STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS; Congressional Record Vol. 159, No. 77
(Senate - June 04, 2013)

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 S3957-S3960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Manchin, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Boozman):
  S. 1089. A bill to provide for a prescription drug take-back program 
for members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Servicemembers and Veterans Prescription Drug Safety Act of 2013, with 
my colleagues Senators Blumenthal, Boxer, Manchin, Murkowski, and 
Boozman. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish drug 
take-back programs in coordination with both the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The number of reported suicide deaths in the U.S. military surged to 
a record 349 in 2012, which is more than the number of servicemembers 
who lost their lives in combat while serving our nation in Afghanistan 
during the same period of time. According to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, the number of suicides among veterans has reached an 
astounding rate of 22 each day based on data collected from more than 
21 states.
  These losses are unacceptable. We are losing dozens of America's 
finest each month, squandering precious talent that our nation needs 
and depriving families of their loved ones. Today's soldiers are 
tomorrow's veterans; their mental health needs must be met now to avoid 
future suicides.
  There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major 
factor in military and veteran suicides. In its January 2012 report, 
Army 2020: Generating Health and Discipline in the Force, the Army 
found that 29 percent of suicides involved individuals with a known 
history of psychotropic medication use, including anti-depressants, 
anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and other controlled substances 
such as opioids.
  This report recommended the establishment of a military drug take-
back program to help combat prescription drug abuse in the ranks. Given 
that more than 49,000 soldiers were issued three or more psychotropic 
or controlled substance prescriptions last year, and an estimated 3,500 
soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it is past time we act on 
this recommendation and implement a military drug take-back program.
  In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some 
of the military's best minds to protect our soldiers and give them the 
tools they need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise 
attack. Unfortunately, we have not focused sufficient resources or 
creativity to suicide prevention. While I applaud the military's, and 
especially the Army's, and VA's efforts to address this threat 
seriously, we must do more.
  At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has the 
inherent authority to conduct a drug take-back program. Three years 
ago, the Congress passed the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act 
of 2010, which provided the Attorney General the flexibility necessary 
to delegate similar authority to other agencies for the collection and 
disposal of controlled substances. Since that time, the Attorney 
General has not sufficiently exercised his existing authority to 
provide this much needed assistance to the Department of Defense and 
the VA. The DEA recently proposed new regulations to expand the options 
available to collect controlled substances for purposes of disposal. 
Unfortunately, the proposed regulations fall short because they fail to 
authorize the Department of Defense or the VA to collect controlled 
substances through appropriate mechanisms.
  DEA has concerns that DOD and VA cannot maintain the same strict 
accountability of drugs to prevent the misuse, abuse, or sales in the 
black market. I am confident, however, that the DOD--the institution 
that has developed and implemented programs for the handling of nuclear 
weapons and classified information--and the VA are capable of 
conducting drug take-back programs with the utmost accountability and 
highest of standards.
  Excluding the DOD and VA from conducting drug take-back programs is 
detrimental to efforts to reduce controlled substance abuse, decrease 
non-medical use of prescription drugs, prevent diversion of controlled 
substances, and limit the possibility for accidental overdose and death 
for our servicemembers and veterans, or their family members. This 
legislation will provide the necessary authority to give both 
departments an effective drug-take back program that will help address 
the scourge of suicide.
  The loss of even one servicemember or veteran to a potentially 
preventable suicide involving controlled substance abuse or misuse is 
unacceptable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this 
important, life-saving legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Sanders, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Franken, Mr. Bennet, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Murphy, and Ms. Warren):
  S. 1094. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I 
have been committed to ensuring that all children in this country 
receive a quality education. Today, I join my Democratic colleagues on 
the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which I 
chair, in introducing a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, ESEA, which has become better known in 
recent years as the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. In my view, our 
bill will appropriately redefine the Federal role in education in this 
country and will focus our collective efforts to improve the lives of 
our most vulnerable children.
