further says:

       (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).

      That is current law, and we provide for the hearing.
  Mr. HARKIN. Later, after they are kicked out.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The school gets to protect the students until it is 
complete, no later than 10 days. I think the school system ought to be 
given some deference. The principals and the teachers love children. 
They care about their school. They want to do the right thing. We have 
pounced on them.
  Why does the disability act come up in the U.S. Congress? Because it 
is a Federal law that is controlling our teachers and principals. When 
they express concern to us, we should listen.
  I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Allen. He was a former Governor and was deeply involved 
in education.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes 
23 seconds; the Senator from Iowa has 1\1/2\ minutes; and the Senator 
from Alabama has 13 minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am interested because I thought we had an hour evenly 
divided at 9 o'clock. I know we went to this a few minutes after 9.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an additional 6 minutes added by 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sessions amendment 
which would properly return the ability to the local schools and 
principals to establish and implement uniform discipline policies 
applicable to all children in our States and school districts.
  I have been listening to a lot of comments back and forth. One of the 
reasons this issue comes back year after year after year is that it is 
an issue in local schools year after year after year and it becomes an 
issue in campaigns.
  The issue is not whether or not we support IDEA or support education 
and helping those with disabilities. We clearly all agree with that. 
The issue is whether or not we are going to have a uniform standard of 
conduct applicable to all students within a public school system. That 
is the issue.
  I was involved in this issue from the first month I came in as 
Governor of Virginia in 1994 where we had these problems with this 
Federal law. We took the Department of Education to court in 
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Riley. We went to the appellate court and 
prevailed. Then in 1997 our victory for maintaining order and 
discipline in our schools was taken away by the action of the House and 
the Senate.
  I can promise the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Massachusetts, 
and the Senator from Alabama that discipline or expulsion is not taken 
lightly in Alabama or Virginia--or I can't imagine in any school. To 
accuse our educators, our States, our school boards of wanting to 
unfairly discriminate against students with disabilities and shirking 
their responsibility by unfairly expelling them is unfounded and wrong.
  It is not a question of a kid smoking a cigarette in the parking lot. 
The issues are students who set up cocaine rings, sell explosives that 
blow off a child's hand, or bloody another student with brass knuckles. 
If a child has an epileptic fit and breaks a teacher's

[[Page S6245]]

nose, that is usually a mitigating factor so a child will not be 
expelled.
  Here are actual cases in Fairfax County, not too far from here, in 
public schools. A group of students brought in a loaded 357 magnum 
handgun. It was recovered in the school building. The non-special-
education students were expelled. One student, however, was identified 
as learning disabled due to the student's weakness in written language 
skills. The team reviewed the evaluations and found there was no causal 
relationship between the student's writing disability and the student's 
involvement in the weapons violation. The student was not expelled. 
That student later bragged to teachers and students at the school that 
he could not be expelled.
  In another recent case in Fairfax High School, a student was part of 
a gang that was involved in a mob assault on another student. One 
student involved in the melee used a meat hook as a weapon. Three of 
the gang members were expelled; the other two who were special ed 
students were not expelled and are still in the school.
  These are the real situations where there is not an equal or fair 
administration of standards of conduct in the schools. I think we all 
care about good school conduct. We want small class sizes, good 
academics, good assessments, empowerment of parents, and all the rest. 
What also is important is a conducive learning environment.
  We need to trust in and take care to allow the responsibilities for 
maintaining order and discipline in schools to be where they properly 
belong and not have a Federal law that really justifies a double 
standard on discipline for disabled and nondisabled students, despite 
our shared efforts to ensure equal treatment and inclusion into a 
mainstream system.
  The Sessions amendment would return authority for all students back 
to the States and local schools where it belongs. It is for the 
parents, teachers, and community, not Washington, to know what is best 
for students. We want to provide students with a safe learning 
environment, but we do not need any illogical interference from the 
Federal Government.
  I hope my colleagues will support the Sessions amendment. I thank 
Senator Sessions for his brave leadership on this issue. I ask Senators 
to stand by your local schoolteachers, stand by your principals, by 
providing fair and equal standards of conduct for all students, and 
please support the Sessions amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am absolutely amazed and shocked at the 
comments of the Senator from Virginia, talking about drugs, guns, and 
bombs. Why didn't they call 911? They can be held and expelled. Now we 
are finding out what this is all about: Guns, drugs, and bombs in 
schools--that disabled children are doing it? Demonstrate it.
  I give you the General Accounting Office report that says there is no 
such thing that is happening. This is not something we are proposing. 
This is a study on discipline and school behavior. If you can find the 
words ``guns, bombs, and drugs'' in here, go ahead and find them. It 
reaches entirely different conclusions.
  Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. No, I don't yield. You talk about it, that it comes up 
in campaigns. You bet it does. And we have just heard it, we have just 
seen it. We just heard and understand the reasons.
  If there is a problem, as the Senator from Alabama says, we don't 
find it in the General Accounting Office report. Anyone can get 
anecdotal information that there is a problem here and there in some 
schools. But that just doesn't happen. That is not the case. That is 
not what the General Accounting Office in its report of January of this 
year stated.
  Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If you have a different conclusion from that, present 
it. But just to say look, there are guns, bombs, and drugs, all these 
disabled children all over, disrupting, disrupting--we are used to 
that. We have heard that kind of presentation. That is not what this is 
about. These children have faced these challenges along the line. This 
is what the General Accounting Office report says.

  Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have limited time, Senator. I was here last evening 
ready to debate it, and I was here earlier ready to debate it.
  Mr. ALLEN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for order, Mr. President. Who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  This is what it says:

       Special education students who are involved in serious 
     misconduct are being disciplined in generally a similar 
     manner to regular education students, based on the 
     information principals reported to us and our review.
       [P]rincipals generally rated their school's special 
     education discipline policies . . . as having a positive or 
     neutral effect on the level on [school] safety and 
     orderliness.

  That is what this report, the General Accounting Office report, says:

       Based on our analysis of disciplinary actions and past 
     research, regular education and special education . . . were 
     treated in a similar manner.

  There is the General Accounting Office report. We have, with 1 hour 
on the reauthorization of this act, a proposal that is going to take 
away the kind of education support systems the Federal Government pays 
for--not Virginia pays for but the Federal Government pays for. That is 
the effect of it.
  You wanted to wipe that out.
  The amendment Senator Harkin has introduced is very clear in what it 
permits, what it allows. The amendment says that students with 
disabilities will continue to have services, even if they are suspended 
or expelled. It retains the noncessation of service provisions in 
current law and ensures that behavioral supports are available to 
children so they may continue to learn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his minute and a half.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will take the last minute.
  We are agreeing with Senator Sessions; a uniform policy for students 
with or without disabilities is appropriate. Where we differ is in the 
ultimate outcome. If you want to change the IDEA law, let's do it when 
we do reauthorization.
  I have invited the Senator from Alabama to come to our hearing. I 
will invite the Senator from Virginia to come and make the 
presentation. But to change this march we have had--not since 1994, but 
many of us have been here since 1974, at a time when 5 million children 
were being put in closets and not educated--not 1994, and we know who 
has been discriminated against--we are not going to march backward.
  This is a major retreat in providing mainstreaming for the children 
of this country which is not only the right educational policy and the 
right, decent thing to do, but is also commanded to be done by the 
Supreme Court.
  I hope the amendment of the Senator from Alabama is defeated and the 
amendment of the Senator from Iowa is accepted.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I recognize that the issue of educating 
children with disabilities is complex. There are many factors to take 
into consideration as we try to determine the best possible policy to 
make sure that all children receive a quality education. I have no 
doubt that this amendment is intended to improve the educational 
opportunities for disabled students, but I have concerns that the 
amendment fails to provide protections to make sure that parents of 
children with disabilities are not pressured into removing their 
children from public schools. If a system of protections were included, 
I would likely support this amendment.
  Further, this bill is not the appropriate place to resolve this 
complicated issue. In view of the fact that this Congress will 
reauthorize the bill that guarantees an education to children with 
disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, I 
believe Congress should wait for that opportunity to make significant 
changes in policy concerning educating disabled children. That will 
allow us to fully debate these important issues, examine the 
alternatives, and come to a clearer understanding of how to best 
educate disabled children in this country. I am voting against this 
amendment today,

[[Page S6246]]

but I look forward to revisiting this issue during the reauthorization 
of the IDEA.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to both 
Senator Sessions' and Senator Harkin's amendments, which attempt to 
reach the goal of helping school districts establish and implement 
discipline policies that are consistent for every child in the school 
district.
  I strongly believe that we do need to come to a resolution in Federal 
law that will help school districts appropriately discipline students 
when they act out violently or in a way that disrupts the learning of 
other students, but that we should be certain that our actions do not 
punish children for their disabilities.
  The problem we have, at hand, is that the 1997 IDEA reauthorization, 
as passed and implemented, has developed a separate discipline policy 
for children in special education, which many school superintendents 
have found unequal and unfair in their efforts to maintain discipline 
in their schools. In fact, a recent GAO report, published in January of 
this year, found that while many principals believe that the differing 
school policies had a neutral effect on their schools, 27 percent of 
principals did believe that a separate discipline policy for special 
education students is unfair to the regular student population.
  Now, I want to be very clear that my intention is not to go back to 
the pre-1975 days when students with disabilities were segregated from 
the regular student population or, even worse, were denied education 
all together. In fact, in the early 1970s, I walked door to door trying 
to figure out why so many children were staying home from school. The 
census, at the time, showed that there were 2 million children out of 
school so the Children's Defense Fund worked to answer the question of 
why these children were not in school. While working for the Children's 
Defense Fund, I was one of the researchers who found that approximately 
750,000 of these children were being kept out of school because they 
were handicapped. This research led to the first-ever report by the 
Children's Defense Fund, ``Children out of School in America,'' which 
helped provide solid research to pass the Education for All Handicapped 
Children Act of 1975.
  As the Progressive Policy Institute so eloquently concluded in a 
recent report, thanks to this law ``today many disabled children in 
America have the opportunity to obtain high-quality educational 
experience tailored to their needs and circumstances, the priorities of 
their parents, and the judgements of their teachers.'' This report goes 
on, however, to point out that the law has not kept up with the 
challenges faced by today's schools. Discipline is a primary example. 
While IDEA provides protection for disabled students, many believe it 
goes too far. That, while protecting disabled students, the law may 
unintentionally harm the educational progress of other students in the 
classroom.
  Senator Sessions' amendment attempts to fix this problem by 
eliminating all due process for children with disabilities who have 
disciplinary problems. Senator Harkin's amendment, on the other hand, 
attempts to address the problem by encouraging local school districts 
to implement uniform discipline policies while, at the same time, 
recodifying current IDEA law as it relates to the discipline policy.
  I oppose these amendments because I do not believe that either 
amendment adequately addresses the problem of working toward a uniform 
discipline policy that allows school administrators to maintain 
discipline so that all children are offered the opportunity to learn 
and are not interrupted due to the actions of one child, while 
protecting the civil rights of children with disabilities to receive a 
free and appropriate education.
  There is much work we need to do on this issue and I believe that we 
should develop balanced policies that can be part of the discussion and 
debate during the 2002 reauthorization of IDEA. We need to look for 
policies that help prevent children with discipline problems from 
unnecessarily being identified as in need of special education. We need 
to ensure that quality alternative educational settings are developed 
for those students who need alternative placements. And, most 
importantly, we need to fully fund IDEA so that children with 
disabilities receive appropriate treatment.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against the 
Sessions amendment. I do believe that we need a more uniform standard 
of discipline for disabled students, however, I do not believe that it 
is prudent for the Senate to consider such an important policy matter 
in such a short amount of time. I share several of the Senator's 
concerns about the need to revisit the discipline language in the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but I do not believe the 
reauthorization bill for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is 
the appropriate vehicle. The reauthorization of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act is expected to be considered next year. I 
look forward to having a fuller debate on this complex issue at that 
time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to give an explanation for votes 
that I made earlier today on the amendment offered by my colleague 
Senator Sessions and the second degree amendment offered by Senator 
Harkins. I voted against these amendments because ultimately I believe 
that we should consider such proposals when the Senate debates the 
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
IDEA, next year.
  I support the provisions in the Harkin amendment that would allow 
States and local education agencies to establish and implement uniform 
policies regarding discipline applicable to all children. This would 
allow school personnel to remove students from school for disruptive 
behavior, if such behavior is determined not to be a manifestation of 
the student's disability. The amendment further states that school 
districts must provide education services to such students in an 
alternative setting. Although I agree with my colleague that schools 
should strive to uphold such provisions, I believe there may be special 
exemptions to this, such as when a student poses a violent threat to 
educators and other students.
  I share the concern raised by my colleague from Alabama and have 
voted in the past to reform discipline provisions to ensure safe and 
orderly learning environments. However, such an important issue 
deserves our full consideration and attention and I believe we should 
deal with this in the context of IDEA reauthorization so we can have a 
fuller debate and adopt a more comprehensive approach.
  I look foward to working with both of my esteemed colleagues on these 
and other important elements of the IDEA when it is reauthorized next 
year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 42 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, in response to some of the remarks by the 
Senator from Massachusetts, let me say this is not an issue about 
trying to deprive those students with disabilities of an education. 
This is an issue of standards of conduct. Oh, sure, the Federal 
Government does put some money into IDEA, but most of it does come from 
the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, and the State of Alabama. That is the whole issue of the 
Harkin-Hagel amendment in the first place. It has been an unfunded 
mandate.
  To cite the comments and cast aspersions on my remarks, which were 
taken from a court decision--these individuals from Richmond City 
public schools, Fairfax County public schools, were under oath. Just 
because a General Accounting Office report doesn't refer to these 
situations doesn't mean they did not occur. Those individuals presented 
themselves before a court and swore under oath what happened. There are 
school records of it. They were subject to cross-examination.
  For the Senator from Massachusetts to say these are just concocted, 
falsified stories, unfortunately is not an accurate statement. These 
are incidents that occur time after time.
  The Senator from Alabama and I are not saying that disabled students 
cause trouble all the time. But it does happen, from students who are 
disabled

[[Page S6247]]

and students who have no disabilities --they cause problems in schools. 
We think the standards of conduct should be fair and equal in their 
treatment, with proper due process and equal protection. That is what 
the issue is, and no amount of unfair aspersions, raised voices, and 
histrionics can avoid the facts of what we are trying to do, to 
preserve local autonomy and safe schools as well as equal and fair 
treatment.
  I yield whatever time I had.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the school system does treat differently 
students who bring drugs and guns to school. There is no doubt about 
that. I know Senator Harkin feels strongly about this, and Senator 
Kennedy does. Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy opposed, when we had 
74 votes on the juvenile bill, an amendment that simply said if you 
bring a gun to school, you can be treated as any other child for 
disciplinary purposes. That got 74 votes in this body. It is time to do 
something about this.
  Do we not love children if we simply say a child who acts illegally, 
who abuses other children, who is sexually aggressive against girls in 
the classroom, even teachers, who curses teachers in the classroom--
engaging in that activity, if it is not connected to their disability, 
should they be protected and given a special status, as they absolutely 
are here?
  All this amendment says is, if a child has a disability, as Senator 
Harkin used the example, a hearing disability, and that is connected to 
their misbehavior, then they cannot be denied services in the school. 
They can remain there, and they are entitled to a hearing even on 
whether or not they go to a special classroom.
  We do not deny hearings. But we are simply saying it is time for the 
school principals and teachers to be given some respect. It is time for 
school students, as the 14-year-old about whom I read here, who said 
she can't respond but she is abused regularly--her glasses are knocked 
off. The girl told her she was going to kill her, and she was afraid to 
go to school. That child is getting no relief and cannot get it, it 
seems.
  I believe we have a modest step forward in making progress. 
Unfortunately, the Harkin amendment undermines everything the amendment 
I have offered seeks to do.
  It is return to the status quo. It is return to the Federal 
Government micromanaging school classrooms and discipline problems. It 
is not healthy for America.
  All we are trying to do is exact some balance. The House passed a 
much stronger bill earlier last month with 246 votes. That vote did not 
provide the kinds of hearings that our bill does. I believe this is the 
right approach. It is time to respond to the educators.
  Senator Kennedy says the Federal Government is paying for this. We 
know the Federal Government is not paying for this. We know we are 
paying only a fraction of the cost. It is basically an unfunded Federal 
mandate on local schools in America. They are required to do all of 
these things.
  Newsweek had an article on a student who was called ``the meanest kid 
in Alabama.'' He had an aide who went with him from the time he got on 
the schoolbus until the time he got to class, all through class, and 
then on the way home on the bus. One day he assaulted the schoolbus 
driver, and the aide, I think, tried to stop him.
  Those are the kinds of problems we have created under this law that 
seems to be impossible to deal with. I think the Disabilities Act is a 
historic step forward. We want to keep every child in the regular 
classroom who can possibly be kept there.
  I have visited schools in Alabama. I have seen schools with children 
in wheelchairs in the classroom. I have seen blind children in the 
classroom. I think that is wonderful. But if a child in a wheelchair 
sells dope, should they be treated differently from any other child who 
sells dope in school?
  That is all we are saying. But even then that child would have to 
have a hearing, and the school would have to show that the action he 
was being disciplined for was not a result of the disability before he 
could be removed from the classroom.
  This is a modest step forward to deal with a problem that is very 
real for teachers all over this country. If you go into their schools 
and talk to them, you will hear them talk about it. If you have friends 
who are teachers, ask them about it.
  There are many actions in this legislation that are unfair and cannot 
be justified, in my opinion.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand there are 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Virginia if he 
would please provide to my office these specific examples and the 
schools because I would like to take a look at those. I would like to 
look at them because, under the 1997 bill that we passed, if you bring 
a bomb or a gun or drugs to school, you are out. You are out. So I 
would like to ask publicly if the Senator from Virginia would provide 
those to my office so we can take a look at those to see why there is 
this disagreement. In the 1997 bill, which we passed 98-1 on the Senate 
floor, if you bring a bomb or drug or guns to school you are out.
  I say to the Senator from Alabama that I realize he has good 
intentions. All of us want discipline in schools. I brought two kids 
through public schools. Of course, we want discipline in our public 
schools. None of us wants our teachers or busdrivers to be subject to 
violence by kids who may harm them or harm themselves. None of us wants 
that. We want safe schools.
  That is why in the process of 26 years we have worked hard on a 
bipartisan basis in the Senate and in the House to fashion and change 
this legislation so that we meet the needs of those public schools. 
That is what the 1997 bill was all about. It is working. Let's not turn 
the clock back and segregate these kids as we did in the past. We have 
come too far for that. That is what the Sessions amendment does. It 
just segregates these kids.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute thirty-two seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Harkin amendment does not do the 
job. I urge its defeat. It has the pretense of improving the law, but 
it does not in any way.
  Under the amendment, the schools would not be free to set uniform 
discipline provisions for all students. The double standard that now 
exists would continue to exist. Our amendment does not completely 
remove the double standard, but it makes substantial progress after 
providing a hearing to that student to ensure they are treated fairly. 
Even if the bad behavior that a school seeks to address in the 
classroom has no relation to the child's disability, the school would 
be forced to keep that disruptive or even violent student in the 
classroom.
  If a child, for example, were blind, and if there were an excellent 
blind school nearby, the Harkin amendment would deny the school and the 
parent the right to agree--it would take both of them agreeing--to 
accept the average daily allowance for that student and apply that to 
that school, if the parent wanted to make up the difference and get the 
kind of high-quality education that might not be available in that 
school.
  I believe this is a concern for children. I believe it is 
compassionate in every way. It simply tries to give our beleaguered 
principals, teachers, and schools more options to deal with a very real 
problem.
  I thank the Chair. I urge defeat of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 802.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:

[[Page S6248]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--64

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 802) was rejected.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday during rollcall votes 185 and 186, 
I was necessarily absent to attend services in connection with the 
passing of Mrs. Barbara Bailey. Mrs. Bailey was the spouse of the late 
John Bailey, the legendary former chairman of both the Connecticut 
State Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. She was 
also the mother of Barbara Kennelly who represented the 1st 
Congressional District of Connecticut from 1983 through 1999. She was a 
remarkable woman and her passing saddens us all.
  Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted as follows: On 
rollcall vote No. 185, the Domenici amendment as modified, I would have 
voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 186, the Schumer amendment, I would 
have voted ``aye.''


                     Amendment No. 604, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes for debate to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the 
Sessions amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have a real problem in education 
today. It is a mandate that we know we do not fully fund. We are paying 
about 10 percent of the cost of IDEA. We ought to be paying 40 percent, 
according to our agreement. We have voted to increase that funding 
fully now.
  The next thing we need to do is deal with the Federal regulations 
that are contained in this book that teachers and principals are having 
to deal with on a daily basis. Most of you have heard from your 
teachers and schools. You know the way we are administering the 
Disabilities Act does not work.
  My amendment would simply say that a child, after a hearing where it 
is found that they are disruptive or perform an illegal or improper act 
in school that was not a product of their disability, would be treated, 
for disciplinary purposes, as any other child. That would mean that a 
child who sold dope, even though they may have a mobility disability, 
would be treated as any other child that sold drugs in a classroom. I 
think that is the right approach.
  The House passed a bill much stronger which said flatout that any 
child, whether disabled or not, would be treated the same for 
disciplinary purposes.
  This is a more modest step, but I believe a good step, in dealing 
with the problem that we are hearing about from all our teachers. I 
urge passage of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator 
from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know that all Senators--I talked with 
them in the well--are concerned about discipline in classes. This 
Senator is no different. I put two kids in public schools. We are all 
concerned about discipline in the classroom. But the Sessions amendment 
is the wrong approach. To segregate kids with disabilities and take 
them out and put them in a separate setting is not the right thing to 
do.
  The Sessions amendment would cease services to these kids with 
disabilities. That is not the right thing to do. There may be other 
things we can do to help provide for discipline in the classroom but 
not to segregate kids with disabilities. That is extreme.
  Those of us who have lived in families with siblings who were 
disabled and watched them taken from our families and our communities 
and sent halfway across the State, segregated from their friends, do 
not want to go back to that. That is what the Sessions amendment does.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time set 
aside in the order entered last night from 1 to 2 for morning business 
be terminated. There will be no morning business if this unanimous 
consent agreement is agreed to. We want to move along with this bill. I 
have spoken to the people interested and they have been very courteous 
and have acknowledged it would be better to not do morning business 
then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Allen, Bond, and Voinovich be listed as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is all 
time yielded back?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  All time having expired, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
604, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 604), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from 
Alabama wishes to vote----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has been made and is not 
debatable.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding this amendment we just completed--it 
did not pass on a vote of 50-50. The Senator from Alabama wishes to 
vote on this again. With the consent of the Senator from Alabama and 
the Senator from Iowa, it would seem it would be in

[[Page S6249]]

everyone's interest that we would schedule a vote at a time certain on 
the motion to reconsider.
  My unanimous consent request is it would be after the completion of 
the work on the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, which is, 
according to the order we entered last night, the next to be debated.
  In short, we will complete the debate on the Helms amendment, vote on 
that, and immediately go to a vote on the motion of the Senator from 
Alabama, with 1 minute on the side of the Senator from Alabama and 1 
minute for the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Is there a request before the Senate?
  Mr. REID. Yes, there is.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, I merely want to understand 
what the request is.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from West Virginia, if this unanimous 
consent request is finalized, we are going to go ahead and complete the 
debate on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. 
Following a vote on that amendment, we would come back and vote again 
on the motion that was just made.
  Mr. BYRD. Why is the Senate voting again on that motion?
  Mr. REID. Because the Senator from Alabama wishes to have a vote, and 
the fact is, we have not tabled the motion to reconsider on the initial 
motion that I made, and the motion the Senator from California made to 
table.
  We are trying to enter into this agreement. If that does not work, 
then the Senator from Alabama is going to suggest the absence of a 
quorum to try to figure a way to get out of that and in the meantime we 
will waste a lot of time around here.
  Mr. BYRD. Is the motion to table before the Senate?
  Mr. REID. It is before the Senate, but it has not been agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Was there a vote in progress on that motion?
  Mr. REID. No.
  Mr. BYRD. There was not. So the Chair has not ruled on the motion to 
table. Therefore, the vote is still to be had, whether it be by voice, 
by division, or by rollcall.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from West Virginia is, as usual, right.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for Members of the Senate, then, we are 
going to now begin debate on the amendment of the Senator from North 
Carolina.


                      Amendments Nos. 574 And 648

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the Helms amendments Nos. 574 and 648.
  The Senate will be in order. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to make my remarks from my seat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe the pending business has already 
been announced by the Chair; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will restate the question, 
please.
  Mr. HELMS. Is it my understanding that the amendment became the 
pending business by unanimous consent? Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  As the largest and most universally acclaimed youth-serving 
organization in the world, the Boy Scouts of America has led millions 
of young boys to respect and abide by the fundamental virtues of duty 
to God and respect for individual beliefs, loyalty to their country and 
respect for their country's law, service to others, voluntarism, 
training of boys in responsible citizenship, in physical and mental 
development, and in character development.
  This came about early in the last century. It was a curious turn of 
events that brought Scouting to America in the year 1910.
  The year before, in 1909, a Chicago publisher, William D. Boyce, had 
been traveling in Europe.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I ask my friend to yield for a moment. 
It is very difficult to hear the Senator. Would you be willing to hold 
your microphone because it is very difficult for us to hear your 
presentation.
  Mr. HELMS. I am delighted. I didn't know anyone wanted to listen to 
it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Murray and I are hanging on your every word and 
we want to hear.
  Mr. HELMS. Does the Chair suggest I start over?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would like.
  Mr. HELMS. It was a curious turn of events that brought Scouting to 
America in 1910. The year before that, in 1909, a Chicago publisher, 
William D. Boyce, had been traveling in Europe and got lost in a dense 
fog while he was in London. It was a Scout--not by that name but a 
Scout--who came to Boyce's aid and guided him through the fog to his 
hotel. Afterwards, the boy refused a tip from Mr. Boyce explaining that 
as a Scout, he would not and could not take a tip for doing a good 
turn.
  Since that time, almost a century has elapsed, and the character and 
the reputation and the admiration that people have for the Boy Scouts 
of America has intensified year after year.
  Last June, a year ago, the Supreme Court found it essential to uphold 
constitutional rights of Boy Scouts of America, oddly enough, to abide 
by and practice the Boy Scout moral guidelines for membership and 
leadership, including no obligation to accept homosexuals as Boy Scout 
members or leaders.
  Yet in spite of the Supreme Court's landmark decision, radical 
militants continue to attack this respectable organization--the Boy 
Scouts of America.
  Specifically, these militants are pressuring school districts across 
the country to exclude the Boy Scouts of America from federally funded 
public school facilities based on what they did in one instance. They 
decided to press for exclusion of the Boy Scouts from the schools 
because the Boy Scouts would not agree to surrender their first 
amendment rights and because they would not accept the agenda of the 
radical left.
  I asked the Congressional Research Service, among others, to inform 
me as to how many school districts have already taken such hostile 
action against the Boy Scouts. The Congressional Research Service 
reported to me that at that time at least nine school districts were 
known to have attacked the Boy Scouts of America, and, in the majority 
of the cases, they had done so in outright rejection of the Supreme 
Court's ruling protecting the Boy Scouts' rights, which is now the law 
of the land.
  Which is precisely why I again decided to offer the amendment 
entitled ``The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act.'' This pending 
amendment--which unanimously passed the House of Representatives--would 
for once and for all put a complete end to the arrogant treatment being 
directed by various school districts across this Nation at the Boy 
Scouts of America,
  Specifically, the pending amendment stipulates that if a public 
elementary school, or a public secondary school, discriminates against 
the Boy Scouts of America--or any other youth group similar to the Boy 
Scouts--in providing equal access to school facilities, then that 
school will be in jeopardy of losing its Federal funds.
  Now, before opponents work themselves into a frenzy, it may be well 
to make clear on exactly how this proposed amendment would work: it 
stipulates that the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of 
Education be given statutory authority to investigate any 
discriminatory action taken by school authorities against the Boy 
Scouts of America.
  The Office of Civil Rights was established to handle discrimination 
problems that occur within the public school system. My amendment would 
direct the Office of Civil Rights to handle cases of discrimination 
against the Boy Scouts precisely the same as the Department of 
Education currently handles other cases of discrimination--barred by 
Federal law and which may result in termination of Federal funds.

[[Page S6250]]

  It should be noted, Mr. President, that according to CRS, 
``historically, the fund termination sanction has been infrequently 
exercised--by the Office of Civil Rights--and most cases are settled at 
. . . the investigative process . . .''. In other words, when the 
Office of Civil Rights warns a school to get its act together, the 
school usually listens.
  Therefore, it is not likely that any school will be in fact ever that 
its funding eliminated; unless it adamantly refuses to provide the Boy 
Scouts of America equal access to school facilities.
  It will not be handled willy-nilly. It will be based on specific 
evidence.
  Needless to say, I do hope that the Senate will uphold the 
constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America to have equal access 
to school facilities.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi, the Republican 
leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the manager in opposition to this 
amendment for allowing me to go ahead and speak now. Ordinarily, we 
make a real point to go back and forth. So I appreciate that. I will be 
brief and to the point.
  I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is an amendment that 
should basically be accepted by all of us. I don't know quite how to 
react to the fact that in America even the Boy Scouts seem to be under 
attack. Is motherhood and apple pie next? Is there nothing sacred 
anymore?
  I don't have a conflict of interest. I came from such a small, rural, 
poor area that we didn't even have a Boy Scout troop. I was a Cub 
Scout. Somehow or other we managed to have a Cub Scout troop. I enjoyed 
that. I never got to be a Weeblo or a Boy Scout. I missed it.
  I have been very supportive of the Boy Scouts, and I have attended 
Eagle Scout ceremonies. I have been to Boy Scouts events that 
recognized great Americans who started off as Scouts--such as Jerry 
Ford when he got a special recognition.
  It is not as if I am defending something from which I directly 
benefited. But, quite frankly, I think we all benefit from 
organizations such as the Boy Scouts. Their fundamental principles are 
rooted in basic good things such as duty to God and respect for 
individual beliefs, loyalty to one's country and respect for its laws, 
service to others, voluntarism, and training of youth in responsible 
citizenship, in physical and mental development, and in character 
advancement.
  These are all such fine goals. I have watched this organization 
transform young men's lives, as the Girl Scouts with girls. They have 
given them an opportunity to help themselves, to support causes bigger 
than themselves as the saying goes now, and to improve their community 
by involvement.
  I think in no way should we diminish the importance of that, or take 
away what they do for boys and girls of all races and ethnic and 
religious backgrounds.
  Now what does this amendment do? The title is the Boy Scouts of 
America Equal Access Act. It sounds good to me. I assume there are 
going to be those who say this is something we shouldn't do or it gives 
them some advantage. But all it says is that if a public elementary 
school or public secondary school has a designated open forum, then 
that school cannot discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America or 
any youth group on the basis of its membership or leadership criteria 
or on the basis of its oath of allegiance to God and country.
  If a public school did discriminate against the Boy Scouts of 
America, then that school would be in jeopardy of losing its Federal 
education funds.
  I know the Supreme Court rendered a decision recently saying a 
religious group could have time and access to space at a school if all 
other groups have access. You do not have to attend, but if you are 
going to have an open policy, then you have to let everybody have an 
opportunity to have access to the space in the school. This is a very 
meritorious and I think very defensible position to have.
  The Boy Scouts have become the largest voluntary youth movement in 
the world with a worldwide membership totaling more than 25 million. 
Over 6 million of those participants come from the United States alone.
  There have been a series of decisions in the courts that I think 
relate to this. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Boy Scouts v. Dale that 
the Boy Scouts are a private organization and, as such, they can decide 
who can be in their organization if they wish.
  There was a decision recently involving the Boy Scouts in the U.S. 
district court in Florida which said that Broward County could not 
evict Scouts off school property.
  So there are decisions at the district court level and from the 
Supreme Court affecting this. But of the attacks on the Boy Scouts, 
some people would say it is no real problem. It is having an impact. 
Based on the Boy Scouts' stand on their principles, eight of the United 
Way agencies nationwide have withdrawn their financial support from the 
Boy Scouts of America. We have seen that there have been some 359 
school districts which have severed sponsorships with the Scouts since 
last June's ruling.
  So it is affecting the Boy Scouts in terms of financial support, and 
it is affecting them in that schools are beginning to prohibit Boy 
Scouts from being able to have sponsorships and meet in their schools.
  So clearly it is having an effect. We have reached the point now 
where when a Boy Scout troop comes out--four or five boys; or girls who 
are Girl Scouts--they get booed because they are there during the 
Pledge of Allegiance. Surely, we cannot reach that kind of ugliness in 
America.
  So I think it is very important that we have this amendment added. It 
would require that public schools treat the Boy Scouts of America 
exactly the same as they do all other groups meeting in the schools; 
that is all. Surely, the least we can do is to allow them to have equal 
access.
  So while there may be some wringing of hands and assertions of what 
this amendment does way beyond what it does, or its intent, they just 
want to be treated the same as everybody else --nothing more, nothing 
less.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do want to be heard on this issue. But 
in fairness to the other side, I would like to defer so long as I can 
follow the Senator, in this order, because of a timing problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Perhaps I could make a quick unanimous consent request. I 
am going to speak for 2 minutes and then ask Senator Murray if she 
would really open the debate with about--how many minutes does the 
Senator need?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. And then go to Senator Inhofe.
  Is that acceptable?
  Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader for making 
his remarks concise. I do really appreciate the opportunity given to me 
by Senator Kennedy to manage the opposition to this amendment. The 
reason I feel very strongly about it is that this amendment is not 
about the Boy Scouts. My kids were Scouts. I will never forget that. 
They are really old now. I am a grandmother now. But I remember when 
they were in their uniforms. My kids were Scouts.
  This amendment is not about Scouts because the Supreme Court has 
already ruled that the Boy Scouts have the absolute right to take their 
programs into the public schools. That issue has been resolved.
  So I believe--and I am going to reserve my time, and I will explain 
why I have reached this conclusion--that this amendment is unnecessary; 
that it is gratuitous. It is hurtful to a group of people. It divides 
us again as a country. It brings in this Chamber an issue that divides 
us, that hurts people, and I believe--and Senator Murray is going to

[[Page S6251]]

speak to us as a former school board member with a tremendous amount of 
authority on this--it is a slap at local control, something my friends 
on the other side of the aisle revere.
  So I hope in the course of this debate--and I know we go uphill when 
this comes up--we face the facts of what this is about. I hope, in the 
course of debate, people will look inside their hearts to decide what 
this amendment is really about. It is not about the Boy Scouts having 
the ability to meet in public schools. That has been determined. It is 
about hurting a whole group of people, a minority in this country, for 
absolutely no good reason.
  I hope people will have the courage to come to this Chamber, to speak 
out, to be heard, to lift up this debate, and that we will have a good 
vote against this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my friend and colleague from 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. President, I believe that Scouting--whether it is the Boy Scouts 
or Girl Scouts--really can help kids develop their character and build 
important skills. And that is important. In fact, Scouting has been an 
important part of my life and my own children's lives.
  I was a Brownie. I was a Junior Girl Scout. I was a Girl Scout. I was 
a Brownie Leader. I was a Girl Scout Leader. And, in fact, I was even a 
Boy Scout Leader for my son's troop. So I know about Scouting. This 
amendment is not about scouting.
  This amendment is about imposing a Federal mandate on local schools 
that could essentially overwhelm their facilities and strain their 
ability to meet their first responsibility, which I believe we all 
understand is to educate our students.
  The Helms amendment essentially takes a problem that does not exist 
and uses it to dictate the decisions that local school boards make.
  There are several problems with this amendment, but first and 
foremost, it really is not needed, as the Senator from California said. 
Right now, under Federal law, Scouts receive the same protection and 
access as any other group--nothing more, nothing less--and that is the 
way it should be. And that is not just my opinion; it is our Federal 
law, known as the Equal Access Act.
  Let me read to you part of that statute. It says:

       It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which 
     receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited 
     open forum to deny access for a fair opportunity to, or [to] 
     discriminate against, any students wishing to conduct a 
     meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the 
     religious, political, philosophical or other content of the 
     speech at such meetings.

  That is the law right now--on the books in black and white. So this 
amendment is unnecessary because current Federal law already requires 
equal access. Not only do groups such as the Boy Scouts already have 
access under Federal law, the courts are reaffirming that access.
  In fact, just this last Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a 
New York State school had to let a religious organization use its 
facilities since it was already allowing nonreligious organizations to 
do the same thing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a Washington Post 
article which explains this ruling printed in the Record after my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. Equal access is already in the law. It was just upheld 
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Groups such as Scouts have equal access. 
Therefore, this amendment is not about the question of equal access. 
This amendment, however, is about special access. Frankly, we ought to 
call this proposal the ``unequal access amendment'' because it selects 
one group over all others for special protection.
  There is a second problem with the amendment. I served on a local 
school board. I know what it is to have limited meeting space in a 
school and to have organizations that want to use that space who come 
before you and beg and plead for that ability. Right now schools make 
those decisions based on their own circumstances within the law. 
Schools might not have enough space. They might not have the budget for 
the extra cleanup required for groups to use these facilities or 
additional groups to use them. They might not have the staff to lock up 
the building after hours. Teachers might not have the time in the 
schoolday to rearrange their classrooms. Maybe there are only a few 
rooms available after school and they are already needed for other 
things such as tutoring or they have already been given to another 
group. There might be insurance or liability concerns.
  Because of all those variables that local school boards have to live 
with on a weekly basis, those decisions are made at the local level. 
Sometimes those local policies keep schools from having to pick one 
group over the other, from picking winners or losers.
  The Helms amendment would overrule all of those local policies, all 
of those local decisions, and pick one winner and require every school 
to accommodate them or risk losing their Federal funding.
  Scouts already have the same protections as similar organizations, 
and local schools already make good legal decisions based on those 
circumstances.
  Before I close, I note that I am eager to see how some of my 
colleagues vote on this amendment which, as I have noted, is not about 
Scouting. It is about forcing decisions on local schools. In recent 
years some of my colleagues have spoken at great length about the 
importance of local control in educational decisions. Of course, having 
served on a local school board, I reminded them that most decisions are 
made at the local level and that there is a limited Federal role for 
efforts such as helping disadvantaged students and reaching national 
educational goals. Frankly, I do not see how setting up a special 
national privilege for just one organization falls in that role.
  Recently on the Senate floor my amendment to reduce school 
overcrowding was defeated on a party-line vote. Opponents on the other 
side said those decisions should be made at the local level. They 
ignored the fact that funding was optional and flexible, meaning it 
could be used for class size reduction or teacher training or 
recruitment. Opponents of my amendment said local control was more 
important than an effective, targeted, flexible initiative.
  Now we get to see if all those Members will stand up to the 
principles they have advocated. This Helms amendment is far more 
intrusive. It is not optional. Unlike my amendment, the Helms amendment 
has nothing to do with schoolday learning. It is definitely a Federal 
mandate on local schools. It definitely takes decisions out of local 
hands. Frankly, I do not see how anyone who has called for more local 
control will support this Helms amendment. This vote will be very 
telling.
  The Helms amendment addresses a problem that does not exist. Groups 
such as the Scouts already have equal access through existing law. 
Instead, this intrusive amendment provides special, unequal access for 
just one group and overrules what is happening at the local level.
  I will share with my colleagues how frustrating and difficult it can 
be, as a school board member, to make decisions about who can use your 
facilities. I have been in front of many parents who were unhappy with 
decisions that school boards have made. This Helms amendment may well 
force a school board to tell a group, perhaps a church group that is 
already using their gym, that because of the Helms amendment and fear 
of a lawsuit, if they don't change their mind, we will have to override 
facilities use by that group. This amendment may well force a school to 
tell another group that because of our Federal law, the Boy Scouts come 
in first.
  I care about Scouting. I want our Scouts to have facilities. I want 
it to be under equal access, not special protection. That is what the 
Helms amendment does.
  I thank my colleague from California and yield back my time to her.

[[Page S6252]]

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, June 1, 2001]

                       Justices Back Bible Group


                  access to school facilities widened

                           (By Charles Lane)

       The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a New York state 
     school may not prohibit an evangelical Christian children's 
     club from meeting on its premises, a decision that may have 
     cleared the last legal obstacles to religious groups' long-
     sought goal of having the same access to school facilities as 
     other organizations.
       By a vote of 6 to 3, the court held that the Milford 
     Central School's effort to deny the after-school use of its 
     building to the Good News Club, but not to other, 
     nonreligious groups, was a form of discrimination on the 
     basis of religious viewpoint, and thus violated the 
     constitutional guarantee of free speech.
       The Good News Club, which operates thousands of chapters 
     around the country, urges children as young as 6 to accept 
     Jesus Christ as a personal savior. The school argued that, in 
     barring the club from meeting there, it was following a New 
     York law designed to avert any appearance of official 
     sponsorship of religious worship and to protect children from 
     getting the impression that the school endorses a particular 
     religion.
       But the court rejected the notion that the club's use of 
     the school would create a kind of pro-religious pressure on 
     children, noting that children could not attend the club's 
     meetings unless their parents approved.
       ``[W]e cannot say the danger the children would misperceive 
     the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger 
     that they would perceive a hostility toward the religious 
     viewpoint if the Club were excluded,'' Justice Clarence 
     Thomas said in the opinion he wrote for the court.
       Conservative legal scholars noted that the case fits into a 
     recent trend in which the court has adopted a more 
     accommodating position toward religion in public places when 
     it believes that it is merely maintaining a fair balance 
     between religious and secular activity. That could mean 
     future support for President Bush's ``faith-based'' social 
     services initiative, or for school vouchers, they said.
       ``It will be much harder for anyone to argue that a faith-
     based organization's social service treatment program has 
     crossed a line, becoming, in essence, `too religious,' '' 
     said Douglas Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University law 
     school.
       But Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for 
     Separation of Church and State, said the decision maintains a 
     distinction between state support for religious instruction 
     and extracurricular religious activity, and therefore ``has 
     no spillover into the voucher area.''
       Of the 4,622 Good News Club chapters around the country, 
     about 527 meet regularly in public school buildings. 
     Supporters of the group said the ruling gives a significant 
     boost to the club and others like it.
       ``It's no secret that it helps them attract children when 
     they meet in a more convenient location,'' said Gregory S. 
     Baylor of Annandale-based Religious Liberty Advocates, which 
     filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Good News's 
     parent organization, the Child Evangelism Fellowship Inc. 
     ``Prior to this, a lot of school districts were nervous about 
     letting them in. Now I can say, `Read the Supreme Court 
     case.' ''
       Opponents agree with this forecast, but they said it shows 
     how the court has titled the church-state balance in favor of 
     religion.
       ``This is really religious worship directed at young 
     children,'' said Jeffrey R. Babbin, an attorney who filed a 
     friend of the court brief on behalf of the Anti-Defamation 
     League of B'nai B'rith, which backed the school. ``Our 
     concern is that what can't be done in school shouldn't be 
     done right after. Often kids can't go home right after 
     school.''
       The case began in 1996 when two parents, the Rev. Stephen 
     D. Fournier and his wife, Darleen, sought to move the 
     meetings of their Good News Club chapter from a local church 
     to Milford's only school building, which houses all classes 
     from kindergarten through 12th grade.
       School authorities in the 3,000-resident rural community 
     refused, saying that the Good News Club was not simply a 
     discussion group that talked about morals from a religious 
     viewpoint, but a form of religious instruction.
       The Good News Club's sponsoring organization, the Child 
     Evangelism Fellowship, based in Warrenton, Mo., says that its 
     purpose is to ``evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of 
     the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish (disciple) them in the 
     Word of God and in a local church for Christian living.''
       Good News Club meetings revolve around prayer, songs, 
     stories and games drawn from the Bible, and some of the 
     children attending are ``challenged'' to declare Jesus Christ 
     as their savior.
       The Fourniers sued in federal court. The New York-based 
     appeals court sided with the school, but because its ruling 
     clashed with a St. Louis-based appeals court's decision in 
     favor of access for another Good News Club, the Supreme Court 
     agreed last year to decide the dispute.
       In the court opinion yesterday, Thomas said that this case 
     was essentially no different from previous ones in which the 
     court had upheld the right of a Christian parents' group to 
     show a film at a public high school in the evening and of 
     Christian students at the University of Virginia to receive 
     the same funding for their publication as other groups.
       When the state operates a ``limited public forum'' in which 
     citizens may express their views, Thomas wrote, ``speech 
     discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded 
     . . . on the ground that the subject is discussed from a 
     religious viewpoint.''
       Thomas was joined by the court's other conservative-leaning 
     members--Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices 
     Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. 
     He also picked up the vote of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a 
     liberal, who wrote a separate opinion to emphasize that he 
     supported the club's position only insofar as it was asking 
     for nondiscrimination by the school. He said important issues 
     remained to be examined, especially whether a reasonable 
     child might indeed see the club's presence at the school as 
     an endorsement of religion.
       Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader 
     Ginsburg dissented.
       ``It is beyond question that Good News intends to use the 
     public school premises not for the mere discussion of a 
     subject from a particular, Christian point of view, but for 
     an evangelical service of worship calling children to commit 
     themselves in an act of Christian conversion,'' Souter wrote.
       The case is Good News Club v. Milford Central School, No. 
     99-2036.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Washington is very sincere in her remarks, but I believe there is a 
problem in insisting that we are legislating on a situation that 
doesn't exist. I will point out examples of that.
  When Senator Helms first started, his microphone wasn't quite on high 
enough and we were not able to hear his remarks. I will repeat the 
first couple of things he said. He talked about the Boy Scout movement 
in our Nation as being part of the largest voluntary youth movement in 
the world, with U.S. membership totaling over 6 million. He also 
mentioned the three basic fundamental principles.
  The fundamental principles of the Boy Scouts include, one, a duty to 
God and respect for individual beliefs; two, loyalty to country and 
respect for the laws of the land, service to others, and a spirit of 
voluntarism; and, three, the training of youth in responsible 
citizenship, physical and mental development, and character 
advancement.
  As a private organization, the Boy Scouts of America has the right to 
select persons it believes will provide the leadership that measures up 
to the high caliber of standards of this fine institution. Boy Scouts 
and other similar groups have a constitutional right to associate 
freely, and our publicly funded schools should not inhibit that right 
of access to public school facilities.
  Not only is this my opinion; it has been found to be the law of the 
land by the Supreme Court. In June of last year--this has been alluded 
to--in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court ruled that Boy 
Scouts have the constitutional right to specifically exclude homosexual 
members and leaders. The Helms amendment was prompted by the denial of 
public school access to groups such as the Boy Scouts even after this 
Supreme Court decision.
  For example, the Broward County school board voted to keep Boy Scouts 
from using public schools to hold meetings, in direct violation of the 
Supreme Court's decision. Luckily, in the Boy Scouts v. School Board of 
Broward County, in March of this year, the U.S. district court in 
Florida issued an injunction to block the county's attempt to evict the 
Scouts from public school property.
  Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. This is why I make the 
point that there is a problem out there. The Congressional Research 
Service, which Senator Helms alluded to, has reported that at least 
nine school districts have publicly attacked Boy Scouts, which is in 
direct contradiction of the ruling of the Supreme Court.
  Let me give a couple examples of this. In Chapel Hill, NC, the Chapel 
Hill-Carrboro school board voted, on January 11, 2001, to give Scouts 
until June to either go against the rules of their organization or lose 
their sponsorship and meeting places in schools. In New York City, the 
New York City school chancellor, Harold Levy, said the school system 
would not enter into any new contracts with the Boy Scouts of America. 
This is something that happened after that Supreme Court decision. The 
Los Angeles City Council has ``directed all of the city's departments 
to review contracts with Boy

[[Page S6253]]

Scouts and order an audit of those contracts to ensure compliance with 
a nondiscrimination clause.''
  In Madison, WI, it is the same thing. It goes on and on--quite a 
lengthy list.
  The repetitive, hostile actions taken against the Boy Scouts are 
inexcusable and against the law and should be stopped immediately.
  The Helms amendment reinforces the constitutional rights of Boy 
Scouts and the Supreme Court decision upholding those rights. This 
amendment states that if a public school has designated ``open forum,'' 
then the school cannot discriminate against Boy Scouts of America or 
any youth group on the basis of its membership or leadership criteria 
or on the basis of its oath of allegiance to God and country.
  The oversight provisions of the amendment ensure that the Office of 
Civil Rights within the Department of Education will protect the Boy 
Scouts as it protects other groups that have been or are discriminated 
against. We are talking about antidiscrimination in this amendment.
  The amendment proposes that any public school receiving Federal 
funding from the Department of Education must allow the Boy Scouts or 
other similar youth groups equivalent access to school facilities and 
must not discriminate against these groups by requiring them to admit 
homosexuals as members or leaders or any other individuals who reject 
the Boy Scout oath of allegiance to God and country.
  So I just submit that I disagree, and it is an honest disagreement 
with the Senator from Washington. There is a problem, and it is 
necessary to legislate against this problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will propose a unanimous consent 
request for the order of speakers.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin have 10 minutes, and that 
on our side Senator Enzi have up to 15 minutes. Then if somebody comes 
on that side to speak, I propose that there be a Democratic speaker. 
But if they are not here, I ask that Senator Smith have up to 10 
minutes, and then a Democrat speaker, and then Senator Brownback have 
10 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a 
question I would like to ask at some point to propound about the 
language of this amendment. When might I do that?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I propose that we have an order of speakers and----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may be heard on this.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, it appears with 
all these speakers that have been lined up, it would be sensible, as 
far as I am concerned, that a question be asked before the speeches are 
given, not after.
  It is my understanding that the Senator from West Virginia simply 
wants to ask a question for someone to answer during the discussion of 
this amendment; is that right?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. I hope that the Senator from West Virginia can be 
recognized immediately to ask his question. Is there any objection to 
the Senator asking his question?

  Mr. BROWNBACK. There would be no objection on my part if the Senator 
from Illinois is OK with that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority whip and all Senators. I wish to get a 
clarification of a definition. I think it is well that I pose this 
question now.
  I don't intend to go into the background at this point, except to say 
that I have been concerned about some of the things that have been said 
and some of the actions that have been taken with respect to Boy 
Scouts. I was very disappointed when at the Democratic Convention there 
was a demonstration--not by all Democrats by any means, and I feel sure 
it wasn't a part of the convention plans. But I was embarrassed at the 
boos and the disrespect shown by some of the participants at that 
convention, which I did not attend; I was watching television. I have 
been concerned about other hostile actions that have since been 
directed at the Boy Scouts of America.
  Certainly, my intention up to this moment has been to vote for this 
amendment. I do have a question, however. The question deals with 
definitions. I would like a better definition or clarification of the 
term ``youth group.'' In paragraph 2 of section 2(a), I read the 
following:

       . . . denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, 
     or discriminates against, any group affiliated with the Boy 
     Scouts of America or any other youth group . . .

  I will repeat that: ``. . . or any other youth group.''

       . . . that wishes to conduct a meeting within that 
     designated open forum, on the basis of the membership or 
     leadership criteria of the Boy Scouts of America or of the 
     youth group that prohibits the acceptance of homosexuals, or 
     individuals who reject the Boy Scouts' or the youth group's 
     oath of allegiance to God and country, as members or leaders.

  My problem with that is ``youth group'' could include skinheads, and 
it could include Ku Klux Klan youth groups or any other ``hate'' 
groups. That is what I am concerned about.
  I know what we are talking about--the Boy Scouts. That is one thing. 
But I hesitate to open the language up to just any ``youth'' group. 
That is my problem. I would like for someone to clarify the definition 
of ``youth group'', or perhaps offer a modification so that we will all 
know what we are talking about.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If the Senator will yield for a response to that.
  Mr. BYRD. I am glad to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. We are working with the primary sponsor of the 
amendment to get a further definition and clarity on that so that we 
can directly respond to the appropriate question of the Senator from 
West Virginia. We will do that as soon as possible.
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate that. I have discussed this with the sponsor, 
Mr. Helms, and two of his staff members.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the manager will yield, I join the Senator 
from West Virginia in asking for a clarification because I think it is 
very important that we know what we are talking about.
  I am here standing for the proposition that tolerance is a two-way 
street; that we should tolerate the gays and lesbians in our community, 
but we should also tolerate the Boy Scouts in our community.
  Clearly, there are some groups that have national charters that this 
Government recognizes, such as the Boy Scouts, and there are groups 
that do not. That kind of a distinction perhaps ought to be made 
because I think we all want to be voting for the right thing. There are 
some groups, such as the skinheads, that I don't want to be voting for 
today. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his question.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has been consumed.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the terminology which I read here includes 
this excerpt:

       . . . The Boy Scouts' or the youth group's oath of 
     allegiance to God and country . . .

  Mr. President, as a former member of the Ku Klux Klan--and this is no 
secret to anybody; it has been known to the people of this country for 
at least 50 years, so I am not telling anything new. But there is no 
doubt that that organization purports to swear allegiance to God and 
country.
  I do not want to open this up to just any group--just any group that 
swears allegiance to God and country. That is why I raise the question. 
I think there must be a clarification of this. At least I am going to 
be on record by what I am saying here, that I am not, regardless of how 
I vote on this amendment--I hope this can be clarified, and I hope 
there can be some modification of the language.
  On the record, I am not supportive of letting just any ``youth 
group'' come under the canopy of the definition of that term.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield to me for just a moment?
  Mr. BYRD. If I have time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given 60 
seconds additional time so I may engage him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Durbin is anxious to be heard. I thank my friend.

[[Page S6254]]

 This amendment is troubling, and the Senator from West Virginia has 
put his finger on a very serious problem with this. What if a group 
springs up--I am just going to use a name--the Timothy McVeigh Youth 
Group and has in its charter antihomosexual language. It is my 
understanding, after checking with attorneys, in fact, they would be 
given special privileges because they have an antihomosexual charter.
  My friend has raised a very important issue, and I thank him for it.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I prefer to use the Ku Klux Klan. We 
know what we are talking about there. If one wishes to look at the 
oath--I will say the oath of the Ku Klux Klan, and there are associate 
groups and affiliated groups. Women used to be in the Klan; maybe young 
people. I do not recall.
  When it comes to patriotism, to God, to country, the words of that 
organization are superlative in that respect. How closely the actions 
followed the words is something else.
  This language needs to be clarified. It needs to be modified. I do 
want to support the amendment. I am speaking only as a Senator from 
West Virginia. That is the way I see it. I hope there will be some 
modification of that language.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I renew my unanimous consent request 
that I put forward. I ask that the Democrats who are in turn speaking 
will not speak for more than 15 minutes in the unanimous consent 
request I put forward.

  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I do know the 
names the Senator talked about. We should cut it off there. This could 
go through the entire afternoon. Those names you mentioned be the only 
ones.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I am not prepared to enter into a time agreement.
  Mr. REID. That is my question. I am saying I am happy to agree to the 
times as you set forth, and the names you have mentioned, but after 
that, we will just have jump ball here.
  Mrs. BOXER. No problem. Madam President, I can now say, after Senator 
Durbin, Senator Wellstone will follow. That is our list at this time.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, do I understand there is 
time available on our side?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, there is.
  Mr. WARNER. Is it restricted to this amendment?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. We are attempting to restrict it.
  Mr. WARNER. A gentleman's and gentlewoman's understanding.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I have an amendment pending at the desk that I want to 
withdraw and need about 12 minutes to address the reason for which I am 
withdrawing it.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Can the Senator do it afterwards?
  Mr. WARNER. I will be delighted to do it after, if the Senator will 
be kind enough and indicate in the unanimous consent request for me to 
do that.
  Mr. REID. That is the question: After what? We have a couple 
amendments pending on which we are going to be voting. That will 
probably take a while. The Senator may have to wait several hours.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly will be delighted to do that 
so long as I, hopefully, can have some assurance for not more than 10 
minutes during the course of the day. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the previous order is 
modified. Under the previous unanimous consent order, the Senator from 
Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I am opposed to 
discrimination--discrimination based on race, creed, color, gender, or 
sexual orientation. I am sorry that the Boy Scouts of America, which 
were an important part of my youth, an important part of my family, 
have now become a symbol that is being debated in the Chamber of the 
Senate. I am sorry this organization that has meant so much to so many 
is now being trivialized or symbolized by this debate. But it is a 
fact, and it is a fact that the amendment that has been offered by 
Senator Helms raises many questions.
  I do not think the question is whether or not Boy Scout chapters have 
access to public schools. As the Senator from Washington said, that is 
not even debatable. The Supreme Court has ruled on that as late as this 
week. They had a specific ruling saying that no school district can 
keep any Boy Scout troop out of a public school. They have access. This 
amendment is not necessary. It is already the law of the land.
  The amendment by Senator Helms goes further. The amendment by Senator 
Helms says that no school district can discriminate against a youth 
group that also says homosexuals may not belong.
  This raises some serious problems because there are school districts 
in States across America, including the State of Illinois, which have a 
statement of policy, and they say: We will not let any groups be 
sponsored by our schools if they discriminate on the basis of race, 
creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation. It is just a school 
policy. You want your school group to be sponsored by the school? No 
way if they discriminate.
  I would imagine those statements of policy were passed at school 
board meetings without a dissenting vote. Who is going to vote against 
that: That you would want a school district sponsoring a group that 
discriminates? Yet what Senator Helms says in his amendment is that if 
your school district sticks with that policy of nondiscrimination in 
sponsorship, you lose your Federal funds.
  What does that mean to the school district of the city of Chicago? 
Hundreds of millions of dollars coming in to help kids. With the Helms 
amendment, it is gone. It is not just Chicago. Many other States are 
also affected.
  This amendment, which may have been offered as a tribute to the Boy 
Scouts or for whatever reason, has become much more. This has gone way 
beyond the Boy Scouts, I say to my colleagues in the Senate. What this 
amendment is trying to do is, frankly, create an environment which is 
antithetical, antagonistic to the beliefs of many school districts 
which have basically said: We will not sponsor organizations that 
discriminate. Yes, we may be forced to bring some in to have access to 
our schools, but we are not going to sponsor them.
  According to Senator Helms, if you do not sponsor them, it is 
discrimination. If it is discrimination, guess what. You lose your 
Federal funds.
  Let me go to the point raised by Senator Byrd from West Virginia. 
Senator Byrd touched on an important point. He talked about what kinds 
of youth groups we are discussing. Senators started using hypothetical 
groups: What about skinheads, this group, that group, that happen to 
have some awful beliefs but also happen to discriminate against those 
of a different sexual orientation? As I read the Helms amendment, the 
school not only has to open the door to have access to use the school, 
but they also have to be willing to sponsor the group, and if they do 
not sponsor that group and others such as it, then they run the risk of 
losing their Federal funds.
  Is this a farfetched idea that a group such as that might arise? I 
wish it was. I will tell my colleagues about my own home State of 
Illinois. Have you ever heard of the World Church of the Creator? Mr. 
President, I remind my colleagues, they did hear about it in the news 
not long ago.
  This is a white supremacist organization that advocates openly the 
murder of Jewish individuals and people of color. It has what it calls 
``holy books,'' ``ministers,'' and religious ceremonies all grounded in 
their ``religion'' of white supremacy.
  Do my colleagues know when they heard about them? They heard about 
them in July of 1999. A young man named Benjamin Smith went on a 
shooting rampage throughout Springfield, IL, Urbana, Decatur, Skokie, 
Chicago, and Northbrook. He wounded nine and murdered Won-Joon Yoon, a 
doctoral student at Indiana University, and he killed Ricky Birdsong, 
an African American, the former Northwestern University basketball 
coach.
  Mr. Smith wounded and killed these individuals because he hated those 
who were different from him and because his religion, the World Church 
of the Creator, supported taking violent action against them.
  If the World Church of the Creator approached a school in Illinois 
and asked that school sponsor their youth group, under the Helms 
amendment, if

[[Page S6255]]

they said no, they would lose their Federal funds. Why? Because the 
World Church of the Creator also has a very clear policy when it comes 
to homosexuals. The World Church of the Creator does not allow 
homosexuals in the membership or in their leadership.
  Think of the situation we are creating. Imagine serving on a school 
board with no pay under these circumstances. Senator Helms, in trying 
to pay a tribute to the Boy Scouts, has opened the door wide for 
mischief from every crazy group in America that wants to not only use 
school premises but be sponsored by schools. If they don't go along, 
guess what. They get either a lawsuit or the loss of Federal funds.
  I consider this amendment a complete disaster. It is a disaster when 
one considers the impact it has on schools across America that are 
trying to live under the four corners of the law. The Supreme Court has 
said open your doors for access, but the Supreme Court doesn't say a 
school has to sponsor the group, provide the schoolbus, make sure they 
have some sort of special treatment within the school, give them a page 
in the yearbook.
  Do we want the World Church of the Creator to have a page in the 
yearbook of your child's high school? I certainly don't. I am 
embarrassed that this organization calls Illinois home. In an open and 
free society, these things are allowed to exist, but they are not in a 
situation where they ought to receive special treatment, which Senator 
Helms wants to give them under this amendment.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, take time to 
read this carefully. This is not as simple as it sounds. The language 
Senator Helms has put in this bill will create nothing but trouble for 
school districts across America which will now be forced to face 
impossible decisions as these hate-filled groups come in, one after the 
other, asking for special treatment.
  Join me in voting no against the Helms amendment.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the Republican manager of the bill. The 
Senator from Wyoming is next, and then Senator Wellstone will be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes. Senator Daschle, the majority leader, 
wishes to use part of Senator Wellstone's 15 minutes. Senator Wellstone 
has given consent to give part of his time to Senator Daschle. We will 
not use any more time, but there will be another speaker, if that is OK 
with the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct. We will maintain the same flow of 
people as under the unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have another speaker. The next Democrat after Senators 
Wellstone and Daschle would be Senator Clinton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the order will be so 
modified.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 648, 
the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, offered by my distinguished 
colleague from North Carolina, Senator Helms. I am certain, with some 
modifications, any of the inflammatory groups that have been mentioned 
will be excluded from the amendment. The amendment was intended to be 
simple and straightforward in its purpose, to ensure the constitutional 
rights of 6 million Boy Scouts in the United States are not violated by 
public schools that receive Federal education funds.
  The Boy Scouts of America is one of the oldest and largest youth 
organizations in the United States and in the world today. The 
organization teaches its members to do their duty to God, to love their 
country, and to serve their fellow citizens. And they do that. The Boy 
Scouts have formed the minds and hearts of millions of Americans and 
prepared these boys and young members for the challenges they are sure 
to face for the rest of their lives.
  I urge my colleagues to join in defending the Boy Scouts from 
unconstitutional discrimination by supporting the Helms amendment.
  It has been said earlier in the discussion that this is an 
unnecessary amendment. It brings to mind two things. First, when did we 
stop doing unnecessary amendments around here? And second, this would 
not be brought up if it were not necessary.
  I have had a number of opportunities, needs that should never have 
happened, to defend the Boy Scouts and make sure they have places to 
meet. I have a list of five times it happened during the year 2000, and 
eight times already this year. This is a young year.
  An Iowa city school board voted to prohibit Boy Scouts from 
distributing any information in schools because of Scouts' membership 
criteria. Greg Shields, the national spokesman for Boy Scouts of 
America, said, ``We simply ask to be treated the same way as any other 
private organization . . . [and] that our free speech and right to 
assemble be respected just as we respect the rights of others.''
  The New York Times reported that New York's Chappaqua School District 
officials were able to coerce two local Boy Scout troops into signing a 
document that denounced national policies of the Boy Scouts as a 
condition to allowing the troops access to school property.
  I ask unanimous consent this list be printed at the end of my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit No. 1.)
  Mr. ENZI. Boy Scouts has been a part of my education. I am an Eagle 
Scout. I am pleased to say my son was in Scouts. He is an Eagle Scout. 
I say it is part of my education because each of the badges that is 
earned, each of the merit badges that is earned, is an education. I 
tell schoolkids as I go across my State and across my country that even 
though at times I took courses or merit badges or programs that I 
didn't see where I would ever have a use for them, by now I have had a 
use for them and wish I had paid more attention at the time I was doing 
it.
  Boy Scouts is an education. It is an education in possibilities for 
careers. I can think of no substitution for the 6 million boys in 
Scouts and the millions who have preceded them. There are dozens on 
both sides of the aisle who have been Boy Scouts.
  I always liked a merit badge pamphlet on my desk called 
``Entrepreneurship.'' It is the hardest Boy Scout badge to earn. It is 
one of the most important ones. I believe small business is the future 
of our country. Boy Scouts promote small business through their 
internship merit badge. Why would it be the toughest to get? Not only 
do you have to figure out a plan, devise a business plan, figure how to 
finance it, but the final requirement for the badge is to start a 
business.
  I could go on and on through the list of merit badges required in 
order to get an Eagle badge. There are millions of boys in this country 
who are doing that and will be doing that. They do need places to meet. 
They are being discriminated against. They are being told they cannot 
use school facilities.
  It isn't just school facilities; it is Federal facilities. A couple 
of years ago, we had an opportunity to debate this again on floor, and 
it had to do with the Smithsonian. Some Boy Scouts requested they be 
able to do the Eagle Scout Court of Honor at the National Zoo and were 
denied. Why? The determination by the legal staff of the Smithsonian 
that Scouts discriminate because of their support for and encouragement 
for the spiritual life of their members. Specifically, they embrace the 
concept that the universe was created by a supreme being, although we 
surely point out Scouts do not endorse or require a single belief or 
any particular faith's God. The mere fact they asked you to believe in 
and try to foster a relationship with a supreme being who created the 
universe was enough to disqualify them.
  I read that portion of the letter twice. I had just visited the 
National Archives and read the original document signed by our Founding 
Fathers. It is a good thing they hadn't asked to sign the Declaration 
of Independence at the National Zoo.
  This happens in the schools across the country. Other requests have 
been denied. They were also told they were not relevant to the National 
Zoo. That is kind of a fascinating experiment in words. I did look to 
see what other sorts of things had been done there and found they had a 
Washington Singers musical concert, and the Washington premiers for 
both the ``Lion King'' and ``Batman.'' Clearly, relevance was not a 
determining factor in those decisions.

  But the Boy Scouts have done some particular things in conservation 
that

[[Page S6256]]

are important, in conservation tied in with the zoo. In fact, the 
founder of the National Zoo was Dr. William Hornaday. He is one of the 
people who was involved in some of the special conservation movements 
and has one of the conservation badges of Scouts named after him.
  If the situations did not arise, this amendment would not come up. 
But they do arise, as I mentioned with the list of eight incidents 
already this year. Four of those are on a statewide basis.
  Last summer the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale held 
that the Boy Scouts were entitled to full protection under the first 
amendment right of expressive association. The High Court held that 
State laws such as New Jersey's law of public accommodation 
unconstitutionally violated the first amendment rights of this 
venerable organization if they were applied to force the Boy Scouts to 
accept Scoutmasters whose lifestyles violated the Boy Scout oath. The 
Helms amendment will ensure that public schools that receive public 
education funds do not force the Boy Scouts to check their first 
amendment rights at the schoolhouse door.
  The Helms amendment simply requires that the Boy Scouts are treated 
fairly, as any other organization, in their efforts to hold meetings on 
public school property. It does not require public schools to open 
their doors to any organization for before- or after-school meetings on 
public school property. It provides if the school is going to provide 
an open forum for youth or community groups before or after school, 
that school must allow the Boy Scouts the chance to use school property 
for their meetings.
  Unfortunately, many school districts are bending to the pressure of 
far left interest groups in their attempt to deny the constitutional 
rights of the Boy Scouts of America. A number of school districts have 
prohibited the Scouts from meeting on public school property or have 
pressured local Scouting troops to denounce their very principles on 
which the organization was founded before they can have meetings there.
  An example of this discrimination is in Broward County, FL, where the 
school board voted last November to prohibit the Boy Scouts of America 
from using public schools to hold meetings and recruitment drives. This 
is part of a growing trend of local schools, which are imposing 
viewpoint discrimination against the Boy Scouts because they disapprove 
of the Scout's message and the way they put this message into practice. 
Fortunately, the Federal courts have not looked favorably on this 
viewpoint of discrimination against the Boy Scouts in the early legal 
challenges to these actions.
  In March of this year, the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction against the Broward 
County School District to block their attempt to keep the Boy Scouts 
off public school property. The district court found that since the 
school district allowed numerous other groups to use public school 
facilities, they had established a limited forum. Accordingly, they 
were not allowed to discriminate against Boy Scout speech simply 
because they disagreed with the Scout's viewpoint on homosexuality. In 
granting this injunction, Judge Middlebrooks wrote:

       The constitutional rights to freedom of speech or 
     expression are not shed at the school gate.

  I have to mention, these are examples of where the Scouts were able 
to use the courts to assure that they were not discriminated against. I 
am pretty sure everybody in America recognizes if you have to use the 
courts to get your rights to use school buildings, it costs money. It 
costs time. This amendment eliminates that cost and eliminates that 
time, to allow the organizations to have the same rights as the other 
groups at school.
  It is unfortunate, sometimes, that we have--the legal system is very 
important in the country but it has some interesting repercussions. Our 
system of lawsuits, which sometimes are called the legal lottery of 
this country, allow people who think they have been harmed to try to 
point out who harmed them and get money for doing that. It has had some 
difficulties for the Boy Scouts.
  I remember when my son was in the Scouts their annual fundraiser was 
selling Christmas trees. One of the requirements when they were selling 
Christmas trees was that the boys selling trees at the lot had to be 
accompanied by two adults not from the same family.
  I did not understand why we needed all of this adult supervision. It 
seemed as if one adult helping out at the lot would be sufficient. The 
answer was, they have been sued because there was only one adult there 
and that adult was accused of abusing the boys. Two adults provided 
some assurance that did not happen.
  The interesting thing is, it was just me and my son at the lot and we 
still had to have another adult in order to keep the Boy Scouts from 
being sued.
  They run into some of the same difficulties with car caravans.
  So the legal system of this country has put them in the position 
where they are doing some of the things that they are doing. The legal 
system of the country has caused some of the discrimination that is 
done.
  It is something we need to correct. This discussion of the Helms 
amendment is timely. On Monday of this week, the Supreme Court held 
that a public school in New York was not allowed to exclude the Good 
News Club, which is a private Christian organization for gradeschool 
children, from using public school facilities for the group's 
afterschool meetings. In the Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 
the Court determined that the school violated the club's first 
amendment free speech rights by discriminating against the group's 
viewpoint. The Helms amendment would assure that these free speech 
protections would also apply to the Boy Scouts of America.
  The Boy Scouts of America is one of the oldest and largest youth 
organizations in the United States and the world today. The 
organization teaches its members to do their duty to God, to love their 
country, and serve their fellow citizens. The Boy Scouts have formed 
the minds and hearts of millions of Americans and prepared these boys 
and young men for the challenges they are sure to face the rest of 
their lives. It is an essential part of Americana. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in defending the Boy Scouts from constitutional 
discrimination by supporting the Helms amendment.

                             Exhibit No. 1


           examples of boy scouts being discriminated against

       On May 21, 2001, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education 
     Network--an activist homosexual organization--reported that 
     ``After launching a campaign last September [against the Boy 
     Scouts] the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network has 
     tracked a total of 359 school districts which have severed 
     sponsorships with the Scouts since the Supreme Court ruling 
     last June'' [www.glsen.org].
       On May 11, 2001, the Associated Press reported that the 
     Iowa City School board voted to prohibit the Boy Scouts of 
     America from distributing any information in schools because 
     of the Scouts membership criteria. Greg Shields, the national 
     spokesman for Boy Scouts of America said, ``We simply ask to 
     be treated the same way as any other private organization . . 
     . [and] that our free speech and right to assemble be 
     respected just as we respect those rights of others.
       On February 8, 2001, the Ashbury Park Press reported that 
     the State [of New Jersey] is considering a rule change that 
     would bar school districts from renting space to the Boy 
     Scouts of America because of their position on homosexuality.
       On February 7, 2001, The Arizona Republic reported that the 
     Sunnyside School District, in Tucson [two-sawn], Arizona 
     decided to charge the Boy Scouts of America fees to use 
     school facilities, even though no other groups have to pay 
     fees. The ACLU executive director said that, ``While Boy 
     Scouts, atheists, Nazis, even Satanists have the right to 
     express their views, government should not use public money 
     to promote them.''
       On January 28, 2001, the Boston Globe reported that the 
     Acton School Committee in Massachusetts decided to prevent 
     the Boy Scouts from distributing literature at school--even 
     though other groups can do so. In defending its actions, 
     Acton School Committee cited Massachusetts law, which says 
     that schools cannot sponsor the Boy Scouts.
       On January 14, 2001, the New York Times reported that New 
     York's Chappaqua School District officials were about to 
     coerce two local Boy Scout troops into signing a document 
     that denounced the national policies of the Boy Scouts of 
     America as a condition for allowing these troops access to 
     school property.
       On January 13, 2001, the Wisconsin State Journal reported 
     that the Madison School Board voted unanimously to post a 
     condemnation against the Boy Scouts of America in all 45 
     school districts.

[[Page S6257]]

       On January 11, 2001, the News & Observer reported that 
     ``The Chapel Hill-Carroboro school board voted to give Scouts 
     until June to either go against the rule of their 
     organization or lose their sponsorship and meeting places in 
     schools.''
       On December 18, 2000, the Seattle Union Record reported 
     that a state coalition of advocates for gay and lesbian 
     students has asked Seattle Public Schools to restrict the Boy 
     Scouts of America's access to students and school buildings.
       On December 2, 2000, the New York Times reported that the 
     Schools Chancellor barred New York City public schools from: 
     bidding on contracts with city schools, sponsoring Scout 
     troops or allowing the Scouts to recruit members during 
     school hours.
       On November 20, 2000, the Associate Press reported that in 
     Mount Pleasant, Michigan, School boards in Minneapolis and 
     New York City, as well as other city and state governments 
     and groups nationwide, have recently cut support of the 
     Scouts because of its gay policy. In the Detroit suburb of 
     Plymouth, a teachers union asked its school board to ban 
     groups--including the Boy Scouts--that discriminate against 
     gays.
       On November 16, 2000 Fla. Today reported that ``Broward 
     County's school board voted unanimously to keep the Boy 
     Scouts of America from using public schools to hold meetings 
     and recruitment drives because of the groups ban on gays.'' 
     [District Court intervened.]
       On November 15, 2000 the Telegram and Gazzete reported that 
     in Worchester, Ma, ``Superintendent of Schools Alfred Tutela 
     . . . banned the Boy Scouts from holding meetings in the 
     properties of the Wachusett Regional Schools District.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, prior to my colleague, Senator 
Wellstone, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague, I thank him for adding to this 
debate. But if you believe in the rule of law, which we all do, the 
Supreme Court has spoken very clearly on this point. The Boy Scouts 
have equal access to every single public school in this country. The 
Supreme Court has so declared. So I, again, say to my friend, what is 
the purpose of this amendment? It is gratuitous, it seems to me. It is 
unnecessary. It hurts a group of people. It divides the country. We 
already know the Boy Scouts have equal access. With all the remarks he 
has made, if schools are not allowing that, they are breaking the law.
  We do not need another law which, by the way, opens up a can of 
worms, as Senator Byrd, who supports the underlying amendment, says. It 
is a can of worms. It could invite people in who you really do not 
want. He mentioned the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads and other groups.
  I appreciate being given this 1 minute.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute before my 
colleague from Minnesota speaks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I think some of the reasons the 
Senator from California is raising may be valid to the point that this 
should pass 100-0. If this is not seen as a particularly contentious 
issue, if it is something that is going to happen and it is agreed to 
anyway, I hope we will all support the Boy Scouts. This is, indeed, 
about the Boy Scouts, and it is important to that organization that has 
23 million members worldwide. I think it would be a good statement of 
support to them.
  This issue is about the Boy Scouts and there are legitimate issues 
that have been raised. I think we can tighten the language; if some 
people are concerned about the expansiveness of ``youth group,'' make 
it just about the Boy Scouts and pass it 100-0.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the majority leader is on the floor. 
I will limit my remarks to 3 minutes.
  First of all, I am a son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution 
from Ukraine and then Russia. I grew up in a family where I was taught 
it was wrong to discriminate against anyone. I have tried to teach my 
children and my grandchildren the same. I am against discrimination of 
people because of nationality, race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual 
orientation.
  I commend the Boy Scouts for all of the good work they have done for 
people. But I am very saddened that the Boy Scouts have engaged in what 
are discriminatory policies towards gays and lesbians. I think that is 
most unfortunate for what is otherwise a very fine organization.
  There was a piece of legislation on this floor a number of years ago 
which said that any school district that ``promoted homosexuality'' 
would be cut off from Federal funds. Then I looked at the operational 
definition of it down a number of paragraphs, and that included 
counseling. So if you have a young man in high school and he goes to 
see a counselor, and if he says: I am gay, my friends disowned me, my 
parents have disowned me, and I feel worthless--I do a lot of work in 
suicide prevention and the mental health field. Unfortunately, a high 
incidence of suicide is among boys who are gay.
  The way the Court has ruled, it is clear that if, in fact, community 
groups come into schools, so can Boy Scouts. That isn't even the issue. 
The question is whether or not if a school district has a policy of 
nondiscrimination and it chooses not to sponsor the Boy Scouts because 
the Boy Scouts discriminate against this group of citizens--against 
gays--it would no longer be able to do so, which then would provide Boy 
Scouts with not access but with special treatment.
  That is wrong. It is wrong to say to any school district in any State 
and to any school board that you have to change your policy; that you 
have to sponsor a group which goes against the very values that you 
have professed, which is what we should not do; that is, discriminate 
against any group of citizens, any children anywhere.
  That is why I oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I think what the Senator from Minnesota 
said so eloquently, passionately, and accurately probably leaves little 
left to be said in regard to what this amendment is.
  I rise today to express my disappointment with this amendment.
  The Senate has been debating the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act--off and on--for more than eight weeks now.
  This is an important debate. We are talking about the blueprint for 
federal education policy and funding.
  So far, this has been an unusually bipartisan debate.
  We have been making principled compromises, and real progress.
  And now this.
  Let me be clear: I believe the Boy Scouts should have the same access 
to public school facilities as any other private organization.
  But I fear that is not what this amendment is about.
  I oppose Senator Helms' amendment for two reasons.
  First: It could usurp the rights of states, counties and local 
communities to make certain decisions for their own schools.
  Under this amendment, communities that feel strongly that 
discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong could face a 
terrible choice. They could either disregard their own conscience. Or 
they could follow their conscience and lose millions of dollars that 
their children's schools need.
  Both sides have said, throughout this debate, that one of our goals 
should be to find ways to allow communities to make more decisions 
about their own schools, not fewer.
  This amendment does exactly the opposite.
  The second reason this amendment is such a disappointment to me is 
that--in my opinion--it tolerates discrimination.
  A year and a half ago, Congress awarded the Congressional Medal of 
Honor--the highest honor this nation can bestow on civilians--to the 
``Little Rock Nine.'' More than a generation ago, as children, they had 
the courage to help desegregate the Little Rock public schools.
  Back then, millions of Americans--in Little Rock and across this 
nation--believed that segregation was a moral imperative.
  There are many people today who believe that discriminating against 
gays and lesbians is also a moral imperative. I understand that. But 
that is not the American way.
  Over the years, I've been honored with awards from many groups.

[[Page S6258]]

  There are only a few that I keep in my office in the Capitol. One is 
an award I got three years ago this week from the National Capital Area 
Chapter of the Boy Scouts.
  It's a sculpture of a young boy. I keep it in my office because of my 
profound respect for the good work the Boy Scouts have done in this 
country for more than 90 years.
  We believe in principled compromise. But we cannot compromise on 
fundamental issues of civil rights.
  Supporters of this amendment say they are merely defending the 
constitutional right of free association. They say they are simply 
protecting the right of a private organization to set its own rules.
  But the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Boy Scouts have the 
same right as any other community or youth group to use school 
facilities.
  This amendment seeks special rights for one organization. It could 
force communities to grant that organization special privileges--or 
lose thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in federal education aid.
  It is sad to see the Boy Scouts--a group that has worked for more 
than 90 years to avoid political polarization--being used now by some 
to foster political polarization in this Senate, and in our society as 
a whole.
  I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment. I hope that we can 
work together to finish this good bipartisan education bill because our 
children's future, our country, and the rights of all people, 
minorities, and those who are not minorities, stand in the balance.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, if I could have 2 minutes to associate 
myself completely with the majority leader's eloquent statement, I rise 
in opposition to this amendment for all of the reasons that the 
majority leader has just outlined; but also, further, to say I was 
honored to serve for 8 years as the Honorary Chair of the Girl Scouts 
of America. I know the value of the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts.
  To deprive any youngster of the opportunity to participate over this 
issue strikes me as regrettable at the very least.
  The Girl Scouts don't discriminate. We have had an organization that 
has gone for so many years without any of this difficulty. It should be 
up to the local level to determine whether or not a local school 
district wishes to have the Boy Scouts offer these services to 
youngsters in their schools and in their districts.
  I am absolutely amazed that my friends on the other side would 
propose an amendment that so totally eviscerates local control. It is 
already unnecessary, as we know, with respect to the use of facilities. 
The Supreme Court has already, as it did again yesterday, reaffirmed 
access to public school facilities.
  If we are saying that having the Boy Scouts either in its present 
form or with slight modifications determined by the local parents and 
the schools would in any way jeopardize all Federal funding, it just 
absolutely amazes me that people on the other side could make such an 
argument.
  So I believe, with all my heart, that we should not be discriminating 
against anyone in our country. But certainly a local district that 
tries to work out whatever its problems are with the Boy Scouts, and 
makes a decision that it considers in the best interests of its 
children, should not face the peril of losing all Federal funding that 
should be made available to educate our children, which is what we have 
been debating now for more than a month.
  So I hope all of us will join in rejecting this amendment and making 
clear that we respect the Boy Scouts, we respect the Girl Scouts, and 
we especially respect local control over educational facilities and 
opportunities.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Oregon is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I think I am going to come at 
this issue more differently than any of my colleagues who have spoken 
so far.
  I stand here as an Eagle Scout. I stand here as an Oregon Senator. I 
stand here as one who believes that gays and lesbians are due equal 
rights. I have tried to demonstrate that in the way I have conducted my 
service in the Senate, by supporting Jim Hormel's nomination to be an 
Ambassador for our country, by being the cosponsor, with Senator 
Kennedy, of hate crimes legislation, and by now endorsing a new version 
of ENDA that has a broader religious exemption. I believe I stand here 
with some credibility when I come to the issue of tolerance.
  One of my core values is that if we are to be true disciples, we 
should love one another. I try actively not to discriminate. But I 
believe I just heard the majority leader and the Senator from New York 
say that the Boy Scouts have a right to be in the schools but we can 
discriminate against them. And that is what impels me to this Chamber 
this morning.
  This amendment of Senator Helms is not raised in a vacuum. It hurts 
me personally, as one of five sons of my parents to have the Eagle 
badge, and the father of another Eagle, and another son on the way to 
Eagle, to see the values of that organization held up to ridicule by 
some on the left who I believe are terribly intolerant and who do 
discriminate against people of faith whenever they can.
  I will tell you that in my working with the Human Rights Campaign, 
the folks there with whom I have worked have been very respectful of 
religious faith and have worked with me regarding religious 
organizations under the proposed ENDA law. I think that was a tolerant 
thing for them to do.

  My great frustration is trying to say to the right and to the left: 
Toleration is a two-way street. What I have heard back and forth this 
morning is intolerance on both sides. I will tell you, as a Republican, 
how disappointed I was to see from the Republican Steering Committee 
this morning chapter and verse of instances where a homosexual man and 
Scout leader was also a pedophile. The inference they are trying to 
draw is that if you are a homosexual, ergo, you are a pedophile and 
cannot be a Scout leader. That is no more true than the proposition 
that a man who coaches a girl's soccer team will necessarily sexually 
abuse the girls.
  We have to get beyond these stereotypes. This is wrong; this is 
intolerant; and it goes both ways.
  So I believe Senator Helms is here in good faith. I believe he is 
going to amend his amendment. I believe we can narrow it in a way to 
exclude those groups who do not have national charters with this 
Government or in some way to say that, yes, we do feel a need to stand 
up for the Boy Scouts of America.
  Assuming we find that language, I intend to vote with Senator Helms 
because, I will tell you, what I learned as a Scout is an ideal that I 
want to see preserved for our country. And I don't want them excluded 
from the national parks; I don't want them excluded from our public 
places; because I believe what I learned as a Boy Scout is as 
invaluable and as enduring today as it was when I learned it as a 12-
year-old boy.
  Madam President, we are doing a school bill here because we want to 
help our kids. Let me tell you what I learned as a Scout. We memorized 
it. I have to use these glasses now. I didn't then. But these are the 
qualities I would like taught in school: A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, 
helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, 
clean, and reverent.
  Then you come to the Scout oath. The last phrase is what everybody 
focuses on anymore. I didn't even know what it meant in a modern 
context when I learned it as a boy. It is:

       On my honor I will do my best
       To do my duty to God and my country
       And to obey the Scout law;
       To help other people at all times;
       To keep myself physically strong,
       Mentally awake,
       and morally straight.

  Do you know what I knew as a boy about ``morally straight''? I didn't 
know anything about gays or lesbians or ``straight.'' What I was taught 
that meant was that as a boy and a young man I should be sexually 
abstinent and that as an adult and a married man I should be sexually 
faithful to my spouse. Is that wrong? I know that that is a tough 
standard, but I say the U.S. Senate should keep that ideal high. And we 
can do it by supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
  So while we are working out the language on the Helms amendment, I 
thank the Senator from North Carolina for the spirit of the amendment 
that

[[Page S6259]]

says these ideals, these values are valuable still.
  Madam President, I think what is often lost in this debate about the 
Boy Scouts is how it is even organized. The Boy Scouts is a national 
institution with a national charter with this Government, and it is put 
out for any group that wants to sponsor it. They are called chartering 
institutions. Most of the chartering institutions are churches and 
synagogues. Some are police stations. Some may even be a school 
district. But I tell you, we ought to understand the spirit of 
religious accommodation. It ought to apply to the Boy Scouts as well. 
But in many cities in our country, this organization is being singled 
out for discrimination, and it is wrong because this is a standard.
  These are values that I want taught in public school. And these are 
values that when I live them, my life is better for it and my pursuit 
of happiness is more full.
  So I hope we can find the right language because this Eagle Scout 
feels a need to vote for the Boy Scouts of America on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, with the agreement and the graciousness 
of Senator Brownback, we will have Senator Murray speak for 3 minutes, 
and I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will never forget my daughter when she was that little 
Brownie girl. All the women Senators are giving the proceeds of our 
book to the Girl Scouts. There isn't anyone on this side of the aisle 
who doesn't believe it is very important to have organizations such as 
these to help our kids. We also believe, however, if you read this 
amendment, it is not about equal access for the Boy Scouts.
  I yield to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to respond quickly to the 
Senator from Oregon. I was concerned with his mischaracterization of 
those who oppose this amendment. As I heard him, I felt he was saying 
those who support this amendment support the Boy Scouts and the values 
of the Boy Scouts, and those who oppose it oppose the Boy Scouts.
  I tell the Senator from Oregon and our colleagues, that is absolutely 
not the case. I have sat here and listened to the entire debate. 
Everyone who has opposed this amendment has spoken about the Boy Scouts 
personally in their own lives, including me. I remind the Senator from 
Oregon that I was a Brownie. I was a junior Girl Scout. I was a Girl 
Scout. I was a Brownie leader. I was a junior Girl Scout leader. I was 
a senior Girl Scout leader, and I was a Boy Scout leader for my son.
  I think the Boy Scouts do a tremendous job in this country for a lot 
of young people, and I want them to continue to do that.
  The opposition to this amendment comes because the Boy Scouts already 
have equal access to our facilities. They have them under current law, 
and it has been affirmed by court decisions. The concerns on our side 
are that this amendment and the language of the amendment as written 
will give the Boy Scouts access above and beyond any other group that 
asks for a school facility.
  As a former school board member, the bind that will put our school 
districts in, as they look at this language and are told that if a 
church group comes to them and another group, perhaps seniors who are 
looking for tutoring, and Boy Scouts, is that they will have to pick 
the Boy Scouts over those other groups. School boards make these 
decisions based on a lot of different local decisions: On space, on how 
the facility will be used, on how many janitors they are going to have 
to hire, on what other kinds of demands there are on their facilities. 
Their underlying goal as a school board is to make sure the kids in 
their district are educated. We have to leave this decision in their 
hands and not put language into the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act that forces them to choose one group over another.

  Equal access is currently provided under law and by the courts. What 
we cannot do is tie the hands of school boards to give unequal access 
to a group, even though all of us on the floor may agree that it is a 
great group.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I say to Senator Murray, I don't cast aspersions 
on anyone. But I have heard a few say that the Boy Scouts are 
discriminators and therefore should be discriminated. I have heard that 
in several remarks. I am only making reference to that. I believe some 
legitimate concerns about the amendment have been raised. I am hearing 
from some that the Boy Scouts are out of date and old-fashioned. I am 
saying they ought to remain in fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate that. I rise in support of the amendment. 
This is one that should pass 100-0. Hearing some of the comments on 
both sides of the aisle, I am not sure I understand why there should be 
any opposition to it.
  I will read the applicable part of the amendment. It is on page 2. It 
says to any State educational agency, if a school, or schools served by 
the agency, denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet or 
discriminates against any group affiliated with the Boy Scouts of 
America or any other youth group that wishes to conduct a meeting 
within that designated open forum--and that is where the language is 
being worked on right now--on the basis of the membership or leadership 
criteria of the Boy Scouts, their funding is limited.
  As the Senator from North Carolina pointed out, most of these never 
get to that point. The Department of Education looks at it, 
investigates. It is worked out at the local school district level. This 
all gets worked out. The operative point here is that if the Boy Scouts 
are going to be discriminated against, you are going to go into a 
process of being reviewed on your Federal funding.
  Is this a legitimate concern? Some have raised the point this is not 
a legitimate concern. Let's look at the headlines. In the year 
following the decision of the Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts v. Dale, 
which affirmed the Scouts' right of free association--that is the issue 
here, right of free association, in the Constitution; it has been a 
raging storm. The New York Times has compared the Scouts to a hate 
group. Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times characterizes Scouts 
as engaged in hateful politics. They have been accused of bigotry. 
Activists groups have expressed being appalled at some of the Scouts' 
positions. Unfortunately, many school districts have responded to the 
controversy by attempting to discriminate against the Boy Scouts.

  This is a point I am reiterating from the Senator from Wyoming, a 
former Eagle Scout. I, unfortunately, was not an Eagle Scout. We didn't 
have the Boy Scouts in Parker, KS. I wish we had. My son was in the Boy 
Scouts. It is a great organization. Some of the school districts have 
followed on after this sort of hyperbole and rhetoric regarding the Boy 
Scouts and they have started to respond.
  Listen to what is happening.
  In Seattle, the home State of the Presiding Officer, from the Seattle 
Union Record:

       Safe Schools Coalition Asks for Restricted Access for 
     Seattle Scouts.

  From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

       Broward School Board to Review Scouts' Lease.

  From the Detroit News:

       Plymouth Schools to Vote on Ban on Scout Meetings.

  This is an active issue against the Boy Scouts of America. People are 
saying the Boy Scouts is a good organization: we like the Boy Scouts, 
are part of the Boy Scouts, continue to be a part of the Boy Scouts; we 
should let them have public access. If you think this is an 
insignificant amendment, vote for it 100-0 then.
  Unfortunately, the school districts' response to this controversy is 
based on what other people are saying about

[[Page S6260]]

the Boy Scouts of America and not what the Boy Scouts are doing or 
saying. In Kansas, we have a tradition and a thought that is 
appropriate to bring here; that is, that you take people at their word. 
Rather than attempting to characterize the nature of the Boy Scouts as 
an organization or offering just my opinions on that, I think we ought 
to let them speak for themselves. We talk a lot on the floor about 
character, the need for character, the need for that in this country. 
Everybody would agree we need character. We need to bring back those 
fundamental principles that this country was built upon.
  Are the Boy Scouts a part of that? First and foremost, consider the 
question of whether or not Scouts are a hate group, as some have 
alleged. It is important to go back to the roots of this 90-year-old 
organization, look at the values upon which they exist.
  Let's consider their oath the Senator from Oregon was citing, which I 
think is so beautiful. It is something we all ought to memorize as U.S. 
Senators and others:

       On my honor I will do my best
       To do my duty to God and my country

  ``In God we trust,'' above the halls of the Senate, major door 
through which we walk.

       And to obey the Scout law;
       To help other people at all times;
       To keep myself physically strong,
       mentally awake,
       and morally straight.

  As a parent of five, I like that. I think that is pretty good. I 
think that is pretty good character education. I don't see anything 
hateful in it. However, the oath does refer to the Scout laws. Maybe we 
need to look to see if this is a hate group or not.
  In the Scout group, they call for trustworthiness. A Scout tells the 
truth, keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. 
People can depend on him. A Scout is loyal. A Scout is true to his 
family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and Nation. A Scout is helpful. 
A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for 
others without pay or reward. That is a nice notion to bring back.

  A Scout is friendly. A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to 
other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with 
ideas and customs other than his own.
  A Scout is courteous. A Scout is polite to everyone, regardless of 
age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get 
along together. A Scout is kind. A Scout understands there is strength 
in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does 
not hurt or kill harmless things without reason. A Scout is obedient. A 
Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He follows 
the rules of the school. He obeys the laws of his community and 
country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have 
them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.
  A Scout is cheerful. A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He 
cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy. 
They may be being tasked on that one at this point in time.
  A Scout is thrifty. A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. 
He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural 
resources. He carefully uses time and property. A Scout is brave. A 
Scout can face danger, even if he is afraid. He has the courage to 
stand for what he thinks is right, even if others laugh at or threaten 
him. And they are being threatened today.
  A Scout is clean. A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He 
goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He 
helps keep his home and community clean. He helps keep his home and 
community clean. A Scout is reverent toward God and faithful in his 
religious duties. Listen to this one. He respects the beliefs of 
others.