  I want to start with a few words about the Federal role in education, 
since ESEA, in large measure, determines that role. While it is 
certainly true that education is primarily a State and local function, 
the Federal Government also plays an important role, and a well-
educated citizenry is clearly in the national interest. A cardinal 
Federal role is to ensure all Americans, regardless of race, gender, 
national origin, religion and disability have the same equal 
opportunity to a good education. Likewise, the Constitution expressly 
states that our national government was formed to ``promote the general 
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.'' The general welfare is 
greatly endangered when the populace is not adequately educated. And, 
education is critical to liberty.
  ESEA was first passed in 1965 in order to provide aid to States and 
school districts to improve education for children from low-income 
families. And in 1975, Congress passed the Education for All 
Handicapped Children Act, later renamed the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, to assist States and districts in educating 
children with disabilities. For more than 40 years, the Federal 
government has trained its focus on the mission that all children 
should have the chance to fulfill their full potential.
  The No Child Left Behind Act represented a departure from previous 
reauthorizations of ESEA. Lawmakers felt compelled to be more 
prescriptive with States to ensure that they improved their low-
performing schools and focused on closing pernicious student 
achievement gaps. NCLB defined ``adequate yearly progress'' for schools 
and districts; it required districts to put aside money to implement 
public school choice and tutoring in schools identified for 
improvement; it included a list of rigorous interventions for low-
performing schools and an additional category of ``restructuring'' for 
the most chronically low-performing schools with even more severe 
consequences. NCLB reflected good intentions. However, as we have seen 
over the course of the past 12 years, those good intentions did not 
translate to good policy on-the-ground. Many States lowered 
expectations for students with the standards and assessments they 
developed. Many local

[[Page S3958]]

schools and teachers were branded failing when some of their students 
did not meet the rigid benchmarks the Federal Government had set--even 
though in many instances students had made substantial progress. 
Districts felt hamstrung by the requirement to spend money on reforms 
that simply did not meet the needs of many students.
  The Secretary of Education has given schools a reprieve from these 
onerous requirements through a flexibility agreement that States have 
undertaken voluntarily. While this reflects a positive change for the 
time being, it is no substitute for a new law. The actions of the 
Secretary, while laudable, may only last as long as this 
administration. What will happen in 2016? Will the flexibility 
agreements stay in place or will States be forced to revert to the 
requirements of what will then be a 15-year-old law that reflects old 
thinking?
  The bill I am introducing along with HELP Committee Democrats follows 
a different course than NCLB, and one similar to the flexibility 
agreements instituted by the U.S. Department of Education. We ask for a 
system of shared responsibility with States and school districts. I 
believe that we are entering an era in which the Federal Government can 
work in partnership with States to improve our Nation's schools, while 
continuing to provide a backstop to avoid returning to old ways. Our 
bill gets rid of AYP, but sets Federal parameters for State-and 
locally-designed accountability systems. These systems must: cover all 
students, including students with disabilities and English learners; 
continue to measure and report on the performance of all schools; 
expect sufficient progress for all schools and subgroups of students; 
and provide for local interventions in low-performing schools or 
schools with low-achieving student subgroups beyond the lowest 
performing 5 percent. States that have received a waiver from the 
Secretary in the past two years can continue to operate under the 
agreements they made. States without a waiver will develop 
accountability plans that set schools on a path to attain the same 
levels of student achievement as the top 10 percent of schools in their 
State. However, if States have a different accountability system in 
mind, they can develop one that is equally ambitious to the ones above, 
subject to approval by the Secretary of Education, an important 
safeguard on the quality and integrity of these systems.
  Our bill sets the high bar of ensuring that students who graduate 
from high school are college- and career-ready. It narrows the Federal 
focus to turning around persistently low-achieving schools and our 
Nation's dropout factories--those schools that graduate less than 60 
percent of their students--as well as schools with significant student 
achievement gaps.