  I don't see any hate espoused there. In fact, quite the contrary, the 
Scout law advocates respecting the beliefs of others. Yet the Scouts' 
beliefs are not being respected here and they are being singled out for 
discrimination, and some are even alleging they are discriminatory. 
Helping others is part of it, as are being gentle and treating others 
with respect. That is part of their core values. Considering all of the 
violent and hateful influences which our children are exposed to on an 
hourly basis, I find it supremely ironic that school boards are so 
concerned with the influence of an organization whose slogan is ``do a 
good turn daily.''
  Looking at the Scouts' founding principles may not be enough to clear 
the record. Perhaps it is better to take them at their word regarding 
the particular issue of this debate--their stand on having homosexual 
leaders. The question I believe many school boards in the country are 
asking is, Are the Boy Scouts of America a homophobic organization? To 
which I would aggressively respond: No. No, they are not. Even in their 
own creed they say ``respect for diversity.''
  I want to put in a quote the Boy Scouts forwarded:

       The Boy Scouts of America respects the rights of people in 
     groups who hold values that differ from those encompassed in 
     the Scout Oath and Law, and the Boy Scouts of America makes 
     no effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to 
     hold their attitudes or opinions.

  That is what the Boy Scouts say and do themselves. Scouts come from 
all walks of life. They are exposed to diversity in Scouting that they 
may not otherwise experience. I know from my work with the Scouts, it 
is a diverse group. It gives a lot of opportunity to a lot of kids. The 
Boy Scouts of America aim to allow youth to live and learn as children 
and enjoy Scouting without immersing them in the politics of the day.
  I think this last quote from the Boy Scouts is particularly 
appropriate. In truth, this debate is not about the Scouts--it is about 
the politics of the day into which the Scouts have been swept. They 
have had this motto, and they have had these views and they have been 
an organization 90 years. As far as the politics of banning one of the 
oldest and most noble youth organizations in this country from public 
property, we cannot, should not, and we must not let this happen.
  I call on all of my colleagues in the Senate to pass this worthy 
amendment. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Helms amendment is a solution in 
search of a problem. The Senator from North Carolina says his amendment 
is needed because schools are excluding the Boy Scouts from using their 
facilities, and this is simply not true. Just this week, the Supreme 
Court reaffirmed the right of groups such as the Boy Scouts to use 
public school facilities. This amendment is about punishing schools 
that decided to no longer sponsor the Boy Scouts because of their 
exclusionary membership policy.
  Currently, 359 school districts, with a total of 4,418 schools in 10 
States, including Massachusetts, no longer sponsor the Boy Scouts. This 
is the statute in my State of Massachusetts:

       Extracurricular activities, advantages, and privileges of 
     public schools include all extracurricular activities made 
     available, sponsored, or supervised by any public school. No 
     school shall sponsor or participate in the organization of 
     outside extracurricular activities conducted at such school 
     that restricts student participation on the basis of race, 
     color, sex, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation.

  This does not prohibit school committees from allowing the use of 
school premises by independent groups with restrictive membership. 
Therefore, they can use the facilities. The Massachusetts statute 
indicates they can't be made to sponsor.
  The Helms amendment is attempting to override the State statute and 
the decisions being made locally. I think that is unwise, unnecessary, 
and wrong. Although the schools do not sponsor the Boy Scouts, the 
Scouts are still given access to school facilities as any other group. 
The Boy Scouts may have a constitutional right to use public school 
facilities. They do not have the right to demand school sponsorship. 
Yet that is exactly what the amendment allows them to do.
  The amendment also contains a harsh punishment on the schools that 
decide no longer to sponsor the Boy Scouts with the loss of all Federal 
education funds. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Helms amendment.
  Madam President, we have been on the floor for 8 weeks attempting to 
try to fashion and shape legislation that

[[Page S6261]]

was going to enhance the education of children all over this country. 
We have a good bill, and it seems to me to be unwise in that effort to 
bring effectively something that these children have no control over. 
We are giving accountability to the children to exceed themselves in 
the challenge they are facing. We put additional challenges on 
teachers, on parents, on schools. We are encouraging the States for 
greater participation and involvement. Now we have this amendment, the 
results of which would deny the benefits of the advantages of this 
legislation to reach many different children in our country. It seems 
to me to be unwise. I hope the amendment is defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. As the Chair knows, I obtained unanimous consent that I 
might deliver my remarks from my chair for obvious reasons.
  I have listened in fascination to the discussion on the Senate floor 
this morning and this afternoon. It bears out exactly what I was told 
was going on in the way of the lining up of opposition on the other 
side to this amendment by the homosexual-lesbian leaders in this area. 
Let me say at the outset that I don't like the corruption of a once 
beautiful word ``gay'' which has been adopted as a description of 
conduct that is anything but that.
  It is all right with me if the other side wants to make a political 
football out of this thing, but they were not prepared and they had not 
been energized when this amendment came up the first time. In any case, 
I have heard here that the Boy Scouts are not being discriminated 
against and all of this is false, and so forth and so on.
  Let me give a few examples. On May 11 of this year, the Associated 
Press reported that the Iowa City school board voted to prohibit the 
Boy Scouts of America from distributing any information in schools 
because of the Scouts' membership criteria. A spokesman for the Boy 
Scouts of America:

       We simply ask to be treated the same way as any other 
     private organization and that our free speech and right to 
     assemble be respected just as we respect the rights of 
     others.

  On February 8 of this year, the Asbury Park Press reported that the 
State of New Jersey is considering a rule change that would bar school 
districts from renting space to the Boy Scouts of America because of 
their position on homosexuality.
  On February 7 of this year, the Arizona Republic reported that the 
Sunnyside School District in Tucson decided to charge the Boy Scouts of 
America fees to use school facilities, even though no other groups have 
to pay for use.
  The ACLU executive director said:

       While Boy Scouts, atheists, Nazis, even satanists have a 
     right to express their views, Government should not use 
     public money to promote them.

  What goes on here? Is this not really an attack by one group on the 
Boy Scouts of America? Of course, it is. Why do you think these people 
have been standing up and telling how long they served in the Girl 
Scouts in a tearful sort of way? The goal here is the goal of the 
organized lesbians and homosexuals in this country of ours.
  On January 28 of this year, the Boston Globe reported that the Acton 
School Committee in Massachusetts decided to prevent the Boy Scouts 
from distributing literature at school even though all other groups can 
do so. In defending its actions, Acton School Committee cited 
Massachusetts law that says schools cannot sponsor Boy Scouts.
  On January 14 of this year, the New York Times reported that New York 
Chappaqua School District officials were able to coerce two local Boy 
Scout troops into signing a document that denounced the national 
policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a condition for allowing these 
troops access to school property.
  Don't you see what is going on here? The Supreme Court knocked them 
in the head. The Supreme Court stood up for the Boy Scouts of America, 
exactly as I am trying to stand up for them.
  I am a little bit sick at my stomach at some of the mewling and 
puking that has gone on in this debate this morning and this afternoon.
  On January 11 of this year, the News and Observer, my favorite 
newspaper in Raleigh, NC, said that the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School 
Board voted to give Scouts until June--la-di-da--either to go against 
the rule of their organization or lose their sponsorship and meeting 
places in schools.
  I have two or three more pages. If anybody is interested, Madam 
President, I will be glad to read them into the Record. Otherwise, I am 
going to place them in the Record so they can be examined when the vote 
has been taken, and if the other side manages to defeat this amendment, 
as has been advocated and worked for by the organized groups to which I 
have been referring, then it will be there for the public to see who is 
who and who is for what.
  I am going to pause momentarily, but I will be back, because Senator 
Kyl has been waiting to address this amendment. I thank the Senator for 
coming. I yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise in support of the Helms amendment. 
Since 1910, for the past 91 years, the Boy Scouts of America have been 
instilling in young boys the values of personal responsibility, 
community, and duty to God, respect for individual beliefs, and 
patriotism. Millions of boys have become better citizens because of the 
availability of Scout troops in their communities.
  I respect the message of the Boy Scouts and respect their commitment 
to instilling these ethical and moral values in young boys. 
Unfortunately, there are some who do not respect the Boy Scouts' 
message. Some school boards are taking action to prevent the Boy Scouts 
from distributing recruitment information and holding meetings and not, 
as has been suggested, because some more appropriate group needs the 
space but because of what the Scouts believe. That is why I have chosen 
to speak today to voice my concerns regarding the discrimination the 
Boy Scouts are facing and to support the Helms amendment that will 
allow the good work of the Scouts to continue in schools.
  Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts' first 
amendment right of association to create their own criteria for Scout 
leaders, even if that means prohibiting homosexual leaders in order to 
uphold its focus on strong moral values. That was in Boy Scouts v. 
Dale.
  Since that critical Supreme Court decision, the Boy Scouts have 
experienced serious discrimination for exercising their 
constitutionally protected rights, and that is not right.
  Boy Scout troops across America are facing obstacles put in place by 
school boards. In a Wall Street Journal article from last July, it was 
noted that poor minority children will suffer the most as a result of 
this all-out attack on the Boy Scouts.
  It is vital to hold Scout meetings in local public schools, 
particularly in inner-city neighborhoods because often that is the only 
safe place for these kids to congregate.
  The Senator from Massachusetts said the amendment is a solution 
looking for a problem, but the Congressional Research Service has 
reported already nine specific school boards have taken action to 
restrict Boy Scout access to public school facilities. The Senator from 
North Carolina had just gotten started reciting a litany of examples 
where this has occurred and apparently has several more pages from 
which he can read.
  This is a problem, unfortunately, that requires a solution, and the 
point of his amendment is to stop the trend so we do not have any more 
examples and so the Boy Scouts do not have to continually litigate 
every time they want to enforce their constitutional rights.
  This Congress has taken action over and over where the Supreme Court 
has guaranteed rights to a group or an individual or a cause of one 
kind or another, and we have sought to embody in the law a remedy so 
that the entity or the group does not have to constantly go to court to 
battle for these constitutionally guaranteed rights. That is what is 
meaningful about the kind of action that is being proposed today.
  An example as recently as November 2000, the Broward County School 
Board voted to prevent the Boy Scouts altogether from using public 
schools to hold meetings and recruitment drives. They challenged this 
in the Federal

[[Page S6262]]

court, and the Boy Scouts won the initial victory.
  In March 2001, the district court issued a preliminary injunction 
that will allow the Boy Scouts to continue their regular meetings and 
recruitment.
  Yes, it is true that some have argued there is a remedy for the Boy 
Scouts to enforce their constitutionally protected rights. Why wouldn't 
we want to assist them so they do not have to go through expensive 
court litigation every time another school board decides to take this 
kind of discriminatory action.

  This past Monday, the Supreme Court held that a public school 
violated the Christian organization's free speech rights by excluding 
the club from meeting after school. The Court found the school was 
discriminating against the club because of its religious nature, and 
the Court rejected this viewpoint discrimination.
  More and more the Court is acknowledging the fact it is appropriate 
for us to protect these kinds of rights. There are about 85,000 Cub 
Scouts and Boy Scouts in my own State of Arizona. They rely on every 
public elementary school in Arizona to open the cafeteria or another 
room in afterschool meetings and help Scouts distribute information.
  I have gone to these schools and participated in the awarding of 
Eagle Scout badges, for example. I suspect almost all of us have done 
that, and it makes us feel very good to be supporting these youngsters 
who really want to become very good citizens.
  Even in my State of Arizona, the Boy Scouts have been subjected to 
this kind of discriminatory practice by school boards. One district 
outside of Tucson will simply not sponsor Scouting anymore. It has 
nothing to do with the need of other school activities for the space 
that has been devoted to the Scouts.
  Another school district began charging fees for the Scouts to use its 
facilities, but the same district does not charge a fee for any other 
group. Why charge the Scouts? The district said the Boy Scouts do not 
meet the goals and objectives of the school district.
  In another district, school employees took it upon themselves to 
throw away recruitment fliers in order to prevent the Boy Scouts from 
getting its information out to the students.
  I think the need for this is clear. The Boy Scouts need our help to 
ensure equal access to our public schools. They should not be forced to 
continually go to court to protect their constitutionally guaranteed 
rights.
  If they are denied access for legitimate purposes, this amendment 
does not apply. It is only to enforce their right against 
discrimination. They are experiencing hostility and exclusion from some 
public schools. It has to stop.

  The Helms amendment ensures they are not going to have to go to court 
to protect their rights. They will continue to be able to meet and 
teach young boys strong moral values. I hope others will join in 
supporting this very important and needed amendment to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to 
discuss this issue. I think it is an important issue. There is a real 
problem we need to wake up and face. As a former Boy Scout and former 
Eagle Scout, I feel strongly about it and want to share some remarks on 
the subject.
  We grew up in a little community outside of town with nine boys in 
the community. Of the nine, eight became Eagle Scouts and one was a 
Life Scout. We always teased him, why he didn't finish, and he always 
said he regretted not having completed the program, one step from being 
an Eagle Scout.
  Every Thursday evening, we went to town, and we had to pool our cars. 
A parent or kids who had their license would drive to our meeting. We 
would do camps together. We did the Scout oath and Scout laws every 
Thursday night:

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

  I never thought that much about it, but over the years that had an 
impact on my life. In our town, people remained in Scouts into their 
senior year in high school.
  The first time I came to Washington was with a Boy Scout troop. We 
had a 50th anniversary of that troop, and 60 had been Eagle Scouts. 
From the 9 boys of my little community, 15 miles outside of the town, 
every one of them had a full degree from college, several have Ph.D.'s, 
law degrees, and advanced degrees. One is a medical doctor. One is a 
dentist.
  It meant a lot to me. We also did the Scout laws every Thursday 
night: A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, 
kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty--that is a good word we don't use 
much anymore--brave, clean, and reverent. The word ``God'' is used and 
the word ``reverent'' is used, but it is decidedly not a sectarian 
organization. Not one bit of the literature or otherwise suggests that. 
To the contrary, it is an organization that encourages boys to develop 
a spiritual side and to recognize that they are indeed more than a 
random collection of particles but are created persons. That is a key 
component of the Boy Scouts.
  Several years ago my friend, Senator Enzi from Wyoming, talked about 
being an Eagle Scout, as is his son. He told a story about the 
Washington zoo in the U.S. capital. The Washington zoo would not allow 
the Boy Scouts to have a Court of Honor. And, by the way, one of the 
founders of the Washington zoo was one of the founders of Boy Scouts. 
They were not allowed because they discriminate against atheists. The 
oath required that boys do their duty to God. They said if you were an 
atheist, you could not take the oath; therefore, you were a 
discriminatory organization and you could not use the property at the 
Washington zoo to have a Court of Honor.
  We raised that point. It was not lightly taken. There were letters 
written to defend it. But when confronted with it, the leader of the 
zoo capitulated and apologized and said that was not a good policy and 
they would not continue to adhere to it.
  What is troubling to me is that we have skirted the issue some, but 
there is a group of Americans who believe very strongly--and I don't 
disparage their motives--that the Boy Scouts' position on gay 
Scoutmasters is not appropriate, and they have set about to punish the 
Boy Scouts. I don't think there is anybody here who would deny it. They 
are politically active. They work United Fund committees, and they work 
school boards and city councils. And they seek to get them to eliminate 
Boy Scouts from public facilities. That is what is happening. There is 
no mystery about that.

  We give a lot of Federal money to school systems. I don't believe 
every time something irritates us that the Federal Government ought to 
get involved, but I feel strongly abut this. The Supreme Court of the 
United States upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to make this 
determination.
  Some say there is no discrimination going on against the Scouts. 
There plainly is. It will plainly continue. As far as I am concerned, 
if there is a school system in America that says to a little Boy Scout 
troop, such as troop 94 in Camden, AL, you can't have a meeting on 
school grounds because of your policy concerning your leadership and 
the behavior of your members, you can't have it here, even though the 
Supreme Court said yes, as far as I am concerned, they don't need 
Federal money and I am not voting to give it to them.
  That is where we are. I am not sure exactly how the language is going 
to come out. I know Senator Helms would like to make sure there was the 
least possible controversy over it. I would like that also. I firmly 
believe we ought to affirm through governmental entities and 
organizations the kind of character-building program to which the Boy 
Scouts are committed. ``Do a good turn daily'' is the motto.
  I read and clipped an article that brought tears to my eyes, an 
article in one of the newspapers about Boy Scouts in Rwanda. They had 
all their uniforms confiscated, but they had their kerchiefs. The 
picture with that article showed those Scouts at a hospital in war-torn 
Rwanda, cutting the grass. They were interviewed, and they said: We 
always do a good turn daily. I

[[Page S6263]]

tried to get them some help. The article went on to say that when the 
totalitarian leader took over, he oppressed the Scouts; he took their 
uniforms and their books, and he forced all the young people to join, 
for lack of a better word, a Hitler-type youth group of which everybody 
had to be a part. They refused. They stayed true to their oath. Under 
oppression we have the finest example of commitment. That was very 
moving to me.
  These ideals are wonderful ideals. I find it difficult for anyone to 
conclude that there is something unhealthy in the way the Boy Scouts do 
business. It ought to be affirmed and nurtured. A school system that 
will not provide them their constitutional right does not deserve a 
dime of Federal money, in my opinion. I think the Helms amendment will 
help deal with that and get some attention from around the country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today, the U.S. Senate made a strong 
statement in support of the right of the Boy Scouts of America and 
other youth groups to enjoy equal access and a fair opportunity to use 
the facilities of our Nation's public schools. I am proud to have 
joined my Senate colleagues in supporting an amendment to S. 1, the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which will codify in Federal 
law recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States 
upholding these basic rights of equality and fairness for the Boy 
Scouts.
  I am also a strong supporter of the right of private organizations 
such as the Boy Scouts to organize as they wish. My son was on Eagle 
Scout, and I know firsthand the values on which the Boy Scouts and the 
Girl Scouts stand. The Scouts stand for strong moral character, duty to 
God, a respect for the rule of law, service to others and loyalty and 
allegiance to country. Based upon these high standards, the Boy Scouts 
and any such private organization should be allowed to determine its 
own membership without interference. This prerogative has been upheld 
by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as this week, and I commend the 
Senate for endorsing this fundamental right.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms. This 
amendment, the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, is very clear in 
its purpose, which is ``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.'' I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment.
  It is appropriate that this amendment be considered and adopted on 
this education bill. Since its founding in 1910, the Boy scouts of 
America, BSA, has complemented youth education with a program that 
teaches skills and values that will help those youth throughout their 
lifetimes. Over the past 91 years, more than 100 million young men and 
women have been served by Scouting. For those young people, Scouting 
has provided a program of values and leadership, joined with an 
opportunity to improve themselves by helping others.
  The BSA is primarily concerned about the youth it serves. Its mission 
statement states: ``The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to 
prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by 
instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.'' The Scouting 
program has three specific objectives, commonly referred to as the 
``Aims of Scouting.'' They are character development, citizenship 
training, and personal fitness. The methods by which the aims are 
achieved are Advancement, Uniforms, Outdoor Program and Skills, Youth 
Leadership, Patrol Method, Community Service, and Adult Association. In 
addition, the Scouting Program through a variety of means works to 
prevent child abuse, drug abuse, hunger, functional illiteracy, and 
teen unemployment.
  Scouting has become an American institution, a natural element in 
most communities. Scouts exemplify the values outlined in the Scout 
Oath and Law and dedicate themselves to serving their communities.
  The BSA respects the rights of people and groups who hold values that 
differ from those encompassed in the Scout Oath and Laws, and the BSA 
makes no effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to hold 
their attitudes or opinions. Likewise, the Boy Scouts of America aims 
to allow youth to live and to learn as children and enjoy Scouting 
without immersing them in the politics of the day. Unfortunately, 
certain groups dissatisfied with the Boy Scouts of America's membership 
policies and the moral views on which they are based have suggested 
that the BSA not have the privilege of meeting in public schools or 
distributing recruitment information at public schools. I do not agree 
with that suggestion. Just as other student or community groups are 
permitted to have access to public school facilities, the Boy Scouts of 
America should have the same access.
  I am proud of my association with the Boy Scouts of America. I 
strongly support the amendment that would permit the Boy Scouts to have 
equal access to public school facilities. This amendment is consistent 
with the decision by the United States Supreme Court which reaffirmed 
the Boy Scouts of America's standing as a private organization with the 
right to set its own membership and leadership standards.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Helms 
entitled the ``Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act'' aims to ensure 
that the Boy Scouts of America has access to our nations' public school 
facilities. The Boy Scouts already have access to our public schools, 
access that is guaranteed by the Constitution. As recently as this past 
Monday, the Supreme Court confirmed in the case of Good News Club v. 
Milford Central School that when a public school establishes a limited 
open forum, the school may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint 
among groups wishing to use that forum. Under that decision and its 
predecessors, the Boy Scouts already have the same right to use public 
schools as any other group. We do not need to echo the Constitution's 
clear protections through an amendment to the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Moreover, this amendment does more than simply reiterate what the 
Supreme Court has already made clear about access to our public 
schools. It conditions federal funding on the willingness of school 
districts to accept groups with ``membership or leadership criteria, 
that prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals.'' Districts that refuse 
space to any groups besides the Boy Scouts, or groups with similar 
views on homosexuality, are subject to no Congressionally-mandated 
penalty. Indeed, the only specially protected viewpoint under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act would become the refusal to 
accept gays and lesbians. I am uncomfortable with the Congress 
endorsing these particular views above all others, and I believe that 
the courts would likely find this to be impermissible viewpoint 
discrimination. The Supreme Court has stated that: ``Regulations which 
permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of 
the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment.'' Simon & 
Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 112 S. 
Ct. 501, 508 (1991). In my opinion, this amendment would do precisely 
what the Court has said the First Amendment prohibits.
  I oppose the Helms amendment because it accomplishes nothing except 
to provide special and unprecedented protection for one particular and 
deeply controversial view, the Boy Scouts' decision to ``prohibit the 
acceptance of homosexuals.'' This is not the job of Congress, and it 
should not interfere with the important work we are doing to reform our 
education system. It is also worth noting that this amendment does not 
prevent schools from withdrawing their sponsorship of the Boy Scouts, 
as some supporters have stated. It simply guarantees the organization 
the access that they already have.
  This amendment is unnecessary. This debate needs to be about the 
education of our children, about pressing problems such as providing 
high quality teachers; ensuring access to technology; funding programs 
to assist low-income and disadvantaged students;

[[Page S6264]]

and, renovating and repairing deteriorating schools. We have had a good 
debate on these issues over the past several weeks and have done so in 
a bipartisan and cooperative manner. As we come to what may be the 
closing hours of our consideration of the critical issue of education 
reform, I urge my colleagues to maintain the focus on our school 
children and the quality of the programs, facilities and services they 
receive and to oppose this divisive and unnecessary amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms 
amendment. Under our Federal Constitution and laws, public schools are 
already required to provide equal access to their facilities. This 
amendment, therefore, is unnecessary. As such, its only result would be 
to divide our communities rather than bring them together.
  It is unfortunate that an organization that has meant so much to our 
nation has now become the object of a larger debate on civil rights and 
national unity. This amendment is not a vote on the legitimacy of the 
Boy Scouts as a national institution. Rather, it is a vote on the 
direction in which we want our country to go.
  I have heard from constituents who are opposed to this amendment. One 
was a teacher who spoke eloquently to the divisiveness of the 
amendment. He wrote:

       Dear Senator Feinstein:
       As your constituent, I strongly urge to oppose the Helms 
     amendment to the Education Bill (S. 1), which would deny all 
     Federal education funding to any school that has been found 
     to discriminate against the Boy Scouts or any other youth 
     group that denies membership to gays and lesbians.
       Aside from being politically divisive and unrelated to the 
     underlying bill, the Helms amendment is completely 
     unnecessary and is a punishment in search of a problem. The 
     use of public school facilities is governed by the First 
     Amendment. The Helms amendment does nothing to further the 
     goals of improving education and serves only as an anti-gay 
     attack. I urge you to oppose this amendment and look forward 
     to hearing your views on this important issue.

  Other constituents voiced their concerns about the message of 
intolerance such an amendment would carry if passed. A family from 
Valley Glen, CA wrote:

       We are very much offended by the discrimination that the 
     [Boy Scouts of America] is able to operate with under the 
     blessings of the U.S. Supreme Court. On one hand we applaud 
     the actions of school boards, city councils, police 
     departments, corporations and United Way agencies for 
     standing up for what they believe. On the other hand, as 
     members of Temple Beth Hillel (Valley Village, CA), we are 
     quite proud of our Pack 311 and Rabbi Jim Kaufman's stand 
     that the basic program is great and that the best way to make 
     change is from within.
       Additionally, as a family who is very active in the Girl 
     Scouts . . ., we are quite proud that [the Girl Scouts] are 
     inclusive of all girls and their families.
       Our tax dollars should not be used to support the 
     discrimination that the ``Boys Scouts Equal Access Act'' is 
     trying to affirm. We urge you to help to defeat this act and 
     to help to hold the [Boy Scouts of America] to the same 
     standards that the country as a whole is striving for. The 
     [Boys Scout of America] is a great American institution 
     and we hope that it can continue to be so following the 
     same non-discriminatory rules as the rest of the country.

  Here are my views on the matter: first, the Supreme Court has already 
spoken to the issue of equal access for private organizations. Last 
year, the Court ruled in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America that the Boy 
Scouts had a First Amendment right to prohibit gay men and lesbians 
from serving as leaders in the Boy Scouts. What this decision means is 
that the governments cannot directly penalize the Boy Scouts for 
constitutionally protected views and policies, as the New Jersey public 
accommodations law had sought to do in the case. Nor can they 
indirectly penalize the Scouts by denying access to public facilities 
and other benefits available to other private groups.
  So, for me, the matter is settled. Already a school must allow access 
to an organization like the Boy Scouts, regardless of the 
organization's viewpoints, or risk losing federal funding. The 
Constitution already protects the Boy Scouts and similar youth groups, 
so there is no reason for Congress to intervene.
  I also oppose the Helms amendment because of its sweeping potential 
to limit the rights of state and local governments to make decisions 
for their own school districts, and for their own children, as to their 
communities' tolerance of discrimination. One provision of the 
amendment in particular troubles me: It would provide special 
protection to groups that prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals. 
Basically, it singles out for protection a type of discrimination. A 
consensus developing in our country is that discrimination of this kind 
is wrong. Across the nation, local jurisdictions are voting to prohibit 
discrimination against gays and lesbians.
  In my hometown of San Francisco, a city that prides itself on the 
diversity of its views and the diversity of its people, a cornerstone 
of the community is its belief that basic civil rights protections 
should extend to every American, and not only to a few and under 
certain circumstances. A vote in favor of this amendment would be an 
indictment against the people of San Francisco and of their rich 
tradition of accepting others.
  And it would be an indictment of the many other communities 
throughout California and the rest of the nation that promote diversity 
and tolerance for all. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
which would foster a sense of division and disunity.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the work of the Boy Scouts of America is 
commendable, and I am proud to have been a Boy Scout. However, I must 
oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. 
Helms, on constitutional grounds.
  The Helms amendment would prohibit federal education funding for 
schools, school districts, or States that deny access to their 
facilities to the Boy Scouts, or other such organizations that 
discriminate based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Supreme Court 
has already held that if school districts provide some groups access to 
their facilities as an open forum, they must provide all groups equal 
access to those facilities. The Helms amendment is not needed to assure 
the Boy Scouts equal access if a local school district decides to open 
its facilities to outside groups.
  Regrettably, the effect of the Helms amendment as drafted is to give 
specific groups additional rights to school resources not afforded to 
other groups. As such, the amendment would thus violate the first 
amendment by singling out groups that discriminate on the basis of 
sexual orientation for special treatment. Just as government may not 
retaliate against or be hostile toward a particular viewpoint, it may 
not endorse or show favoritism toward such a message. I do not believe 
that the Federal Government should single out particular policies for 
special protection using the power of education funding.
  Because the Helms amendment violates the first amendment, I will vote 
``no.'' I hope that the amendment can be revised in conference to 
protect all groups from unfair treatment at the hands of federally 
funded schools based on the views that they express. That would be the 
right, and the constitutional, way to handle this issue.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts on 
Senator Helms' amendment that would deny Federal education funds to 
schools that deny access to the Boy Scouts of America.
  I want to be very clear that my vote against this amendment in no way 
represents a vote against the Boy Scouts of America. I have always 
been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of the Boy Scouts of 
America. The Boy Scouts provides an opportunity for our children to 
create and accomplish goals, increasing their sense of self worth and 
discipline. Boy Scouts learn about the importance of maintaining 
respect and honor for themselves and others, and Scouts are often 
excellent role models for their peers. I am firmly convinced that 
organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts play an important 
role in the development of well-adjusted and productive children.
  I voted against this amendment because I felt it provided a Federal 
solution to a local issue, and I think that is wrong. Under current 
law, local school board members decide which organizations are 
permitted to meet in their schools. I want community members and school 
board members to continue to have that ability. They know best what 
their children need, and their decisions reflect local values and 
priorities.
  I further want to point out that the Boy Scouts already have equal 
access

[[Page S6265]]

to our schools under current law. I firmly believe that the Boy Scouts 
should be allowed in our schools, and I am pleased that the Supreme 
Court has upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to have equal access to 
our public schools. Should there be cases where the Boy Scouts are 
denied access to our schools, I think our judicial system is well 
positioned to determine whether a school's decision was fairly and 
equitably reached.
  I felt that this Supreme Court decision fairly addressed the issue of 
equal access while keeping control at the local level. I further felt 
that this decision would give the necessary support to the Boy Scouts 
of America to meet in our schools without necessitating Congressional 
intervention. For these reasons, I voted against this amendment.
  In my mind, a better alternative, in the form of an amendment 
introduced by Senator Boxer, existed. I supported that amendment, which 
affirms the right of the Boy Scouts to meet in our schools without 
imposing a Federal mandate.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if I could direct a question to the 
Senator from North Carolina, does the Senator have an idea how much 
longer he wishes to have this matter debated, just so we can inform 
Senators when we can expect a vote?
  Mr. HELMS. I would say not more than 4 more hours.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has said for not more than 4 more hours, so 
everyone should keep that in mind. If Senator Helms uses the time he 
wants, we would vote about 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I was listening to the debate and wanted 
to come down and offer a few thoughts.
  First of all, I have heard all the people talking about their days in 
Scouting. I wish I could add to those voices except I was not 
necessarily the cleanest cut kid in the world. As a matter of fact, I 
tried Scouting for only about 3 weeks. So I cannot join the chorus of 
those who were Eagle Scouts and made it on to the U.S. Senate. But 
scouting was something that I witnessed growing up. I saw a lot of 
people whose lives it transformed. Perhaps if I had stayed with 
Scouting my life would have been transformed a little earlier than it 
otherwise was.
  I have seen many children over the years whose lives have been 
influenced so greatly by Scouting. The Eagle Scout ceremonies I have 
gone to honor incredible people. They honor not only the Scouts 
themselves, but the leaders of the Scout troops who dedicate so many 
hours to young people and their development. These are the types of 
activities we should be encouraging.
  But I also wanted to add a few words. We do not want to be gay 
bashing around this Chamber. At least I do not believe we should be. 
People have the right to live their lives as they choose to live their 
lives. But I believe in freedom in America. I believe, for instance, if 
there was a group of people who believe in a gay lifestyle, they may 
require that same lifestyle or belief of their leadership. I believe 
that group should be allowed all of its constitutional rights; the 
right to require that their leaders have their same beliefs. This is, 
to me, a matter of freedom.
  The Boy Scouts have chosen what they want and what they determine as 
their organization. In America, we should be able to have these types 
of organizations.
  As a matter of fact, there is a group called the Royal Rangers. For 
those who are not familiar with the Royal Rangers, they are Christian 
organizations who believe that the Boy Scouts have become too 
secularized. So the Royal Rangers was formed to bring more of a 
Christian perspective to scouting because they did not feel that the 
Boy Scouts were meeting their religious needs.
  The point of that is they did not try to change the Boy Scouts. They 
respected the Boy Scouts' right to believe and to operate how they were 
operating. But instead of trying to destroy the Boy Scouts or try to 
hurt the Boy Scouts, they formed their own organization based on their 
own beliefs. That is the direction we should be going in this country.
  If people want to form their own organization, they can form it based 
on their own beliefs--that really is what America is supposed to be 
about. This amendment here simply says that a group that has a certain 
belief system, and has proven that their belief system leads to good 
citizenship, then we should be encouraging this group. We should not be 
discriminating against those groups going into our public school 
systems.
  I hope we can get a bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment. I 
believe that in the long run this amendment will be good for America 
because I believe the Boy Scouts are good for America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, this is just to notify Senators, Democrats 
and Republicans, that when this amendment is finished, whatever time 
that may be, we have a number of other matters that will be completed 
today. Whenever this amendment is completed, we have a number of other 
important amendments to move to. Senator Gregg told me earlier today he 
has at least one other amendment that could take a little bit of time, 
maybe two other amendments. But this is to notify everyone we are going 
to work tonight until we finish this bill. If we cannot finish it late 
tonight, then we will come back tomorrow and finish it. It was 
announced as early as Monday. We are going to work until we finish this 
bill. I know people feel very strongly about this issue and other 
issues developed during the day.
  We want to make sure everyone has every opportunity to speak and let 
the Senate know how they feel. But I think there is a time that comes 
when we have to vote. As my friend, Mo Udall, said in the House one 
time when he came to appear before a committee: Everything has been 
said, but not everyone has said it.
  I think we may be arriving at that point in the near future on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, it is, frankly, really a 
sad day when we have to be here on the floor of the Senate to defend 
the Boy Scouts of America as if they have done something wrong and they 
have to be defended.
  I have seen a lot of things since I have been in this place. We have 
had a lot of interesting debates on a lot of interesting subjects. I 
sit at the desk of Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster didn't know about the 
Boy Scouts of America in his time. I cannot imagine what Webster would 
think if he were here today to listen to this debate--or Washington or 
Jefferson or any of the great leaders.
  I rise today without equivocation to support the amendment of my 
friend from North Carolina, to protect one of America's treasures, the 
Boy Scouts of America.
  I would like to call your attention to the photograph behind me 
during the course of these brief remarks. These are the bad people we 
are keeping out of our schools, these young boys. I had two sons who 
were Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout.
  I can't think of anybody who is hurt to be a Boy Scout. When you talk 
about precluding ``the Scouts,'' the Boy Scouts from being in a school, 
what does that mean? Does it mean if a Boy Scout comes in in his 
uniform for his class, is he going to be thrown out of class and sent 
home? I guarantee you, if some boy came into class and created a 
disturbance, it is highly unlikely he would be thrown out of class 
under the current rules and regulations that some teachers have to 
face.
  I am trying to be as unemotional as I can about this, but this is 
such an outrage. The organization, the Boy Scouts of America, has one 
of the most rich traditions and history in American history, in 
American culture for all time. How many Boy Scouts are there whose 
names are on that Vietnam Wall? How many Boy Scouts were in the 
greatest generation that Tom Brokaw talked about? How many Boy Scouts 
led the fight in World War I? How many?
  These are the boys we want to keep from having their meetings in 
schools that receive billions of taxpayer dollars. I never thought I 
would see the day when I would have to stand on the Senate floor and go 
to bat for the Boy Scouts to have that right. But do you know what. 
Senator Helms, I am proud to stand here with you and do it.
  We need to do it. Then we will do it. I am with him.

[[Page S6266]]

  The Boy Scouts of America was recognized by Federal charter in 1916 
to provide an educational program for boys and men to build character 
and to train citizens--yes--to promote reverence for God and country. 
How horrible that must be. We are going to promote reverence for God 
and country in this time of political correctness. Isn't it awful that 
somebody might take an oath of allegiance to God and country? What are 
we coming to? How bad does it have to get before we wake up?
  Some of the people who are standing here today in opposition to 
Senator Helms on this amendment not too long ago were standing on this 
floor defending the right to immerse a crucifix in urine and get 
Federal dollars to display it as art--the same people. That is what we 
have come to in America. God bless us.
  The largest voluntary youth organization and movement in the world--
the Boy Scouts--is under siege right on the Senate floor. Six million 
American boys are members from a wide diversity--religious, ethnic, 
economic, disability, special needs, honor students, Eagle Scouts, all 
of it--are under siege.
  A large number of Boy Scouts are sponsored by local churches. They 
meet in church basements.
  This tradition should be revered and protected by the Federal 
Government, not attacked by the Federal Government. We shouldn't 
discriminate against an organization because it teaches boys morality.
  Senator Helms says we are going to condition Federal education money 
on a State or locality not discriminating against the Boy Scouts of 
America. And Senator Helms is right. He is absolutely right. In your 
heart you know he is right.
  On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case 
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, upheld the first amendment rights of Boy 
Scouts of America to maintain its almost century-old moral code and its 
standard for membership and leadership.
  The Supreme Court concluded that the Boy Scouts have a right under 
the first amendment to set standards for membership and leadership by 
concluding that the first amendment protects the right of a private 
organization to determine its own membership.
  The Senate has conditions for membership in this body. Maybe we 
shouldn't have any conditions. Should we be attacked by the same 
groups?
  The Boy Scouts embrace the following oath. I want to repeat that 
oath. I think it has been repeated here before. But it is the central 
purpose of why we are here. Why does Senator Helms need to be here to 
offer this amendment to protect the Boy Scouts? Why? Here is their 
honor code and the oath that they take:

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

  These boys, and boys like them, by the millions, are being told they 
can't even have a meeting in their school or in a school in some 
communities across America.
  I will tell you something. Rome died from a lot less than this. When 
you dilute your moral code to this extent, and if this keeps up, the 
obituary for America is going to be written. And it is sad to see it is 
being written here on the floor of the Senate.

  When the count is taken, I know where I want to be, and I know where 
Senator Helms is going to be.
  This is wrong, pure and simple. It is wrong to do this to this 
organization. There is an organized campaign against the Boy Scouts. It 
is under siege by the American Civil Liberties Union. It is attacked.
  The Boy Scouts have recently suffered discrimination and unfounded 
accusations of prejudice resulting in discriminatory actions being 
taken against the organization and its members.
  I know this has been said before. It is not meant to be a cheap shot. 
It is meant to bring up a point. Senator Byrd talked about it.
  Delegates at the Democratic National Convention on August 17, 2000, 
booed the Boy Scouts while the Boy Scouts were leading the delegates in 
the Pledge of Allegiance. Not all Democrats did that. Very few 
Democrats did that. But they did it. No one threw them out of the 
convention. No one threw them out of the meeting. They sat there under 
their rights booing the Boy Scouts for leading their convention. If I 
had been a Democrat at that meeting, I would have sought them out and 
had them thrown out. What a sad day in America.
  On September 5, 2000, in Framingham, MA, the superintendent of 
schools considered prohibiting the local Boy Scout troop from 
recruiting other Scouts on school grounds for exercising their 
constitutionally protected rights. Can you believe that? They cannot 
even recruit a Boy Scout on the grounds of Framingham, MA, schools.
  You wonder why we have problems in America. Should you really be 
surprised when you hear that children shoot children or children commit 
crimes or children don't respect their parents or children don't 
respect their authority? What are we telling them? What message are we 
sending here? How bad does it have to get before America wakes up?
  We are in this age of political correctness. That is what we are 
talking about here--political correctness.
  Another shocking example of this same thing is in Robbinsdale 
district elementary school in Minnesota. One of the teachers in that 
school states that she will not let the Boy Scouts into her classroom.
  Again, is that the Boy Scouts, the organization, a Boy Scout in his 
uniform--or a Girl Scout, for that matter?
  The teacher wrote to the State attorney general:

       Schools and teachers who continue to do business as usual 
     with the Boy Scouts of America participate in discrimination 
     through complicity, acceptance through silence. I will not.

  That was printed in the Star Tribune on September 3, 2000.
  The State of Connecticut has banned contributions to the Boy Scouts--
banned contributions to the Boy Scouts by State employees through a 
State-run charity. Can you believe that? It is unbelievable. I never 
thought I would live to see the day that this would happen in this 
country.
  If Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington aren't rolling in 
their graves now, I can't imagine what would ever motivate them to.
  Let's look at some of the horrible, terrible things the Boy Scouts of 
America do.
  Let me read from the Bergen County Record of May 29, 2001. This is a 
good example of what the Boy Scouts do:

       Americans marked Memorial Day with solemn remembrance by 
     making pilgrimages to grave sides, bearing flowers and flags 
     to honor soldiers who sacrificed their lives in battle.
       ``It means a lot to me, coming out here and seeing the 
     veterans,'' said Boy Scout Lee Booker, 15, as he helped place 
     miniature American flags at the foot of 46,850 veterans 
     headstones at the Memphis National Cemetery in Tennessee.

  And those boys can't meet on school grounds? And you wonder why we 
are losing our kids.
  Is it time to defund the Boy Scouts of America? Is this the group 
that we want to expel from our public schools? That is what this is all 
about.
  I applaud the Boy Scouts for all the wonderful contributions that 
group has provided to American society. I am proud to have an Eagle 
Scout on my staff--one that I know of; there may be more. Jeff 
Marschner is a shining example of what an important contribution the 
Boy Scouts of America make to all of us.

  They ought to be held in esteem. When they ask to have a meeting, 
they ought to be asked: Which room do you want?
  What have they done that is so wrong? The answer is, nothing. What 
they have done is so right. And they are being punished for it.
  I am going to say it: Every leader in this country who takes that 
position--local, State, or Federal--ought to have to pay a political 
price for it. I would say to my critics on this: What were you doing on 
Memorial Day while the Boy Scouts of Tennessee were placing miniature 
American flags on the tombstones of Tennessee soldiers?
  All persons have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of 
association. And the Boy Scouts have earned theirs. I hold the first 
amendment rights of every American in esteem. Freedom of association is 
fundamental. I do not support the Government attacking groups because 
of their membership

[[Page S6267]]

policies. Some membership policies I don't like. I don't like the KKK. 
I don't like the skinheads. I don't like those organizations. And 
anybody who can stand in this Senate Chamber and equate them to the Boy 
Scouts has a real serious problem.
  If the first amendment is gutted for the cause of forcing the Boy 
Scouts to change their membership policies, what is next?
  The Boy Scouts, as an organization, is empowered by our Constitution 
to determine their own membership criteria--not the Federal Government, 
not a State, not a local government, not a local school board, not a 
mayor, not a Governor, not the President, not any unelected bureaucrat 
in this country. Only the Boy Scouts have a right under the 
Constitution of the United States to determine their membership 
requirements for their Boy Scouts, for these boys. That is who has the 
obligation and the responsibility to do it, and no one else under this 
Constitution.
  Children--boys, girls--are this Nation's most precious resource. Yet 
this is what we do to them in this Senate Chamber--unbelievable.
  I support the Helms amendment. I have never been prouder in my entire 
political life than I am today to stand here with Senator Jesse Helms 
in support of this amendment. I cannot think of one issue that I have 
ever stood here and talked about that I am more proud to do than what I 
am doing today. It is not discriminatory. It is fair and simple. It is 
to protect the Boy Scouts from discrimination, that Boy Scouts cannot 
be banned from schools that receive millions and millions--and 
billions--of dollars.
  The education bill has money. This bill has money, more money than we 
have ever given to education from this body. And all Senator Helms is 
asking is that governments that accept this money not discriminate 
against these young men, and young men like them, shown in this 
picture. Is that asking too much? I certainly hope not.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. If the other side is willing to yield back its time, I 
will yield back my time.
  Mr. REID. We have no time to yield back, but we are ready for a vote, 
Madam President.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered. 
The question now is on agreeing to Helms amendment No. 648. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 648) was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, on rollcall vote 189, I voted yea. It 
was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be 
permitted to change the vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to explain my vote. I ask unanimous 
consent for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Senate is not in order. I will not 
proceed until it is in order. This was a very important vote.
  Madam President, I want Senators to get out of the well. I am 
entitled to be heard, and I want other Senators to have the same 
respect and same entitlement.
  This was not an easy vote for me. I believe just as strongly as any 
Senator on that side of the aisle about the rights of the Boy Scouts 
and about the respect we ought to show the Boy Scouts. I was ashamed 
and embarrassed by the actions of some people--not by the Democratic 
Party--by some people at the Democratic Convention who may or may not 
have been delegates, in showing disrespect for the Scouts.
  Having said that, I had some concerns about this language, and I took 
those concerns to the author of the amendment, Mr. Helms. He indicated 
he would try to have that language changed. Several other Members on 
that side of the aisle voiced their sentiments as being equal and 
square with mine: That the language needed to be clarified and 
modified.

  The language was this language: ``Any other youth group.'' Similar 
language is used in at least one other place in the amendment.
  My question was: What is the definition of ``youth group'' as it is 
being used in this amendment? The definition in the amendment reads as 
follows:

       Youth Group--the term ``youth group'' means any group or 
     organization intended to serve young people under the age of 
     21.

  That can be a Black Panthers group. That can be a skinhead group. 
That can be a Ku Klux Klan group. I do not mind speaking on that 
subject. I detest the Klan. I have been a member of it. That is not 
news. Everybody in this Senate knows that, and I do not carry that 
badge with pride. But I do not want the Ku Klux Klan or any other hate 
group in our schools. So, I thought there ought to be a clarification 
and better definition of ``youth group.''
  I came to the floor when the vote occurred. Nobody came to me and 
said: With regard to your concern, we have changed the language, or, we 
have not. Nobody said that.
  When I saw on the television screen that the vote on the amendment 
was in progress, I came to the floor, and I went to Senator Helms. I 
said: Was there a modification of that language?
  He said: No.
  He was in accord with having a modification but he said, ``they 
didn't want it modified.'' I do not know who ``they'' were. But in any 
event, faced with having to vote up or down on this amendment, I voted 
for it, but I am still concerned that the definition of ``youth group'' 
was not changed. I am concerned because that request, which I think was 
a reasonable request, was somehow rejected by somebody. I voted for the 
amendment.
  I take the floor now to say I hope that in conference that language 
will be changed. The distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, 
earlier suggested that it be changed to mean groups that have national 
charters. I believe I am correct in the way he stated it--groups that 
are nationally chartered. That would be fine with me. But that change 
was not made.
  I only take the floor now to explain my vote and to express my 
regrets that what I thought was a very reasonable request was 
apparently just rejected out of hand.

[[Page S6268]]

  I hope that attention will be given in conference to changing this 
language to make it clear that the term ``other groups'' pertains to 
groups that are nationally chartered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of 
Senator Helms that just passed be allowed to be amended as Senator Byrd 
has explained it and as some Members lobbied to have it changed. I 
think it will be a better amendment. If it is not done here, it ought 
to be done in the conference committee. We all understand that. No one 
wants this opened up to skinheads, Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, or any 
other hate group, but we want to say the standards of the Boy Scouts of 
America are standards and values that are valuable still.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, did the Senator make a unanimous consent 
request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we, in good faith, during 
the 8 weeks of this debate have been doing amendments side by side. If 
your side has an amendment, we have an amendment. We have been doing 
that and have done it 25 times. We certainly have done it the last week 
many times. I personally--and I don't know how anyone else feels--think 
that is not a bad idea as long as we have the opportunity to have our 
amendment debated, if we have an amendment we believe is an appropriate 
amendment, and we would be happy to show it to any Member who wants to 
see it and we have a right to vote on the Helms amendment, which has 
already been voted on. If you want to modify, that is fine, but we want 
an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote. We have done it for weeks 
and I don't see why this amendment should be any different.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I listened to the Senator from West Virginia. A similar 
amendment has already passed in the House of Representatives, so we 
have the House language and this language. It is identical. If we 
follow past precedence, there is not the flexibility to take into 
consideration what the Senator from West Virginia has requested. That, 
I think, is part of the reality in terms of the way these institutions 
run. They have passed a similar amendment by a voice vote, we passed an 
amendment, and for all intents and purposes that is what will be before 
the conference. If we follow the precedent, that flexibility that the 
Senator had mentioned would not be before the conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have been discussing this matter 
over the last few moments. I ask, after I have given a description of 
our circumstances, that Senator Byrd be recognized for a unanimous 
consent agreement.
  Just for the notification of our colleagues, we would then recognize 
Senator Boxer who has the right to offer a second-degree amendment. It 
is a freestanding, side-by-side amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. To my own amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That will be offered. Then we will also have the 
Sessions amendment vote.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. May I inquire if we could amend the consent request, if 
Senator Byrd would allow me to be recognized for 30 seconds prior to 
his statement?
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not object to the request of the Senator, but just to make sure I 
understood, was there an original request? Did Senator Daschle make a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I only asked Senator Byrd be recognized to make the 
unanimous consent request. Following that, we would go to a vote on the 
Sessions amendment. After the Sessions amendment is disposed of, we 
would recognize Senator Boxer for purposes of offering another 
amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. A second-degree.
  Mr. LOTT. You were just announcing the intention with regard to how 
to proceed? The UC was to allow Senator Byrd to offer a modification, 
and then I believe the Senator just wanted 30 seconds to speak?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Prior to Senator Byrd.
  Mr. LOTT. I withdraw my reservation.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate?
  Madam President, in an effort to help the Senate to reach the best 
possible product of the amendment's status at this point, so that a 
consensus of minds in this body may come to a conclusion as to what in 
their judgment seems to be the best outcome, I ask unanimous consent 
that on page 2 of the amendment, section 2 titled ``equal access'' 
subsection (a), paragraph (2), line 12 thereof, be amended as follows: 
To insert the words, following the word ``group": ``listed in title 36 
of the United States Code as a patriotic society,'' and I ask unanimous 
consent further that I may be allowed, additionally, to amend the 
amendment, as modified, which is presently pending, in a second place.
  The second place being on page 4 under section (C), titled ``Youth 
Group,'' on line 8 strike the comma following the numerals ``21'' and 
insert the following: ``and which is listed in title 36 of the United 
States Code as a patriotic society.''

  So I am asking to amend the bill in two places with the amendment--I 
am asking to amend the pending amendment, as modified, in two places 
and as I have outlined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, is it now not in order to move to the 
Sessions amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate must first adopt the Helms 
amendment, as amended and modified.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
No. 574, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 574), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, as I understand, each side now has 1 
minute to make their presentation prior to the vote on the Sessions 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are on the verge and so close to 
making a realistic and fair and just step in dealing with the 
complications and frustrations our school systems are wrestling with 
every day involving disciplinary situations with disabled students. 
Anyone who talks to them knows it is a very real problem.
  Our legislation is a middle-ground position. It is more cautious than 
the Gorton amendment which got almost 50 votes. It is more modest than 
the House amendment that passed. It simply says, if a child is disabled 
and commits a violation of discipline rules that would result in 
discipline for them, they would be treated as any other child, unless 
and only after a hearing has been held to ensure that the misbehavior 
the child committed was not connected to that disability--because some 
children have emotional problems and have difficulty containing 
themselves. Those children would not be able to be disciplined like 
other students.
  We think this is a fair and progressive step. I urge your support. I 
believe with the Vice President we would be able to pass this. I urge 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S6269]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senator from Iowa is not here. I 
will take one moment.
  We have fought for 25 years to try to mainstream disabled children. I 
remember when there were 5 million who were kept in the closets and 
shut away. IDEA may not be perfect, but we have a GAO study, which is 
an authoritative study, that says the changes that were made 2 years 
ago on discipline seem to be working.
  The previous vote was 50-50. We are divided.
  Next year we are going to have a complete reauthorization of IDEA. 
Why have a major step backward in terms of assisting the children in 
this country?
  If we have to change it, let's do it at the time we have the 
reauthorization--not on the basis of a 50-50 vote or 1 hour of debate 
and discussion on this measure.
  Make no mistake about it. If we accept the Sessions amendment, 
history will record this as the first major step backward instead of 
forward with regard to disabled children.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
reconsider. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Smith) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Smith would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Smith (NH)
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing upon 
reconsideration to amendment No. 604 offered by the Senator from 
Alabama. The yeas and nays are automatic.
  Mr. REID. Madam 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the matter 
before us, the Sessions amendment, be handled on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. It takes unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays. 
I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 604) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized.


                Amendment No. 562 to Amendmenet No. 358

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I send amendment No. 562 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 562.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding, and authorize 
 appropriations for, part F of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
                         Education Act of 1965)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The afterschool programs provided through 21st Century 
     Community Learning Centers grants are proven strategies that 
     should be encouraged.
       (2) The demand for afterschool education is very high, with 
     over 7,000,000 children without afterschool opportunities.
       (3) Afterschool programs improve education achievement and 
     have widespread support, with over 80 percent of the American 
     people supporting such programs.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) Congress should continue toward the goal of providing 
     the necessary funding for afterschool program by 
     appropriating the authorized level of $1,500,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002 to carry out part F title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
       (2) such funding should be the benchmark for future years 
     in order to reach the goal of providing academically enriched 
     activities during after school hours for the 7,000,000 
     children in need.


                 Amendment No. 803 to Amendment No. 562

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 803 to amendment No. 562.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Equal Access to Public 
     School Facilities Act.''

     SEC. 2. EQUAL ACCESS.

       In General.--No public elementary school, public secondary 
     school, local educational agency, or State educational 
     agency, may deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet 
     after school in a designated open forum to any youth group, 
     including the Boy Scouts of America, based on that group's 
     favorable or unfavorable position concerning sexual 
     orientation.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I need literally a minute.
  In this amendment, we are codifying what the Supreme Court has said, 
and that is every group, including the Boy Scouts, has equal access to 
school facilities. It is very simple. It is very straightforward. It 
stays away from the can of worms we believe was opened in the Helms 
amendment.
  I hope all of our colleagues, 100 strong, will vote in favor of this 
simple, straightforward statement that all groups, regardless of their 
viewpoint, be allowed equal access to the public schools.
  I yield the floor. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, and I wish to express some concerns regarding it.
  We just adopted an amendment which I think addressed the issue at the 
core, and that was concerning the treatment of the Boy Scouts of 
America.
  The Boy Scouts of America, as many people know, has been recently 
pursued by a number of organizations saying they were not going to 
allow them to

[[Page S6270]]

participate and use public schools for Boy Scout meetings. That was the 
direction of the amendment on which we worked.
  I will point out what some of the organizations and schools are 
pursuing with the Boy Scouts. They are saying: Look, we do not want to 
allow them to have access to our schools. We do not want to allow them 
to meet.
  Listen to some of these examples:
  On May 11, 2001, the Associated Press reported the Iowa City School 
Board voted to prohibit the Boy Scouts of America from distributing any 
information in schools because of the Scouts membership criteria. Greg 
Shields, the national spokesman for Boy Scouts of America, said:

       We simply ask to be treated the same way as any other 
     private organization . . . [and] that our free speech and 
     right to assemble be respected just as we respect those 
     rights of others.

  On February 8, 2001, the Asbury Park Press reported that the State of 
New Jersey was considering a rule change that would bar school 
districts from renting space to the Boy Scouts because of their 
position on homosexuality.
  On February 7, 2001, the Arizona Republic reported that the Sunnyside 
School District in Tucson decided to charge the Boy Scouts of America 
fees to use school facilities, even though no other groups have to pay 
fees.

  The ACLU executive director said:

       While Boy Scouts, atheists, Nazis, even satanists have the 
     right to express their views, Government should not use 
     public money to promote them.

  On January 28, 2001, the Boston Globe reported that the Acton School 
Committee in Massachusetts decided to prevent the Boy Scouts from 
distributing literature at school, even though other groups can do so. 
Defending its actions, Acton School Committee cited Massachusetts law 
which says schools cannot sponsor the Boy Scouts.
  On January 14, 2001, the New York Times reported that New York's 
Chappaqua School District officials were able to coerce two local Boy 
Scout troops to sign a document that denounced the national policies of 
the Boy Scouts of America as a condition for allowing these troops 
access to school property.
  I have several more pages of examples. The reason I wanted to point 
these out is to show what the problem is, and that is, the Boy Scouts 
are being threatened to have access to public schools denied. That is 
the reason for the amendment. That was the reason for the Helms 
amendment.
  The Boy Scouts is a 90-year-old organization with millions of members 
in the country. My guess is a fair number of Members of this body were 
Boy Scouts or their children are Boy Scouts. Senator Nelson of Nebraska 
was an Eagle Scout. Senator Smith of Oregon was an Eagle Scout. Senator 
Enzi's son was an Eagle Scout. Senator Landrieu's family members were 
Eagle Scouts.
  My point in saying this is here is an organization that has been next 
to God and country and mom and apple pie for as long as we can think 
of, and it is being pursued. It is being pursued, being castigated. The 
ACLU executive director mentioned the Boy Scouts in the same sentence 
as atheists, Nazis, and satanists. They are trying to categorize them 
in a dark category, a negative category, and all they want to do is do 
a good deed daily. That is their motto. They are being pursued.
  What did we do? What was the response this body voted on by a bare 
margin of victory? This body said we are not going to tolerate them 
being pursued or kept out of school buildings. We said in this 
amendment: If you are going to try to keep them out of school 
buildings, then we are going to review the Federal funding for you 
because we so strongly believe in this organization--90 years old, 
basic value training, character training in which many people in this 
body participated.
  The Senator from California then proposes an additional amendment 
apparently trying to address much of the same topic. In that amendment, 
she puts forward:

       No public elementary school, public secondary school, local 
     educational agency, or State educational agency, may deny 
     equal access to meet after school in designated open forum to 
     any youth group, including the Boy Scouts of America, based 
     on that group's favorable or unfavorable viewpoint concerning 
     sexual orientation.

  She is trying to cover it. The problem is it does not cover it. It 
does not cover this for the Boy Scouts. It does not have any 
enforcement mechanism for the Boy Scouts. They are going to have to go 
into court with this language the same as they would right now to try 
to get access to public schools in school districts across the country 
that are trying to deny them access.

  What we did instead was flip the burden. We flipped it to the school 
districts, saying: If you are going to deny the Boy Scouts, you are 
going to have to state why and clearly to the Federal educational 
agency if you are going to continue to get Federal funds. We put the 
onus and burden on the school districts in the Helms amendment, which 
is the proper and appropriate place to put it, instead of draining 
these private coffers of the Boy Scouts of America to pursue lawsuit 
after lawsuit in various jurisdictions to simply get access to public 
schools.
  What do you want to do? The Boxer amendment, while on its face would 
look fine, puts the burden back on the Boy Scouts. It says the Boy 
Scouts are going to have to go to court to get access. You have this 
law, yes; you have the Supreme Court ruling; but you are going to have 
to go to court and spend thousands and, at the end of the day, millions 
of dollars to get access to public schools for the Boy Scouts of 
America. Let's deny apple pie access to public schools next. They are 
going to make the Boy Scouts spend millions of dollars to get in and 
have a meeting at the public school.
  That is not appropriate. That is not the right place, to put this 
burden on the Boy Scouts. They raise private moneys to do character 
education and do what all of us laud, I believe, in this body. I 
believe all of us laud the Boy Scouts and what they are after and what 
they are doing. Maybe that is not the case. Maybe some do not. I hope 
everybody supports the Boy Scouts.
  This is not the right way to go. The Boxer amendment puts the burden 
back on the Boy Scouts to spend millions of dollars to fight their way 
into public schools. We should not do that. We do not need to do that. 
I would rather the Boy Scouts spend millions of dollars on camping, 
doing things as a scouting troop, as my son did when he was a part of 
the Boy Scouts, as some of the Eagle Scouts here did. I would rather 
they buy campgrounds and land to explore and take care of 
underprivileged youth, as Boy Scouts do across the country. I would 
rather they take underprivileged youth from inner cities as part of the 
Boy Scouts, take them to the countryside and camp and spend millions of 
dollars doing that rather than millions of dollars in court simply to 
gain access to the public educational institutions in our country for 
which we provide substantial funding.
  That is why this amendment is flawed and should fail and why I oppose 
this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose and vote against this amendment 
because we are shifting the burden back to the Boy Scouts and making 
them fight their way into the public schools. We really do not need to 
do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. With all due respect to my distinguished colleague, I 
don't quite understand the argument that the Boy Scouts will have to 
fight their way into the schools. Constitutionally, they cannot be 
denied access to the schools now. They cannot be denied access. I 
suspect if one argues that you are going to have to fight your way in, 
there is the implication a lot of schools are trying to keep the Boy 
Scouts out.
  Second, since Brown v. The Board, you cannot keep black kids from 
going to school. If we had an amendment that took the language out of 
Brown, parroted it, as my distinguished colleague from California does, 
from the 1998 Supreme Court case that sets out this principle--we 
cannot do this--it means every black child has to spend thousands of 
dollars to fight their way into the schools.
  One of the things that distinguishes the United States of America, 
when the Supreme Court of the United States speaks clearly, and 
particularly when the Senate then legislatively parrots the exact 
language that the Supreme Court uses--guess what. The American

[[Page S6271]]

people, even those who do not agree, obey. That is the pattern we have 
in this country.
  The idea that there will be Boy Scouts--and I was a Boy Scout and 
proud of it; I was an Explorer Scout; I support the Scouts; I will 
match my merit badges against my colleague's merit badges--Boy Scouts 
standing with tin cups in front of schools saying, ``We need to raise 
money to go to Federal court to make sure we can get in,'' is not going 
to happen. Theoretically, it could happen, just as theoretically today 
a school in the State of Delaware, or Kansas, could say, ``We will not 
let black folks in.'' Theoretically, that can happen. Guess what. The 
black parents have to go to court.
  This is as much a threat to the Boy Scouts having to raise millions 
and millions of dollars as black folks having to raise millions and 
millions to get access to public schools. There is a constitutional 
amendment.
  My friend--and he knows he is my friend--Senator Helms from North 
Carolina, has an amendment that I voted against. I think it got pretty 
well cleaned up by the Byrd amendment, but it has some arcane problems. 
I will not take the time of Senators and bore them, but the reason it 
is probably still unconstitutional, although I have no objection to the 
way it got cleaned up--the reason it is arguably still unconstitutional 
is it is not content neutral because--and this is a constitutional 
principle--we will deny a school district funds--money--if in fact they 
discriminate, they violate the Constitution, by not letting in Boy 
Scouts or like organizations that determine their leadership based on 
criteria that are their own, to which others may object.
  The problem with that is, technically, constitutionally, it does not 
include every group in the world. It does not include every group in 
the world. It is no longer viewpoint neutral. It says we are only going 
to penalize school districts that discriminate against one type of 
organization as opposed to all. I know that is not my friend's 
intention, but that is why the amendment is still probably flawed, 
although I am willing to take a chance on it.
  As I said to my friend from California, I am not sure this amendment 
is needed. I will support it. I think we all should support it. All we 
are doing is supporting the Supreme Court decision.
  On this idea that we have to go further, then it seems to me you 
should say, okay, we will cut off all moneys to all schools that 
violate the Supreme Court's rulings that you are not allowed to have 
organized prayer. How about that one? Does anybody want to sign up on 
that one? Same folks who want to sign up on this want to sign up on 
that? I don't think so. I don't think we will have people running 
across the aisle saying, look, if that school district or that school 
allowed organized prayer--and I am not opposed to prayer, obviously, 
but that is what the Supreme Court said, in a Supreme Court decision.
  What is done if a school violates the decision? Bring an action. Very 
few schools violate. But to make the Helms amendment content neutral--
and I did not want to start playing games, and I know occasionally it 
is suggested I am too constitutional. The mistake I make is I teach 
constitutional law. My mother would say a little bit of knowledge is a 
dangerous thing.
  The truth is, if you wanted to make the Helms amendment pass 
constitutional muster, you could arguably say, OK, as long as you do 
not discriminate, you deny school funds to any school district that 
violated any constitutional right of anybody. That is why technically 
it is not constitutional. It doesn't do that. It protects only one 
viewpoint as opposed to all viewpoints.
  I don't want to get into that because the truth is, we all know on 
this floor, nobody, if we are a private citizen, is going to go home to 
the school district and say, by the way, I don't like the fact that the 
Boy Scouts don't allow homosexual Scout leaders so I will go to the 
school board meeting tomorrow and insist they be blocked access to my 
school.
  This is a bit of a charade. Everybody on the floor supports the Boy 
Scouts. We may disagree whether they should or should not allow 
homosexuals to be members. And I think they should. We may disagree on 
that. But no one disagrees on the ruling of the Supreme Court which 
says you cannot discriminate against them because the Court ruled it is 
OK for this organization to say we don't want homosexual Scout leaders. 
That is what the Supreme Court said. It is OK. I accept that. It is the 
Supreme Court of the United States of America.
  I also accept the fact that the Supreme Court says you cannot 
discriminate against the Boy Scouts because of the decision they made.
  I think it is Kafkaesque. We are arguing about something on which we 
don't disagree. This is about politics. This is a political game we are 
playing. It is a joke--who is more Boy Scout. I am as big a Boy Scout 
as anyone here. We can all compare merit badges and our support for the 
Boy Scouts. So let's not make a mockery of this thing.
  The fact is there is a technical, legal, constitutional argument that 
the last amendment is unconstitutional. That is the core of the 
objection of those who voted for it before it got amended. After it has 
been amended, it is arguably still unconstitutional. I am willing to 
take a chance on it. I am satisfied to let it go at that.
  This clearly is constitutional. This clearly restates what I thought 
we all want. No school district can deny Boy Scouts access if they have 
access for anybody.

  Again, I conclude by saying the idea this could cost the Boy Scouts 
millions of dollars I find a bit of a stretch.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I rise in opposition to the amendment and point out one of 
the real values of Boy Scouts is that it isn't designed to be 
competitive. It isn't designed to see who is the best Boy Scout, who 
has the most merit badges, who has better merit badges. It is designed 
to teach young men good values. It is designed to teach young men about 
the world. It is designed to teach young men about possible careers. 
That is being thwarted.
  I will not repeat everything I said this morning. I am sure that is a 
relief. I hope Members look at the record. I am convinced they did not 
pay attention when I spoke earlier. An important point: The record of 
five cases a year ago, where the Boy Scouts had to go to court. We are 
not talking hypothetical; we are not talking about the possibility that 
somebody's constitutional rights were violated. We are talking about 
actual situations. Some of those will be resolved over the years at 
great cost. We are not talking hypothetical on the cost either.

  I am not going to pretend to be a constitutional lawyer because I am 
one of the few people here who is not a lawyer at all. But I was a Boy 
Scout. I am watching what is happening to the Boy Scouts in this 
country.
  Five times in the year 2000, this instance came up. I have to tell 
you, already this year, eight times. That is just ones that I was able 
to find, which means they are ones that made national press. It doesn't 
mean it is all the instances of it happening.
  The five last year and the eight this year are cases where it 
happened in school. I am not talking about all of the discrimination 
that there is out there against the Boy Scouts. I am just talking about 
in school.
  We cleared up the definitional problem that I think would have made 
that a near unanimous vote before. It should have made it a near 
unanimous vote before. Now we have an amendment that tries to eliminate 
anything that the Helms amendment could have done. Here is how it 
eliminates it. It does it in two ways.
  It eliminates the enforcement mechanism. There was not anything in 
the Helms amendment that automatically took money away from schools. 
There was a review process. If the review process said they 
discriminated, there was the possibility that they would lose their 
funds.
  Enforcement: There is no enforcement in this amendment. It may say 
what the Constitution says, but it doesn't provide enforcement. The 
amendment we agreed to before, that provides enforcement.
  The second problem is this one allows discrimination against the Boy 
Scouts. The wording in here does not preclude--this is a big problem 
with the school--does not preclude charging them exorbitant rates. They 
would still

[[Page S6272]]

have equal access; they would have, depending on how you took it to 
court, a fair opportunity. But it would not be the same thing as in the 
Helms amendment where you could not be charged discriminatory fees to 
keep the Scouts out. Every one of those things would require another 
court action.
  I am not an attorney. I am told a lot, when I go back to Wyoming, 
that one of the problems in this country is we have too many attorneys. 
They talk about the old towns in the West where the first attorney came 
to town and he went broke. In other towns the first attorney came to 
town, he was accompanied by another attorney, and they both did very 
well. That is what is happening to the Boy Scouts. We have enough 
attorneys; they can all do very well at the expense of the Boy Scouts.
  The dollars being spent on litigation ought to be spent on good 
programs for youth. We have been talking throughout the education bill 
about the need to do things for youth, the need to have kids taken care 
of after school. This is an organization where you do not take care of 
the kids after school, the kids help take care of us after school. We 
are talking about a communitarianism group, a group focused on helping 
their community through their volunteer efforts.
  In order to get your Eagle award you have to do a community project--
not a personal project, not a family project. It has to be a community 
project. So these kids get to find out what voluntarism is. It is not 
voluntarism for them. It is that grand distinction; it is for other 
people, that chance to do something for other people.
  We need to make sure every time we can get a free program such as the 
Boy Scouts that will teach character and take care of the community, we 
do everything we can to promote it. We have taken care of this through 
the Helms amendment. We can destroy it through the Boxer amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, as soon as Senator Reid is done, I will 
claim the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I wanted to ask a question of the manager. 
I am speaking to a Chamber empty on the minority side.
  The question we have on this side is, When, if at all, are we going 
to vote on this? Does anybody know? Maybe one of the managers is in the 
back. It is now 4 o'clock, approximately. We have an amendment that 
says:

       No public elementary school, public secondary school, local 
     educational agency, or State education agency, may deny equal 
     access or a fair opportunity to meet after school in a 
     designated open forum to any youth group, including the Boy 
     Scouts of America, based on that group's favorable or 
     unfavorable viewpoint concerning sexual orientation.

  A little different from my friend from Wyoming, I am a lawyer. If 
there is something wrong with this legally, I suggest voting against it 
as some did on the underlying amendment that passed. It does not seem 
to me, at this late time, we are going to benefit by continuing to talk 
about this. So I would like to get something from the minority.
  This morning I talked to Senator Helms. He said he wanted 4 more 
hours. That at least gives people an idea how much time it will take. 
Does anyone have any idea how much longer the minority wishes to debate 
this 1-paragraph amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, as far as I am aware, I am the last 
speaker. I was just waiting to get an opportunity to speak.
  I do not know. There may be someone else over here who is welling up 
in their chest with a speech, but as far as I know, I am it.
  Mr. REID. I will say to my friend, if they are not now, they will 
after your speech.
  Mr. GRAMM. Maybe there will be a rush of people on your side, 
although I do not think so. I would not want to defend this amendment.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from California yielded to me. I apologize to 
my friend from Texas. I return the floor to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say thank you to my friend from Texas. I will only 
speak for about 60 seconds, and then I am happy to yield the floor.
  There are some days when I wonder where I am and what I am doing. 
This is really one of those days.
  I have an amendment that simply codifies a Court decision that was a 
victory for the Boy Scouts of America. When it was announced, everyone 
said: OK, in our Nation, regardless of an organization's viewpoint, 
they have a right to equal access to our public schools; freedom of 
speech. For those people, and I count myself among them, who believe we 
are all God's children, and I abhor discrimination against anyone for 
any reason, including their sexual orientation, I thought: This is 
tough because if a school district really has a strong feeling and they 
believe this to be a fight for civil rights, they are still going to 
have to let the Boy Scouts in. But that is America. We allow equal 
access and that is the way it is.
  Now I have an amendment that simply guarantees this equal access, 
that says the Senate agrees on equal access for all groups, whatever 
their view is on sexual orientation. And I have people who stand up and 
say I am undoing the Boy Scouts.
  Again, my most enduring memory of my little girl, who is now a mother 
herself, is her in her little outfit when she was a little Brownie, and 
the character building that went with that. So no one can get up on the 
other side and say Members on this side do not care. We do care.
  This amendment, again--and then I will yield the floor to my friend 
because I know he has reasons that he is against this, and I am 
interested to hear his explanation--simply says what the Supreme Court 
said: Equal access for the Boy Scouts to every single public school in 
America because every group, regardless of their viewpoint, has a right 
to have such equal access.
  So I am kind of glad I proposed this amendment. I am kind of stunned 
that anyone would be against it. But that is their right, their 
privilege. As a matter of fact, it is their duty if they find something 
wrong with it. But I thought the Supreme Court decision was cheered by 
the Boy Scouts, and I am a little stunned that my Republican friends 
somehow do not view it that way.
  I hope we will have a bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if someone showed up from Mars and 
listened to this discussion, I am sure they would be convinced that 
this was somehow a simple amendment that was protecting the Boy Scouts. 
But they would be convinced only if they showed up in the last 30 
minutes, because we spent much of this day debating and voting on an 
amendment by Senator Helms that said if a school system denied access 
of facilities on a nondiscriminatory basis to the Boy Scouts of 
America, they would lose Federal funds.
  In listening to our dear colleague from California, you would think 
Boy Scouts using public schools would be a noncontroversial amendment. 
Maybe if you came from Mars 30 minutes ago you would be convinced of 
that. But if you came from Mars an hour ago, you would realize that 
after a lengthy debate 49 Members of the Senate voted to not deny 
Federal funds to school systems that discriminate against the Boy 
Scouts of America. We had a vote on exactly this subject. The vote was 
51-49.
  What is wrong with the amendment that is before us? There are several 
things that are wrong with it. I think I can explain it pretty simply.
  First of all, we have an unequivocal statement in the bill right now 
with a Helms amendment that says you lose Federal funds if you deny the 
Boy Scouts of America the ability to use your facilities after school 
on a nondiscriminatory basis.
  How does the Helms amendment work? It has an enforcement mechanism. 
That enforcement mechanism is, you lose Federal funds. So the Boy 
Scouts of America don't have to go out and hire a lawyer, go to the 
district court, the circuit court, and the Supreme Court to get to use 
the local schools for Scout meetings after school. The Helms amendment 
has an enforcement mechanism in it.
  Second, the Helms amendment says the Boy Scouts can use the 
schoolhouse on a nondiscriminatory basis, which means they cannot be 
charged a higher fee than anybody else. They cannot face separate rules 
than anybody else, where they could be denied

[[Page S6273]]

the right to hand out material, for example. That is the Helms 
amendment. That is the position of the education bill as it now stands.
  We voted on that issue. The vote was 51-49. Where I come from, that 
is about as close as you can get and have a determinant result.
  Now in comes this amendment which says no public elementary school or 
public secondary school or local education agency or State agency may 
deny equal access. No one is opposed to this freestanding, but this now 
clouds the position of the underlying bill.
  Why is this amendment a very weak amendment which does virtually 
nothing to protect the Boy Scouts? Let me explain why.
  First of all, there is no enforcement mechanism. Unlike the Helms 
amendment, which is currently part of this bill, there is no 
enforcement mechanism if a school violates the law. What would that 
force the Boy Scouts of America to do? It would force the local troop 
to hire a lawyer and to go to court. You could literally dissipate the 
assets of the Boy Scouts of America in trying to enforce a bill that 
has no enforcement clause in it.
  The amendment which is now in the bill, which is undercut by adding 
this amendment to it, has an enforcement mechanism, because you lose 
funding, and any school faced with giving up Federal funding is going 
to allow the Boy Scouts to use their facility.

  Second, this amendment does not guarantee that the Boy Scouts would 
be able to use the facility on an equal basis. They couldn't 
discriminate against the Boy Scouts or anybody else in terms of using 
it. But it does not have a provision, as the Helms amendment does, to 
guarantee that you don't have to pay a higher fee or that you wouldn't 
get to use it on an equal basis or you wouldn't be able to hand out 
materials
  I am not saying this is a bad amendment. If this had been offered 
freestanding, if we had not debated the other amendment all day long, I 
think some might have found some merit in it.
  My point is, we have a provision in the bill that has an enforcement 
mechanism, which this does not. We have an unequivocal statement in the 
bill that was passed 51-49. My basic position is that this actually 
weakens the bill by putting two provisions in it, one which is strong 
and enforceable and has an enforcement mechanism, and one which does 
not.
  Therefore, my view is, with all due respect, that we have already 
decided this on a 51-49 vote, and if your objective is to guarantee 
that the Boy Scouts of America get to use the schoolhouse like other 
organizations, then the thing to do would be to leave the provision 
which is currently in the bill there and to reject this amendment.
  If we adopt this amendment, then we have two amendments in the bill 
that are very different. Then you are going to leave it up to conferees 
to decide which one they want to take.
  If your objective is to have the strongest possible language for the 
Boy Scouts, I assert--this is a free country, and people have their own 
opinions--that the way to keep the strongest language is to not dilute 
it by putting weaker language without an enforcement mechanism next to 
it. With all due respect, that is why I am going to vote no on it.
  I would be very happy to yield to my dear friend.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a brief 
comment and question, my objective is to make sure the Boy Scouts have 
access to the school.
  My worry is, having been the guy who wrote the statutory language on 
flag burning, the Supreme Court is going to rule unconstitutional the 
Helms amendment, if you pass it. Ask any conservative or liberal 
lawyer. There is a 60-percent chance that will happen.
  I view it in the exact opposite way, although approaching it with the 
same objective as my friend from Texas does. The reason to include this 
other provision is to have a fail-safe constitutional guarantee because 
what the Court is going to say on the Helms amendment--which I support 
as amended--is the following. It is going to say that you do not have a 
guarantee to take away funds from any school district that denies 
homosexual organizations the right to be in the school. You do not deny 
funds to any organization or any school that denies or permits prayer 
in school, which is unconstitutional.
  The Court is going to look at it and say it is not content neutral. 
That is what I mean. I know my friend from Texas knows as well. That is 
why--it is not content neutral--the same rationale that declared my 
constitutional statute against flag burning unconstitutional. It was 
not content neutral.
  I argue, for those of you who truly want to make sure the Boy Scouts 
have access, even if you voted for and support the Helms amendment--
which I think is a reasonable position--you should vote for this 
amendment as well because it guarantees you double protection.
  This is clearly, unequivocally constitutional. The Helms amendment, 
as amended, is unquestionably constitutional.
  I yield the floor. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, responding very briefly, first of all, if 
you believe a provision is unconstitutional, in my opinion, you ought 
to vote against it. We sort of hide behind this idea of ``let the 
Supreme Court decide.'' But when we put our hand on the Bible and swear 
to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, in my opinion, we are 
swearing to do that.
  I personally do not believe the Helms amendment is unconstitutional. 
We have passed amendments and bills all the time that deny or grant 
Federal funds based on what a school system does. But everybody has 
their own opinion about that.
  My basic position is that the Helms amendment is quite strong and has 
an enforcement mechanism. This amendment would require that the Boy 
Scout troops all over America get lawyers and go to court on an 
individual basis. It would be really unenforceable, except with the 
expenditure of tremendous amounts of money that the Boy Scouts don't 
have.
  I think we have a strong measure in the bill now. Fifty-one Members 
voted for it. My suggestion is, keep it strong if you want the Boy 
Scouts in schools, and I would vote no on this. Obviously, people have 
other opinions. That is why----

  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I also appreciate the 
discussion on the amendment.
  I may be off base, but I am reading the amendment, and it says:

       . . . State educational agency, may deny equal access or a 
     fair opportunity to meet after school in a designated open 
     forum to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts of 
     America, based on that group's favorable or unfavorable 
     position concerning sexual orientation.

  Maybe I am misreading that, but it looks to me as if it is an 
invitation for gay activist groups, for all kinds of groups, to meet. 
If you give access to the Boy Scouts, then you have to give access to 
gay activists in elementary schools, grade schools, schools up to the 
12th grade, senior high schools.
  Mr. GRAMM. May I respond to that?
  Mr. NICKLES. Please do.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me respond by saying, remember Senator Byrd got up and 
asked that we change the Helms amendment because it had language in it 
that said ``or other groups.'' So the argument was made by Senator Byrd 
that the language in the Helms amendment that said ``other groups'' was 
so vague that it could include Nazis, skinheads.
  My point is, this language is at least as broad as the language we 
took out of the Helms amendment because this requires that they open it 
up to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts. And the question is, 
Do we want to force public schools to open up to skinheads? Or to the 
Ku Klux Klan? I do not think we do.
  Senator Byrd made the point. I supported him in changing the Helms 
amendment because it said: Boy Scouts or other groups. And we made that 
change by unanimous consent.
  Now we have this amendment before us that says that we open it up 
``to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts'' without regard to 
their view on sexual orientation. But what about their view on America 
or race or numerous other things?

[[Page S6274]]

  I am saying that the criticism Senator Byrd raised of the Helms 
amendment--that it opened it up for all these hate groups--that same 
criticism can, and I think should, be leveled against this amendment. 
Maybe it should be corrected by modifying these other youth groups to 
assure they are groups that have a Federal patent, for example.
  But I simply say that the point Senator Byrd made was as valid 
against this amendment as it was against the Helms amendment and we 
changed the Helms amendment.


                     Amendment No. 803, As Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make that 
modification, as we allowed that modification to be made in the Helms 
amendment, to mirror that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. GRAMM. No, let's not object.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I just want to understand.
  Mrs. BOXER. Instead of saying ``other youth groups,'' we would say 
that have a national charter. It would mirror the Helms amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. OK. So you would insert that language? You would 
strike the language ``any other youth group'' and instead insert those 
in section 36?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is absolutely correct. We would do it the same way 
we allowed you to modify yours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
        In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE

       This title may be cited as the ``Equal Access to Public 
     School Facilities Act.''

     SEC. 2. EQUAL ACCESS

       In General.--No public elementary school, public secondary 
     school, local educational agency, or State educational 
     agency, may deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet 
     after school in a designated open forum to any youth group, 
     listed in title 36 of the U.S. Code as a patriotic society, 
     including the Boy Scouts of America, based on that group's 
     favorable or unfavorable position concerning sexual 
     orientation.

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague for making that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I am glad that correction was made, but that does not 
change any of the other points I made. There is no enforcement 
mechanism here. We have a provision in the bill that does have an 
enforcement mechanism. So we are weakening our commitment to it by 
putting this amendment in the bill.
  Secondly, we do not have any guarantees that the Boy Scouts--while 
they might be permitted to come to the school grounds, they might be 
charged a higher fee or separate conditions may be imposed on them. And 
for both those reasons, I believe this amendment ought to be rejected.
  We have already acted on it. It was a tough vote. It was 51-49 as to 
who wanted to guarantee the right to the Boy Scouts. I think we have 
spoken. I think this is a weaker amendment.
  I hope we will not move away from the strong, unequivocal position we 
took that the Boy Scouts of America, and their commitment to God and 
country, is a commitment we believe belongs in every schoolhouse in 
America where they want to operate. So I urge my colleagues to reject 
the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this week, this month, we have been 
seeking to redefine the role of the Federal Government in education in 
our country.
  For much of this day we have spent our time in this Chamber trying to 
make sure that Boy Scouts have the opportunity to have their meetings 
and their activities in our public schools.
  As a number of my colleagues, I was a Boy Scout. As a number of our 
colleagues, I am the father of not one Boy Scout but two Boy Scouts. 
One just made Star this past week, two steps away from Eagle. The other 
guy is a new guy, brand new, just was a Weeblo, just crossed over. He 
is going camping tomorrow night with Troop 67 to Lum's Pond outside 
Newark, DE.
  My friends, we have talked about this long enough today. I suggest 
that we call a halt to this debate and go ahead and vote. There are 
those of us who want to go camping with the Boy Scouts this weekend. I 
don't want to be here tomorrow night talking about this issue; I want 
to be camping.
  Mr. REID. I would ask we vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have a couple comments I would like 
to make regarding this amendment.
  We have talked in the abstract on this issue of: Will the Boy Scouts 
have to sue to get into schools or will they not? There have been some 
allegations made. Several Members have said this is not the case.
  I want to put a real case in front of us. On January 11, 2001, the 
News & Observer reported that the Chapel Hill-Carroboro school board 
voted to give Scouts until June to either go against the rule of their 
organization or lose their sponsorship and meeting places in schools.
  That was January of this year. That school board says: By June, you 
either change--go against the Boy Scouts organization--or lose your 
privileges to get into the schools.
  We have two different proposals in front of us: the Helms amendment 
that was adopted and the Boxer amendment that is being proposed.
  Under the Helms amendment that was adopted, the school board in this 
district would be the one that would have to say: This is why we are 
blocking the Boy Scouts from being in this school. This is what we are 
doing. And if they don't, if they don't have the rationale, then they 
are going to lose their Federal funding.
  Under the Boxer amendment, which is basically the current law, the 
Boy Scouts have to sue to say: We have a right to be in this school. 
That is the law today. The Boxer amendment just basically renews the 
law as it is currently today. The Boy Scouts would have to sue to say: 
Look, we are not going to go against our Federal charter, and we still 
want into the school. This is current law, what this school district 
did. The Boxer amendment basically puts forward current law again. So 
the Boy Scouts would have to hire a bunch of lawyers to go against the 
school district--in this situation as well as in hundreds of thousands 
of situations across the country--to get into the school.
  That is a real live case. That is an example of what we are talking 
about. The Boxer amendment does not cure that.
  On the other hand, the Helms amendment that was adopted--by a very 
tight vote, a close vote--would say that the Department of Education 
goes to the Chapel Hill School District and says: Why are you blocking 
the Boy Scouts? And if you are going to continue down this road, we are 
going to pull Federal funding. So then it is on the school districts, 
in that particular case, to defend as to why they are blocking the Boy 
Scouts or they will get their Federal funding pulled.
  The Boy Scouts have an access to be able to get in. They have a tool 
to be able to get there. On the other side, they have to fight their 
way through court. And for those who are saying: You are dreaming up 
cases, here is an example:
  I read five others when I took the floor earlier. There are more that 
I could read. The simple point of this is, thankfully, the amendment is 
being changed some, so it is not all organizations--skinheads and 
others, but the fact of it is, who are you going to put the burden on, 
on the school district or are you going to put it on the Boy Scouts?
  The Boxer amendment puts it on the Boy Scouts. The Helms amendment 
puts it on the school district. I hope we will all say we want the Boy 
Scouts in the schools. We don't want to charge them a bunch of money to 
get there. We don't want to charge undue fees. We don't want to charge 
them more to be able to get into the schools. That is the point.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment, if they 
support the Boy Scouts and keeping them from having to spend a lot of 
money just to get into the schools, places where they presently deserve 
to be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
803, as modified.

[[Page S6275]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 803), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
562, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 562), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this might not be the case, but there is 
a possibility that it might be the case, and that is, to my knowledge, 
Senator Clinton is going to speak for 1 to 2 minutes on her amendment, 
and I understand it is going to be accepted.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator let me speak?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Better 
Education for Students and Teachers Act.
  Education no longer simply involves students learning the 
fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Rather, students must 
possess the resources to compete and succeed as we proceed into the 
new, highly technical millennium. The computer and the Internet have 
become integrated into every aspect of our lives, and are becoming 
essential teaching tools in our schools and a basic component of any 
classroom.
  To meet this challenge, we must strive for innovative ideas and to 
determine exactly how we can maximize the Federal Government's 
resources because: Even on its best day the Federal Government can 
never be a replacement for local administrators, educators, and 
parents.
  Simply put, New Mexicans are in a far better position to know exactly 
what our schools and students need than government officials here in 
Washington.
  Most Washingtonians probably do not know the Corona School District 
has 82 students, the Deming School District has 5,300 students, and the 
Albuquerque School District has 85,000 students. Additionally, the 
Gallup School District encompasses nearly 5,000 square miles, an area 
greater than Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
  My point is simple, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot work in New 
Mexico and will not work in many areas of our country. Consequently, we 
must have solutions that are flexible and meet the diverse needs of our 
States, school districts, and schools.
  I want to take a couple of minutes and provide my perspective on how 
we arrive at the point we are today with the BEST bill.
  Not too long ago during the mid 1990's a number of us came to the 
conclusion that the current K-12 education status quo could no longer 
be maintained. I think this realization may have been spurred by 
Senator Frist's excellent work as the chair of the Senate Budget 
Committee Task Force on Education. The task force produced: ``Prospects 
for Reform: The State of American Education and the Federal role.''
  The report asked the simple question of ``how well are our children 
doing?'' The answer was mediocre at best because student achievement 
had stagnated over the past two decades even though America had 
established a record of near universal access and completion of high 
school. Thus, the report concluded that we must address the issue of a 
quality educational system. In other words the need for academic 
competence and rigor.
  Building upon the excellent work of the Task Force, Senator Frist 
soon introduced the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 
commonly referred to as Ed-Flex. The bill simply said: one size does 
not fit all and thus, States should be allowed to waive-out of the 
regulations pertaining to certain Federal K-12 education programs.
  Ed-Flex already existed as part of a demonstration program and 
Senator Frist's bill merely sought to provide all 50 States within that 
same flexibility. The Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly by a vote 
of 98-1 and within a month the President had signed the measure into 
law. Unfortunately, after the passage of Ed-Flex for a variety of 
reasons there was not any further fundamental changes made to our K-12 
system. Instead, since the last reauthorization of the ESEA in 1994 
there is no approach that we learned is a complete failure: merely 
providing more funding.
  In 1996 the Federal Government spend about $23 billion on education 
and within a few short years the number ballooned to over $42 billion 
in FY 2001. The logical conclusion is that a near doubling of 
educational funding would result in dramatic improvements in student 
achievement. Sadly, for all of our funding we simply do not have the 
matching results.
  For instance, in 1996 the average reading score for a 4th grader was 
212 and the Federal Government spent about $11 billion on the ESEA. 
Five years later, Federal spending on the ESEA has nearly doubled to 
$20 million, while the average reading score of a 4th grader remained 
at 212.
  In New Mexico, the number of 4th graders testing at or above 
proficient in reading actually fell from 23 percent in 1992 to 22 
percent in 1998. I submit that we are not receiving a very good return 
on our investment, a near doubling of funding with no corresponding 
improvement. Imagine savings a greater and greater portion of your 
paycheck each week and after 5 years actually having less money. I 
think it is fair to say that very few individuals would stand for these 
results, if instead of students we were talking about our retirement 
savings.
  Thus, we are now debating the BEST bill because many of us believe we 
simply must have a new approach to measuring academic success. The bill 
fundamentally alters the practice of Washington deciding the best 
educational practices and then distributing increasingly greater and 
greater sums of money without any accountability.
  Make no mistake, we have not abandoned our commitment to providing 
the necessary resources to our States and school districts. In fiscal 
year 2001 ESEA spending totaled $18.4 billion.
  President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal requested a $19.1 
billion authorization for ESEA for fiscal year 2002, a 9-percent 
increase.
  Building upon the President's proposal, the FY 2002 budget resolution 
includes the President's 9-percent increase in federal education 
spending for reading education, the Individuals and Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA, and teacher training.
  I think it is also important to note that on May 3 when the Senate 
began debate, the BEST bill already authorized $27.7 billion for ESEA 
in FY 2002, a 57-percent increase over 2001 and nearly

[[Page S6276]]

$190 billion over the authorization period of FY 2002-2008.
  If one does not believe that is enough then you will be interested to 
hear how much spending we have added since May 3:
  $11 billion in ESEA and other education spending for a total of $38.8 
billion in FY 2002, an increase of 120 percent over FY 2001.
  $211 billion in ESEA and other education spending for a total of $416 
billion over the seven year authorization period of the bill.
  And of that total, $112 billion is mandatory spending under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  With the preceding as a backdrop, I believe the BEST bill follows the 
President's promise to leave no child behind by ensuring academic 
success through a fresh approach to education like: Accountability.
  Our schools will be held accountable for their progress in educating 
our children through high standards, testing, and consequences for 
failure.
  Every child in grades 3-8 will be tested in reading and math 
proficiency annually. In New Mexico alone about 151,000 students will 
be tested. Also, the State will receive an additional $4.5 million next 
year and more than $33 million over the next 7 years to offset any new 
costs.
  Instead of simply continuing to receive increased Federal funding in 
the face of failure, schools will now face consequences for persistent 
failure.
  Schools failing to demonstrate improvement will face corrective 
action, parents will be given the option of public school choice and 
supplemental services for their children, and ultimately a school's 
persistent failure could lead to reconstitution.
  Consolidation of duplicative education programs will provide maximum 
local flexibility to focus on improving student achievement. For 
instance, title II of the BEST bill created a new State teacher 
development grant program with a substantially larger pot of money by 
combining all of the current teacher funding. States will have the 
option to use the funding for professional development, teacher 
mentoring, merit pay, teacher testing, as well as recruiting and 
training high-quality teachers.
  For example, New Mexico maintains a commendable student-teacher ratio 
of 15.2 and under the bill will no longer be required to use a portion 
of these funds for class size reduction. Instead, New Mexico will have 
the option to use that money for teacher recruitment and retention 
programs or maybe additional training.