  Our bill also asks States to put greater emphasis on the learning of 
children in the early years because we know that so many of our 
children, particularly children from low-income families, have gaps in 
learning before they even enter the school door. I have often said that 
learning begins at birth and the preparation for learning begins before 
birth. For the first time in the law's history, it is a purpose of 
Title I to provide children access to high-quality early learning 
experiences so that they come to school ready to learn. Our bill also 
encourages States to begin providing full-day kindergarten if they do 
not do so already. It also asks States to have, or establish, early 
learning and development guidelines that describe what children should 
know and be able to do before they enter kindergarten so that States 
can address gaps in learning as early as possible.
  Our bill also takes the significant step of closing the 
``comparability loophole'' so that funds provided through Title I of 
ESEA will finally serve as additional dollars for our neediest 
students, and Title I schools will get their fair share of Federal 
resources. It also provides districts with more flexibility in how 
States and districts spend their Federal funds while ensuring that the 
resources designated to serve our most disadvantaged students get to 
those students. The bill creates a Professional Growth and Improvement 
System that requires the development of rigorous and fair teacher and 
principal evaluations, and provides these critical school staff with 
the support they need to continually improve teaching and learning. It 
also leverages opportunities for more children to access high quality 
early learning programs and adds new protections for some of our most 
vulnerable children--homeless students and students in foster care--so 
that they will be better served by schools.
  Our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds 
on a smaller number of programs to allow for greater flexibility, and 
supports districts in extending the school day and year, strengthening 
their literacy, science, math or technology programs, fostering safe 
and healthy students, and offering a more well-rounded curriculum that 
includes the arts and physical education. It invests in effective 
programs to train and support principals and teachers for high-need 
schools. And, it fosters innovation through new programs like Race to 
the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhoods.
  I believe this is a very good bill and I am proud of our efforts. We 
owe it to our kids and our nation to produce a law that provides States 
and districts with the certainty, support and resources they need to 
make meaningful strides in improving our educational system. To that 
end, I would note that historically, education policy in Congress has 
been done in a bipartisan fashion. I want to give appropriate credit to 
the Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, the distinguished senior 
Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. We worked in good faith for 
many months to attempt to forge an agreement on a path forward. 
However, in the end, there were certain fundamental issues on which we 
could not agree. That is why, along with other HELP Committee 
Democrats, I have decided to move forward with a Democratic bill. It is 
my strong hope that Senate Republicans will recognize the significant 
changes that we have made in this bill to address their concerns, and 
will work with us to reconcile remaining disagreements so that together 
we can pass a law that provides children with a greater chance at 
reaching their full potential. It is the duty and responsibility of 
members of Congress in both houses to replace the No Child Left Behind 
Act with a new and better law.
  This bill represents significant change, and change is difficult. We 
must work to together to move from a culture of minimal compliance with 
Federal requirements to one of shared innovation, shared responsibility 
and success for all students. I look forward to working towards this 
new partnership and to the next chapter of an effective Federal role in 
promoting educational excellence and equity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1096. A bill to establish an Office of Rural Education Policy in 
the Department of Education; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1865, Horace Greeley wrote in the New 
York Tribune, ``Go West, young man, and grow up with the country.''
  For decades, Greeley's words captured the imagination of a country, 
and millions of families flocked to the West for a glimpse of the 
American dream. Rural America continues to thrive, and places like my 
home State of Montana offer an excellent place to raise a family. But 
there is a no question that rural and frontier America present unique 
circumstances that differ substantially from our more urban neighbors.
  While rural education is becoming an increasingly large and important 
part of the U.S. public school system, the unique challenges and 
opportunities within rural communities are often misunderstood or 
overlooked. According to the Digest of Education Statistics reported 
annually by the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of 
students attending rural schools increased by over 11 percent, from 
10.5 million in 2004 to nearly 11.7 million by 2008. Rural students now 
comprise almost one fourth of the Nation's public school enrollment. 
And nearly one-third of all schools in the nation are located in rural 
areas.
  Yet despite the significant percentage enrolled in rural schools, the 
importance of rural education is often obscured by the fact that rural 
students

[[Page S3959]]

are--naturally--widely-dispersed, located in small, geographically 
isolated school districts. The size, diversity, and complexity of rural 
education support a greater policy focus on the unique challenges and 
solutions for rural education.
  Montana is the fourth largest State by land mass, totaling over 
147,000 square miles. More than half of Montana's 830 schools enroll 
less than 100 students. From Eureka to Ekalaka, from Scobey to Darby, 
these small schools dot the landscape, providing not only a learning 
environment but often a thriving community center.
  Montana's rural communities are doing an excellent job educating our 
next generation. Overall, Montana graduation rates are higher than the 
national average. Montana students taking the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress, NAEP, in 2011 scored higher than the national 
average in both reading and math.
  But despite the success of Montana's rural schools, they also face a 
unique set of challenges that their urban-centric peers may not even 
comprehend.
  For example, rural schools report greater difficulties in recruiting 
and retaining qualified teachers, due to inability to offer competitive 
salaries, geographic isolation, and for some, severe weather. Rural 
districts often have fewer personnel. The district superintendent is 
often also the high school principal. He or she may also be the Title I 
coordinator, the math curriculum specialist, and sometimes also the bus 
driver. In isolated areas, schools face challenges in providing 
professional development and training for teachers and principals. 
Small rural districts are often located long distances from other 
districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing opportunities 
to partner or collaborate. Additionally, the long distances students 
must travel between school and home make it more difficult to 
participate in traditional remedial services, mentoring, and after-
school programs.
  And while Horace Greeley encouraged us to ``Go West'', many of the 
Department of Education's recent initiatives have failed to do just 
that. In the first two rounds of the Race to the Top competitive grant, 
only one State west of the Mississippi received funding.
  And in some cases, even good intentions have created adverse 
consequences. The first round of the Investing in Innovation, i3, 
competitive grant program provided ``competitive preference points'' 
for applicants serving at least one rural district, in an effort to 
encourage and support rural applicants. However, the Department's lack 
of guidance and independent scorers' lack of understanding of rural 
areas still left authentically rural programs at a clear disadvantage. 
The Rural School & Community Trust highlighted in its report Taking 
Advantage that this ``rural preference'' instead had the effect of 
inducing urban applicants to include minimal rural participation merely 
in order to gain the additional scoring points for primarily urban 
projects. While the Department has made strides to improve the 
competitive chances of rural applicants, funding under the I3 grant 
continues to be directed to more urban school districts.
  I am joined today by my colleagues Senator Rockefeller of West 
Virginia and Senator Collins of Maine in reintroducing the Office of 
Rural Education Policy Act. This bipartisan bill will establish the 
Office of Rural Education Policy, housed at the Department of 
Education's Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. This Office and 
its Director will be tasked with coordinating the activities related to 
rural education and advising the Secretary on issues important to rural 
schools and districts. The legislation requires the Department to 
consider the impact of proposed rules and regulations on rural 
education and to produce an annual report on the condition of rural 
education. The goal of this bill is to allow rural schools to focus 
their time and resources on students in the classroom rather than red 
tape in the bureaucracy.
  The Office of Rural Education Policy will be tasked with establishing 
a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information related to 
the unique challenges of rural areas, as well as, the innovative 
efforts underway in rural schools to tackle these challenges.
  We have received strong support from dozens of organizations, 
including: American Association of Community Colleges, American 
Association of School Administrators, Alliance for Excellent Education, 
Center for Rural Affairs, Coalition for Community Schools, Council for 
Opportunity in Education, Montana School Board Association, Montana 
State Superintendents Association, Montana Rural Education Association, 
National Association of Development Organizations, National Education 
Association, National Farmers Union, National School Board Association, 
Organizations Concerned about Rural Education, Rural School and 
Community Trust, and Save the Children. I want to thank all the 
supporters of the bill, and want to particularly thank the efforts of 
the Rural School and Community Trust for its steadfast commitment to 
this proposal.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to 
move this legislation, to ensure our rural students and schools across 
the country are given a fair shake.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1096

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Office of Rural Education 
     Policy Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Secretary of Education has recognized that 
     ``[r]ural schools have unique challenges and benefits'', but 
     a recent report by the Rural School and Community Trust 
     refers to the ``paucity of rural education research in the 
     United States''.