  The new accountability provisions will ensure that historic increases 
in Federal education funding will be based upon school performance. The 
bill includes the President's Reading First initiative to ensure all 
children and kindergarten through third grade become proficient readers 
by the end of third grade. The bill also includes programs to create 
Math and Science Partnerships, Strengthen After-School Care, and 
provide for Early Childhood Reading Instruction.
  Parents and the public will be given detailed school-by-school report 
cards on the performance of their schools. Parents will have the option 
to transfer their child from a failing public school to an effective 
public school with transportation provided or to redirect their child's 
share of federal funds towards tutoring or after-school academic 
services. Parents will be given the option to transfer their child out 
of a persistently unsafe public school to another public school of 
their choice.
  As Congress proceeds, one of its primary missions will be to 
determine what is working, what is not working, and what can be 
improved to give our children a better chance of succeeding in the 
future.
  Before I conclude, I want to briefly talk about several provisions 
that are of personal importance to me:
  First, Senator Dodd and a bipartisan group of Senators joined me 
earlier this year to introduce the Strong Character for Strong Schools 
Act. I think it is important to note that reform does not only apply 
math, science, and reading; instead we must also reform the culture of 
our schools.
  Our bill will be part of an amendment offered by Senator Cochran and 
seeks to encourage the creation of character education programs at the 
State and local level by providing grants to eligible entities. I 
believe our bill builds upon the highly successful demonstration 
program to increase character education that was contained in the last 
ESEA bill.
  Since 1994, the Department Of Education has made $25 million in 
``seed money'' grants available to 28 States to develop character 
education programs. Currently, there are 36 States that have either 
received federal funding, or have enacted their own laws mandating or 
encouraging character education. Thus, the time is now to ensure that 
there is a permanent and dedicated funding source available for 
character education programs.
  I also believe schools must not only have the resources for core 
missions like teaching reading, writing, math, and the sciences, but 
the additional resources to face emerging challenges.
  Thus, I am extremely pleased the Senate has accepted an amendment 
authored by Senator Kennedy and I to increase student access to mental 
health services by developing links between school districts and the 
local mental health system.
  School districts would partner with mental health agencies, juvenile 
justice authorities, and any other relevant entities to better 
coordinate mental health services by: Improving preventive, diagnostic, 
and treatment services available to students; providing crisis 
intervention services and appropriate referrals for students in need of 
mental health services and continuing mental health services; and 
educating teachers, principals, administrators, and other school 
personnel about the services.
  Finally, we must provide our school districts and schools with the 
resources to both recruit and retain the best available teachers for 
our children.
  Earlier this year I introduced the Teacher Recruitment, Development, 
and Retention Act of 2001. I am very pleased to see elements of that 
bill included in the pending legislation. I am also grateful the Senate 
has accepted my amendment that will allow States the option of using 
Teacher Quality funds for the creation of Teacher Recruitment Centers. 
Teacher Recruitment Centers will serve as statewide clearinghouses for 
the recruitment and placement of K-12 teachers. The centers would also 
be responsible for creating programs to further teacher recruitment and 
retention within the state.
  Thank you and I look forward to the working with my colleagues on 
this important issue and final passage of this bill.
  Mr. REID. 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. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, before turning to my tuition tax credit 
amendment, I am pleased to inform the people of Arizona that an 
agreement has been reached to allow the T.J. Pappas School to remain 
open and eligible for federal funds, including homeless education 
funds.
  As I understand it, a modified version of the amendment I have 
offered to secure this objective will be incorporated into the bill 
shortly.
  The Pappas School is well-known and well-regarded in the greater 
Phoenix area because it combines a high-quality education with 
essential social services required by the homeless students who attend.
  I have visited the school and I believe that the work that they are 
doing is good work. I also believe that it would be a grave disservice 
to children who have already borne significant misfortune if the 
Federal Government deprived them of the opportunity to attend an 
institution that serves them so well.
  Last fall, President Bush visited the school and came away impressed 
by the commitment of the staff and the hope that those dedicated 
professionals have instilled in their students.
  The agreement that was hammered out by my self, Senator Feinstein, 
Senator Murray, and Senator Boxer, revises the language in the 
underlying bill to allow Pappas and a number of

[[Page S6277]]

other worthy schools to continue serving children in need. It also 
ensures that essential safeguards for homeless students and their 
families are protected.
  Of course, a homeless child should be able to attend any school he or 
she wishes--whether it be the school he or she attended before becoming 
homeless, or a school like Pappas that addresses their distinct needs 
on a transitional basis with the objective of enabling them to return 
to a mainstream school.
  I am very pleased that despite some fundamental philosophical 
differences, it was possible to reach this agreement.
  Mr. President, I want to make a brief statement on behalf of Senator 
McCain and myself and others who have worked out the language of an 
amendment which will permit some schools for homeless children to 
continue to operate.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the 
Arizona Republic of June 14, 2001, relating to just one of the success 
stories of this school, the Thomas J. Pappas School.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              ``From the Arizona Republic, June 14, 2001''

                          Pappas Valedictory?


                  sole graduate may be last for school

                           (By Karina Bland)

       Crystal Sumlin is all there is to the Class of 2001, 
     graduating tonight from the Thomas J. Pappas School for 
     homeless children.
       She is the school's first--and possibly last--graduate 
     depending on a vote expected today in Congress to ban federal 
     funding for homeless schools. The School is under fire for 
     segregating kids from their public school peers.
       ``If it weren't for Pappas, I don't think I would have made 
     it to graduation,'' Sumlin said. ``And I know I wouldn't be 
     going to college.'' The school, open for more than a decade, 
     added a high school three years ago, so its oldest students 
     are juniors. But Sumlin, 17, who has almost straight A's--she 
     got a C in trigonometry--finished her course work a year 
     early.
       Despite the uproar in Congress over her school, Sumlin is 
     thinking only of finishing up a report on Arizona's 
     unemployment rate and the new dress she'll wear under her 
     black cap and gown.
       Sumlin, her three younger sisters and little brother have 
     been at Pappas for three years after a lifetime of switching 
     schools. One year, she switched schools seven times.
       She said her family moves about every three months, usually 
     because the rent is too high, the landlord complains of too 
     many kids, or her brother Jason, 16 and in a detention 
     center, sometimes gets into trouble.
       But they've been in the same place since November, the 
     longest most of the kids remember without a move. They've 
     lived in a shelter, cheap motels and apartments.
       ``I hate moving,'' Sumlin said. ``When I got older, I 
     thought I wanted to travel, but, now, I don't know. I think 
     I'll find a place and stay in it.''


                            eye on the ball

       Shy at first, Sumlin starts talking and her plans spill 
     out: Arizona State University in the fall. Maybe a class this 
     summer to start. She wants to be an attorney.
       School officials are helping her apply for financial aid 
     and promising a scholarship.
       ``I'm going to be somebody,'' she said.
       She is determined, said Mary Michaelis, the school's 
     student services coordinator. And, unlike many kids at 
     Pappas, Sumlin is pushed by her mother, Velma Williams, to do 
     well.
       ``She is too big on school, my mom is,'' Sumlin said. ``She 
     says I'm not going to drop out if she has anything to do with 
     it.''


                             mom helps out

       Williams has everything to do with it. She volunteers at 
     the school and stops by regularly to check on her kids.
       ``I push my kids a little harder than most people push 
     their kids so that they make something of their lives and not 
     have to work a job like I'm working now,'' Williams said.
       She works 40 to 50 hours for less than $300 a week, 
     collecting bills for a telemarketing company.
       She knows about unpaid bills. Her phone doesn't work 
     because she spent the money on new shoes, stockings and a 
     rented limousine for Pappas', and the girls', first prom.
       They'll eat bologna for a week.
       She is raising six kids. Her oldest, Chris, 21, is on his 
     own in school in Seattle, with no government assistance and 
     no child support. The kids have no contact with their 
     fathers.
       All the kids need new shoes. She'll buy two pairs this 
     week, two the week after and two more after that.
       ``I have always taught them if you want something, you work 
     for it,'' Williams said. ``You don't expect the next person 
     to hand it to you.''


                       pappas picks up the slack

       Pappas is the only place her kids have had a chance to do 
     well, she said. Now, no matter how often they move, they stay 
     put at school--the same teachers, the same friends.
       It is the one stable thing in their lives, their mother 
     said.
       Most schools require kids to live within attending 
     boundaries or get there on the their own. Pappas buses travel 
     hundreds of miles a day, picking up kids wherever they live.
       Kids can eat, get clothes and even medical treatment there.
       Pappas could lose $850,000, almost two-thirds of its annual 
     budget, if Congress decides today to pull its federal 
     funding.
       Maricopa County Schools Superintendent Sandra Dowling said 
     she'd come up with the money somehow rather than lose the 
     school at Fifth Avenue and Van Buren Street.


                         holding down the fort

       Sumlin is in charge in her family's two-bedroom townshouse 
     near 24th Street and McDowell Road until Mom gets off work, 
     sometimes 8 or 9 p.m.
       In the long afternoons, she weaves complicated braids in 
     her sister's hair. They listen to music, singing along with 
     Mariah Carey.
       ``We don't have vocal skills,'' Sumlin said, laughing. 
     ``But we do it anyway.''
       Michael, 9, the youngest and only boy at home, has hazel 
     eyes and girlfriends in sixth and eighth grades. He wants to 
     be a firefighter.
       Report cards are out. The kids pass them proudly. Berry a 
     tubby Basset hound, rolls belly up.
       Sumlin cooks for the kids, often making spaghetti or 
     chicken and Rice-A-Roni.
       She hopes her family stays put awhile, though she plans to 
     live in a dormitory at ASU.
       Sumlin is nervous about going to college but said, ``I 
     think I'll be all right as long as I can come home and 
     visit.''
       No matter where home may be.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will briefly explain what we accomplished 
in this amendment. An agreement was reached to allow the Thomas J. 
Pappas School in Arizona to remain open and eligible for Federal funds, 
including these homeless education funds. A modified version of the 
amendment I offered to accomplish this will be incorporated into the 
bill shortly.
  For the information of my colleagues, the Pappas School is well known 
and very well regarded in the greater Phoenix area because it combines 
a high-quality education with essential social services required by the 
homeless students who attend the school.
  I have visited the school, and I know the work they are doing is very 
good. I also think it would be a grave disservice to the children who 
have already borne significant misfortune in their lives if the Federal 
Government deprived them of the opportunity to attend an institution 
that has served them so well.
  Last fall, president Bush visited the school and came away very 
impressed by the commitment of the staff and the hope those dedicated 
professionals have instilled in their students.
  The agreement I speak of was hammered out by Senator Feinstein, 
Senator Murray, Senator Boxer, Senator McCain, and myself, and revises 
the language in the underlying bill to allow the Pappas School and a 
number of other worthy schools to continue serving children in need.
  It ensures essential safeguards for homeless students, and their 
families are protected. Of course, a homeless child should be able to 
attend any school, whether it is the school he or she attended before 
becoming homeless or a school that addresses their distinct needs on a 
transitional basis with the objective of enabling them to return to a 
mainstream school.
  I am very pleased, despite fundamental philosophical differences, it 
was possible to reach this agreement. We have done something for 
homeless children, and for that I think we should be rightly proud.
  Secondly, Mr. President, I would like to offer a few words about an 
amendment that I will not be offering. I believe that these comments 
will go some distance toward explaining the reasons why I plan to vote 
against final passage of the bill before us.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about 
my amendment number 580.
  I will not be offering this amendment so that there will be no blue 
slip problems with the House.
  This amendment, like the Gregg amendment, that--unfortunately--was 
defeated earlier this week, would make real reforms that address the 
urgent need to improve elementary and secondary education in our 
country.
  The tax bill that we passed last month takes a very important first 
step along these same lines by allowing

[[Page S6278]]

the Coverdell education IRAs to be used not only to facilitate savings 
for college education but for grades K through 12 as well.
  While the administration of our schools is and should remain a local 
responsibility, we have a compelling national interest in improving the 
quality of K through 12 education.
  And there are ways to discharge that responsibility without adding to 
the bureaucracy in Washington and without adding new mandates.
  As has been noted repeatedly during debate on this bill: It is a fact 
that America is currently not educating the workforce it needs for the 
economy of the 21st century. Raising overall achievement will enhance 
America's competitiveness.
  It is a fact that international tests reveal that American high 
school seniors rank 19th out of 21 industrialized nations in 
mathematics achievement and 16th out of 21 nations in science 
achievement.
  Ironically, this threat to our competitiveness is the result of our 
failure to apply the very principles undergirding our economy's success 
in the area of education.
  Our Nation has thrived because our leading industries and 
institutions have been challenged by constant pressure to improve and 
to innovate. The source of that pressure is vigorous competition among 
producers of a service or a good for the allegiance of their potential 
customers or consumers.
  So why not promote innovation by producers and choice for consumers 
in the field of education?
  The quasi-monopoly of public education today discourages this 
innovation.
  We must find a way to promote innovation and opportunity through 
greater choice of parents. Those are the concepts that have built this 
country through our great free market economic system, and it is the 
same concept that can improve our educational system.
  The other problem with our education system is that too many of our 
children are literally being left behind.
  Anyone who has followed this debate has heard the particulars, but 
they demand our repeated attention: Thirty-seven percent of American 
fourth graders' tests show that they are essentially unable to read. 
For Hispanic fourth graders, the proportion is 58 percent, and for 
African-American fourth graders, it is 63 percent.
  As President Bush has repeatedly noted, far too many of America's 
most disadvantaged youngsters pass through public schools without 
receiving an adequate education. It is intolerable that millions of 
children are trapped in unsafe and failing schools.
  Parents should have a right in the United States of America to get 
the best education possible for their children as they see it, and the 
amendment I offer today will help secure that right.
  My amendment would provide a $250 tax credit, $500 for joint filers, 
to partially offset the cost of donations to tuition scholarship 
organizations.
  These organizations--usually founded by business leaders--that 
provide tuition scholarships to enable needy youngsters to attend a 
school of their families' choosing. The idea first came to light about 
a decade ago when the first one was founded in Indianapolis. Now there 
are more than 80 such programs serving more than 50,000 students 
nationwide.
  For families who benefit, these programs are a godsend. A study that 
was just released by the Kennedy School of Government found that 68 
percent of parents awarded scholarships are very satisfied with 
academics at their child's school compared with only 23 percent of 
parents not awarded scholarships.
  I should pause on that point to observe if this amendment became law 
and scholarships were to become more widely available, the schools 
these students left would have a much greater incentive to improve than 
is the case today.
  Because we anticipate that the tax credit would foster competition, 
we anticipate that its adoption will bring improvement of all schools, 
not just a few.
  But today, the problem is that demand for scholarships far outstrips 
supply, even though these low-income families must agree to contribute 
a significant portion of the total cost of tuition.
  For example, in 1997, 1,000 partial tuition scholarships were offered 
to needy families in the District of Columbia. Nearly 8,000 
applications were received.
  Another example: In 1999, 1.25 million applied for 40,000 
scholarships in a national lottery. Clearly, there is a huge unmet 
demand for this kind of assistance.
  In 1997, Arizona implemented an innovative plan to meet that demand 
in our State: A $500 tax credit to offset donations to organizations 
that provide tuition scholarships to elementary and secondary students. 
The results: Upwards of $40 million in donations to tuition scholarship 
organizations.
  The number of school tuition organizations operating in my State of 
Arizona is up from 2 to 33, and the organizations have a very wide 
range of emphasis and orientations. For example, they range from the 
Jewish Community Day School Scholarship Fund to the Fund for Native 
Scholarship Enrichment and Resources to the Foundation for Montessori 
Scholarships.
  Nearly 15,000 Arizona students, nearly all of them from disadvantaged 
backgrounds, have received this scholarship assistance.
  While some have charged that the law was unconstitutional--
particularly given the explicit prohibition on direct aid to parochial 
schools in Arizona's constitution--our State supreme court recognized 
that allowing taxpayers to use their own money to support education is 
a different matter and upheld the program.
  And consistent with previous holdings on the subject, the U.S. 
Supreme Court declined to review the decision.
  In other words, the Arizona tax credit should be embraced by those 
concerned that Federal dollars going to vouchers which students would 
then take to the school of their choice could possibly be 
unconstitutional.
  In Arizona, you do not have public dollars being given to students in 
the form of vouchers which are then taken to the school of their 
choice.
  Instead, what we provide is that if people want to contribute money 
to a duly qualifying scholarship fund, that scholarship fund can then 
give that scholarship to needy students and those students can take 
that scholarship to whatever school in which they want to be educated 
and the donors receive a tax credit.
  That is constitutional. It does not violate any notion of separation 
of church and state.
  And yet it permits people to help those who need the help the most to 
have the flexibility that only the most wealthy in our society have 
today: the ability to take their kids to the school of their choice.
  I have come to believe that it offers the best possible way 
to resolve this problem of choice and innovation.

  It meets the constitutional challenges; it involves the private 
sector; it involves personal donations; it does not give the Federal 
Government the task of funding and administering a large voucher 
program.
  Yet it gets the benefits to the students who need it the most, who 
are willing to contribute part of their own income to match that 
scholarship and pay the tuition at the school of their choice.
  Now when I brought this amendment up during the debate on the tax 
bill, I listened carefully to the arguments that were offered in 
opposition by my colleague, Senator Bingaman.
  In his remarks, my colleagues made two basic contentions.
  First he said:

       What we are saying [if we pass this amendment] is we will 
     not appropriate money directly to those schools, but we will 
     give each taxpayer a $250 credit if they will give that $250 
     to the private school. That, to men, seems to be a pretty 
     direct way of providing Federal support for private and 
     parochial schools.

  But as Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb noted, this argument 
equating tax credits with direct appropriations ``ultimately rests on 
the odious theory that government is entitled to all your money, and 
anything it doesn't grab is in fact expended.''
  Senator Bingaman went on to argue that it would be imprudent to enact 
a proposal this ``costly'' at a time ``when we are unable to make [a 
comparable] commitment to the public schools.''
  But the recent history of the bill before us today rebuts the premise 
of that argument.

[[Page S6279]]

  The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated this credit could cost 
the Federal Treasury $43.4 billion over a 10-year period.
  Meanwhile, the Budget Committee's staff report that, as of last week, 
the Senate has added $211 billion to this bill for a total seven-year 
price tag of $417 billion.
  And given the concern about public schools, it is also worth noting 
that this tax credit is neutral as to whether scholarships should be 
used at public or non-public schools.
  Scholarships could be used to offset tuition costs at a private 
school, or to pay the tuition costs families in most states must pay to 
enroll a child in a school across district boundaries.
  I hope that my colleagues will think about what a magnitude of 
difference that money would make in the lives of our children: $43 
billion would finance 12.4 million $3,500 scholarships.
  Think of the opportunity provided to those 12.4 million students with 
a $3,500 scholarship to take them out of the condition of education 
they are in now, out of the failing school, out of the unsafe school, 
and to a school where they can achieve, where they can learn, where 
they can be competitive, where they can learn their full potential.
  I have said many times that if we can get education right, almost 
everything else in this country will follow. By ``we,'' I do not just 
mean the Federal Government. In fact, I mean primarily the parents and 
local school folks.
  First, it will help people realize their full potential.
  Second, it will make them more qualified to compete for the kinds of 
jobs that are going to exist in the future.
  Third, it will help our Nation compete. We are going to need to 
compete in a world environment.
  Fourth, it is going to make us more secure because we are going to 
have the kind of young students who can invent the things that are 
going to help us keep our technological edge when it comes to national 
security.
  Fifth, it is going to make us better citizens.
  I have been somewhat appalled at what some of our schools do not 
teach about the history of this great country of ours, about the 
foundation for the self-governance we have, about the need for people, 
especially young people, to participate in our democratic Republic.
  I fear that generations of Americans are growing up not being taught 
the fundamentals of our society, our Government, and our free-market 
system that we were taught, and I think fairly well.
  If we go a couple generations without teaching our children 
accurately and adequately in subjects from math and reading to history 
to government to economics and all the other subjects that students in 
this complex world have to master, then we are not going to progress as 
a nation and be the leading superpower and the leader of the world we 
are today, in economic terms or in terms of human rights, democratic 
principles, and other societal values.
  If we get education right, we can flourish in all of these areas, and 
if we stay 19th out of 21 countries on these tests, then Americans are 
not going to be as well educated and we will be overtaken by other 
nations.
  We have led the world in foreign aid and assistance. We have led the 
world in our insistence on human rights.
  In other words, America stands for what is good on this Earth, and 
for us to continue to be the leader of the world to promote these 
values requires an educated citizenry, a citizenry that will be 
educated and committed to these ideals, to these propositions.
  We cannot sustain that kind of education with the system we have 
today. The scholarship tuition credits I am proposing with this 
amendment will enable parents to allow their children to be educated in 
the very best schools for those students and to enable them to escape 
the kind of system we have today to one where each child can grow to 
their full potential. We must demand nothing less of our system.
  This scholarship tax credit is an idea whose time has come, and that 
is why I have pressed it repeatedly and will continue to do so.


Amendments Nos. 571 as Modified, 527 as Modified, 457 as Modified, 582 
 as Modified, 432 as Modified, 585 as Modified, 586, 587 as Modified, 
588, 589, 590, 591, 592 as modified, 593, 595, 512 as Modified, 435 as 
      Modified, 386, 424, 516, 804, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are in a position to clear amendments 
by consent. I ask unanimous consent to consider these amendments en 
bloc, the amendments be agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                     amendment no. 571, as modified

(Purpose: To provide grants to states with high growth rates in Title I 
                               children)

       Beginning on page 141, strike line 23 through line 13 on 
     page 142, and insert the following:
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the amount made available for each local 
     educational agency under sections 1124 and 1124A for the 
     fiscal year shall not be less than the greater of--
       ``(i) 100 percent of the amount the local educational 
     agency received for fiscal year 2001 under sections 1124 and 
     1124A, respectively; or
       ``(ii) 100 percent of the amount calculated for the local 
     educational agency for the fiscal year under sections 1124 
     and 1124A, respectively, determined without applying the hold 
     harmless provisions of this subparagraph.
       ``(C) Applicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary shall not take into consideration the 
     hold harmless provisions of this subsection for any fiscal 
     year for purposes of calculating State or local allocations 
     for the fiscal year under any program administered by the 
     Secretary other than a program authorized under this part.
       ``(D) Population Updates.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (4), in fiscal 
     year 2001 and each subsequent year, the Secretary shall use 
     updated data, for purposes of carrying out section 1124, on 
     the number of children, aged 5 to 17, inclusive, from 
     families below the poverty level for counties or local 
     educational agencies, published by the Department of 
     Commerce, unless the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce 
     determine that use of the updated population data would be 
     inappropriate or unreliable.
       ``(ii) Inappropriate or unreliable data.--If the Secretary 
     and the Secretary of Commerce determine that some or all of 
     the data referred to in this subparagraph are inappropriate 
     or unreliable, the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce 
     shall--

       ``(I) publicly disclose their reasons;
       ``(II) provide an opportunity for States to submit updated 
     data on the number of children described in clause (i); and
       ``(III) review the data and, if the data are appropriate 
     and reliable, use the data, for the purposes of section 1124, 
     to determine the number of children described in clause (i).

       ``(iii) Criteria of poverty.--In determining the families 
     that are below the poverty level, the Secretary shall utilize 
     the criteria of poverty used by the Bureau of the Census in 
     compiling the most recent decennial census, as the criteria 
     have been updated by increases in the Consumer Price Index 
     for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics.
       ``(iv) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Commerce 
     for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to update 
     the data described in clause (i).
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 527, as modified

 (Purpose: To establish an exception to the prohibition on segregating 
                           homeless students)

       On page 284, strike lines 6 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) Prohibition on segregating homeless students.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
     and section 723(a)(2)(B)(ii), in providing a free public 
     education to a homeless child or youth, no State receiving 
     funds under this subtitle shall segregate such child or 
     youth, either in a separate school, or in a separate program 
     within a school, based on such child's or youth's status as 
     homeless.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), 
     paragraphs (1)(H) and (3) of subsection (g), section 
     723(a)(2), and any other provision of this subtitle relating 
     to the placement of homeless children or youth in schools, a 
     State that has a separate school for homeless children or 
     youth that was operated in fiscal year 2000 in a covered 
     county shall be eligible to receive funds under this subtitle 
     for programs carried out in such school if--
       ``(i) the school meets the requirements of subparagraph 
     (C);
       ``(ii) any local educational agency serving a school that 
     the homeless children and youth enrolled in the separate 
     school are eligible to attend meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (E); and
       ``(iii) the State is otherwise eligible to receive funds 
     under this subtitle.
       ``(C) School requirements.--For the State to be eligible to 
     receive the funds, the school shall--
       ``(i) provide written notice, at the time any child or 
     youth seeks enrollment in such school, and at least twice 
     annually while the child or youth is enrolled in such school, 
     to

[[Page S6280]]

     the parent or guardian of the child or youth (or, in the case 
     of an unaccompanied youth, the youth) that--

       ``(I) shall be signed by the parent or guardian (or, in the 
     case of an unaccompanied youth, the youth);
       ``(II) reviews the general rights provided under this 
     subtitle; and
       ``(III) specifically states--

       ``(aa) the choice of schools homeless children and youth 
     are eligible to attend, as provided in subsection (g)(3)(A);
       ``(bb) that no homeless child or youth is required to 
     attend a separate school for homeless children or youth;
       ``(cc) that homeless children and youth shall be provided 
     comparable services described in subsection (g)(4), including 
     transportation services, educational services, and meals 
     through school meals programs;
       ``(dd) that homeless children and youth should not be 
     stigmatized by school personnel; and
       ``(ee) contact information for the local liaison for 
     homeless children and youth and State Coordinator for 
     Education of Homeless Children and Youth;
       ``(ii)(aa) provide assistance to the parent or guardian of 
     each homeless child or youth (or, in the case of an 
     unaccompanied youth, the youth) to exercise the right to 
     attend the parent's or guardian's (or youth's) choice of 
     schools, as provided in subsection (g)(3)(A); and
       ``(bb) coordinate with the local educational agency with 
     jurisdiction for the school selected by the parent or 
     guardian (or youth), to provide transportation and other 
     necessary services;
       ``(iii) ensure that the parent or guardian (or youth) shall 
     receive the information required by this subparagraph in a 
     manner and form understandable to such parent or guardian (or 
     youth), including, if necessary and to the extent feasible, 
     in the native language of such parent or guardian (or youth); 
     and
       ``(iv) demonstrate in the school's application for funds 
     under this subtitle that such school--

       ``(I) is complying with clauses (i) and (ii); and
       ``(II) is meeting (as of the date of submission of the 
     application) the same Federal and State standards, 
     regulations, and mandates as other public schools in the 
     State (such as complying with sections 1111 and 1116 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and providing 
     a full range of education and related services, including 
     services applicable to students with disabilities).

       ``(D) School ineligibility.--A separate school described in 
     subparagraph (B) that fails to meet the standards, 
     regulations, and mandates described in subparagraph 
     (C)(iv)(II) shall not be eligible to receive funds under this 
     subtitle for programs carried out in such school after the 
     first date of such failure.
       ``(E) Local educational agency requirements.--For the State 
     to be eligible to receive the funds described in subparagraph 
     (B), the local educational agency described in subparagraph 
     (B) shall--
       ``(i) implement a coordinated system for ensuring that 
     homeless children and youth--

       ``(I) are advised of the choice of schools provided in 
     subsection (g)(3)(A);
       ``(II) are immediately enrolled in the school selected in 
     accordance with subsection (g)(3)(C); and
       ``(III) are provided necessary services, including 
     transportation, promptly to allow homeless children and youth 
     to exercise their choices of schools in accordance with 
     subsection (g)(4);

       ``(ii) document that written notice has been provided--

       ``(I) in accordance with subparagraph (C)(i) for each child 
     or youth enrolled in a separate school described in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(II) in accordance with subsection (g)(1)(H)(ii);

       ``(iii) prohibit schools within the agency's jurisdiction 
     from referring homeless children or youth to, or requiring 
     homeless children and youth to enroll in or attend, a 
     separate school described in subparagraph (B);
       ``(iv) identify and remove any barriers that exist in 
     schools within the agency's jurisdiction that may have 
     contributed to the creation or existence of separate schools 
     described in subparagraph (B); and
       ``(v) not use funds received under this subtitle to 
     establish--

       ``(I) new or additional separate schools for homeless 
     children or youth, other than schools described in 
     subparagraph (B); or
       ``(II) new or additional sites for separate schools for 
     homeless children or youth, other than the sites occupied by 
     the schools described in subparagraph (B) in fiscal year 
     2000.

       ``(F) Report.--
       ``(i) Preparation.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare a report on 
     the separate schools and local educational agencies described 
     in subparagraph (B) that receive funds under this subtitle in 
     accordance with this paragraph.
       ``(II) Contents.--The report shall contain, at a minimum, 
     information on--

       ``(aa) compliance with all requirements of this paragraph;
       ``(bb) barriers to school access in the school districts 
     served by the local educational agencies; and
       ``(cc) the progress the separate schools are making in 
     integrating homeless children and youth into the mainstream 
     school environment, including the average length of student 
     enrollment in such schools.
       ``(ii) Compliance with information requests.--For purposes 
     of enabling the Secretary to prepare the report, the separate 
     schools and local educational agencies shall cooperate with 
     the Secretary and the State Coordinators for the Education of 
     Homeless Children and Youth, and shall comply with any 
     requests for information by the Secretary and State 
     Coordinators.
       ``(iii) Submission.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of the Better Education for Students and 
     Teachers Act, the Secretary shall submit the report described 
     in clause (i) to--

       ``(I) the President;
       ``(II) the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       ``(III) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate.

       ``(G) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `covered 
     county' means--
       ``(i) San Joaquin County, CA;
       ``(ii) Orange County, CA;
       ``(iii) San Diego County, CA; and
       ``(iv) Maricopa County, AZ.''
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 457, as modified

(Purpose: To increase parental involvement and protect student privacy)

       On page 778, after line 21, add the following:

   ``PART C--INCREASING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND PROTECTING STUDENT 
                                PRIVACY

     ``SEC. 6301. INTENT.

       ``It is the purpose of this part to provide parents with 
     notice of and opportunity to make informed decisions 
     regarding the collection of information for commercial 
     purposes occurring in their children's classrooms.

     ``SEC. 6302. COMMERCIALIZATION POLICIES AND PRIVACY FOR 
                   STUDENTS.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     no State educational agency or local educational agency that 
     is a recipient of funds under this Act may--
       ``(1) disclose data or information the agency gathered from 
     a student to a person or entity that seeks disclosure of the 
     data or information for the purpose of benefiting the person 
     or entity's commercial interests; or
       ``(2) permit a person or entity to gather from a student, 
     or assist a person or entity in gathering from a student, 
     data or information, if the purpose of gathering the data or 
     information is to benefit the commercial interests of the 
     person or entity.
       ``(b) Parental Consent.--
       ``(1) Disclosure.--A State educational agency or local 
     educational agency that is a recipient of funds under this 
     Act may disclose data or information under subsection (a)(1) 
     if the agency, prior to the disclosure--
       ``(A) explains to the student's parent, in writing, what 
     data or information will be disclosed, to which person or 
     entity the data or information will be disclosed, the amount 
     of class time, if any, that will be consumed by the 
     disclosure, and how the person or entity will use the data or 
     information; and
       ``(B) obtains the parent's written permission for the 
     disclosure.
       ``(2) Gathering.--A State educational agency or local 
     educational agency that is a recipient of funds under this 
     Act may permit or assist a person or entity with the 
     gathering of data or information under subsection (a)(2) if 
     the agency, prior to the gathering--
       ``(A) explains to the student's parent, in writing, what 
     data or information will be gathered including whether any of 
     the information is personally identifiable, which person or 
     entity will gather the data or information, the amount of 
     class time if any, that will be consumed by the gathering, 
     and how the person or entity will use the data or 
     information; and
       ``(B) obtains the parent's written permission for the 
     gathering.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this part:
       ``(1) Student.--The term `student' means a student under 
     the age of 18.
       ``(2) Commercial interest.--The term `commercial interest' 
     does not include the interest of a person or entity in 
     developing, evaluating, or providing educational products or 
     services for or to students or educational institutions, such 
     as--
       ``(A) college and other post-secondary education 
     recruiting;
       ``(B) book clubs and other programs providing access to low 
     cost books or other related literary products;
       ``(C) curriculum and instructional materials used by 
     elementary and secondary schools to teach if--
       ``(i) the information is not used to sell or advertise 
     another product;
       ``(ii) the information is not used to develop another 
     product that is not covered by the exemption from commercial 
     interest in this paragraph; and
       ``(iii) the curriculum and instructional materials are used 
     in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local 
     policies, if any; and
       ``(D) the development and administration of tests and 
     assessments used by elementary and secondary schools to 
     provide cognitive, evaluative, diagnostic, clinical, 
     aptitude, or achievement information about students (or to 
     generate other statistically useful data for the purpose of 
     securing such tests and assessments) and the subsequent 
     analysis and public release of aggregate data if--
       ``(i) the information is not used to sell or advertise 
     another product;

[[Page S6281]]

       ``(ii) the information is not used to develop another 
     product that is not covered by the exemption from commercial 
     interest in this paragraph; and
       ``(iii) the tests are conducted in accordance with 
     applicable Federal, State, and local policies, if any.
       ``(d) Locally Developed Exceptions.--A local educational 
     agency, in consultation with parents, may develop appropriate 
     exceptions to the consent requirements contained in this part 
     if--
       ``(1) the information to be collected is not personally 
     identifiable;
       ``(2) the local educational agency provides written notice 
     to all parents of its policy regarding data or information 
     collection activities for commercial purposes; and
       ``(3) with respect to any particular data or information 
     gathering or disclosure, the agency provides written notice 
     to all parents of--
       ``(A) the data or information to be collected;
       ``(B) the person or entity to whom the data or information 
     will be disclosed;
       ``(C) the amount of class time, if any, that will be 
     consumed by the collection activities; and
       ``(D) the manner in which the person or entity will use the 
     data or information.
       ``(e) Funding.--A State educational agency or local 
     educational agency may use funds provided under subpart 4 of 
     part B of title V to enhance parental involvement in areas 
     affecting children's in-school privacy.
       ``(f) Technical Assistance.--Upon the request of a State 
     educational agency or local educational agency, the Secretary 
     shall provide technical assistance to such an agency 
     concerning compliance with this part.
       ``(g) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take appropriate 
     actions to enforce, and address violations of, this section, 
     in accordance with this chapter.
       ``(h) Office, Functions.--The Secretary shall designate an 
     office to enforce this section and to provide technical 
     assistance.
       ``(i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to supersede the Family Educational Rights and 
     Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g).''.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 582, as modified

                 (Purpose: To protect student privacy)

       On page 778, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. __. GUIDELINES FOR STUDENT PRIVACY.

       (a) Development of Student Privacy Guidelines.--A State or 
     local educational agency that receives funds under this Act 
     shall develop and adopt guidelines regarding arrangements to 
     protect student privacy that are entered into by the agency 
     with public and private entities that are not schools.
       (b) Notification of Parents of Privacy Guidelines.--The 
     guidelines developed by an educational agency under 
     subsection (a) shall provide for a reasonable notice of the 
     adoption of such guidelines to be given, by the agency or a 
     school under the agency's supervision, to the parents and 
     guardians of students under the jurisdiction of such agency 
     or school. Such notice shall be provided at least annually 
     and within a reasonable period of time after any change in 
     such guidelines.
       (c) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply to the 
     development, evaluation, or provision of educational products 
     or services for or to students or educational institutions, 
     such as the following:
       (1) College or other post-secondary education recruitment 
     or military recruitment.
       (2) Book clubs, magazines, and programs providing access to 
     other literary products.
       (3) Curriculum and instructional materials used by 
     elementary and secondary schools to teach.
       (4) The development and administration of tests and 
     assessments used by elementary and secondary schools to 
     provide cognitive, evaluative, diagnostic, clinical, 
     aptitude, or achievement information about students (or to 
     generate other statistically useful data for the purpose of 
     securing such tests and assessments) and the subsequent 
     analysis and public release of aggregate data.
       (5) The sale by students of products or services to raise 
     funds for school- or education-related activities.
       (6) Student recognition programs.
       (d) Information Activities by the Secretary.--Once each 
     year, the Secretary shall inform each State educational 
     agency and each local educational agency of the educational 
     agency's obligations under section 438 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (added by the Family Educational 
     Rights and Privacy Act of 1974; 20 U.S.C. 1232g) and the 
     Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 
     6501 et seq.).
       (e) Funding.--A State educational agency or local 
     educational agency may use funds provided under subpart 4 of 
     Part B of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 to enhance parental involvement in areas 
     affecting children's in-school privacy.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary 
     school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'', 
     ``Secretary'', and ``State educational agency'' have the 
     meanings given those terms in section 3 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 432, as modified

    (Purpose: To broaden local applications, and for other purposes)

       On page 324, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       ``(11) A description of how the local educational agency 
     will provide training to enable teachers to--
       ``(A) address the needs of students with disabilities, 
     students with limited English proficiency, and other students 
     with special needs;
       ``(B) involve parents in their child's education; and
       ``(C) understand and use data and assessments to improve 
     classroom practice and student learning.
       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 instructional practices that involve 
     collaborative groups of teachers and administrators, using 
     such strategies as--
       ``(i) provision of dedicated time for collaborative lesson 
     planning and curriculum development meetings;
       ``(ii) consultation with exemplary teachers;
       ``(iii) team teaching, peer observation, and coaching;
       ``(iv) provision of short-term and long-term visits to 
     classrooms and schools;
       ``(v) establishment and maintenance of local professional 
     development networks that provide a forum for interaction 
     among teachers and administrators about content knowledge and 
     teaching and leadership skills; and
       ``(vi) the provision of release time as needed for the 
     activities;
       ``(E) teacher advancement initiatives that promote 
     professional growth and emphasize multiple career paths (such 
     as career teacher, mentor teacher, and master teacher career 
     paths) and pay differentiation.''
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 585, AS MODIFIED

         (Purpose: To improve the Early Reading First Program)

       On page 207, strike line 8 and all that follows through 
     page 212, line 15, and insert the following:

                    ``Subpart 3--Early Reading First

     ``SEC. 1241. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this subpart are as follows:
       ``(1) To support local efforts to enhance the early 
     language, literacy, and prereading development of preschool 
     age children, particularly those from low-income families, 
     through strategies and professional development that are 
     based on scientifically based research.
       ``(2) To provide preschool age children with cognitive 
     learning opportunities in high-quality language and 
     literature-rich environments, so that the children can attain 
     the fundamental knowledge and skills necessary for optimal 
     reading development in kindergarten and beyond.
       ``(3) To demonstrate language and literacy activities based 
     on scientifically based research that support the age-
     appropriate development of--
       ``(A) spoken language and oral comprehension abilities;
       ``(B) understanding that spoken language can be analyzed 
     into discrete words, and awareness that words can be broken 
     into sequences of syllables and phonemes;
       ``(C) automatic recognition of letters of the alphabet and 
     understanding that letters or groups of letters 
     systematically represent the component sounds of the 
     language; and
       ``(D) knowledge of the purposes and conventions of print.
       ``(4) To integrate these learning opportunities with 
     learning opportunities at preschools, child care agencies, 
     and Head Start agencies, and with family literacy services.

     ``SEC. 1242. LOCAL EARLY READING FIRST GRANTS.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--From amounts appropriated under 
     section 1002(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants, on a 
     competitive basis, for periods of not more than 5 years, to 
     eligible applicants to enable the eligible applicants to 
     carry out the authorized activities described in subsection 
     (e).
       ``(b) Definition of Eligible Applicant.--In this subpart 
     the term `eligible applicant' means--
       ``(1) one or more local educational agencies that are 
     eligible to receive a subgrant under subpart 2;
       ``(2) one or more public or private organizations or 
     agencies, acting on behalf of 1 or more programs that serve 
     preschool age children (such as a program at a Head Start 
     center, a child care program, or a family literacy program), 
     which organizations or agencies shall be located in a 
     community served by a local educational agency described in 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(3) one or more local educational agencies described in 
     paragraph (1) in collaboration with one or more organizations 
     or agencies described in paragraph (2).
       ``(c) Applications.--An eligible applicant that desires to 
     receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary which shall include a 
     description of--
       ``(1) the programs to be served by the proposed project, 
     including demographic and socioeconomic information on the 
     preschool age children enrolled in the programs;
       ``(2) how the proposed project will prepare and provide 
     ongoing assistance to staff in the programs, through 
     professional development and other support, to provide high-

[[Page S6282]]

     quality language, literacy and prereading activities using 
     scientifically based research, for preschool age children;
       ``(3) how the proposed project will provide services and 
     utilize materials that are based on scientifically based 
     research on early language acquisition, prereading 
     activities, and the development of spoken language skills;
       ``(4) how the proposed project will help staff in the 
     programs to meet the diverse needs of preschool age children 
     in the community better, including such children with limited 
     English proficiency, disabilities, or other special needs;
       ``(5) how the proposed project will help preschool age 
     children, particularly such children experiencing difficulty 
     with spoken language, prereading, and literacy skills, to 
     make the transition from preschool to formal classroom 
     instruction in school;
       ``(6) if the eligible applicant has received a subgrant 
     under subpart 2, how the activities conducted under this 
     subpart will be coordinated with the eligible applicant's 
     activities under subpart 2 at the kindergarten through third-
     grade level;
       ``(7) how the proposed project will evaluate the success of 
     the activities supported under this subpart in enhancing the 
     early language, literacy, and prereading development of 
     preschool age children served by the project; and
       ``(8) such other information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Approval of Applications.--The Secretary shall select 
     applicants for funding under this subpart on the basis of the 
     quality of the applications, in consultation with the 
     National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, 
     the National Institute for Literacy, and the National Academy 
     of Sciences. The Secretary shall select applications for 
     approval under this subpart on the basis of a peer review 
     process.
       ``(e) Authorized Activities.-- An eligible applicant that 
     receives a grant under this subpart shall use the funds 
     provided under the grant to carry out the following 
     activities:
       ``(A) Providing preschool age children with high-quality 
     oral language and literature-rich environments in which to 
     acquire language and prereading skills.
       ``(B) Providing professional development that is based on 
     scientifically based research knowledge of early language and 
     reading development for the staff of the eligible applicant 
     and that will assist in developing the preschool age 
     children's--
       ``(i) spoken language (including vocabulary, the contextual 
     use of speech, and syntax) and oral comprehension abilities;
       ``(ii) understanding that spoken language can be analyzed 
     into discrete words, and awareness that words can be broken 
     into sequences of syllables and phonemes;
       ``(iii) automatic recognition of letters of the alphabet 
     and understanding that letters or groups of letters 
     systematically represent the component sounds of the 
     language; and
       ``(iv) knowledge of the purposes and conventions of print.
       ``(C) Identifying and providing activities and 
     instructional materials that are based on scientifically 
     based research for use in developing the skills and abilities 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) Acquiring, providing training for, and implementing 
     screening tools or other appropriate measures that are based 
     on scientifically based research to determine whether 
     preschool age children are developing the skills described in 
     this subsection.
       ``(E) Integrating such instructional materials, activities, 
     tools, and measures into the programs offered by the eligible 
     applicant.
       ``(f) Award Amounts.--The Secretary may establish a maximum 
     award amount, or ranges of award amounts, for grants under 
     this subpart.

     ``SEC. 1243. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.

       ``The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services in order to coordinate the activities 
     undertaken under this subpart with preschool age programs 
     administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.

     ``SEC. 1244. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.

       ``From the funds the National Institute for Literacy 
     receives under section 1227, the National Institute for 
     Literacy, in consultation with the Secretary, shall 
     disseminate information regarding projects assisted under 
     this subpart that have proven effective.

     ``SEC. 1245. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       ``Each eligible applicant receiving a grant under this 
     subpart shall report annually to the Secretary regarding the 
     eligible applicant's progress in addressing the purposes of 
     this subpart. Such report shall include, at a minimum, a 
     description of--
       ``(1) the activities, materials, tools, and measures used 
     by the eligible applicant;
       ``(2) the professional development activities offered to 
     the staff of the eligible applicant who serve preschool age 
     children and the amount of such professional development;
       ``(3) the types of programs and ages of children served; 
     and
       ``(4) the results of the evaluation described in section 
     1242(c)(7).

     ``SEC. 1246. EVALUATIONS.

       ``From the total amount appropriated under section 
     1002(b)(3) for the period beginning October 1, 2002 and 
     ending September 30, 2008, the Secretary shall reserve not 
     more than $5,000,000 to conduct an independent evaluation of 
     the effectiveness of this subpart.

     ``SEC. 1247. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.

       ``From the amount appropriated under section 1002(b)(3) for 
     each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2006, the Secretary 
     shall reserve not more than $3,000,000 to conduct, in 
     consultation with National Institute for Child Health and 
     Human Development, the National Institute for Literacy, and 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, additional 
     research on language and literacy development for preschool 
     age children.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 586

(Purpose: To improve the Pupil Safety and Family School Choice Program)

       On page 83, strike lines 3 through 9.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 587, AS MODIFIED

    (Purpose: To refine the Improving Academic Achievement Program)

       On page 774 strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     778, line 21, and insert the following:

                ``PART B--IMPROVING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

     ``SEC. 6201. EDUCATION AWARDS.

       ``(a) Achievement in Education Awards.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make awards, to be 
     known as `Achievement in Education Awards', using a peer 
     review process, to the States that, beginning with the 2002-
     2003 school year, make the most progress in improving 
     educational achievement.
       ``(2) Criteria.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make the awards on 
     the basis of criteria consisting of--
       ``(i) the progress of each of the categories of students 
     described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II)--

       ``(I) towards the goal of all such students reaching the 
     proficient level of performance; and
       ``(II) beginning with the 2nd year for which data are 
     available for all States, on State assessments under the 
     National Assessment of Educational Progress of 4th and 8th 
     grade reading and mathematics skills;

       ``(ii) the progress of all students in the State towards 
     the goal of all students reaching the proficient level of 
     performance, and (beginning with the 2nd year for which data 
     are available for all States) the progress of all students on 
     the assessments described in clause (i)(II);
       ``(iii) the progress of the State in improving the English 
     proficiency of students who enter school with limited English 
     proficiency;
       ``(iv) the progress of the State in increasing the 
     percentage of students who graduate from secondary school; 
     and
       ``(v) the progress of the State in increasing the 
     percentage of students who take advanced coursework, such as 
     advanced placement and international baccalaureate courses, 
     and who pass advanced placement and international 
     baccalaureate tests.
       ``(B) Weight.--In applying the criteria described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give the greatest 
     weight to the criterion described in subparagraph (A)(i).
       ``(b) Assessment Completion Bonuses.--The Secretary may 
     make 1-time bonus payments to States that complete the 
     development of assessments required by section 1111 in 
     advance of the schedule specified in such section.
       ``(c) No Child Left Behind Awards.--The Secretary may make 
     awards, to be known as `No Child Left Behind Awards' to the 
     schools that--
       ``(1) are nominated by the States in which the schools are 
     located; and
       ``(2) have made the greatest progress in improving the 
     educational achievement of economically disadvantaged 
     students.
       ``(d) Fund To Improve Education Achievement.--The Secretary 
     may make awards for activities other than the activities 
     described in subsections (a) through (c), such as character 
     education, that are designed to promote the improvement of 
     elementary and secondary education nationally.

     ``SEC. 6202. LOSS OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS.

       ``(a) 2 Years of Insufficient Progress.--
       ``(1) Reduction.--If the Secretary makes the determinations 
     described in paragraph (2) for 2 consecutive years, the 
     Secretary shall reduce, by not more than 30 percent, the 
     amount of funds that the State may reserve for the subsequent 
     fiscal year for State administration under the programs 
     authorized by this Act that the Secretary determines are 
     formula grant programs.
       ``(2) Determinations.--The determinations referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are determinations, made primarily on the basis 
     of data from the State assessment system described in section 
     1111 and data from State assessments under the National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress of 4th and 8th grade 
     reading and mathematics skills, that--
       ``(A) the State has failed to make adequate yearly progress 
     as defined under section 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D) for all 
     students and for each of the categories of students described 
     in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II);
       ``(B) beginning with the 2nd year for which data are 
     available on State assessments under the National Assessment 
     of Educational Progress of 4th and 8th grade reading and 
     mathematics, the State has failed to demonstrate an increase 
     in the achievement of each of the categories of students 
     described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II); and
       ``(C) the State has failed to meet its annual measurable 
     performance objectives, for helping limited English 
     proficient students develop proficiency in English, that are 
     required to be developed under section 3329.

[[Page S6283]]

       ``(b) 3 or More Years of Insufficient Progress.--If the 
     Secretary makes the determinations described in subsection 
     (a)(2) for a third or subsequent consecutive year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce, by not more than 75 percent, the 
     amount of funds that the State may reserve for the subsequent 
     fiscal year for State administration under the programs 
     authorized by this Act that the Secretary determines are 
     formula grant programs.

     ``SEC. 6203. GRANTS FOR STATE ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) State Grants Authorized.--From amounts appropriated 
     under subsection (c) the Secretary shall award grants to 
     States to enable the States to pay the costs of--
       ``(1) developing assessments and standards required by 
     amendments made to this Act by the Better Education for 
     Students and Teachers Act;
       ``(2) working in voluntary partnerships with other States 
     to develop such assessments and standards; and
       ``(3) other activities described in this part or related to 
     ensuring accountability for results in the State's public 
     elementary schools or secondary schools, and local 
     educational agencies, such as--
       ``(A) developing content and performance standards, and 
     aligned assessments, in subjects other than those assessments 
     that were required by amendments made to section 1111 by the 
     Better Education for Students and Teachers Act; and
       ``(B) administering the assessments required by amendments 
     made to section 1111 by the Better Education for Students and 
     Teachers Act.
       ``(b) Allocations to States.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated to carry 
     out this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary first 
     shall allocate $3,000,000 to each State.
       ``(2) Remainder.--The Secretary shall allocate any 
     remaining funds among the States on the basis of their 
     respective numbers of children enrolled in grades 3 through 8 
     in public elementary schools and secondary schools.
       ``(3) Definition of state.--For the purpose of this 
     subsection, the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the succeeding 6 fiscal 
     years.

     ``SEC. 6204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) National Assessment of Educational Progress.--For the 
     purpose of administering the State assessments under the 
     National Assessment of Educational Progress, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $110,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6 
     succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(b) Education Awards.--For the purpose of carrying out 
     section 6201, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.''.
       On page 458, strike lines 10 through 12, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(C)(i) who was not born in the United States or whose 
     native language is a language other than English, and who 
     comes from an environment where a language other than English 
     is dominant;
       On page 486, strike lines 10 and 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) parts A, C, E (other than section 3405), and F shall 
     not be in effect; and''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 588

(Purpose: To amend the local educational plan under section 1112(c) of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding models of 
                  high quality, effective curriculum)

       On page 74, strike line 24, and insert the following:

     ``parents and teachers; and
       ``(14) make available to each school served by the agency 
     and assisted under this part models of high quality, 
     effective curriculum that are aligned with the State's 
     standards and developed or identified by the State.''; and
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 589

   (Purpose: To improve section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 regarding assessment and local educational agency 
                        and school improvement)

       On page 83, line 25, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and 
     insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
       On page 84, line 4, insert ``, principals, teachers, and 
     other staff in an instructionally useful manner'' after 
     ``schools''.
       On page 84, line 25, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and 
     insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
       On page 88, line 6, strike ``meet'' and insert ``make 
     continuous and significant progress towards meeting the goal 
     of all students reaching''.
       On page 90, line 5, insert ``(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)'' after ``problems''.
       On page 91, line 15, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and 
     insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
       On page 92, line 13, insert ``and giving priority to the 
     lowest achieving students'' after ``basis''.
       On page 95, line 9, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and 
     insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
       On page 95, beginning with line 13, strike all through page 
     96, line 6, and insert the following:
       ``(i)(I) provide all students enrolled in the school with 
     the option to transfer to another public school within the 
     local educational agency, including a public charter school, 
     that has not been identified for school improvement under 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(II) if all public schools in the local educational 
     agency to which children may transfer are identified under 
     paragraph (1) or this paragraph, the agency shall, to the 
     extent practicable, establish a cooperative agreement with 
     other local educational agencies in the area for the transfer 
     of as many of those children as possible, selected by the 
     agency on an equitable basis;
       ``(ii) make supplemental educational services available, in 
     accordance with subsection (f), to children who remain in the 
     school;
       On page 96, line 7, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
       On page 96, line 21, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(iv)''.
       On page 96, strike line 23 and all that follows through 
     page 97, line 23.
       On page 97, line 24, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       On page 98, line 7, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(E)''.
       On page 98, line 16, strike ``and fails'' and all that 
     follows through ``this paragraph'' on page 98, line 20.
       On page 98, line 25, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 99, line 6, insert ``(i)'' after ``(B)''.
       On page 99, line 12, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(I)''.
       On page 99, line 14, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(II)''.
       On page 99, line 16, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(III)''.
       On page 99, line 19, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(IV)''.
       On page 99, line 21, strike ``(v)'' and insert ``(V)''.
       On page 99, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       ``(ii) A rural local agency, as described in section 
     5231(b), may apply to the Secretary for a waiver of the 
     requirements of this subparagraph if the agency submits to 
     the Secretary an alternative plan for making significant 
     changes to improve student performance in the school, such as 
     providing an academically focused after school program for 
     all students, changing school administration, or implementing 
     a research based, proven effective, whole school reform 
     program. The Secretary shall approve or reject an application 
     for a waiver under this subparagraph not later than 30 days 
     after the submission of information required by the Secretary 
     to apply for the waiver. If the Secretary fails to make a 
     determination with respect to the waiver application within 
     such 30 days, the application shall be considered approved by 
     the Secretary.
       On page 100, line 6, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 100, line 23, strike ``(A)''.
       On page 101, strike lines 5 though 20.
       On page 102, lines 15 and 16, strike ``(7)(C) and subject 
     to paragraph (7)(D)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 102, line 21, strike ``, and that'' 
     and all that follows through ``1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II),'' on 
     page 102, line 25.
       On page 103, line 1, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 103, line 7, strike ``, and that'' and all that 
     follows through ``disadvantaged students,'' on page 103, line 
     10.
       On page 103, line 20, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 104, line 22, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and 
     insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
       On page 105, line 13, strike ``section 1111(b)(2)(B)'' and 
     insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and (D)''.
       On page 105, lines 20 and 21, strike ``section 
     1111(b)(2)(B)'' and insert ``sections 1111(b)(2) (B) and 
     (D)''.
       On page 106, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       ``(C) Not later than 30 days after a State educational 
     agency makes an initial determination under subparagraph (A), 
     the State educational agency shall make public a final 
     determination regarding the improvement status of the local 
     educational agency.
       On page 106, lines 22 and 23, strike ``meet proficient 
     levels'' and insert ``make continuous and significant 
     progress towards meeting the goal of all students reaching 
     the proficient level''.
       On page 109, line 15, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
       On page 112, line 16, strike ``(A)''.
       On page 112, line 19, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 112, strike line 23 and all that follows through 
     page 113, line 2.
       On page 113, line 14, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 115, line 14, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       At the appropriate place insert:
       The current section 1501, U.S. Code, is deleted and 
     replaced with the following:

[[Page S6284]]

     SEC. 1501. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF TITLE I

       (a) National Assessment.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     national assessment of the impact of the policies enacted 
     into law under title I of the Better Education for Students 
     and Teachers Act on States, local educational agencies, 
     schools, and students.
       (1) Such assessment shall be planned, reviewed, and 
     conducted in consultation with an independent panel of 
     researchers, State practitioners, local practitioners, and 
     other appropriate individuals.
       (2) The assessment shall examine, at a minimum, how 
     schools, local educational agencies, and States have--
       (A) made progress towards the goal of all students reaching 
     the proficient level in at least reading and math based on a 
     State's content and performance standards and the State 
     assessments required under section 1111 and on the National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress;
       (B) implemented scientifically-based reading instruction;
       (C) implemented the requirements for the development of 
     assessments for students in grades 3-8 and administered such 
     assessments, including the time and cost required for their 
     development and how well they meet the requirements for 
     assessments described in this title;
       (D) defined adequate yearly progress and what has been the 
     impact of applying this standard for adequacy to schools, 
     local educational agencies, and the State in terms of the 
     numbers not meeting the standard and the year to year changes 
     in such identification for individual schools and local 
     educational agencies;
       (E) publicized and disseminated the local educational 
     agencies report cards to teachers, school staff, students, 
     and the community;
       (F) implemented the school improvement requirements 
     described in section 1116, including--
       (i) the number of schools identified for school improvement 
     and how many years schools remain in this status;
       (ii) the types of support provided by the State and local 
     educational agencies to schools and local educational 
     agencies identified as in need of improvement and the impact 
     of such support on student achievement;
       (iii) the number of parents who take advantage of the 
     public school choice provisions of this title, the costs 
     associated with implementing these provisions, and the impact 
     of attending another school on student achievement;
       (iv) the number of parents who choose to take advantage of 
     the supplemental services option, the criteria used by the 
     States to determine the quality of providers, the kinds of 
     services that are available and utilized, the costs 
     associated with implementing this option, and the impact of 
     receiving supplemental services on student achievement; and
       (v) the kinds of actions that are taken with regards to 
     schools and local educational agencies identified for 
     reconstitution.
       (G) used funds under this title to improve student 
     achievement, including how schools have provided either 
     schoolwide improvement or targeted assistance and provided 
     professional development to school personnel;
       (H) used funds made available under this title to provide 
     preschool and family literacy services and the impact of 
     these services on students' school readiness;
       (I) afforded parents meaningful opportunities to be 
     involved in the education of their children at school and at 
     home;
       (J) distributed resources, including the state reservation 
     of funds for school improvement, to target local educational 
     agencies and schools with the greatest need;
       (K) used State and local educational agency funds and 
     resources to support schools and provide technical assistance 
     to turn around failing schools; and,
       (L) used State and local educational agency funds and 
     resources to help schools with 50 percent or more students 
     living in families below the poverty line meet the 
     requirement of having all teachers fully qualified in four 
     years.
       (b) Student Achievement.--As part of the national 
     assessment, the Secretary shall evaluate the effectiveness of 
     the programs and services carried out under this title, 
     especially Part A, in improving student achievement. Such 
     evaluation shall--
       (1) provide information on what types of programs and 
     services are most likely to help students reach the States' 
     performance standards for proficient and advanced;
       (2) examine the effectiveness of comprehensive school 
     reform and improvement strategies for raising student 
     achievement;
       (3) to the extent possible, have a longitudinal design that 
     tracks a representative sample of students over time; and
       (4) to the extent possible, report on the achievement of 
     the groups of students described in section 
     1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(II).
       (c) Developmentally Appropriate Measures.--In conducting 
     the national assessment, the Secretary shall use 
     developmentally appropriate measures to assess student 
     performance.
       (d) Studies and Data Collection.--The Secretary may conduct 
     studies and evaluations and collect such data as is necessary 
     to carry out this section either directly or through grants 
     and contracts to--
       (1) assess the implementation and effectiveness of programs 
     under this title;
       (2) collect the data necessary to comply with the 
     Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
       (e) Reporting.--The Secretary shall provide to the relevant 
     committees of the Senate and House--
       (1) by December 30, 2004, an interim report on the progress 
     and any interim results of the national assessment of title 
     I; and
       (2) by December 30, 2007, a final report of the results of 
     the assessment.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 590

    (Purpose: To amend the uses of funds under the Local Innovative 
                          Education Programs)

       On page 683, strike lines 12 and 13, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(H) programs to improve the literacy skills of adults, 
     especially the parents of children served by the local 
     educational agency, including adult education and family 
     literacy programs;
       On page 684, line 6, strike ``and''.
       On page 684, line 7, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       On page 684, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       ``(O) programs that employ research-based cognitive and 
     perceptual development approaches and rely on a diagnostic-
     prescriptive model to improve students' learning of academic 
     content at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels; 
     and
       ``(P) supplemental educational services as defined in 
     section 1116(f)(6).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 591

    (Purpose: To amend section 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary 
  Education Act of 1965 regarding professional development activities)

       On page 130, strike line 2, and insert the following:
     quality of professional development; and
       ``(J) provide assistance to teachers for the purpose of 
     meeting certification, licensing, or other requirements 
     needed to become highly qualified as defined in section 
     2102(4).'';
       On page 130, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and 
     ''.
       On page 130, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Requirement.--Each local educational agency that 
     receives funds under this part and serves a school in which 
     50 percent or more of the children are from low income 
     families shall use not less than 5 percent of the funds for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 and fiscal year 2003, and not less 
     than 10 percent of the funds for each subsequent fiscal year, 
     for professional development activities to ensure that 
     teachers who are not highly qualified become highly qualified 
     within 4 years.''.
       On page 127, line 23, insert ``(1)'' after ``(b)''.
       On page 127, line 24, strike ``in paragraph (1),''.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 592, as modified

        (Purpose: To provide a manager's package of amendments)

       On page 29, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 16. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require, 
     authorize, or permit, the Secretary, or a State, local 
     educational agency, or school to grant to a student, or deny 
     or impose upon a student, any financial or educational 
     benefit or burden, in violation of the fifth or 14th 
     amendments to the Constitution or other law relating to 
     discrimination in the provision of federally funded programs 
     or activities.''.
       On page 36, lines 21 and 22, strike ``served under this 
     part''.
       On page 36, strike line 24 and all that follows through 
     page 37, line 2, and insert the following:

     guage arts, history, and science, except that--
       ``(i) any State which does not have standards in 
     mathematics or reading or language arts, for public 
     elementary school and secondary school children who are not 
     served under this part, on the date of enactment of the 
     Better Education for Students and Teachers Act shall apply 
     the standards described in subparagraph (A) to such students 
     not later than the beginning of the school year 2002-2003; 
     and
       ``(ii) no State shall be required to meet the requirements 
     under this part
       On page 37, line 18, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       On page 37, line 23, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       On page 37, strike line 24 and all that follows through 
     page 38, line 4.
       On page 38, line 19, strike ``subparagraph (B)'' and insert 
     ``subparagraphs (B) and (D)''.
       On page 41, strike lines 6 through 8 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(vii) includes school completion or graduation rates for 
     secondary school students and at least 1 other academic 
     indicator, as determined by the State, for elementary school 
     students, except that
       On page 41, line 13, strike ``discretionary''.
       On page 44, lines 13 and 14, strike ``curriculum''.
       On page 45, line 2, strike ``curriculum''.
       On page 46, strike line 20 and all that follows through 
     page 47, line 2.
       On page 47, line 3, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       On page 47, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       ``(E)(i) beginning not later than school year 2001-2002, 
     measure the proficiency of

[[Page S6285]]

     students served under this part in mathematics and reading or 
     language arts and be administered not less than one time 
     during--
       ``(I) grades 3 through 5;
       ``(II) grades 6 through 9; and
       ``(III) grades 10 through 12;
       ``(ii) beginning not later than school year 2002-2003, 
     measure the proficiency of all students in mathematics and 
     reading or language arts and be administered not less than 
     one time during--
       ``(I) grades 3 through 5;
       ``(II) grades 6 through 9; and
       ``(III) grades 10 through 12;
       ``(iii) beginning not later than school year 2007-2008, 
     measure the proficiency of all students in science and be 
     administered not less than one time during--
       ``(I) grades 3 through 5;
       ``(II) grades 6 through 9; and
       ``(III) grades 10 through 12;
       On page 47, line 8, strike ``annual''.
       On page 47, line 10, insert ``annually'' after 
     ``standards''.
       On page 47, line 11, insert ``, and at least once in grades 
     10 through 12,'' after ``8''.
       On page 47, line 12, insert ``if the tests are aligned with 
     State standards,'' after ``arts,''.
       On page 48, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       ``(G) at the discretion of the State, measure the 
     proficiency of students in academic subjects not described in 
     subparagraphs (E) and (F) in which the State has adopted 
     challenging content and student performance standards;
       On page 48, line 15, strike ``(G)'' and insert ``(H)''.
       On page 49, strike line 7 and all that follows through page 
     50, line 7, and insert the following:
       ``(iv) notwithstanding clause (iii), the assessment (using 
     tests written in English) of reading or language arts of any 
     student who has attended school in the United States 
     (excluding the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) for 3 or more 
     consecutive years, except that if a local educational agency 
     demonstrates to the State educational agency that assessments 
     in another language and form is likely to yield more accurate 
     and reliable information on what such a student knows and can 
     do, then the State educational agency, on a case-by-case 
     basis, may waive the requirement to use tests written in 
     English for those students and permit those students to be 
     assessed in the appropriate language for one or more 
     additional years, but only if the total number of students so 
     assessed does not exceed one-third of the number of students 
     in the State who were not required to be assessed using tests 
     written in English in the previous year because the students 
     were in the third year of the 3-year period described in this 
     clause;
       ``(I) beginning not later than school year 2002-2003, 
     provide for the annual assessment of the development of 
     English proficiency (appropriate to students' oral language, 
     reading, and writing skills in English) of students with 
     limited English proficiency who are served under this part or 
     under title III and who do not participate in the assessment 
     described in clause (iv) of subparagraph (H);
       On page 50, line 8, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(J)''.
       On page 50, line 17, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(K)''.
       On page 50, lines 19 and 20, strike ``scores, or'' and 
     insert ``performance on assessments aligned with State 
     standards, and''.
       On page 51, line 1, strike ``(J)'' and insert ``(L)''.
       On page 51, line 20, insert ``, but such measures shall not 
     be the primary or sole indicator of student progress toward 
     meeting State standards'' after ``measures''.
       On page 51, line 21, insert ``Consistent with section 
     1112(b)(1)(D),'' before ``States''.
       On page 52, strike lines 21 and 22 and insert the 
     following:

     is applicable to such agency or school;
       ``(B) the specific steps the State educational agency will 
     take to ensure that both schoolwide programs and targeted 
     assistance schools provide instruction by highly qualified 
     instructional staff as required by sections 1114(b)(1)(C) and 
     1115(c)(1)(F), including steps that the State educational 
     agency will take to ensure that poor and minority children 
     are not taught at higher rates than other children by 
     inexperienced, unqualified, or out of field teachers, and the 
     measures that the State educational agency will use to 
     evaluate and publicly report the progress of the State 
     educational agency with respect to such steps;
       ``(C) how the State educational agency will develop or 
     identify high quality effective curriculum models aligned 
     with State standards and how the State educational agency 
     will disseminate such models to each local educational agency 
     and school within the State; and
       ``(D) such other factors the State deems
       On page 53, line 12, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(j)''.
       On page 59, lines 16 and 17, strike ``performance 
     standards,'' and insert ``performance standards, a set of 
     high quality annual student assessments aligned to the 
     standards,''.
       On page 59, line 19, insert ``and take such other steps as 
     are needed to assist the State in coming into compliance with 
     this section'' after ``1117''.
       On page 68, line 24, strike ``paraprofessionals'' and 
     insert ``a paraprofessional''.
       On page 69, line 18, insert ``, the setting of State 
     performance standards, the development of measures of 
     adequate yearly progress that are valid and reliable,'' 
     before ``and other''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 593

       On page 202, delete line 1 through line 4, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--From funds reserved under section 1225, 
     the Secretary shall contract with an independent outside 
     organization for a 5-year, rigorous, scientifically valid, 
     quantitative evaluation of this subpart.
       ``(b) Process.--Such evaluation shall be conducted by an 
     organization outside of the Department that is capable of 
     designing and carrying out an independent evaluation that 
     identifies the effects of specific activities carried out by 
     States and local educational agencies under this subpart on 
     improving reading instruction. Such evaluation shall use only 
     data relating to students served under this subpart and shall 
     take into account factors influencing student performance 
     that are not controlled by teachers or education 
     administrators.
       ``(c) Analysis.--Such evaluation shall include the 
     following:
       ``(1) An analysis of the relationship between each of the 
     essential components of reading instruction and overall 
     reading proficiency.
       ``(2) An analysis of whether assessment tools used by 
     States and local educational agencies measure the essential 
     components of reading instruction.
       ``(3) An analysis of how State reading standards correlate 
     with the essential components of reading instruction.
       ``(4) An analysis of whether the receipt of a discretionary 
     grant under this subpart results in an increase in the number 
     of children who read proficiently.
       ``(5) A measurement of the extent to which specific 
     instructional materials improve reading proficiency.
       ``(6) A measurement of the extent to which specific 
     rigorous diagnostic reading and screening assessment tools 
     assist teachers in identifying specific reading deficiencies.
       ``(7) A measurement of the extent to which professional 
     development programs implemented by States using funds 
     received under this subpart improve reading instruction.
       ``(8) A measurement of how well students preparing to enter 
     the teaching profession are prepared to teach the essential 
     components of reading instruction.
       ``(9) An analysis of changes in students' interest in 
     reading and time spent reading outside of school.
       ``(10) Any other analysis or measurement pertinent to this 
     subpart that is determined to be appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Program Improvement.--The findings of the evaluation 
     conducted under this section shall be provided to States and 
     local educational agencies on a periodic basis for use in 
     program improvement.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 595

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

     SEC.   . MAINTAINING FUNDING FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       Section 611 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act is amended to add the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Continuation of Authorization.--For fiscal year 2012 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purpose of 
     carrying out his part, other than section 619.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 512

       (Purpose: To authorize programs of national significance)

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001, 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')


                     amendment no. 435, as modified

  (Purpose: To support the use of education technology to enhance and 
facilitate meaningful parental involvement to improve student learning)

       On page 369, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     and redesignate the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
       ``(2) outlines the strategies for increasing parental 
     involvement in schools through the effective use of 
     technology;''.
       On page 370, line 24, strike ``and''.
       On page 370, line 26, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       On page 371, line 1, insert the following:
       ``(b) Allowable Uses of Funds.--
       ``Each local educational agency, may use the funds made 
     available under section 2304(a)(3) for--
       ``(1) utilizing technology to develop or expand efforts to 
     connect schools and teachers and parents to promote 
     meaningful parental involvement and foster increased 
     communication about curriculum, assignments, and assessments; 
     and
       ``(2) providing support to help parents understand the 
     technology being applied in their child's education so that 
     parents are able to reinforce their child's learning.''.
       On page 371, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following 
     and redesignate the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
       ``(3) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will ensure the effective use of technology to promote 
     parental involvement and increase communication with parents;
       ``(4) a description of how parents will be informed of the 
     use of technologies so that the parents are able to reinforce 
     at home the instruction their child receives at school;''.
       On page 374, line 24, strike ``and''
       On page 378, line 24, strike ``and''.

[[Page S6286]]

       On page 379, line 1, insert the following and redesignate 
     the remaining subparagraph accordingly:
       ``(F) increased parental involvement in schools through the 
     use of technology: and''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 386

         (Purpose: To provide resource officers in our schools)

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

     SEC. __. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROJECTS.

       (a) COPS Program.--Section 1701(d) of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7) by inserting ``school officials,'' 
     after ``enforcement officers''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:

     ``(8) establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by using 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools to serve as a law enforcement liaison 
     with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and 
     regulatory agencies, combat school-related crime and disorder 
     problems, gang membership and criminal activity, firearms and 
     explosives-related incidents, illegal use and possession of 
     alcohol, and the illegal possession, use, and distribution of 
     drugs;''.
       (b) School Resource Officer.--Section 1709(4) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796dd-8) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
     ``(A) to serve as a law enforcement liaison with other 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement and regulatory 
     agencies, to address and document crime and disorder problems 
     including gangs and drug activities, firearms and explosives-
     related incidents, and the illegal use and possession of 
     alcohol affecting or occurring in or around an elementary or 
     secondary school;
       (2) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
     ``(E) to train students in conflict resolution, restorative 
     justice, and crime awareness, and to provide assistance to 
     and coordinate with other officers, mental health 
     professionals, and youth counselors who are responsible for 
     the implementation of prevention/intervention programs within 
     the schools;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) to work with school administrators, members of the 
     local parent teacher associations, community organizers, law 
     enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical 
     personnel in the creation, review, and implementation of a 
     school violence prevention plan;
       ``(I) to assist in documenting the full description of all 
     firearms found or taken into custody on school property and 
     to initiate a firearms trace and ballistics examination for 
     each firearm with the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, and Firearms;
       ``(J) to document the full description of all explosives or 
     explosive devices found or taken into custody on school 
     property and report to the local office of the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and
       ``(K) to assist school administrators with the preparation 
     of the Department of Education, Annual Report on State 
     Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act which tracks the 
     number of students expelled per year for bringing a weapon, 
     firearm, or explosive to school.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11) 
     of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(C) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     school resource officer activities under sections 1701(d)(8) 
     and 1709(4), to remain available until expended $180,000,000 
     for each of fiscal year 2002 through 2007.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 424

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 14, 2001, 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')


                 amendment no. 516, as further modified

 (Purpose: 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)

  (The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                           amendment no. 804

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cochran 
amendment to the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. 
Specifically, I would like to speak to two elements of this amendment 
that are of particular importance to me and my State of Iowa.
  I would first like to speak to a portion of this amendment that 
address an often overlooked segment of our student population, gifted 
and talented children. There are approximately three million children 
in the United Sates who are considered gifted and talented. It is 
important to point out that these gifted and talented children do not 
simply possess an extraordinary level of intelligence, but they 
actually have a unique way of thinking and learning. Gifted and 
talented children look at the world differently and often have a 
different way of interacting socially. As a result, gifted and talented 
students have different educational needs from other students.
  These remarkable children have enormous potential. Today's gifted and 
talented child may grow up to become a leader in the field of science 
or a world-renowned performer. However, this will not happen 
automatically. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged and 
their unique skills must be nurtured. Currently, many gifted and 
talented children do not receive the educational programs and services 
they need to live up to their potential. In fact, many gifted and 
talented children lose interest in school; they learn how to expend 
minimum effort for top grades, have low motivation, and develop poor 
work habits. Others abandon their education altogether and drop out of 
school. This is a tragedy not only for the students, but also for our 
society.
  Much of the Federal role in education is focused on helping Stats to 
meet the needs of disadvantage students and students with special 
learning needs. Currently, the availability and quality of gifted and 
talented educational services varies widely from State to State. This 
situation adversely affects all gifted and talented students, but 
especially disadvantaged students. In areas without adequate public 
school services for gifted and talented students, more well-off parents 
can afford to place their children in a private school that offers 
gifted and talented programs or pay for private supplemental equational 
services like tutors and summer camps. Meanwhile, disadvantaged 
talented and gifted students remain in public school settings that 
cannot meet their unique educational needs without federal assistance.
  My gifted and talented initiative, which is contained in the Cochran 
amendment, will help to ensure that ALL gifted and talented students 
have the opportunity to achieve their highest potential by providing 
grants, based on State's student population, to State education 
agencies. These grants will be used to identify and provide educational 
services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and 
racial backgrounds--including students with limited English proficiency 
and students with disabilities. My proposal outlines four broad 
spending areas but leaves decisions on how best to serve these students 
to states and local school districts.
  The legislation ensures that the Federal money benefits students by 
requiring the State education agency to distribute not less than 88 
percent of the funds to schools and that the funds must supplement, not 
supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, rather than simply 
accepting Federal funds, States must make their own commitment to these 
students by matching 20 percent of the Federal funds. The matching 
requirements will help ensure that programs and services for gifted 
education develop a strong foothold in the States.
  The Cochran amendment also reauthorizes the Javits Gifted and 
Talented Students Education Program. The Javits Program is a research 
program that funds a national research center and provides grants to a 
wide range of public and private entities in order to build a 
nationwide capability to meet the special educational needs of gifted 
and talented students. The research results from the Javits Program 
provide invaluable tools to help schools and teachers learn how to 
identify gifted and talented students and improve gifted and talented 
programs. I would like to emphasize that, because of the nature of this 
program, a continued Federal commitment is required. It simply wouldn't 
be practical or prudent to ask each State to conduct its own research 
into gifted and talented education. And yet, the research fostered by 
this program remains essential in ensuring that teachers have the best 
possible information about how to help gifted and talented students 
reach their full potential.
  I am pleased that my own State of Iowa is one of the leaders in 
gifted education. Indeed, I have learned of many

[[Page S6287]]

remarkable young people and dedicated education professionals through 
the advocacy efforts of the Iowa Talented and Gifted Association. I 
have come to believe, strongly, that Congress must support initiatives 
designed to identify and serve the special learning needs of gifted and 
talented children.
  Our Nation's gifted and talented students are among our great 
untapped resources. However, our help is needed to ensure that States 
and local school districts are able to address the unique educational 
needs of gifted and talented students. In the spirit of the President's 
challenge to leave no child behind, I would urge my colleagues to 
remember America's gifted and talented children.
  I would also like to express my support for another portion of this 
amendment that addresses an important educational need in our country. 
The Cochran amendment reauthorizes provisions for the National Writing 
Project. The National Writing Project is a nationally recognized 
nonprofit organization that works to improve student writing 
achievement by improving the teaching and learning of writing in the 
Nation's schools. Each summer, successful writing teachers at 167 local 
sites in 49 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia attend 
annual summer institutes through the National Writing Project. At these 
summer institutes, teachers examine their classroom practices, conduct 
research, and develop their own writing skills. After completion of one 
of these summer institutes, the participating teachers return home and 
provide professional development workshops for other teachers in their 
home schools and communities. These follow-up activities are conducted 
throughout the entire academic year in order to maintain and encourage 
continued use of writing skills. As a result, the National Writing 
Project is able to reach far more teachers than would be possible 
through directly administered professional development activities and 
teachers are able to reap the benefits the whole year long.

  I proud to say that the National Writing Project has a long and 
successful history in Iowa. The Iowa Writing Project was initiated in 
1978 and was among the first in the Nation. Since its inception, over 
8,000 teachers have taken part in the annual summer institutes. And, 
this group of teachers has served as the means of administering and 
conducting workshops and in-service training programs for many more 
thousands of Iowa teachers. In fact, upon returning home from attending 
one of those summer institutes, Iowa Writing Project participants can 
in turn impact as many as fifty percent or more of their fellow 
educators in their community. Thus, the relatively small number of 
teachers who participate in the Iowa Writing Project summer institutes 
can provide professional development opportunities in writing for 
entire communities.
  The success of the National Writing Project has resulted in 
substantial support in the areas where it has been implemented. In 
fact, for every dollar of Federal funding, writing project sites 
generate more than six dollars in support from States, host sites, and 
other public and private sources. Yet, while the National Writing 
Project has a regional focus and widespread local support, the 167 
local sites could not operate without the coordination and support 
provided by the national organization. At a time when both institutions 
of higher education and businesses are increasingly discovering that 
Americans do not have the writing skills they need to be successful, it 
is essential that we support proven writing programs, like the National 
Writing Project.
  The two portions of this amendment which I have addressed are 
examples of areas where there are clear educational needs that cannot 
be met by states alone and where our existing efforts have proven 
successful. I support the general goals of the B.E.S.T. bill, including 
consolidating or eliminating programs that are not working or that 
interfere with decisions that are more properly made at the State or 
local level. However, where our efforts have been shown to be 
successful and needed, our support should be maintained. Therefore, I 
would urge my colleagues to support the Cochran amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleague from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for including my legislation 
reauthorizing the smaller learning communities program in his amendment 
related to national activities. I am also grateful to my colleagues for 
supporting this amendment. My legislation ensures that the currently 
authorized and funded smaller learning communities program, which I 
sponsored during the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, continues. This program provides funds to 
school districts to assist in the creation of smaller learning 
communities or ``schools within schools.'' This is an extremely 
important program that we know works to improve student achievement and 
make our schools safer.
  In the past 40 years, schools--especially high schools--have been 
getting bigger and bigger. In today's urban and suburban settings, high 
school enrollment of 2,000 and 3,000 are commonplace; in some places 
like New York City school enrollments near 5,000. Research demonstrates 
that students in schools of this size do not perform as well as 
students in smaller schools and large schools are less safe.
  Research also has shown that small schools and large schools broken 
down into smaller learning communities are superior to large schools on 
virtually every measure of educational success. Student achievement is 
higher in small school environments. Students in these schools tend to 
have higher grades, test scores, and honor roll membership, even when 
other variables such as teacher quality or community characteristics 
are considered. Furthermore, students from small school environments 
are more likely to finish high school. They also are more likely to be 
admitted to college, do well once they are there and complete their 
studies. These results are even more pronounced for minority and low-
income students. Because teachers have fewer students in smaller 
schools they can know their students better, minority and low-income 
students are less likely to be overlooked. As a result, the creation of 
smaller learning communities can be an effective way to address the 
achievement gap between poor students and their more affluent peers.
  Smaller learning environments also address non-academic learning 
because they provide an environment where students can learn how to 
participate actively in their school community. Student attitudes are 
overwhelmingly more positive in small schools. Students are far more 
likely to be involved in extracurricular activities than students in 
large schools. In order to have a sufficient number of players on the 
team or members of the club, all students must participate in small 
schools. In contrast, in large schools many students do not have a 
chance to participate in these important school experiences unless they 
display some special talent. Research has demonstrated that 
participating in extracurricular activities contributes significantly 
to student learning and makes it less likely that the student will drop 
out of school or have poor attendance.
  Smaller learning communities also result in safer schools. Large 
school environments tend to promote feelings of isolation and 
alienation. In contrast, smaller learning communities promote a sense 
of belonging and community. Since there is an undisputed relationship 
between students' feelings of alienation and school violence, the 
creation of smaller learning communities is a very effective strategy 
for preventing the occurrence of acts of school violence that have 
become tragically commonplace in schools across the country in recent 
years. In smaller learning environments, problems in interpersonal 
relationships or other difficulties can be addressed before they lead 
to violence. Because teachers can get to know all students on a 
personal level, smaller learning communities go a long way towards 
ensuring that all students feel they belong and that they are safe. 
This makes the creation of smaller learning communities an important 
method of preventing school violence.

  Smaller learning communities also help to decrease teacher attrition 
and therefore improve the quality of instruction. Teachers working in 
smaller learning environments often feel that they have more 
opportunity to teach instead of dealing with paperwork and discipline 
problems that are more common in larger school environments.

[[Page S6288]]

Under such circumstances, teacher morale is improved making good 
teachers less likely to ``burn out.''
  I have been advocating for small schools and the creation of smaller 
learning communities for a number of years. The smaller learning 
community program was first authorized in 1994. The program was funded 
in FY 2000. Last year, a total of 354 schools serving over 400,000 high 
school students in 39 States were awarded grants to plan, develop and 
implement strategies that would personalize the learning environment 
for students.
  The legislation allows for local decisionmaking with respect to how 
to build smaller learning communities. Some of the most common 
strategies include: (1) creating career academies that offer students 
academic programs organized around a broad career theme, often building 
on team teaching methods; (2) implementing mentoring systems in which 
teachers, counselors, and other school staff advise students on a 
personal level; and (3) creating schools within schools so that smaller 
groups of students take all or most of their classes together--often 
from the same team of teachers and/or administrators and often 
operating in distinct areas of the school facility. All of these 
strategies are designed to create a more individualized learning 
environment.
  In my home State of New Mexico, the Albuquerque School District 
received a substantial grant under this program last year, which will 
allow them to create smaller learning communities in six of their high 
schools and hopefully with additional funding through this program they 
will be able to do so in all of the city's high schools. I was able to 
visit one of these schools recently and see the good work being done 
with some of the funding from this program. I visited Cibola High 
School, where they have created a school-within-a-school for ninth 
graders with their small schools grant. Taking into account evidence of 
a high drop out rate at ninth grade, the faculty at Cibola decided to 
move all of the ninth graders into one corridor and divide them into 
five teams. Each team of teachers meets together two to three times a 
week to discuss instructional strategies and any concerns about 
students on their team. The grant allowed them to hire four more 
teachers reducing pupil/teacher ratios. They also created two lunch 
periods within the school so that the ninth graders have their own 
lunch. Preliminary data indicates that the work at Cibola has been 
quite successful. The drop out rate declined from 9 percent to a little 
over 1 percent. Eighty-six percent of the ninth graders earned all of 
their credits last year and moved on to the tenth grade. Students, 
teachers and parents continually comment on how the new arrangements 
has helped students to be successful. The schools reports that students 
feel safer and less worried about the transition to high school. 
Teachers comment that they enjoy teaching more since there are fewer 
discipline problems and they have more opportunity to work with 
students one-to-one. I have a letter from Linda Sink, the principal at 
Cibola High School, summarizing the success at the school.

  I also note that teachers and administrators in schools in Las Lunas, 
NM were also delighted to receive a smaller learning communities grant 
last year. They are confident that the career academy, which will open 
in August 2001, funded through this grant will do much to improve the 
educational experience of their students. This academy will offer core 
academic content within the context of career programs in pre-
engineering, electronics, culinary arts, criminal justice, education 
and health services.
  No doubt small schools in themselves are insufficient to address all 
of the problems that are facing our nation's educational system. But 
the strategy of reorganizing our large schools into smaller learning 
communities is a proven method of reform which attacks many if not most 
of the challenges facing schools today. Throughout the history of 
education parents of means have sent their children to small schools 
because they have known that in smaller schools their children will 
have the opportunity to connect with adults who care about them and can 
give consideration to their learning needs. With your support, small 
schools can continue to be created in order to provide children with 
learning environments that help all children succeed.


                           amendment no. 386

  Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hollings, Bingaman, 
Landrieu, Cleland, and Johnson be added as original cosponsors to my 
amendment.
  This amendment is fairly simple, and I hope all of my colleagues can 
support it.
  It would extend the Justice Department's school resource officer 
program for 6 years. It authorizes $180 million per year through 2007 
for the wildly successful COPS in Schools Program. This is the same 
amount appropriated for the program in each of the last 2 years, the 
same amount requested by the administration in its Budget, and it's 
enough money to hire 1,500 resource officers per year.
  This is a great program. Police departments and schools get together 
and they file their application jointly, based on the community's 
needs. To date, the Justice Department has funded over 3,800 school 
resource officers. They are 3 year grants, totaling up to $125,000 per 
officer. That's about $40,000 per year, usually enough to fund the 
officer's whole salary.
  Why offer this amendment now. Well, the bill before us is designed to 
improve our schools, but without my amendment it does not include 
dedicated funds to hire school resource officers. And authority for 
COPS in Schools, one of the most successful school safety programs out 
there, expired last year.
  My amendment has been endorsed by the National Association of School 
Resource Officers, by the National School Safety Center, by the Center 
for the Prevention of School Violence, by the National Education 
Association, and by the Fraternal Order of Police.
  Why do school safety experts, line officers, the resource officers 
themselves, and the heads of police departments across the country, and 
educators support this amendment. Because they know COPS in Schools 
works. They know school resource officers can help quiet troubled 
schools halls, can quickly stop a violent incident, and can mentor 
students.
  What are school resource officers. These are specially-trained police 
officers, men and women who work in and around elementary schools, 
middle schools, and high schools. They work with teachers, parents, and 
kids to identify and combat school-related crime and disorder problems. 
They get to know the students. They are their counselors and their role 
models, and, when necessary, they enforce the law.
  D.A.R.E. police officers would be eligible to receive funding under 
this amendment, just as they are under the current COPS in Schools 
program.
  I recently sat down with all of the school resource officers in 
Delaware. My State has embraced the concept, today, 16 members of the 
Delaware State Police serve as school resource officers. So do two 
members of the Wilmington Police Department, and one Newark police 
officer.
  And about 1 year ago, I held a field hearing on school safety at the 
William Penn High School in Delaware. One of the witnesses was Delaware 
State Police Corporal Jeff Giles. Jeff told me low successful he has 
been as a school resource officer, how the kids feel safer, the school 
is more secure, and parents and teachers are put at ease.
  This program works, COPS in Schools is a success. Let me tell you a 
story: When a high school in my State, Lake Forest High School, tried 
to phase out its school resource officer because of a lack of funds, 
the kids walked out. They walked out of school to protest Corporal Gary 
Fournier's, dismissal! The kids would not let their school resource 
officer go, they liked having him around so much. We found some funds 
that let the school keep Corporal Fournier on, but it should never have 
come to that.
  Now, I was pleased the appropriators saw fit to include $180 million 
for COPS in Schools last year. And it looks like the Administration 
wants to continue the program at the same level this year. But year-to-
year appropriations are no substitute for a multi-year authorization.
  Schools need to have assurances this is a program that's here to 
stay. City

[[Page S6289]]

councils and other local governing bodies need to be able to pass their 
budgets knowing the Federal Government is there to help. Today, as we 
debate this education bill, authority for the whole COPS program has 
expired and with it, the COPS in Schools program's future is unclear.
  That just shouldn't be the case. A lot of these school resource 
officers are heroes, and we shouldn't end the program that helps fund 
them. Take a look at the tragic shooting this past March in Granite 
Hills High School in El Cajon, CA. Local officials there have stated 
that but for the quick response of Rich Agundez, that school's resource 
officer, lives may have been lost. In the weeks following this 
shooting, San Diego school officials decided to station resource 
officers in all of their 180 schools.
  We should help communities like San Diego. We should make sure they 
hear the message, loud and clear, that this Senate agrees with them. 
Let's give school resource officers to every school that wants one. 
Let's give parents a little peace of mind that their kids are safe when 
they get on that school bus and head off to learn. Let's give teachers 
a hand in maintaining order in their classrooms.
  Let's pass my amendment and fund the COPS in Schools program. It 
works. It works, and I challenge any of my colleagues to tell me 
otherwise.


                      Amendment No. 640 Withdrawn

  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent, further, to withdraw amendment numbered 
640.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask consent following final passage, 
until the close of business today, the two managers be permitted to add 
a managers' amendment to the bill, provided that the amendment is 
agreed to by both leaders and both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the Jeffords substitute amendment No. 358 is 
agreed to.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.