       (2) Rural education is becoming an increasingly large and 
     important part of the United States public school system. 
     According to the Digest of Education Statistics reported 
     annually by the National Center for Education Statistics, the 
     number of students attending rural schools increased by more 
     than 11 percent, from 10,500,000 to nearly 11,700,000, 
     between the 2004-2005 and 2008-2009 school years. The share 
     of the Nation's public school enrollment attending rural 
     schools increased from 21.6 percent to 23.8 percent. In 
     school year 2008-2009, these students attended 31,635 rural 
     schools, nearly one-third of all schools in the United 
     States.
       (3) Despite the overall growth of rural education, rural 
     students represent a demographic minority in all but 3 
     States, according to the National Center for Education 
     Statistics.
       (4) Rural education is becoming increasingly diverse. 
     According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 
     the increase in rural enrollment between the 2004-2005 and 
     2008-2009 school years was disproportionally among students 
     of color. Enrollment of children of color in rural schools 
     increased by 31 percent, and the proportion of students 
     enrolled in rural schools who are children of color increased 
     from 23.0 to 26.5 percent. More than one-third of rural 
     students in 12 States are children of color, according to 
     research by the Rural School and Community Trust (Why Rural 
     Matters 2009).
       (5) Rural education is varied and diverse across the 
     Nation. In school year 2007-2008, the national average rate 
     of student poverty in rural school districts, as measured by 
     the rate of participation in federally subsidized meals 
     programs, was 39.1 percent, but ranged from 9.7 percent in 
     Connecticut to 71.9 percent in New Mexico, according to the 
     National Center for Education Statistics.
       (6) Even policy measures intended to help rural schools can 
     have unintended consequences. In awarding competitive grants 
     under the Investing in Innovation Fund program under section 
     14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
     (Public Law 111-5), the Secretary of Education attempted to 
     encourage and support rural applicants by providing 
     additional points for proposals to serve at least 1 rural 
     local educational agency. But according to research by the 
     Rural School and Community Trust (Taking Advantage, 2010), 
     this ``rural preference'' mainly had the effect of inducing 
     urban applicants to include rural participation merely in 
     order to gain additional scoring points for primarily urban 
     projects.
       (7) Rural schools generally utilize distance education more 
     often for both students and teachers. A fall 2008 survey of 
     public schools by the National Center for Education 
     Statistics found that rural schools were 1\1/2\ times more 
     likely to provide students access for online distance 
     learning than schools in cities. A September 2004 study from 
     the Government Accountability Office reported that rural 
     school districts used distance learning for teacher training 
     more often than non-rural school districts.
       (8) The National Center for Education Statistics reports 
     that base salaries of both the lowest and highest paid 
     teachers are lower in

[[Page S3960]]

     rural schools than any other community type.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to establish an Office of Rural Education Policy in the 
     Department of Education; and
       (2) to provide input to the Secretary of Education 
     regarding the impact of proposed changes in law, regulations, 
     policies, rules, and budgets on rural schools and 
     communities.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF RURAL EDUCATION POLICY.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Department of Education 
     Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3411 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 221. OFFICE OF RURAL EDUCATION POLICY.

       ``(a) In General.--There shall be, in the Office of 
     Elementary and Secondary Education of the Department, an 
     Office of Rural Education Policy (referred to in this section 
     as the `Office').