                            rural education

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to shift the direction of the 
education debate for a moment. For the past few weeks, we have been 
debating now best to engage the Federal Government in ways to improve 
our K-12 schools. There has been a lot of constructive debate on a 
number of important topics. An amendment that I planned to offer, S.A. 
387, would have addressed another important topic relative to our 
schools: recruitment and retention of teachers in rural areas.
  I have spoken with Senator Kennedy and agreed to withdraw my 
amendment, but I want to speak for a moment about its importance. My 
amendment would have increased the scope of current loan forgiveness 
provisions for teachers, including an expansion of eligibility to those 
teachers who teach in districts identified within the Rural Education 
Achievement Program.
  I offered this amendment because there is a significant need in our 
rural schools for assistance in attracting and keeping good teachers. 
My amendment may have helped that situation.
  I understand that the issue of rural teacher recruitment and 
retention is one that needs further investigation, though, and am 
pleased that Senator Kennedy has agreed to address the needs of rural 
schools in Senate HELP Committee hearings. We need to better understand 
rural needs and find effective ways to provide our rural schools, home 
to roughly 17 percent of students throughout the country, with the 
resources they need to delivery a quality education.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you for bringing this important matter before us 
in the Senate. I agree with you that we should take a closer look at 
the needs of our rural schools, and I look forward to looking at how 
different mechanisms, including teacher loan forgiveness programs, can 
help meet the needs of our rural schools.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator, for giving your attention to this 
issue of great importance to rural schools in my home State of Montana 
and throughout the country


                           amendment no. 505

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, yesterday we passed amendment No. 505 by 
unanimous consent. The amendment relates to BIA schools. The 
legislation was considered by the Indian Affairs Committee and the 
amendment was cosponsored by the distinguished Chair and Ranking Member 
of that Committee. I would like to note for the record that the Navajo 
nation has some concerns regarding some of the provisions in that 
amendment. I understand that Senators Inouye and Campbell are working 
with my office and representatives of the Navajo nation to address 
those concerns. I'd like to ask Senator Inouye if my understanding is 
correct?
  Mr. INOUYE. We are working to address those concerns and hope to be 
able to make any necessary changes to the amendment in conference.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I'd like to thank my distinguished colleagues for their 
efforts. I also ask my Chair, Senator Kennedy, for his assistance 
during the conference to make any necessary amendments to the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would be happy to work with Senator Bingaman on making 
any necessary changes related to this amendment during the conference.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with the passage of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, there has always been broad support 
for the Federal Government to provide assistance and leadership to the 
States and localities, the entities that serve as the primary sources 
for implementing our education system. Over these past 36 years, we 
have had thoughtful debates regarding the Federal role in both 
establishing and overseeing education policy. Through these spirited 
discussions, we have tried to create initiatives that emphasize 
excellence for all students.
  Over the past 3 years, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee has closely examined elementary and secondary education. In 
the 106th Congress, two dozen hearings were held regarding the ESEA 
reauthorization. One of the very first hearings the committee held this 
year featured Secretary Paige and focused on the President's education 
initiative.
  All 20 members of the HELP Committee worked together to draft S. 1 
and unanimously voted the bill out of committee. Following committee 
action, I and several of my colleagues worked with the White House to 
further refine the committee bill that has now passed the Senate.
  S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, begins a 
new chapter that not only sets goals designed to improve student 
performance, but provides a road map for achieving those goals. With 
the leadership of President Bush, and the leadership of many Senators 
from all parties, we have, before us, legislation that better targets 
resources and provides greater accountability at both the State and 
local levels.
  Our goal must be to ensure that every child will obtain the knowledge 
necessary to succeed in our society and in our economy. To ensure 
progress toward this goal, the legislation before us will establish 
accountability measures for every school, school district and State in 
the country, so that the public can see whether or not they are making 
annual academic progress.
  The House and Senate conferees will soon begin their work in putting 
together a final product that will hopefully not set unrealistic goals 
and undermine our overall goal of leaving no child behind. If we are 
not very careful, the result of our efforts might be havoc rather than 
help for our education system and the students it is designed to serve.
  I look forward to continuing to work with all of my colleagues in 
writing a conference report that will provide the foundation for every 
child in this Nation to receive a quality education.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Gregg, and the other members of the committee. I would like to 
join the managers in thanking all of the committee staff for their hard 
work. Particularly, I would like to thank my staff, Sherry Kaiman, 
Susan Hattan, Scott Giles, Jenny Smulson, Andy Hartman, Justin King, 
Carolyn Dupree, Leah Booth, Ann Clough, Sallie Rhodes, and Frances 
Coleman for their efforts. I also want to thank Wayne Riddle and Jim 
Stedman from the Congressional Research Service and Mark

[[Page S6290]]

Koster, Liz King, and Bill Baird from the Office of Legislative Counsel 
for their tremendous contribution in shaping S. 1.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, education is, and should be, among our top 
priorities here in the Senate.
  Parents know that the quality of a child's education can make or 
break that child's future. Businesses understand that they cannot 
compete in this high-tech world without a well trained and well 
educated workforce.
  That is why what we are doing here today, and have done in the past 
few weeks is so important.
  We have had an opportunity to put aside partisan differences to craft 
a federal education policy that will strengthen schools, increase 
accountability, empower parents, and give our teachers and 
administrators the resources they need to give our children the 
education they deserve.
  In many respects, we have been successful. The bill itself takes some 
positive steps toward improving public education in America. It 
provides for annual testing of students and a process for identifying 
and turning around failing schools. It requires that high standards be 
set for all students. It targets federal education resources towards 
the students who need the greatest assistance. It includes a new early 
reading initiative to promote literacy. Ands it contains other 
important provisions to help increase parental involvement in their 
children's education.
  In addition, we were able to make a number of key improvements to the 
underlying bill during the Senate debate. The bill now includes 
language calling for full funding of title I for disadvantaged children 
and full funding of the federal commitment to educate children with 
disabilities. We increased funding for bilingual education and after-
school programs. We provided additional funding to improve and 
modernize resources in school libraries. We passed additional changes 
to make sure that States use high quality tests to gauge the progress 
of students. And we passed an amendment that I was proud to cosponsor 
that will help recruit more teachers.
  I am also pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment to provide 
$180 million to put more school resource officers in our schools. These 
officers are specially trained to prevent school violence and to 
quickly respond to crimes, while serving as mentors and role models and 
providing guidance to students.
  Despite these important steps that we have taken, I must say that I 
am truly disappointed by some missed opportunities.
  We missed an opportunity to make reducing class sizes a priority when 
the Senate voted against Senator Murray's amendment to increase funding 
for the 100,000 teacher initiative and ensure that it is not 
consolidated with other teacher quality programs.
  We missed an opportunity to help our States renovate and build new 
schools when the Senate voted against Senator Harkin's amendment to 
reauthorize a bi-partisan school construction plan.
  But above all else, we missed an opportunity to resolve the issue of 
adequate funding for all the education reforms that this bill requires.
  The truth is, we can stand here and make eloquent speeches about all 
these needed changes in our education system, many of which I 
wholeheartedly support, but without the resources to back up these 
eloquent words, nothing will change. I am hopeful that even more 
resources can be directed toward education during the conference 
committee negotiations and though the annual appropriations process 
that will begin shortly.
  I believe that on the whole this bill takes a dramatic step in the 
right direction. It improves accountability, empowers parents, and 
begins to make the types of investments that our teachers and students 
deserve and need.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the education 
reform bill. I am encouraged by the renewed emphasis President Bush and 
many in Congress have placed on education and I welcome this 
opportunity to share my views on this important subject.
  Improving elementary and secondary education has long been a goal of 
those of us in Congress. However, for too long, the debate at the 
Federal level has focused on the same old ideas that boil down to more 
spending without ensuring results and more Federal control of local 
schools. That is why I am pleased that President Bush has put forward a 
plan for education that takes us in a new direction. S. 1, the Better 
Education for Students and Teachers Act, encompasses the President's 
main goals and puts the Federal role in education on the right track.
  Since 1965, when Congress embarked on its first elementary and 
secondary education initiative, the Federal Government has continued to 
expand its role in the area of education. Yet, while the Federal role 
in education has increased, accountability has not. The Federal 
Government continues to spend more and more on education while creating 
complicated and overlapping programs that may or may not address the 
needs of local schools. In fact, research has shown that, while Federal 
funding for education has increased substantially over the last 30 
years, students' test scores have not shown improvement.
  The BEST Act seeks to change this situation by taking steps to ensure 
accountability for the use of Federal education dollars. Under this 
bill, States will be required to develop their own strategy to measure 
improvement and hold schools and school districts accountable through 
the use of State-run assessments. In this way, schools and school 
districts that fail to help students achieve can be identified so that 
assistance can be provided and necessary corrective action taken.
  Going hand in hand with the need for greater accountability is the 
necessity for increased flexibility for States and local school 
districts. Part of the problem of stagnant student achievement despite 
increased Federal funding is that Federal funding comes with a 
disproportionate degree of Federal control. Federal micro-managing of 
classrooms ties the hands of teachers and can actually prevent them 
from meeting the individual needs of students.
  We in Washington must face the fact that we cannot possibly know 
what's best for every school in America. My home State of Iowa contains 
a wide variation of school districts from rural to urban. Students in 
Des Moines are likely to have different needs from those of students in 
Lineville. What works in Davenport may not work in Sioux Center. How 
then can we in Washington direct Federal funding to meet the needs of 
all the students of Iowa, much less vastly different regions of our 
country, without providing for a substantial degree of local control? 
If States are to meet tough new goals for student achievement, they 
must be given the freedom to do so without having their hands tied by 
unnecessary Federal regulations. This bill does just that by 
consolidating related programs into more flexible block grants and 
allowing schools to waive certain Federal regulations in return for 
results.
  It is also essential that parents have the opportunity for greater 
involvement in their child's education. Under the BEST Act, school 
report cards will be issued so that parents will have information on 
the quality of their child's school, and support will be given to local 
educational agencies and nonprofit organizations to implement parental 
involvement programs that are designed to improve student performance. 
In addition, parents of disadvantaged students in failing schools will 
be given the choice to move their children to a better school.
  In closing, while this bill does provide for a substantially 
increased investment in elementary and secondary education, it does so 
in a framework of real reform that provides greater flexibility to 
states and local school districts in return for demonstrated results. 
This bill represents a shift from the old Washington-knows-best view of 
education to one which empowers states, local communities, and parents 
to improve student achievement. President Bush has called on us to 
ensure that no child in America is left behind. The Better Education 
for Students and Teachers bill will put us on course to meet that 
challenge.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
innovative and far-reaching legislation before us, the Better Education 
for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act. The Senate for several weeks has 
been considering this reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, ESEA, which was first enacted in

[[Page S6291]]

1965 as part of President Johnson's war on poverty. While the anchor of 
this law has always been title I--a program to provide support to low-
income and disadvantaged students--ESEA has evolved over the past 35 
years to also include important professional development, technology 
and after-school programs. The bill before us today makes significant 
changes to education policy, reflecting our commitment to make the 
Federal Government an effective partner in reforming the nation's 
public schools. We all hope these reforms will be the right ones for 
our children. While I do have some concerns about the commitment of the 
President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
adequately fund the programs in the BEST Act, I am willing to take them 
at their word, to leave no child behind.
  During the Senate's consideration of the BEST Act, a variety of 
amendments offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle have been 
considered. I would like to take a moment to highlight just a few of 
these.
  First, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the managers 
of this bill, Senators Kennedy and Gregg, for accepting an amendment 
offered by Senator Hatch and myself to re-authorize Department of 
Justice grants for new Boys and Girls Clubs in each of the 50 States. 
In 1997, I was proud to join with Senator Hatch and others to pass 
bipartisan legislation to authorize grants by the Department of Justice 
to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. This bipartisan 
amendment authorizes $60 million in Department of Justice grants for 
each of the next five years to establish 1,200 additional Boys and 
Girls Clubs across the Nation. These grants will bring the total number 
of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000 to serve 6,000,000 young people by 
January 1, 2007.
  In my home State of Vermont, this long-term Federal commitment has 
enabled Vermonters to established six Boys and Girls Clubs, in 
Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes. 
Indeed, Vermont's Boys and Girls Clubs received more than $1 million in 
Department of Justice grants since 1998. I am hopeful this amendment 
will ensure future funding for these successful youth programs.
  Some of the most publicized and often-discussed provisions of the 
BEST Act are the expanded requirements for student assessment, 
specifically the annual testing of schoolchildren in Grades 3 through 
8. The legislation will require states to establish comprehensive 
assessment systems in order to evaluate the achievement of their 
schools and students. Accountability in education is important. 
Parents, students, teachers, and taxpayers should know how their 
schools are performing. However, it is important that testing be used 
as a diagnostic tool in an overall assessment system and not become a 
reform in its own right. Tests should measure school progress based on 
standards that are part of a high-quality curriculum. My home State of 
Vermont has a fine tradition of high expectations in education and 
currently has in place a comprehensive framework for school standards 
and accountability. I am hopeful that the new role of the Federal 
Government outlined in the legislation before us will reinforce, not 
undermine, state and local efforts to improve student performance.
  For small States--like Vermont--the costs associated with 
implementing a large-scale assessment system can be prohibitively 
expensive. During consideration of the BEST Act, the Senate approved 
two key amendments that will help lessen the burden on the States. 
First, the Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to require that 
the Federal Government provide at least 50 percent of the costs of 
developing and administering the testing requirements in the underlying 
bill. If the Federal Government does not provide these funds, the 
States will not be required to administer the tests.
  Second, the Senate adopted an amendment to have the General 
Accounting Office conduct a study to evaluate the true costs to the 
States for the testing provisions. This report will be completed prior 
to the implementation of the Best Act's assessment requirements. If the 
GAO finds the costs to be higher than anticipated, the Senate should 
return to the issue. We must not require reform from our States--
especially small States without providing the necessary resources to 
support those reforms. We must not set our schools and students up for 
failure.
  In addition to these important testing-related improvements, the 
Senate also approved an amendment to fully fund the Federal 
Government's portion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, IDEA. This is a crucial issue and one that education officials 
back in our home States have been pushing for--for the Federal 
Government to fulfill its responsibility. The Senate also agreed to 
authorize full-funding for the title I program, a strong reflection of 
our commitment to providing resources to schools that educate low-
income and disadvantaged students.
  While several other amendments were approved that will strengthen the 
BEST Act, I was pleased that the Senate rejected some proposals that 
would have weakened our commitment to public school education. In 
particular, I was pleased that the Senate rejected an amendment that 
would have directed public dollars to private schools. I have long had 
concerns about using Federal tax dollars to support private schools 
through vouchers. Although I support the options private schools 
provide for some of our Nation's youth, our primary responsibility must 
be to ensure that our public schools are the best they can possibly be 
in order to give our children the education they deserve. Rather than 
send precious public funds to private or religious schools, we must 
ensure that all public schools in the United States have the resources 
to provide a high quality education for all of our Nation's children.
  By approving the legislation before us today, we will be taking the 
first step toward enacting quality education reform in our Nation's 
schools. The second step will come later in the year when Congress and 
President Bush determine the funding level for these Federal programs. 
In recent days many of my colleagues have spoken about the need for 
adequate funding for these reform efforts. I want to add my voice to 
that debate. Unless we commit ourselves to providing the resources 
necessary for States to carry out the reforms outlined in this bill, we 
will be doing serious harm to our children.
  I will vote in support of this bill today with the belief that it 
will improve the educational and learning opportunities of the school 
children in Vermont and across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to 
continue our commitment to education and to provide the resources 
necessary to ensure that this far-reaching legislation achieves its 
goals.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1, 
the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act (the ``BEST'' Act), 
which will reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
(``ESEA'').
  President Bush has appropriately indicated that education reform is 
his number one priority. The BEST bill, which is based on the 
President's blueprint, is premised on the President's goal: ``No Child 
Left Behind.'' I share the President's goal. Our educational system 
must leave no child behind.
  Education is the key to a better quality of life for all Americans. 
From early childhood through adult life, educational resources must be 
provided and supported through partnerships with individuals, parents, 
communities, and local government. The federal government has a 
limited, but important role in assisting states and local authorities 
with the ever-increasing burdens of education.
  Originally passed in 1965, the ESEA provides authority for most 
federal programs for elementary and secondary education. ESEA programs 
currently receive about $18 billion in federal funding, which amounts 
to an estimated 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent on education.
  Nearly half of ESEA funds are used on behalf of children from low-
income families, under Title I. Since 1965, the federal government has 
spent more than $120 billion on Title I.
  Despite the conscientious efforts of federal, state, and local 
entities over many years, our education system continues to lag behind 
other comparable nations. Nearly 70% of inner city fourth graders are 
unable to read at a

[[Page S6292]]

basic level on national reading tests. Fourth grade math students in 
high poverty schools remain two grade levels behind their peers in 
other schools. Our high school seniors score lower than students in 
most industrialized nations on international math tests. And, 
approximately one-third of college freshman must take a remedial course 
before they are able to even begin college level courses.
  The underlying issue is--do we just pour more taxpayer dollars to 
perpetuate these mediocre results or do we take some bold new 
initiatives?
  Increased federal education funding, increased state and local 
flexibility in their use of federal funds, and increased accountability 
are all components of this bill that are steps in the right direction.
  First, in regard to funding, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents 
will continue to support increased education funding. Last year, nearly 
$44.5 billion was appropriated to the Department of Education. This was 
a $6.6 billion increase from Fiscal Year 2000 levels. Without a doubt, 
education will receive another significant increase this year when 
Congress passes the appropriations bill that funds the Department of 
Education.
  Next, in regard to flexibility, the BEST bill significantly increases 
state and local flexibility in the use of their federal education 
dollars.
  In the current fiscal year, the ESEA funds over 60 programs. Most of 
these programs have a specified purpose and a target population.
  Our schools do not need a targeted one size fits all Washington, D.C. 
approach to education. While schools in Boston, Massachusetts may need 
to use federal education dollars to hire additional teachers to reduce 
classroom size, schools in other parts of the country may wish to use 
federal dollars for a more pressing need, like new text books. 
Federally targeted programs for a specified purpose do not recognize 
that different states and localities have different needs.
  Who is in a better position to recognize these local needs, Senators 
and Representatives in Washington, D.C. or Governors, localities, and 
parents? Those Virginians serving in state and local government and 
serving on local school boards throughout the Commonwealth are 
certainly in a better position than members of Congress from other 
states to determine how best to spend education dollars in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.
  The BEST Act increases flexibility and local control. The Straight 
A's provisions of this bill and the Teacher Empowerment provisions 
serve as two good examples.
  The Straight A's provisions of this bill creates a 7 state and 25 
district demonstration program. Under the program, 7 states and 25 
districts that choose to participate gain the flexibility to 
consolidate a number of federal formula grant programs and integrate 
these federal dollars with state and local monies that serve children.
  In addition, S. 1, in its Teacher Empowerment provisions, 
consolidates the targeted and inflexible class size reduction programs 
and the targeted Eisenhower Professional development program. The money 
in these programs is consolidated so states and localities can use 
these funds for a variety of options, including hiring additional 
teachers, retaining high quality teachers, developing professional 
development programs, or to hire mentors, to name a few of the numerous 
options.
  Straight A's and the Teacher Empowerment provisions are key 
components of the increased flexibility provided in the BEST bill.
  Finally, accountability, in certain areas, is needed. Our education 
policy is locking out many students and not providing them the key to a 
better life. It's time to move forward in education to ensure that all 
of our children are given the opportunity to receive a higher quality 
of education.
  Let's seize this challenge.
  President Bush's proposal to test students annually in grades 3-8 in 
reading and math, which is part of the BEST bill, is a strong proposal 
that promotes accountability.
  These tests will result in parents and teachers receiving the 
information they need to know to determine how well their children and 
students are doing in school and how well the school is educating. 
Testing also provides educators the information they need to help them 
better learn what works, improve their skills, and increase teacher 
effectiveness.
  While some have expressed concern that President Bush's proposal 
calls for too much testing, I have a different view. A yearly standard 
test in reading and math will allow our educators to catch any problems 
in reading and math at the earliest possible moment. Tests are becoming 
a vital part of life, no matter how onerous. If America is to survive 
in the rapidly emerging global economy, tests are a key part.
  I note that Virginia has already recognized the importance of 
testing, having installed an accountability system called the Standards 
of Learning (SOLs). In Virginia, we already test our students in math 
and science in grades 3, 5, and 8. The accountability provisions in the 
BEST bill will augment the Commonwealth of Virginia's Standards of 
Learning.
  Mr. President, in summary, the evidence demonstrates that the $120 
billion spent on elementary and secondary education since 1965 has 
produced mediocre results, at best. This bipartisan legislation is a 
step in the right direction, and I look forward to President Bush 
ultimately signing education reform legislation into law.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for nearly 2 months the Senate has been 
debating reform measures that would establish new goals for our 
teachers, our schools, our students and their parents. These 
substantial and creative measures passed the Senate today as part of 
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The legislation focuses on improving student achievement, student 
performance, and school success through expanding accountability 
provisions, increasing resources, improving technical assistance, and 
providing mechanisms intended to help turn around schools which are 
falling short. The bill seeks to ensure that local education agencies 
and States have the resources over the next four years to put a highly 
qualified teacher in every classroom. This provision also includes an 
amendment that I offered which provides that the professional 
development training authorized for these teachers also include 
training in the use of computer technology to improve student learning 
in core academic subjects.
  The bill also provides for over 125,000 new teachers to be paired 
with mentors and to have the opportunity for year-long internships. The 
Reading First provisions of the legislation authorize an important new 
initiative that provides nearly $1 billion for States and local school 
districts to improve reading education, and help teachers get ready to 
ensure that all children become proficient readers by the end of the 
third grade. I am pleased that an amendment I offered, to permit funds 
under this program to be used for family literacy programs, was 
adopted.
  The bill also authorizes partnership grants, a new initiative 
designed to boost achievement in the areas of math and science through 
strengthening and training and recruitment of highly qualified 
teachers; and continues the ``Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use 
Technology'' program, which trains teachers in the use of technology in 
the classroom.
  Mr. President, this legislation contains extremely complicated 
testing requirements. I have reservations about the utility of such a 
federal mandate, given the tests that are already administered in my 
State of Michigan. However, because I support the essential reforms 
also included in this legislation, I have decided, on balance, to 
support the bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on one of 
the most important pieces of legislation that we will debate this year. 
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has provided the framework 
for the Federal role in education for more than 35 years. The bill 
currently before us, the Better Education for Students and Teachers 
Act, will chart the course for the Federal role in education for the 
next seven years and beyond.
  I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting 
our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. The Federal Government 
has an important role to play in supporting our States and school 
districts as they carry out one of their most important

[[Page S6293]]

responsibilities the education of our children.
  Every child in this country has the right to a free public education. 
Every child. That is an awesome responsibility, and one that should not 
have to be shouldered by local communities alone. The States and the 
Federal Government are partners in this worthy goal, and ESEA is the 
document that outlines the Federal Government's responsibilities to our 
Nation's children, to those who educate them, and to our States and 
local school districts.
  It is with this bill that we must find the right balance between 
local control and Federal targeting and accountability guidelines for 
the Federal dollars that are so crucial to local school districts 
throughout the United States.
  Ninety percent of American children attend public schools. More than 
879,000 young people in my home state of Wisconsin are enrolled in 
public schools, from pre-school through grade twelve. I am a graduate 
of the Wisconsin public schools, and I am proud to say that all four of 
my children have attended them as well.
  The legislation before us has generated vigorous debate in Wisconsin. 
I have heard from parents, teachers, school board members, school 
administrators, school counselors and social workers, state officials, 
and other interested observers. And their comments are clear: they say 
that the Congress must not undermine the targeted measures aimed at 
improving education for disadvantaged students. They say that we must 
live up to our commitment to fully fund the Federal share of elementary 
and secondary education programs.
  If we are, as President Bush has said, to ``leave no child behind,'' 
we should ensure that the programs created to help the most vulnerable 
children are fully funded.
  We should fully fund title I, we should fully fund the Federal share 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), we should 
fully fund Head Start, we should fully fund Impact Aid, and we should 
fully fund these programs in a fiscally responsible manner.
  For too long, the Federal Government has failed to live up to its 
promise to fund these and other important education programs. During 
this debate, some of our colleagues have argued that money is not the 
only answer, and they are partially correct. In Wisconsin, however, 
where the State imposes limits on the amount of money that school 
districts can raise and spend annually, Federal funding is absolutely 
critical. I have heard time and again from frustrated school board 
members who have to make the tough decisions about which programs to 
fund and which programs to cut. In this time of economic prosperity, we 
should not pit groups of students against each other for scarce 
education dollars.
  In that regard, I am pleased that the Senate has passed amendments to 
this legislation that authorize the full funding of title I and of 
IDEA.
  Nevertheless, I cannot support a bill that includes a new, largely 
unfunded Federal mandate for annual testing in grades 3-8. As I noted 
earlier in this debate, the response to this proposal from the people 
of my state is almost universally negative. My constituents oppose this 
proposal for many reasons, including the cost of developing and 
implementing additional tests, the loss of teaching time every year to 
prepare for and take the tests, the linking of success on these tests 
to ESEA administrative funds, and the pressure that these additional 
tests will place on students, teachers, schools, and school districts.
  I am pleased that the Senate adopted amendments to help to ensure 
that these tests are of a high quality, to award bonuses to States for 
developing high quality tests rather than for the speed with which the 
testing program is implemented, and to require a study by the General 
Accounting Office on the true costs of these tests to the States. I am 
also pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to increase the 
funding provided for these tests by the Federal Government, but I 
remain concerned that this bill still falls far short of authorizing 
enough funding for this new Federal mandate.
  I am concerned that this bill does not do enough to ensure that local 
school districts will have the resources to help students be successful 
on these tests. I am disappointed that the Senate failed to adopt an 
amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, of 
which I was an original cosponsor, which would have modified the annual 
testing provisions to clarify that States would not have been required 
to implement the annual tests unless title I is funded at $24.7 billion 
by July 1, 2005, funding levels consistent with the Dodd-Collins 
amendment adopted by the Senate.
  I was also pleased to cosponsor an amendment offered by the Senator 
from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, which would have allowed a State to 
opt out of the new federal testing requirements if the State already 
has comparable accountability measures in place. Many States and local 
school districts around the country, including Wisconsin, have such 
programs. We should leave the means and frequency of assessment up to 
the States and local school districts who bear the responsibility for 
educating our children. Every State and every school district is 
different. A uniform testing policy may not be the best approach.
  I have also heard from a number of my constituents that this Congress 
should do nothing that would undermine the good that the Federal 
Government's support has done to help states and local school districts 
over the last several years. They told me that we should not undermine 
the progress that we have made in smaller class sizes, in technology 
education, in standards-based reform, and in accountability for 
results.
  I regret that this bill does not authorize class size reduction as an 
independent program. And I particularly regret that the amendment to 
reinstate this program that was offered by the Senator from Washington, 
Mrs. Murray, was defeated. I am baffled by the argument put forth by 
some of our colleagues that smaller classes mean less to students than 
the presence of a good teacher in the classroom. I would argue that 
both are important. Of course, a good teacher makes a huge difference. 
But even the best teacher in the country will have far better results 
with 18 students instead of 50.
  My home state of Wisconsin is a leader in the effort to reduce class 
size in kindergarten through third grade. The Student Achievement 
Guarantee in Education, SAGE, program is a statewide effort to reduce 
class size to 15 students in kindergarten through third grade.
  The SAGE program began during the 1996-1997 school year with 30 
participating schools. Now in the program's fifth year, there are 
nearly 600 participating schools.
  According to the recently-released program evaluation for the 1999-
2000 school year, conducted by the SAGE Evaluation Team at the 
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee:
  ``When adjusted for pre-existing differences in academic achievement, 
attendance, socioeconomic status and race, SAGE students showed 
significant improvement over their Comparison school counterparts from 
the beginning of first grade to the end of third grade across all 
academic areas.''
  The study also found that ``teaching in reduced size classrooms is 
characterized by more individualization, time spent on teaching rather 
than disciplining, class discussion, hands on activities, content 
coverage, and teacher enthusiasm.''
  The results speak for themselves. Smaller classes translate to better 
instruction and better achievement.
  The education community in my State is also deeply concerned and I 
share this concern about proposals that would shift scarce Federal tax 
dollars away from the public schools they are intended to support.
  I commend the work of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, 
and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and others who have worked 
so diligently these past weeks to negotiate compromise language with 
the Administration on many of the issues that remained outstanding 
following the HELP Committee's mark-up of this legislation. I regret 
that I am unable to support this compromise for a number of reasons.
  I am troubled by language in this compromise that would require 
school districts to use up to 15 percent of their Title I money to pay 
for supplementary services or transportation for public school choice 
for students in schools

[[Page S6294]]

that have failed to make adequate yearly progress for three years. This 
provision would mean that a school that is already in trouble would 
have as little as 85 percent of its Title I money available for school 
programs. If Congress agrees to divert badly-needed Title I money for 
supplemental services, it is all the more urgent that we fully fund the 
Title I program.
  I am also concerned about the so-called ``Straight A's'' performance 
agreement pilot program that is included in the bill. This provision 
would allow seven States and 25 districts in effect to block grant most 
of their ESEA funding. I am pleased that this provision stipulates that 
this funding cannot be used for private school vouchers and that it can 
only be used for specified activities. I am also pleased that 
individual school districts within the seven States that participate in 
this program may apply to opt out of the State's performance agreement.
  Supporters of this provision use terms like ``consolidation of 
Federal funds'' and ``flexibility,'' but let's be honest. This is a 
block grant. This new version of the Straight A's proposal is an 
improvement over earlier versions, but I remain concerned about the 
impact this consolidation of funds will have on proven programs such as 
class size reduction, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and Safe 
and Drug Free Schools; and on professional development for teachers and 
other school professionals.
  I regret that the Senate did not adopt an amendment offered by the 
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to remove the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers from this block grant, an amendment which I 
supported and which was supported by many of my constituents.
  Another reason I will oppose this bill is the inclusion of an 
amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, pertaining 
to discipline procedures for special education students. This amendment 
is a huge step backward in the fight to protect the civil rights of 
disabled students, and I hope that the conferees on this bill will work 
to improve this language to ensure that those rights continue to be 
protected.
  In closing, this debate gave us the opportunity to strengthen public 
education in America. Unfortunately, many of the provisions contained 
in this bill may, in fact, undermine public education by blurring the 
lines between public and private, between church and State, and between 
local control and Federal mandates. I must therefore oppose the bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.


                  in support of our nation's teachers

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise once again today in support of the 
over 3,000,000 teachers in this country.
  In the early days of the debate on this education bill, I, along with 
Senator Collins, offered a Sense of the Senate amendment on May 8, 
2001. This amendment, which passed by a vote of 95-3, stated:

     the Senate should pass legislation providing elementary and 
     secondary level educators with additional tax relief in 
     recognition of the many out of pocket, unreimbursed expenses 
     educators incur to improve the education of our Nation's 
     students.

  Later, on May 23, 2001, on the tax reconciliation bill of 2001, the 
Senate passed a Collins-Warner amendment to provide teachers with such 
tax relief. The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 98-2.
  I worked with Senator Collins on this amendment because I recognize 
that individuals do not pursue a career in the teaching profession for 
the salary. People go into the teaching profession for different 
personal commitments--to educate the next generation, to strengthen 
America.
  While many people spend their lives building careers, our teachers 
spend their careers building lives.
  Simply put, to teach is to touch a life forever.
  How true that is. I venture to say that every one of us can remember 
at least one teacher and the special influence he or she had on our 
lives.
  Even though we are all well aware of the important role our teachers 
play, it goes without saying that our teachers are underpaid, 
overworked, and all too often, underappreciated.
  In addition to these factors, our teachers also expend significant 
money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. 
Most typically, our teachers are spending money out of their own pocket 
on: one, education expenses brought into the classroom--such as books, 
supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment; and, two, professional 
development expenses--such as tuition, fees, books, and supplies 
associated with courses that help our teachers become even better 
instructors.
  These out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our 
teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. 
Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.
  Estimates are that 2.4 million new teachers will be needed by 2009 
because of teacher attrition, teacher retirement and increased student 
enrollment.
  While the primary responsibility rests with the states, I believe the 
Federal Government can and should play a role in helping to alleviate 
the nation's teaching shortage.
  Here is an example of such help. On a Federal level, we can encourage 
individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain in the teaching 
profession by reimbursing them for the costs that teachers voluntarily 
incur as part of the profession. This incentive will help financially 
strapped urban and rural school systems as they recruit new teachers 
and struggle to keep those teachers that are currently in the system.
  With these premises in mind, Senator Collins and I offered the 
Collins-Warner amendment to the Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001.
  This amendment which, again, passed the Senate in a vote of 98-2, had 
two components. First, the legislation would have provided a $250 tax 
credit to teachers for classroom supplies. This credit recognizes that 
our teachers dip into their own pocket in significant amounts to bring 
supplies into the classroom to better the education of our children.
  Second, this legislation would have provided a $500 above the line 
deduction for professional development costs that teachers incur. This 
deduction would particularly help low-income school districts that 
typically do not have the finances to pay for professional development 
costs for their teachers.
  Unfortunately, this important Collins-Warner amendment was not 
included in the tax legislation that emerged from conference. Thus, the 
tax relief measure signed into law by President Bush did not contain 
the Collins-Warner amendment.
  The education legislation that will pass the Senate today, the Better 
Education for Students and Teachers Act, the BEST Act, is based on a 
principle put forth by President Bush entitled, ``No Child Left 
Behind.''
  As we move towards final passage of legislation that will implement 
reforms to achieve the goal of ``Leaving No Child Behind,'' we must 
keep in mind the other component in our education system--the teachers. 
If we fail to accord equal recognition to our teachers, our children 
will be left behind.
  Therefore, let me be clear: Senator Collins and I will not forget our 
teachers.
  Senator Collins and I will continue to work hard to ensure that our 
teachers receive recognition in the tax code for the many personal and 
financial sacrifices they make to better the education of America's 
youth.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the ``Better 
Education for Students and Teachers Act.''
  Education no longer simply involves students learning the 
fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Rather, students must 
possess the resources to compete and succeed as we proceed into the 
new, highly technical millennium.
  The computer and the Internet have become integrated into every 
aspect of our lives, and are becoming essential teaching tools in our 
schools and a basic component of any classroom. To meet this challenge, 
we must strive for innovative ideas and to determine exactly how we can 
maximize the Federal government's resources because: Even on its best 
day the Federal Government can never be a replacement for local 
administrators, educators, and parents.
  Simply put, New Mexicans are in a far better position to know exactly

[[Page S6295]]

what our schools and students need than government officials here in 
Washington.
  Most Washingtonians probably do not know the Corona School District 
has 82 students, the Deming School District has 5,300 students, and the 
Albuquerque School District has 85,000 students. Additionally, the 
Gallup School District encompasses nearly 5,000 square miles, an area 
greater than Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
  My point is simple, a one-size fits all approach cannot work in New 
Mexico and will not work in many areas of our country. Consequently, we 
must have solutions that are flexible and meet the diverse needs of our 
States, school districts, and schools. I would like to take a couple of 
minutes and provide my perspective on how we arrived at the point we 
are today with the BEST Bill.
  Not too long ago during the mid 1990's a number of us came to the 
conclusion that the current K-12 education status quo could no longer 
be maintained. I think this realization may have been spurred by 
Senator Frist's excellent work as the chair of the Senate Budget 
Committee Task Force on Education.
  The Task Force produced: Prospects for Reform: The State of American 
Education and the Federal Role. The report asked the simple question of 
``how well are our children doing?''
  The answer was mediocre at best because student achievement had 
stagnated over the past two decades even though America had established 
a record of near universal access and completion of high school. Thus, 
the report concluded that we must address the issue of a quality 
educational system. In other words the need for academic competence and 
rigor.
  Building upon the excellent work of the Task Force, Senator Frist 
soon introduced the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999'' 
commonly referred to as ``Ed-Flex.''
  The Bill simply said: one-size does not fit all and thus, States 
should be allowed to waive-out of the regulations pertaining to certain 
Federal K-12 Education programs. ``Ed-Flex already existed as part of a 
demonstration program and Senator Frist's Bill merely sought to provide 
all fifty states with that same flexibility.
  The Senate passed the Bill overwhelmingly by a vote of 98-1 and 
within a month the President had signed the measure into law. 
Unfortunately, after the passage of ``Ed-Flex'' for a variety of 
reasons there was not any further fundamental changes made to our K-12 
system.
  Instead, since the last reauthorization of the ESEA in 1994 there is 
one approach that we learned is a complete failure: merely providing 
more funding.
  In 1996 the Federal Government spent about $23 billion on education 
and within a few short years the number ballooned to over $42 billion 
in FY 2001. The logical conclusion is that a near doubling of 
educational funding would result in dramatic improvements in student 
achievement.
  Sadly, for all of our funding we simply do not have the matching 
results.
  For instance, in 1996 the average reading score for a 4th grader was 
212 and the Federal Government spent about $11 billion on the ESEA. 
Five years later, Federal spending on the ESEA had nearly doubled to 
$20 billion, while the average reading score of a 4th grader remained 
at 212.
  In New Mexico, the number of 4th graders testing at or above 
proficient in reading actually fell from 23 percent in 1992 to 22 
percent in 1998. I would submit that we are not receiving a very good 
return on our investment, a near doubling of funding with no 
corresponding improvement.
  Imagine saving a greater and greater portion of your paycheck each 
week and after five years actually having less money. I think it is 
fair to say that very few individuals would stand for these results, if 
instead of students we were talking about our retirement savings.
  Thus, we are now debating the BEST Bill because many of us believe we 
simply must have a new approach to measuring academic success.
  The Bill fundamentally alters the practice of Washington deciding the 
best educational practices and then distributing increasingly greater 
and greater sums of money without any accountability. Make no mistake, 
we have not abandoned our commitment to providing the necessary 
resources to our States and school districts.
  In fiscal year 2001 ESEA spending totaled $18.4 billion. President 
Bush's FY 2002 Budget proposal requested a $19.1 billion authorization 
for ESEA for FY 2002, a nine percent increase.
  Building upon the President's proposal, the FY 2002 Budget Resolution 
includes the President's nine percent increase in federal education 
spending for reading education, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA, and teacher training. I think it is also important 
to note that on May 3 when the Senate began debate, the BEST Bill 
already authorized $27.7 billion for ESEA in FY 2002, a 57-percent 
increase over 2001 and nearly $190 billion over the authorization 
period of FY 2002-2008.
  If one does not believe that is enough then you will be interested to 
hear how much spending we have added since May 3: $11 billion in ESEA 
and other education spending for a total of $38.8 billion in FY 2002, 
an increase of 120 percent over FY 2001; $211 billion in ESEA and other 
education spending for a total of $416 billion over the seven year 
authorization period of the Bill; and of that total, $112 billion is 
mandatory spending under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, IDEA.
  With the preceding as a backdrop, I believe the BEST Bill follows the 
President's promise to ``Leave No Child Behind'' by ensuring academic 
success through a fresh approach to education.
  Our schools will be held accountable for their progress in educating 
our children through high standards, testing, and consequences for 
failure. Every child in grades 3-8 will be tested in reading and math 
proficiency annually.
  In New Mexico alone about 151,000 students will be tested. Also, the 
State will receive an additional $4.5 million next year and more than 
$33 million over the next seven years to offset any new costs.
  Instead of simply continuing to receive increased Federal funding in 
the face of failure, schools will now face consequences for persistent 
failure. Schools failing to demonstrate improvement will face 
corrective action, parents will be given the option of public school 
choice and supplemental services for their children, and ultimately a 
school's persistent failure could lead to reconstitution.
  Consolidation of duplicative education programs will provide maximum 
local flexibility to focus on improving student achievement. For 
instance, Title II of the BEST Bill creates a new State Teacher 
Development grant program with a substantially larger pot of money by 
combining all of the current teacher funding.
  States will have the option to use the funding for professional 
development; teacher mentoring; merit pay; teacher testing; as well as 
recruiting and training high quality teachers. For example, New Mexico 
maintains a commendable student-teacher ratio of 15.2 and under the 
Bill will no longer be required to use a portion of these funds for 
class size reduction.
  Instead, New Mexico will have the option to use that money for 
teacher recruitment and retention programs or maybe additional 
training.
  The new accountability provisions will ensure that historic increases 
in Federal education funding will be based upon school performance.
  The Bill includes the President's ``Reading First'' initiative to 
ensure all children in kindergarten through third grade become 
proficient readers by the end of third grade. The Bill also includes 
programs to create Math and Science Partnerships, Strengthen After-
School Care, and provide for Early Childhood Reading Instruction.
  Parents and the public will be given detailed school-by-school Report 
Cards on the performance of their schools. Parents will have the option 
to transfer their child from a failing public school to an effective 
public school with transportation provided or to redirect their child's 
share of Federal funds toward tutoring or after-school academic 
services.
  Parents will be given the option to transfer their child out of a 
persistently unsafe public school to another public school of their 
choice. As Congress proceeds, one of its primary missions will be to 
determine what is working, what is not working, and what can be 
improved to give our children a better chance of succeeding in the 
future.

[[Page S6296]]

  Before I conclude, I would like to briefly talk about several 
provisions that are of personal importance to me.
  First, Senator Dodd and a bipartisan group of Senators joined me 
earlier this year to introduce the ``Strong Character for Strong 
Schools Act.''
  I think it is important to note that reform does not only apply math, 
science, and reading; instead we must also reform the culture of our 
schools. Our Bill will be part of an amendment offered by Senator 
Cochran and seeks to encourage the creation of character education 
programs at the State and local level by providing grants to eligible 
entities.
  I believe our Bill builds upon the highly successful demonstration 
program to increase character education that was contained in the last 
ESEA Bill. Since 1994, the Department of Education has made $25 million 
in ``seed money'' grants available to 28 states to develop character 
education programs.
  Currently, there are 36 States that have either received Federal 
funding, or have enacted their own laws mandating or encouraging 
character education. Thus, the time is now to ensure that there is a 
permanent and dedicated funding source available for character 
education programs.
  I also believe schools must not only have the resources for core 
missions like teaching reading, writing, math, and the sciences, but 
the additional resources to face emerging challenges. Thus, I am 
extremely pleased the Senate has accepted an amendment authored by 
Senator Kennedy and I to increase student access to mental health 
services by developing links between school districts and the local 
mental health system.
  School districts would partner with mental health agencies, juvenile 
justice authorities, and any other relevant entities to better 
coordinate mental health services by: improving preventive, diagnostic, 
and treatment services available to students; providing crisis 
intervention services and appropriate referrals for students in need of 
mental health services and continuing mental health services; and 
educating teachers, principals, administrators, and other school 
personnel about the services.
  Finally, we must provide our school districts and schools with the 
resources to both recruit and retain the best available teachers for 
our children.
  Earlier this year I introduced the ``Teacher Recruitment, 
Development, and Retention Act of 2001.''
  I am very pleased to see elements of that Bill included in the 
pending legislation. I am also grateful the Senate has accepted my 
amendment that will allow States the option of using Teacher Quality 
funds for the creation of Teacher Recruitment Centers.
  Teacher Recruitment Centers will serve as statewide clearinghouses 
for the recruitment and placement of K-12 teachers. The Centers would 
also be responsible for creating programs to further teacher 
recruitment and retention within the state.
  Thank you and I look forward to the working with my colleagues on 
this important issue and final passage of this Bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan bill that the Senate 
has developed over the last 2 months makes major reforms in education 
policy by focusing on student achievement and by making schools 
accountable for results. California's public schools should be 
strengthened by this bill.
  This bill includes several important reforms.
  The bill extends the current requirement that states must have 
academic standards for reading and math and also requires states to 
establish standards for science and history.
  Students must reach a proficient level within ten years by making 
continuous and substantial academic improvement.
  To ensure that students are learning, states are required to test 
every student in grades 3-8 annually in reading and math based on state 
standards.
  To ensure accountability, schools that fail for two consecutive years 
to make adequate yearly progress must be identified for improvement and 
also must identify specific steps to improve student performance.
  Local school districts must correct failing schools and states must 
correct failing districts either through new curriculum, restructuring 
the school, or reconstituting the school staff.
  In order to improve teacher quality, this bill authorizes grants to 
states for teacher certification, recruitment, and retention services.
  The bill enhances programs for limited English proficient children by 
providing teacher training and funds for programs to improve the 
English proficiency of these students.
  The bill authorizes $1.5 billion for afterschool programs to help 
struggling students get tutoring and other help.
  There are many other important provisions.
  It is my hope that this bill will offer opportunities for progress to 
many California students, school officials, parents and the public.
  California students perform very poorly compared to students in many 
other states. Our schools are struggling on virtually every front. 
California has some of the largest classes in the nation; California 
has overcrowded and substandard facilities; California has 30,000 
uncredentialed teachers and a projected enrollment rate triple that of 
the national rate.
  Here are some examples of how California's schools fall short:
  Thirty-four percent of California's schools that participate in Title 
I are identified for improvement compared to the national average of 19 
percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education.
  Only 20 percent of California's fourth grade students are proficient 
in reading, ranking thirty-six out of thirty-nine states. California 
ranks thirty-two out of thirty-six states for proficient eight graders 
in reading, at twenty-two percent, according to Education Weekly 
Quarterly Report, January 2001.
  California is ranked seventh in the Nation for the highest number of 
Level I Literacy citizens, the worst level possible, according to the 
National Institute for Literacy.
  California spent $5,462 per student in 1999, approximately $1,500 
less than the U.S. average, ranking 42nd out of 50 states, according to 
Rankings and Estimates; NEA Research, October 1999.
  Now let's compare U.S. students to students in other countries. 
Students in the United States also perform poorly compared to their 
international counterparts.
  In literacy, 58 percent of United States high school graduates rank 
below an international literacy standard, dead last among the twenty-
nine countries that participated, according to Education Week, April 4, 
2001.
  U.S. eighth graders scored significantly lower in mathematics and 
science than their peers in fourteen of the thirty-eight participating 
countries, according to 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study.
  The percentage of teachers in the United States that feel they are 
``very well prepared'' to teach science in the classroom is 27 percent. 
The international average is twice that, peaking at 56 percent, 
according to 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study.
  U.S. students' knowledge of civic activities ranked third out of the 
28 countries that participated. However, those same students have been 
slipping in scores relating to math and science. Source: Civic Know-
How: U.S. Students Rise to Test, International Association for the 
Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
  I am very pleased that the Senate approved several amendments that I 
suggested.
  One, title I funding: The bill revises the funding formula for title 
I, Education of Disadvantaged Children, to better reflect the growth in 
poor students for States with growing student populations, giving 
California an increase of $98 million over fiscal year 2001, at the 
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request level.
  Two, title I use of funds: In an effort to better focus title I funds 
on academic instruction, the bill prohibits school districts from using 
funds for the purchase or lease of privately-owned facilities, 
facilities maintenance, gardening, landscaping, janitorial services, 
payment of utility costs, construction of facilities, acquisition of 
real property, payment of travel and attendance costs at conferences or 
other meetings, other than travel and attendance for professional

[[Page S6297]]

development. This is similar to the bill I introduced, S. 309.
  Three, title I audit: The bill requires the Inspector General to 
conduct of audit to determine how title I funds are used and the degree 
to which they are used for academic instruction.
  Four, master teachers: The bill includes my amendment to allow use of 
the teacher training funds in the bill for school districts to create 
master teacher positions so school districts can increase teacher 
salaries for excellent teachers to mentor and supervise other teachers, 
in an effort to keep new teachers in teaching. This is an outgrowth of 
a bill I introduced on January 22, S. 120.

  Five, small schools: The bill allows the use of Innovative Education 
funds, title V, for States and districts to build smaller schools. The 
upper limits on the number of students would be for elementary schools, 
500 students; middle schools, 750 students; and high schools, 1,000. 
This parallels my bill, S. 308.
  Six, HeadStart teachers: The bill allows forgiveness of up to $5,000 
of federal student loans for college graduates who agree to teach in 
Head Start programs, in an effort to put more trained teachers in pre-
school programs, similar to S. 123, which I introduced on January 22.
  Seven, gun-free schools clarification: The bill includes several 
clarifications of the current Gun-Free Schools Act, the law which 
requires a one-year expulsion for students who ``bring'' a gun to 
school. This bill (1) includes students who ``possess'' a gun at 
school; and (2) clarifies that the term ``school'' means the entire 
school campus, any setting under the control and supervision of the 
local school district; and (3) requires that all modifications of 
expulsions be put in writing.
  It is a good bill. American education should benefit immensely from 
this bill. Now the task is to provide sufficient funding and other 
resources to our schools to implement the reforms we are passing.
  I look forward to working for the bill's final enactment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1, the 
Better Education for Students and Teachers, or BEST Act. Debate on this 
bill has provided the Senate with an important opportunity to assess 
the Federal Government's role in educating our children. It has given 
us the chance to strengthen the programs which are working and to 
reform those that are not. Most importantly the Senate has taken this 
opportunity to empower parents, teachers and local administrators with 
new flexibility and resources, so that we can achieve the fundamental 
goal of our schools: helping every student learn.
  America's continued prosperity demands a well-educated workforce. In 
their lifetimes, our children and grandchildren will witness scientific 
and technological advances which are unimaginable today. Yet, their 
ability to take advantage of these marvels will be dependent upon a 
strong foundation in the fundamentals of learning--reading, writing, 
math, and science. After all, a computer is nothing but a useless 
plastic and metal box, if a student doesn't know how to use it. 
Likewise, the Internet, with all its possibilities, is meaningless if a 
child can't read the words on the screen.
  Over the course of this debate, the American people have had the 
opportunity to view two contrasting visions for our Nation's schools. 
For far too long, the vision of too many has been based on the 
Washington-knows-best philosophy of the last 35 years. Under this mind 
set, for every possible problem in our schools, the Federal Government 
should design a new Government program with new government regulations 
and a new government bureaucracy. For instance, the Federal Government 
provides only seven percent of total spending on education yet demands 
50 percent of all school paperwork. This requires 25,000 education 
professionals struggling to fill out forms in order to comply with 
Washington's onerous regulations rather than teaching students. What 
folly and what a colossal waste of time, talent, and resources.
  Under this flawed approach, a program is accountable if its 
triplicate forms' are turned in on time and all the ``I's'' are dotted 
and their ``T's'' are crossed. Whether the program actually helps 
students learn has too often been an afterthought. Simply put, school 
districts are told to make their problems fit the federal government's 
so-called ``solutions'' rather than allowing schools the flexibility to 
design their own appropriate solutions.
  This leads one to the question ``Has this approach worked?'' Not 
surprisingly, it hasn't.
  Unfortunately, too many American children are falling behind. A 
recent study found that U.S. fourth graders are ranked third in the 
world in science and compete favorably against their international 
counterparts in math. This same study shows that by the time these kids 
reach middle school, they finish near the middle of the pack in math 
and science. Worse still by high school, U.S. students rank 19th among 
21 industrial nations in Mathematics and 16th in Applied Sciences, 
Third International Mathematics and Sciences Study. These results are 
unacceptable. How can we tolerate a system in which the longer American 
students spend in school, the further they fall behind? We should not 
fool ourselves into thinking that America's international competitors 
will sit idly by as we struggle to catch up. We must improve our 
schools now in order to ensure that America's students are prepared to 
compete and succeed at the highest levels.
  Another failing of this Washington-knows-best vision is the belief 
that more money will magically solve all that ails our nation's 
schools. Let there be no doubt, resources are important and I am 
committed to providing substantial increases in education funding. In 
each of the past 2 years, Republicans in the Senate not only met 
President Clinton's education funding requests, but exceeded them by 
billions of dollars. However, money is only part of the answer. The 
title I program was enacted in 1965, in an attempt to close the 
achievement gap between poor students and their wealthier counterparts. 
Thirty-five years and $165 billion later, poor students still lag far 
behind their wealthier peers by an average of 20 points on national 
achievement tests. Worse yet, a recent appraisal by the National 
Assessment of Education Progress found that the achievement gap among 
fourth grade students is growing even wider--NAEP, 4/6/2001.
  I am proud to say that President Bush, through his ``no child left 
behind'' blueprint, has offered us a better vision. This legislation 
expresses the obvious truth that parents, teachers, principals, and 
administrators have a better understanding of the needs of their 
students than the Washington bureaucrats who will never meet these 
children, never learn their names, and never come to understand their 
hopes and aspirations. This legislation provides States and local 
schools unprecedented flexibility to design and implement programs 
tailored to their needs with one requirement: results.

  For the first time in history, we will establish a blueprint for 
holding schools accountable for producing results. States will be 
required to set high standards and demonstrate progress as measured by 
annual assessments. Now I recognize that annual testing is not the cure 
for poor performing schools, much the same way that an x-ray cannot 
heal a broken bone. But the x-ray will allow us to better understand 
the problems and more importantly, better develop the solutions. 
Testing will help parents and teachers evaluate their students and 
schools, determine which are struggling and why, and then ensure they 
receive the help they need to meet high academic standards.
  In a perfect world, these assessments would show that all of our 
children are learning and that all of our schools are preparing them 
for the future. Unfortunately, experience tells us otherwise. 
Therefore, we must be prepared to provide both the resources to help 
those schools which are committed to change and consequences for those 
which refuse. For those schools that spurn reform and chronically 
underperform, I believe we must allow parents choices--whether that be 
public school choice, supplementary tutoring services, or a private 
institution. I believe this point was best expressed by the editorial 
board of one of my home state newspapers, The Paducah Sun, when it 
encouraged the President and Congress to ``change the formula for 
reform by putting power in the hands of parents--not education 
bureaucrats who have a

[[Page S6298]]

vested interest in protecting the status quo.'' I am pleased this bill 
takes some positive, first steps in that direction by providing low-
income children with expanded access to charter schools, other public 
schools, and private tutors. I am deeply disappointed, however, the 
Senate rejected Senator Gregg's very modest proposal to provide these 
same children in chronically poor performing schools with the option of 
attending a private school.
  While the President's accountability and assessment provisions are 
clearly the hallmark of the BEST Act, one should not overlook several 
of the other key provisions included the bill. The President has stated 
that every child should read by the third grade and the BEST Act 
incorporates his ambitious ``Reading First'' initiative to meet that 
goal.
  It also includes a new teacher empowerment initiative which allows 
school districts increased flexibility in solving their unique 
professional development problems: whether that is through hiring new 
teachers, retraining current ones, instituting professional development 
programs, recruiting other mid-career professionals, or reducing class 
size.
  I am also pleased that the BEST Act includes the Straight A's 
Demonstration championed by my colleagues, Senator Gregg and Senator 
Frist. Straight A's is the embodiment of local control. This 
demonstration project would allow seven States, and up to 25 local 
school districts, to receive most of their Federal funds in the form of 
a single federal grant. In exchange for this unprecedented flexibility, 
the participating school systems would be required to meet even higher 
standards of academic achievement than already required in the BEST 
Act. Jefferson County Public Schools, the largest school district in 
Kentucky, has expressed an interest in securing one of these Straight 
A's waivers and I hope this fine school system is given full 
consideration.
  Over the past several weeks, the Senate has engaged in an earnest and 
lively debate. I am particularly proud of an amendment I authored which 
the Senate adopted ``The Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act.'' 
This legislation builds upon the work of our colleague, Senator 
Coverdell, by extending liability protections to teachers, principals, 
administrators who act in a reasonable manner to maintain order in the 
classroom. I am honored that the Senate adopted this amendment in an 
overwhelming 98-1 vote, and I look forward to working with the BEST 
Act's conferees to ensure that it is included in the final conference 
report.
  This is not a perfect bill. At times during this debate, the Senate 
has succumbed to the easy temptation to create more of the narrowly 
targeted Government programs designed to satisfy needs of one interest 
group or another. I believe the Senate could have better served 
America's local schools by simply providing them the necessary 
resources and allowing them the flexibility to design solutions which 
will meet their particular needs.
  However, while I may not agree with every amendment the Senate has 
adopted, I believe that on balance this legislation will empower 
parents, teachers, and local administrators with new flexibility and 
resources, so that we can achieve the fundamental goal of our schools: 
helping every child learn.


                       DIAGNOSIS AND PARTNERSHIP

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, two of the concepts that I am pleased to 
have included in this legislation are the principles of ``diagnosis'' 
and ``partnership.''
  I would like to thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg for their assistance 
in including this amendment in this legislation.
  I am also very happy to be joined by my colleague George Allen of 
Virginia as the lead Republican sponsor of this amendment.
  I can put a human face on this.
  I have done several workdays in schools facing this situation in 
throughout Florida.
  These workday experiences taught me that when students struggle to 
meet performance standards, there is not one uniform cause of failure.
  Because of that, there cannot be one uniform remedy to turn a school 
around.
  School ``A'' may need a revised curriculum, or better qualified 
teachers.
  While school ``B'', whose students are scoring at the exact same 
level as school ``A'' may need English-language tutors and eyesight 
screening for poor children who may not have had a vision test in their 
lives.
  Perhaps the single most important action a school or a school 
district, can take at the first sign that students are struggling is a 
thorough analysis of circumstances and conditions that are impacting 
student achievement.
  It's my belief that this analysis should not only encompass factors 
that are within the school walls, but outside the school walls, in the 
community, as well.
  Before we start applying remedies to a struggling school from a menu 
of options--let's take the first step and understand what the specific 
challenges this particular school faces are.
  It's common sense.
  I use an analogy of a physician: she must first diagnose the specific 
ailment, then she can prescribe the proper treatment.
  It's important that this same ``diagnosis'' step be included in each 
and every State education plan in America.
  This leads to part two: Encouraging partnerships.
  In the course of identifying the particular challenges facing a 
struggling public school, what happens if one or more of the factors 
impacting student performance are outside the school?
  What if one of the reasons that third graders are struggling to read 
is a very high percentage of adult illiteracy in the school district?
  What if one of the reasons 8th graders are failing at math turns out 
to be a high absenteeism rate because of safety concerns on the walk to 
school?
  Such a finding needs be made public--and the school, county, State 
and Federal Government, along with community-based groups, should be 
encouraged to creatively build appropriate partnerships.
  These partnerships can then get to work and try to mitigate outside-
the-school concerns.
  My wife Adele brought to my attention a school in North Florida, 
Andrew Robinson Elementary in Jacksonville.
  Principal Erdine Johnson, of Andrew Robinson Elementary school, 
realized that many of her students could not do their best in the 
classroom because of a wide range of health concerns.
  Instead of just declaring that ``this was a `health' not an 
`education' issue'' the North Florida community sprung into action, and 
we have a success story today.
  In 1995, the University of Florida worked with Andrew Robinson to 
open a pediatric health center on-site.
  This pediatric center at Andrew Robinson offers services to the 
elementary school students, and provides health outreach to the 
community.
  The staff members at the Center are a vital link between a child's 
home environment and their ability to learn in the classroom.
  The Center works with parents on nutrition and wellness issues, and 
provides preventative screenings for the children.
  Children living in healthy environments are more ready to learn, and 
that has meant better test scores, and better lives.
  This is an example of what our amendment encourages--if a problem 
outside the schools is identified--we encourage creative community 
partnerships to help solve it.
  Several organizations have joined Senator Allen and me in support of 
our amendment.
  I would like to include for the Record a letter of support from 
Daniel Merenda, the President and CEO of the National Association of 
Partners in Education.
  He says, ``Many of the problems facing our students are not because 
of the schools. These problems are created by circumstances and 
conditions found beyond the school.''
  Once the information is made public about specific concerns outside 
the school walls, Mr. Merenda predicts the creation of new partnerships 
and the strengthening of existing partnerships.
  I agree with his assessment.
  I also have a letter of support from the education organization 
Communities in Schools, headquartered in Senator Allen's state of 
Virginia.

[[Page S6299]]

  And the Points Of Light Foundation also endorses this amendment in a 
letter I would like to submit for the Record.
  I want to again thank Senator Allen for working with me on this 
issue, and offer thanks to my colleagues for accepting this amendment 
by voice vote.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Partners in Education,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 26, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham, I write to support your suggested 
     ``Diagnosis'' language for the ESEA Reauthorization. As you 
     know the National Association of Partners in Education 
     represents thousands of schools, communities and businesses 
     throughout America who form effective partnerships to support 
     student success in and out of school. Our national network of 
     7,500 members coordinates the work of millions of volunteers 
     in schools.
       We recently completed Partnership 2000: A Decade of Growth 
     and Change, a national survey of school districts in the 
     United States. The study examines school partnerships in a 
     decade during which education topped America's national 
     agenda. This survey of school partnerships provides a ``next 
     chapter'' to the baseline data we collected in 1990. The 
     survey shows that schools in 69% of districts nationwide are 
     now engaged in partnership activities compared to 51% in 
     1990. Over 35 million students benefit from school 
     partnerships today, 5.3 million more than in 1990. Nearly 3.4 
     million volunteers serve in America's school partnerships, 
     roughly one for every 14 children in our schools. Volunteers 
     log approximately 109 million hours of work in and out of 
     schools, roughly equivalent to 52,000 full-time staff.
       In light of these data, your suggested ``diagnosis'' 
     language makes sense. If community and business partners were 
     aware of the specific problems facing a school and causing 
     students to struggle, they could direct their energy and 
     attention to ``fixing'' the problem in and around the 
     schools. Schools can not do it alone.
       Many of the problems facing our students are not because of 
     schools. These problems are created by circumstances and 
     conditions found beyond the school. Partnerships are an ideal 
     mechanism to address and resolve these problems. Your 
     suggested language for the reauthorization of ESEA will 
     require that schools or school districts take appropriate 
     steps to partner with community groups to mitigate the 
     problem.
       Senator Graham, the data we have collected indicates 
     community partners are contributing time equivalent to 52,000 
     full time staff to our schools . . . at no additional cost. 
     Can you imagine what this force could do if schools facing 
     problems were to ask for help? Your suggested language added 
     to the reauthorization of the ESEA could make a significant 
     and real contribution to the thousands of students who are in 
     failing schools.
       Let me know how we can help. We need the reauthorization of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to truly help 
     America's school children. Your amendment does exactly that.
           Sincerely,
                                                Daniel W. Merenda,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                       Communities In Schools,

                                      Alexandria, VA, May 3, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to support your suggested 
     ``diagnosis'' language for the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act reauthorization. I have served for 25 years as 
     president of Communities In Schools, the nation's leading 
     community-based organization helping young people stay in 
     school and prepare for life. Our network has grown to serve 
     more than 2,300 schools, providing access to community 
     resources for over 1.3 million students. Based on our 
     experience, I am completely convinced that school/community 
     partnerships are the most effective way to support student 
     success when non-academic factors must be addressed.
       If schools and students do not perform well, the community 
     stands ready to help. A careful diagnosis of the reasons 
     behind poor performance, followed by a strong partnership-
     building effort with community stakeholders, will turn around 
     an ailing school. I have seen it happen time and again.
       Please let me know if I can be of help to you. Your 
     amendment to the ESEA is critically important to our nation's 
     children.
           Most sincerely,
                                              William E. Milliken,
     President.
                                  ____



                                              Points of Light,

                                                      May 4, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham, I would like to take this opportunity 
     to lend our support to your ``Diagnosis'' language for the 
     Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     (ESEA). The Points of Light Foundation was founded in 1990 
     with the mission to engage more people, more effectively in 
     volunteer service to help serious social problems.
       The Foundation works in conjunction with over 470 Volunteer 
     Centers cross the nation in building a grassroots service 
     infrastructure in order to address each community's most 
     pressing social dilemmas. As you know, all to often, youth 
     are disproportionately affected by negative societal forces. 
     We have found that the building of diverse, multi-sector 
     community coalitions, in addressing youth issues, is one of 
     the most effective protective factors. Your amendment 
     directly facilitates the creation and implementation of such 
     coalitions.
       In closing I would like to commend you on your proactive 
     approach to ESEA Reauthorization and wish you the very best 
     success in mitigating those negative forces impacting our 
     nation's youth.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert K. Goodwin,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we come to the end of the debate on the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, reauthorization bill, I 
would like to share my thoughts on the bill. I plan to support S. 1, 
the Better Education for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act, but not 
without serious reservations.
  We have been working on this legislation for 3 years now, and we 
certainly have made some needed improvements over current law. The bill 
contains tougher accountability, more along the lines of what Senator 
Bingaman and I pressed for back in 1994. For the first time, States, 
districts, and schools will be held accountable for improving the 
academic performance of all students. Moreover, the bill requires the 
timely identification of failing schools so additional resources and 
support can be supplied to help those schools turn around, coupled with 
real consequences if that failure continues. We will have to be 
vigilant, however, to ensure that the accountability system is 
workable, and not weakened, during Conference.
  Over the past few weeks of debate, key amendments have passed, adding 
further value to the legislation. One such amendment was offered by 
Senators Harkin and Hagel to increase funding for IDEA by annual 
increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of funding 
is reached in fiscal year 2007. This amendment also frees up at least 
$28.9 billion, and up to $52.5 billion, in education funds by shifting 
IDEA funding from discretionary to mandatory funding. This amendment 
serves two worthy and important goals: meeting our commitment to fully 
fund IDEA and by doing so, freeing up some of the needed resources for 
title I and other elementary and secondary education programs.
  I was pleased to support this extremely important amendment, as well 
as two amendments by Senator Wellstone to improve the testing regime in 
the bill. The first amendment ensures that the assessments meet 
relevant national testing standards and are of adequate technical 
quality for each purpose for which they are used. The Wellstone 
amendment also provides grants to States to enter into partnerships to 
research and develop the highest quality assessments possible so they 
can most accurately and fairly measure student achievement. The second 
amendment makes the quality of the test, rather than speed in 
developing the test, the factor for determining bonuses for states.
  As my colleagues know, I have made improving our Nation's school 
libraries a top priority in the Senate and during my time in the other 
chamber. Our school libraries have wasted away since dedicated Federal 
funding was eliminated in 1981, and, as a result, too many students 
lack access to up-to-date, enriching books and other reading material. 
Given the direct correlation between well-stocked, well-staffed school 
libraries and literacy and overall student achievement, my amendment, 
which passed on an overwhelming 69 to 30 vote, authorizes $500 million 
for up-to-date books and technology and other needed improvements for 
our Nation's school libraries. Moreover, it rightfully makes school 
libraries a key component of our effort to increase literacy, as 
embodied by the President's Reading First initiative included in the 
bill.
  I have also worked to bolster current law's parental involvement 
provisions based on the simple fact that parental

[[Page S6300]]

involvement is a major factor in determining a child's academic 
success. Parental involvement contributes to better grades and test 
scores, higher homework completion rates, better attendance, and 
greater discipline. The bill already contained provisions I had pressed 
for, including ensuring title I families can access information on 
their children's progress in terms they can understand; involving 
parents in school support teams that help turn around failing schools; 
requiring technical assistance for title I schools and districts that 
are having problems implementing parental involvement programs; having 
States collect and disseminate information about effective parental 
involvement practices to ensure schools have information on how to 
encourage and expand parental involvement; ensuring parents are 
involved in violence and drug prevention programs so parents can 
reinforce the safe and drug-free message at home; requiring States and 
districts to annually review parental involvement and professional 
development activities of districts and schools to ensure the 
activities are effective; and requiring each local educational agency 
to make available to parents an annual report card which explains how a 
school is performing.
  In addition, this week, several amendments I offered to further 
strengthen parental involvement were adopted. Key provisions were added 
to ensure that teachers will receive training on how to work with and 
involve parents in their child's education and to allow the use of 
technology to promote parental involvement. Most importantly, a grant 
fund of $100 million will be established to help districts implement 
effective parental involvement policies and practices. All of these 
changes go a long way to ensuring a coordinated focus on bringing 
schools and parents together in the effort to increase student 
achievement, something that is particularly needed in light of the 
bill's annual testing requirement and other accountability mechanisms.
  Also, I am pleased that this bill contains important provisions from 
my Child Opportunity Zone Family Center legislation to foster the 
coordination and integration of key services to improve student 
learning.
  In addition, I am pleased that the Senate handily rejected vouchers, 
which would have been the wrong approach to helping our public schools.
  In the midst of all of these improvements, however, there are some 
troubling aspects to this legislation--the lack of guaranteed 
resources, the testing regime, and the Performance Agreement block 
grant.
  While every Senator recognizes that historically, constitutionally 
and culturally, educational policy is the province of State and local 
governments, the Federal Government does play a role. And, we have 
played this role quite robustly since 1965. The role may be described 
as encouraging innovation and overcoming inertia at the local level so 
that every student in America, particularly students from disadvantaged 
backgrounds, has the opportunity to seize all the opportunities of this 
great country.
  We have an obligation to continue to work with the States and 
localities, in a sense as their junior partner, but as an important 
partner, to ensure that every child in this country will have the 
ability to achieve and obtain a quality public education.
  President Bush and our Republican colleagues claim that this bill 
will leave no child behind, but simply adding testing and flexibility 
to our elementary and secondary schools without providing adequate 
resources will not do the job.
  I have had many opportunities to talk with the Secretary of Education 
and other leaders in this administration with respect to their 
education goals. They talk a good game. They talk about accountability; 
they talk about standards. But then when you ask them: Where are the 
resources? They say: Well, we really don't need resources.
  That is just not the case. Every American understands that education 
is worthwhile and that we must invest in education, not just with words 
but with dollars, to make a high quality education a reality in the 
life of every child.
  Access to increased resources and funding plays a crucial role in 
improving student achievement and turning around failing schools. For 
example, recent changes in the Texas public school financing system 
that preceded President Bush's terms as Governor of Texas have led to 
substantially equalized access to revenue for low and high income 
school districts. Accordingly, reports indicate that test scores in 
Texas have risen markedly in those poorest districts that received 
additional money under the new financing plan. This has been the case 
especially in Houston, the home of Secretary Paige.
  Now, for the first time, these local school systems are getting the 
needed funding to repair and modernize their schools, reduce class 
size, improve professional development, and increase parental 
involvement--conduct the kinds of programs that really help children 
succeed. A school district cannot pay for these programs with 
accountability; real resources are necessary. In addition to the lack 
of a real commitment of resources beyond Senator Harkin's IDEA 
amendment, I am also particularly disappointed that both Senator 
Harkin's school construction amendment and Senator Murray's class size 
reduction amendment failed.
  Another troubling aspect of this bill is structure of the mandate 
that States test each student from grades 3 to 8 in order to receive 
Federal education funding. We all recognize that testing is an 
essential part of education, but this mandate puts a lot of practical 
pressure on the States to harmonize their standards with their 
evaluations. Some States have found out it is not practical to give a 
test to every child every year because the tests have to be very 
individualized to capture all the nuances of those standards.
  My sense is, and I have talked to educational experts in the States, 
the sheer requirement to test every child every year for grades 3 
through 8 will inexorably lead the States to adopt standardized testing 
which may or may not capture the standards in that particular State. So 
this testing regime could unwittingly move away from one of the central 
elements we all agree on, carefully thought out standards and 
evaluations that measure those standards. And that is why I supported 
Senator Hollings amendment to give States flexibility to waive the 
mandate of annual testing if circumstances warrant. I am disappointed 
the amendment failed.
  I hope we all recognize that testing alone is not sufficient to 
improve our schools. Identifying children who are falling behind and 
schools that are failing is just the first step. But, the hardest step 
is fixing the problem.
  As we proceed to Conference, we need to ask ourselves: What are we 
really doing to our kids? I believe we are imposing very strict testing 
regimes upon our children. Yet if we don't provide adequate resources 
to support improvement, such as smaller class sizes and quality 
teachers, we will just be setting them up for failure. We will be 
turning our backs on the children of this country, and I am sure that 
is no one's intention. That is why I will continue to fight for 
adequate resources to make sure that every child truly has the 
opportunity to achieve.
  Another aspect of this bill that is of great concern to me is the 
Performance Agreements demonstration program.
  Otherwise known as Straight A's, this block grant has the potential 
to undermine the continued viability of important Federal standards, 
such as targeting funds to schools and children with the greatest 
needs, improving teacher quality, strengthening parental involvement, 
and providing children with safe and drug free schools.
  We have a longstanding commitment to the children of this country to 
address the needs that the states and localities cannot. By placing 
Federal dollars into state and local block grants, without targeting 
the Federal dollars on programs identified to be of great national 
concern or ensuring compliance with Federal requirements and basic 
commonsense guidelines, we may be abandoning the neediest children of 
this country, denigrating parents' rights, and abrogating our 
commitment to ensure that every child has the opportunity to obtain a 
quality education.
  In fact, the States' track record in ensuring that low-income 
students get their fair share of education funds is less than 
commendable. A March 2001

[[Page S6301]]

Education Trust study of education finance equity found that in 42 of 
49 states there are substantial funding gaps between high and low-
poverty school districts. The average gap for the Nation was $1,139 per 
year per student. That translates into a total of $455,600 for a 
typical elementary school of 400 students.
  The Performance Agreement pilot is also not a benign, limited 
demonstration project by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, if the 
Secretary selects the 7 most populous States and the 25 largest school 
districts, the number of students subject to Straight A's would be as 
high as 51 percent of the Nation's student population.
  For example, if the Secretary selects California, Texas, New York, 
Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to participate in Straight 
A's, then, based on 1998 figures, approximately 23 million children 
would be subject to Straight A's. If the Secretary then chooses the 25 
largest school districts in states other than those 7 states, then over 
26 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 would be subject to 
Straight A's.
  Earlier this week I discussed this issue and my amendment, No. 537, 
which sought to limit this unproven, Straight A's experiment to States 
and districts that serve a combined student population of 10 percent of 
the total national student population.
  I believe we must have ample opportunity to review and analyze data 
regarding this program's effect and its impact on student achievement 
before we consider subjecting more than half of our Nation's children 
to this new and unproven initiative, and I will continue to pursue this 
issue of the scope and consequences of this ``demonstration project'' 
as we move forward into Conference.
  Another problem with this program is its impact on key existing and 
new parental involvement protections.
  During negotiations on the Performance Agreements, protections were 
added to ensure that some of the parental involvement requirements of 
title I would have to be followed. Unfortunately, those protections 
don't go far enough. Left unchanged, the bill would void large parts of 
the title I parent involvement requirements and other key parental 
involvement provisions that I, along with the National PTA, Chairman 
Kennedy, and others worked to include in this bill.
  The last thing we should do is adopt an education bill that reduces 
parent involvement and family rights. We should not put families in a 
position where they find themselves with fewer rights by virtue of the 
fact that the State or district in which they live has chosen to 
participate in this program.
  Every other initiative to provide flexibility to States and 
districts, including Ed-Flex, has put parent involvement provisions off 
limits, and this bill should too, and I will continue efforts to 
address this issue to ensure that we protect, rather than weaken, 
parental involvement as S. 1 moves to Conference. Our Nation's parents 
deserve nothing less.
  Today, we live in a challenging, international economic order, and 
students from Rhode Island are not just competing with students from 
Mississippi and California; they are all competing against the very 
best and brightest around the globe. That requires investment. It 
requires raising our standards and giving every child a chance to reach 
those standards to ensure that we have the best-educated workforce that 
is competitive in a global economy.
  If the education of our young people is truly the No. 1 domestic 
priority in the United States, as the President claims, then we must 
put our money where our mouth is. Unfortunately, we have not seen the 
administration come forward and pledge the kind of resources necessary 
to achieve any real reform. Instead, we are in danger of having a risky 
testing scheme and no accountability without the resources to make it 
all work.
  While I support this bill and the significant reforms we have passed, 
I will continue to work vigorously to ensure that we provide every 
child with the opportunity to achieve a world-class education.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I would like to express my 
support for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Although my 
support is not without reservation, I believe that the bill before us 
today contains much that will ultimately benefit America's schools and 
the children who attend them. The legislation's intent--increasing 
student achievement, narrowing the achievement gap among minority and 
disadvantaged students, strengthening accountability, and increasing 
local flexibility--are important goals. Commitments in this bill to 
improve school safety, to improve bilingual education, and to fully 
fund title I and IDEA were critical factors in my decision to cast an 
affirmative vote. Were it not for the inclusion of such key components, 
I would be less inclined to support this bill today.
  The issue of education itself is non-controversial; the way in which 
we educate our children, however, is. Because we are trying to define 
the way in which we can improve education and the way that can best be 
accomplished, this bill deserves serious debate.
  Personally, I have always believed that the Federal Government has a 
role as a junior partner in crafting education policy. The U.S. 
government in that role, though, should not usurp the State and local 
governments' power to make education decisions that are more 
appropriately handled at the State and local level. The line between 
the Federal Government's role in education and the State's role is a 
delicate one, and it should be respected.
  One area where I believe this bill treads dangerously close to 
crossing that line is with respect to the issue of unfunded mandates. 
Specifically, as a former governor, I am concerned by the inclusion of 
language in this bill that requires States to conduct assessments and 
meet Federal standards of progress under threat of financial penalty, 
yet refuses to provide the resources local communities need to meet the 
often expensive requirements. This bill mandates 316 new tests 
nationwide, but it does not provide the funding to the States to 
implement them. Such mandates are irresponsible and burdensome for 
State and local governments, and will force them to short change other 
priorities or raise local taxes. In my State of Nebraska, rigorous 
standards and assessments are in place; the additional tests mandated 
by this legislation are not critical to improving our schools.
  This issue aside, I am encouraged by the programs and the commitment 
to education quality improvement included in this legislation. The 
adoption and inclusion of the Mentoring for Success Act in ESEA is a 
victory for children throughout the country who need the benefit of a 
stable and caring role model. Programs like this one, which seek to 
narrow the gap between the have's and the have-nots, are vital. If no 
child is truly going to be left behind by our education system, it is 
imperative that we fund initiatives like this mentoring program, as 
well as other programs like the President's literary initiative, 
Reading First. This bill contains these initiatives, and they are one 
of the reasons why I will support it.
  Overall, this legislation makes great strides toward improving our 
educational system. It will help ensure that all children, especially 
the neediest, will have access to the quality education they deserve. 
Measures like loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers and efforts to 
improve teacher quality, will assist in making certain that all 
children have access not to just any education, but access to a quality 
education. As I previously indicated, this bill is headed in the right 
direction, but it is not without flaws. I am hopeful that in the 
conference report critical funding issues will be addressed. While the 
initiatives the Senate has approved are well intentioned, they will not 
be worth the paper they are printed on if we cannot fully fund them. If 
education is truly a priority for this Administration and for this 
Congress, the reality of funding levels in this bill must be carefully 
considered. It is with confidence that I will support this bill, 
however, in anticipation that the conferees will work together 
diligently to author a conference report that is sensible, balanced, 
and fiscally responsible. Our children deserve nothing less; it is 
Congress' duty to make good on our promises to leave no child behind.


           IMPROVING MATH, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in our efforts to ensure that the United

[[Page S6302]]

States remains an economic and military superpower in the 21st century, 
we must strive to improve the quality of math and science education in 
this country.
  Unfortunately, our schools today need more support in preparing 
students--in sufficient numbers--to meet the needs of our country. The 
statistics are alarming, as reported by the National Commission on 
Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, The Glenn 
Commission, and by the National Assessment of Education Progress, NAEP.
  Less than one-third of all U.S. students in grades 4, 8, and 12 
perform at or above the ``proficient'' achievement level in mathematics 
and science on national tests.
  More than one-third of such students score below the basic level in 
these subjects.
  And, among 20 nations assessed in advanced mathematics and physics, 
none scored significantly lower than U.S. students in advanced math, 
and only one scored lower in physics. Our students can and must do 
better.
  In an effort to improve math and science education, I have joined 
with Senators Roberts, Frist, Collins, and others in supporting much 
needed legislation to help improve math and science education in 
elementary and secondary schools. This legislation is now part of S. 1, 
the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, the BEST Act.
  Not only will the math and science provisions in the BEST Act help 
improve math and science curriculum in our elementary and secondary 
schools, they will help our schools recruit even better math and 
science educators, and make available additional professional 
development to these educators.
  While I wholeheartedly support these provisions, I believe we must go 
one step further. Not only should we improve math and science education 
at the K-12 level, we must do something to encourage more individuals 
to enter vocational schools and colleges and universities in pursuit of 
programs of study in math, science, and engineering.
  It is estimated that the technology driven economy of the 21st 
century will add approximately 2 million science and engineering jobs 
to the American economy between today and 2008.
  For example, in one sector of America today, in Northern Virginia, 
there are over 20,000 high-tech jobs going unfilled month to month.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has issued a report that clearly 
demonstrates America's crisis in meeting the demand in our economy for 
persons trained in the high-tech field. The report quotes Cato 
Institute economist Daniel Griswold stating that, ``Americans are not 
earning specialized degrees fast enough to fill the 1.3 million high-
tech jobs the Labor Department estimates will be created during the 
next decade.''
  In addition, the Judiciary Committee report refers to a Hudson 
Institute estimate that states that the unaddressed shortage of skilled 
workers throughout the U.S. economy could result in a 5 percent drop in 
the growth of the GDP. That translates into approximately $200 billion 
in lost output, nearly $1,000 for every American.
  In both the 105th Congress and the 106th Congress, we addressed the 
high-tech labor shortage by passing legislation to increase the ceiling 
on the number of H-1B visas--a visa for highly trained foreign workers 
coming to the United States to work in a high-tech position.
  America was forced to do this because our educational institutions 
are simply not producing the number of personnel needed in the high-
tech sector.
  In an effort to provide incentives for Americans to pursue a high-
tech education, the H-1B visa legislation contained very important 
provisions that impose a $500 fee per H-1B visa petition that will be 
used to fund scholarships for Americans who choose to pursue education 
in these important fields. It is estimated that this fee will raise 
roughly $450 million over 3 years to create 40,000 scholarships for 
U.S. workers and U.S. students.
  Once again, I whole heartedly support the H-1B scholarship fund. 
Nevertheless, I believe that we in Congress must do more.
  For the past several weeks, we have been discussing education reform 
in the Senate. However, during this debate we have failed to address 
the question of whether our educational system is meeting our Nation's 
vital economic and national security needs.
  Our national security is becoming more and more dependent on minds 
trained in math, science, computer science, and engineering to survive. 
To ensure our country's prominent role in the future, we must look 
within our borders to meet these needs.
  Unfortunately, today, a look inside our borders shows that this 
country is facing a dire shortage of math, science, and engineering 
students. According to the National Science Foundation, NSF, the 
engineering, mathematics, and science fields show declining numbers of 
degrees in the late 1980s and the 1990s:
  From 1985 to 1998 there has been a 20 percent decrease in the number 
of people receiving bachelor's degrees in engineering, from 77,572 to 
60,914.
  In the last 10 years, the number of students graduating with 
bachelor's in physics has dropped by nearly 20 percent, from 4,347 in 
1989 to 3,455 in 1998.
  From 1986 to 1998 the number of students receiving bachelor's degrees 
in mathematics has decreased greater than 25 percent, 16,531 to 12,094.
  From 1986 to 1998 the number of students receiving Bachelors in 
Computer Science dropped more than 30 percent, from 42,195 to 27,674.
  While the U.S. produces fewer and fewer mathematicians, scientists, 
and engineers, the rest of the world is making up the difference. 
America is importing them.
  In several large countries--Japan, Russia, China, and Brazil--more 
than 60 percent of students earn their first university degrees in the 
science and engineering fields. In contrast, in the U.S., students earn 
about one-third of their bachelor-level degrees in science and 
engineering fields, and this includes social sciences.
  Engineering represents 46 percent of the earned bachelor's degrees in 
China, about 30 percent in Sweden and Russia, and about 20 percent in 
Japan and South Korea. In contrast, engineering students in the United 
States earn about 5 percent of all bachelor-level degrees earned in 
this country.
  The demand for science and engineering degrees will only increase. 
According to the National Science Foundation, during the 1998-2008 
period, employment in science and engineering occupations is expected 
to increase at almost four times the rate for all occupations. Though 
the economy as a whole is anticipated to provide approximately 14 
percent more jobs over this decade, employment opportunities for 
science and engineering jobs are expected to increase by about 51 
percent, or about 2 million jobs.
  America must now take steps to encourage, at all levels of our 
educational process, young people to undertake the training necessary 
to meet our Nation's demands.
  We in the Congress must help in every way to redirect these students 
from other pursuits into curricula which will train them. This is an 
absolute necessity if America is to remain secure economically in this 
one world market and militarily with our national security commitments.
  Accordingly, I offered an amendment to this education bill to 
encourage individuals to pursue programs of study in math, science, and 
engineering. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Gordon Smith, 
Allard, and Allen.
  The Pell Grant program is one of the most successful and respected 
educational initiatives taken by the Congress. The concept behind the 
Pell Grant properly recognizes the needs of young people coming from 
economic backgrounds which make it difficult for them to acquire higher 
education.
  I have in the past, and always will be in the future, a strong 
supporter of the Pell Grant program.
  Nevertheless, we in the Congress have an obligation when expending 
taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. Our 
Nation desperately needs more trained students in math, science, and 
engineering. That is an indisputable objective.
  The Pell Grant program, in my judgment, offers Congress the 
opportunity to provide incentives for student recipients to pursue 
curricula in math, science, and engineering.
  My amendment provides a 50 percent greater award to Pell Grant 
recipients

[[Page S6303]]

who pursue a program of study in math, science, and engineering.
  The amendment is as simple as that.
  My Pell Grant amendment is one idea, but I am certain it is not the 
only idea. As a member of the Senate's Education Committee, I hope that 
my chairman, Chairman Kennedy, will schedule hearings to look into our 
system of higher education and whether this country is on track to 
produce graduates who meet the current and projected needs of this 
country.
  At this time, I withdraw my amendment in order to give the Education 
Committee a sufficient opportunity to address this issue.
  At some time in this Congress, I fully intend to reintroduce an 
amendment along these lines after the committee has reviewed the 
issues, after I get the views of the administration, and after the wide 
range of people who on a daily basis review the Pell Grant program have 
an opportunity to share their views as well.


                           amendment no. 443

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify why I voted 
against the Voinvich amendment No. 443 to the ESEA reauthorization bill 
dealing with loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers. It amends the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan forgiveness for certain 
loans to Head Start teachers. I thoroughly agree with the ideas 
expressed in this amendment and have supported incentives for teachers 
in the past. However, I could not support the amendment because it was 
not germane to the ESEA reauthorization. I would have supported such an 
amendment in the context of the Higher Education Act. The amendment 
provided a tax credit for those individuals who agree to be employed as 
a Head Start teacher for 5 consecutive years and have demonstrated 
knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, and early childhood 
development. I strongly believe that it is essential that we have 
qualified individuals employed in our Head Start programs and working 
with our youngest children. However, I voted against the amendment, 
because it was not germane to the ESEA legislation. I did so because 
together with other leaders on the bipartisan negotiated education 
compromise bill, I have agreed to vote against non germane amendments 
so that we will have a better chance to complete and pass this all-
important ESEA reauthorization. The amendment passed 76-24 and I am 
happy with the results.


            EDUCATION PROGRAMS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ACT

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my amendment, the Education Programs of 
National Significance Act, would reauthorize several elementary and 
secondary education programs that have been effective in improving the 
education opportunities of students throughout the country.
  One example is the National Writing Project which as first authorized 
10 years ago and for the current fiscal year is funded at $10 million.
  The National Writing Project has 169 sites in 49 States, the District 
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It provides training for 1 out of every 
34 teachers across the country. In addition, the National Writing 
Project raises $6 in local funding for every $1 in Federal funding it 
receives, and has become a model program for improving teaching in 
other academic fields such as math, science, and reading.
  Last fall, the Academy for Educational Development completed a study 
which shows the improvement of student writing achievement as a result 
of their teachers' involvement in the National Writing Project. The 
study evaluated the writing skills of 583 third- and fourth-grade 
students. The executive summary of the study states:

       Overall, these findings show that students in classrooms 
     taught by NWP teachers made significant progress over the 
     course of the school year.

  Last month, I held a Senate hearing in Bay St. Louis, MS which 
examined the effectiveness of the National Writing Project in my State. 
I heard from teachers and school administrators who gave compelling 
testimony about the positive results in their classrooms and the 
improvement of their teaching skills attributed to participation in 
National Writing Project training.
  The amendment authorizes the continuation, subject to annual 
appropriations, of the National Writing Project.
  The amendment also reauthorizes research based educational material 
delivered by public broadcasting television stations under the Ready To 
Learn Television Act of 1992. The objective was to utilize the time 
children spend watching television to prepare them for the first year 
of school. Today we know this program has resulted in improved learning 
skills for the children.
  Recent research from the University of Alabama and the University of 
Kansas tells us that Ready to Learn is having a positive impact on 
children and their parents. The University of Alabama study found that 
Ready to Learn families read books together more often and for longer 
periods than nonparticipants. And, this is a fact that surprises many, 
Ready to Learn children watch 40 percent less television and are more 
likely to choose educational programs when they do watch.
  Using the best research tested information available, Ready To Learn 
supports the development of educational, commercial-free television 
shows for young children. Between the Lions, is the first television 
series to offer educationally valid reading instruction which has been 
endorsed by the professional organizations that represent librarians, 
teachers and school principals. Its partners also include: The Center 
for the Book at the Library of Congress; the National Center for Family 
Literacy; the National Coalition for Literacy and the Home Instruction 
Program for Preschool Youngsters. This broad-based support is 
unprecedented for a children's television show. It is well deserved 
affirmation of the Ready to Learn mission.
  A recent study from the University of Kansas showed that children who 
watched Between the Lions a few hours per week, increased their 
knowledge of letter-sound correspondence by 64 percent compared to a 25 
percent increase by those who did not watch it. The parents and other 
care givers of more than six million children have participated in the 
local workshops and other services provided by 133 public broadcasting 
stations.
  I am encouraged by the success of Ready to Learn and look forward to 
a new generation of children whose families will have access to the 
information needed to develop a learning environment before they are 
enrolled in school.
  These are two of the Educational Programs of National Significance 
that I have been personally involved in starting. The others that are 
included in this amendment are also proven examples of federally funded 
education programs that will help us have a better educated student 
population throughout the Nation.
  I urge Senators to support the amendment.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, throughout this debate, we have wrestled 
with how we best improve education for all of our children; whether it 
is more money, more flexibility, more accountability, higher standards, 
less bureaucracy, more choice. All of these considerations and goals 
are worthy and certainly play an important role in ensuring that our 
children receive the best education possible.
  But, there is one ingredient--one factor--that without fail, is the 
most essential to a child's education and that is a parent. I submit 
that there is no school building, no computer, no TV, no textbook that 
can replace the role of a parent when it comes to educating a child. 
And accordingly, no government official or school official shares the 
same interest as a parent in protecting and raising their child. I say 
this because the amendment Senator Dodd and I are offering today is 
about ensuring the rights and responsibilities of parents in raising 
and educating their children.
  As parents, we entrust schools with our children in the hope and 
belief that they will receive a strong education that will prepare them 
for the future--that they will be taught and learn the basic 
foundations for success--reading and writing, math and science. Parents 
expect this.
  What they don't expect and what many of them aren't even aware of is 
that their children will be used as captive focus groups for marketers 
during the school day. That is not part of the bargain and, I submit, 
it shouldn't be.

[[Page S6304]]

  Last year a GAO study found that marketers and advertisers are 
increasingly targeting our children in the school setting. This is not 
some freak occurrence. It is a calculated marketing strategy that is 
intended to get around parents and reach kids directly in a way they 
could not normally. In a recent column raising concerns about this 
phenomenon, George Will notes how marketers now study ``marketing 
practices that drive loyalty in the preschool market'' and ``the 
desires of toddler-age consumers.'' In addition, marketers advise that 
``School is. . .the ideal time to influence attitudes.''
  There is no question that there is a lot of money to be made in 
marketing to children. According to a report by the Motherhood Project 
at the Institute for American Values, in 1998 alone, children ages 4 to 
12 spent nearly $27 billion of their own money and influenced nearly 
$500 billion in purchases by their parents. As parents, many of us have 
probably felt like it was a lot more than $500 billion at times.
  I am all for free enterprise. But, there are boundaries. And, 
marketers are crossing those boundaries when they seek to go into 
public schools and collect marketing information on children without 
parental consent. A recent editorial in the Christian Science Monitor 
echoes this sentiment.

       Schools are for learning, not market research . . . 
     Businesses do have a role in education. They can lend 
     financial and other kinds of support, and be recognized for 
     such. But educators and businesses also need to recognize 
     boundaries--and stay within them.

  Congress has acted in the past to provide some boundaries to schools 
and protect parental rights and children's privacy. The Family 
Education Rights Protection Act, the Protection of Pupil's Rights Act 
and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act all provide parents 
with some ability to protect how information is collected and shared on 
their children. None of these laws, however, protect parents' rights 
when third party marketers seek to collect similar information from 
their children in the classroom.
  Our amendment seeks to address this gap in the law and reenforce 
these boundaries by ensuring that when third parties want to come in to 
the classroom and conduct market research and collect information on 
our children for strictly commercial purposes, they have to ask the 
parent.
  We are not breaking new ground here other than filling in gaps in 
existing law. In addition, parental consent is already required for 
many other activities that occur in the schools, including 
extracurricular activities, field trips, and internet access. Indeed, 
parental consent is required before students may participate in the 
Everybody Wins Program that many Members and staff of this body 
participate in.
  I know there have been concerns and questions raised about our 
amendment and active lobbying against our efforts.
  However, in working with the White House, I believe we have addressed 
most of the these concerns as reflected in our modified amendment. We 
have sought to minimize concerns over ``burden'' by requiring parental 
consent for only those commercial/marketing activities that seek to 
collect information on children.
  In addition, we have attempted to provide local flexibility --while 
ensuring parental involvement--by allowing local school boards to 
provide additional exceptions to the consent requirements so long as 
the information they seek to collect is not personally identifiable and 
the school notifies the parents of their policy on these data 
collection activities.
  Despite our good-faith efforts to address legitimate concerns, I 
understand that some financial interests may oppose parental consent no 
matter what. They are willing to argue that requiring parental consent 
imposes a burden on local schools.
  I fundamentally disagree and submit that if we have come to the point 
where we consider parents a burden and parental consent a mandate--then 
we have a bigger problem in this country. Parents a burden? I say we 
need more such local burdens in our schools, not less. You simply can't 
get more ``local'' than a parent.
  And as a corollary to this, I would suggest that these interests have 
it backwards. It is rather the local schools that are interfering in 
the rights of parents. Schools exceed their authority when they allow 
third parties to come in to the classroom and collect information on 
children for strictly commercial purposes.
  We have tried to focus this amendment on those non-educational 
activities that parents traditionally maintain authority over. Parents 
have a tough enough time trying to raise and instill certain values in 
their children. Schools should not be a parent-free zone where 
marketers get unfettered access to children that they would not 
otherwise be able to achieve anywhere else.
  There is nothing intended in this amendment to disadvantage public-
private partnerships in our schools. And, in fact, most public-private 
partnerships have nothing to do with collecting personal information on 
children. Indeed, I continue to believe that many of these 
relationships can be very positive for schools and students. We want to 
encourage, not discourage many of these relationships.
  But, I submit that these public-private partnerships should be able 
to withstand the scrutiny of parents when they seek to collect 
information on their children. If it is in their child's interest--you 
can be sure a parent will give their permission. I don't know of any 
reputable company whose business model would be based on intentionally 
skirting parental rights and targeting children directly in the 
schools. And, I doubt, that any business that relied on such a tactic 
would be around very long.
  I do, however, believe that the amount of interest and extensive 
lobbying that has been shown on our little amendment is a strong 
indication of how much money is being made on targeting kids in the 
schools and how important it is to some marketers to get around parents 
and get access to our children directly.
  Our modified amendment was crafted in consultation with the 
Administration, and is supported by the National Parent Teacher 
Association, Commercial Alert, the Eagle Forum, the American 
Conservative Union, Focus on the Family, and the Motherhood Project at 
the Institute for American Values, among other groups.
  I am pleased with the acceptance of this amendment by the Senate and 
thank the managers for their work on this bill and on our amendment.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill is 
considered in conference.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the 
consideration of House companion H.R. 1; that all after the enacting 
clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1, as amended, be substituted in 
lieu thereof, and the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the 
bill; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference 
with the House--
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, I believe there has been a 
modification.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could restate it: I ask consent that the Senate 
proceed to consideration of the House companion, H.R. 1; that all after 
the enacting clause be stricken, and the Text of S. 1, as amended, be 
substituted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time, and that 
the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the bill.
  I further ask consent S. 1 be returned to the calendar.
  Mr. REID. 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. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The foregoing request is agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. We are about to go to final passage. I wanted to thank 
staff on both sides. This bill has been on the floor for 7 weeks. Their 
tireless efforts, literally hours, days, nights, and weekends, on 
behalf of moving this bill along have been extraordinary.
  On my staff, of course, Denzel McGuire led the effort and did an 
exceptional job. Jamie Burnett, Rebecca Liston and other folks, so many 
it is hard to mention, as well as John Mashburn, Andrea Becker, Holly 
Kuzmich, and Raissa Geary on our side have all worked extraordinary 
hours to make this work.

[[Page S6305]]

  We also thank the professional staff of Senator Kennedy, led by 
Danica and other members of their staff.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I express my thanks now, and I will do so at the 
conclusion and hope they understand we appreciate this.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will suspend, on behalf of Senator Warner, 
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw his previously submitted amendment 
No. 792.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this will be the last vote of the week. 
There will be no session tomorrow. We begin again on Monday. There will 
be no votes on Monday. For the information of all Senators, the first 
vote will occur sometime on Tuesday, but we will be in session on 
Monday.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the 
previous order, the bill will be read the third time.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

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

                                NAYS--8

     Bennett
     Feingold
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Nickles
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Inouye
       
  The bill (H.R. 1), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for the clerk to make technical and conforming changes to any 
previously agreed to amendments with respect to the ESEA bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 441, As Further Modified

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lugar 
amendment No. 441 be further modified with the technical change that I 
now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 265, line 25 strike ``identified'' and all that 
     follows through ``Secretary'' on line 1 of page 266, and 
     insert ``nationally available''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before we turn to morning business, there 
is one thing I would like to say. I have been on the floor during the 
entire 8 weeks of this debate on the education bill. A great deal of 
that time--about 6 of the weeks--I spent with Senator Jeffords as a 
manager of this bill. I just want to make sure everyone understands his 
contribution to this piece of legislation.
  He was chairman of this committee. His substitute is what we 
accepted. In the kind of glow of having finished this legislation--we 
are all happy to finish a major piece of legislation; the President 
should be happy--I just want to make sure everyone understands the 
great contribution to this piece of legislation made by the junior 
Senator from the State of Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join my friend and colleague, Senator 
Reid, in paying tribute to Jim Jeffords at the time of the completion 
of this legislation. As the Senator rightfully pointed out, Senator 
Jeffords was really the architect of the development of the core 
aspects of this legislation and presided over a very extensive markup. 
He was able to bring the committee to a unanimous vote of support for 
that legislation even though there were a good many differences that 
were expressed. It does not surprise any of us who are on that 
committee because he has been a leader in the area of education over 
his entire career in the Senate as well as in the House of 
Representatives.
  There are many features in this legislation that have been included 
of which he was really the architect many years ago. So I think all of 
us who are mindful of the progress that has been made join in paying 
tribute to Senator Jeffords for his remarkable leadership. I think this 
body will continue to benefit from his continued involvement. We 
certainly depend upon it, and I know America's children depend upon it 
as well.
  I thank Senator Jeffords for all of his good work.

                          ____________________