       ``(b) Director; Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Office shall be headed by a 
     Director, who shall advise the Secretary on the 
     characteristics and needs of rural schools and the effects of 
     current policies and proposed statutory, regulatory, 
     administrative, and budgetary changes on State educational 
     agencies, and local educational agencies, that serve schools 
     with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(2) Additional duties of the director.--In addition to 
     advising the Secretary with respect to the matters described 
     in paragraph (1), the Director of the Office of Rural 
     Education Policy (referred to in this section as the 
     `Director'), through the Office, shall--
       ``(A) establish and maintain a clearinghouse for collecting 
     and disseminating information on--
       ``(i) teacher and principal recruitment and retention at 
     rural elementary schools and rural secondary schools;
       ``(ii) access to, and implementation and use of, technology 
     and distance learning at such schools;
       ``(iii) rigorous coursework delivery through distance 
     learning at such schools;
       ``(iv) student achievement at such schools, including the 
     achievement of low-income and minority students;
       ``(v) innovative approaches in rural education to increase 
     student achievement;
       ``(vi) higher education and career readiness and secondary 
     school completion of students enrolled in such schools;
       ``(vii) access to, and quality of, early childhood 
     development for children located in rural areas;
       ``(viii) access to, or partnerships with, community-based 
     organizations in rural areas;
       ``(ix) the availability of professional development 
     opportunities for rural teachers and principals;
       ``(x) the availability of Federal and other grants and 
     assistance that are specifically geared or applicable to 
     rural schools; and
       ``(xi) the financing of such schools;
       ``(B) identify innovative research and demonstration 
     projects on topics of importance to rural elementary schools 
     and rural secondary schools, including gaps in such research, 
     and recommend such topics for study by the Institute of 
     Education Sciences and other research agencies;
       ``(C) coordinate the activities within the Department that 
     relate to rural education;
       ``(D) provide information to the Secretary and others in 
     the Department with respect to the activities of other 
     Federal departments and agencies that relate to rural 
     education, including activities relating to rural housing, 
     rural agricultural services, rural transportation, rural 
     economic development, rural career and technical training, 
     rural health care, rural disability services, and rural 
     mental health;
       ``(E) coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Education, the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior, and 
     the schools administered by such agencies regarding rural 
     education;
       ``(F) provide, directly or through grants, cooperative 
     agreements, or contracts, technical assistance and other 
     activities as necessary to support activities related to 
     improving education in rural areas; and
       ``(G) produce an annual report on the condition of rural 
     education that is delivered to the members of the Education 
     and the Workforce Committee of the House of Representatives 
     and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of 
     the Senate and published on the Department's Web site.
       ``(c) Impact Analyses of Rules and Regulations on Rural 
     Schools.--
       ``(1) Proposed rulemaking.--Whenever the Secretary 
     publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any 
     rule or regulation that may have a significant impact on 
     State educational agencies or local educational agencies 
     serving schools with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, 
     as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary (acting through 
     the Director) shall prepare and make available for public 
     comment an initial regulatory impact analysis. Such analysis 
     shall describe the impact of the proposed rule or regulation 
     on such State educational agencies and local educational 
     agencies and shall set forth, with respect to such agencies, 
     the matters required under section 603 of title 5, United 
     States Code, to be set forth with respect to small entities. 
     The initial regulatory impact analysis (or a summary) shall 
     be published in the Federal Register at the time of the 
     publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for the 
     rule or regulation.
       ``(2) Final rule.--Whenever the Secretary promulgates a 
     final version of a rule or regulation with respect to which 
     an initial regulatory impact analysis is required by 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary (acting through the Director) 
     shall prepare a final regulatory impact analysis with respect 
     to the final version of such rule or regulation. Such 
     analysis shall set forth, with respect to State educational 
     agencies and local educational agencies serving schools with 
     a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the 
     Secretary, the matters required under section 604 of title 5, 
     United States Code, to be set forth with respect to small 
     entities. The Secretary shall make copies of the final 
     regulatory impact analysis available to the public and shall 
     publish, in the Federal Register at the time of publication 
     of the final version of the rule or regulation, a statement 
     describing how a member of the public may obtain a copy of 
     such analysis.
       ``(3) Regulatory flexibility analysis.--If a regulatory 
     flexibility analysis is required by chapter 6 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for a rule or regulation to which this 
     subsection applies, such analysis shall specifically address 
     the impact of the rule or regulation on State educational 
     agencies and local educational agencies serving schools with 
     a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 221(c) of the Department of 
     Education Organization Act, as added by subsection (a), shall 
     apply to regulations proposed more than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________