[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 22 (Thursday, March 2, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1045-S1087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AFFORDABLE EDUCATION ACT OF 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S.
1134 which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1134) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow tax-free expenditures from education individual
retirement accounts for elementary and secondary school
expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of
contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 2827.
Pending:
Coverdell (for Mack/Hatch) amendment No. 2827, to eliminate
the marriage penalty in the reduction in permitted
contributions to education individual retirement accounts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are making progress on this legislation.
On our side, we have approximately seven or eight amendments remaining.
Of course, there could be others offered, but we think we have been
moving well on this legislation. I alert my colleagues, Senators Boxer,
Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, Dorgan, Graham, Kerry, Harkin, and
Wellstone, that they should be ready to offer their amendments in the
approximate order I have read off their names, and we will try to alert
their offices to give them adequate notice to get over here.
I ask unanimous consent that the time until 10 o'clock be scored
equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. I think it is already in the order, but I would
certainly agree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The time is equally divided.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2827
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Mack-
Hatch amendment that is currently before the Senate. This is an
important issue both as a matter of educational policy and as a matter
of fairness in tax policy. I congratulate the Senator from Florida for
joining me in bringing it up as a part of the debate on this bill.
There has been a lot of discussion in recent months about the problem
of the so-called marriage tax penalty. Actually, if we were to be
totally accurate, we would talk about the marriage penalties. The
American Institute of CPAs has found that the Internal Revenue Code
contains at least 66 separate
[[Page S1046]]
provisions that can cause a marriage penalty--66. Think about it. Many
of our colleagues may not realize this, but at the same time we were
supporting legislation to eliminate marriage penalties, we were busy
creating new ones.
This brings me to the purpose of our amendment. The bill we are
debating today would expand the education savings account Congress
created in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This is a great idea, and I
fully support it. However, the provision creating the education savings
account in 1997 contained a flaw--a marriage penalty. This penalty is
found in the fact that the phaseout threshold for married couples found
in joint returns is less than twice as high as the threshold for single
taxpayers.
The amendment before us would correct this problem by raising the
threshold for married couples from the current level of $150,000 to
$190,000, which is twice the $95,000 threshold for individuals. It is
that simple.
Some may argue that this is a trivial matter. Why are we taking up
the Senate's valuable time on such a minor change. While to some this
may not be the important tax change we should consider if this one
problem is viewed by itself, this issue is much larger than that.
First, let's start with the obvious. We are debating S. 1134 to
provide incentives for American families to save for their children's
education: tuition payments, books, tutoring, computers, and other
things. The idea, of course, is to benefit children. The goal is to
further their educational opportunities. But without the Mack-Hatch
amendment, we discriminate against some two-parent families who wish to
take advantage of an education savings account. In some cases, the
allowable resources in the account available for their children's
education would be greater if mom and dad merely divorced and set up
separate accounts. That is not what we want in this country.
Second, it is time we raise the consciousness of the Senate about how
seemingly minor boilerplate provisions in tax bills can eventually harm
taxpayers in big ways. I would venture a guess that one of the reasons
we have 66 separate marriage penalties built into the Tax Code is that
Congress simply copied over and over, year after year, the faulty
language referring to returns filed by single taxpayers and married
couples. Once enacted, of course, they spread like a computer virus.
Later today, I plan to offer another amendment that would correct yet
another marriage penalty we created in 1997, this time in the student
loan interest deduction. I hope my colleagues will support Senator Mack
and I on behalf of these amendments.
These amendments represent a good start on finding and correcting
some of these tax inequities that riddle the Internal Revenue Code. I
am looking forward to working more on this issue when the Finance
Committee takes up marriage penalty legislation in the next few weeks.
I congratulate Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, for
making meaningful relief in this area a high priority.
In listening to my constituents talk about the issue of taxes, I
continue to hear one thing over and over again. The No. 1 complaint I
hear from Utahans even more than that of taxes being too high is that
of the Internal Revenue Code's complexity and unfairness. In my view,
few things in our jumbled up Tax Code are more unfair than the
provisions that make taxpayers pay more just because they are married.
Let's take this simple first step and eliminate this one marriage
penalty by adopting this amendment. Then later, when I bring up my
amendment on the student loan interest deduction marriage penalty,
let's take on that one as well. Later this spring, we can do even more
with the larger marriage penalty bill. We should fix all 66 of these
marriage penalties, even if we have to do it one by one.
Let's strike a blow for tax fairness. I urge the adoption of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the remarks of Senator Hatch of Utah. I
believe Senator Brownback is here. How much time is remaining on our
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine and one-half minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Brownback and the
remainder of the time then to the cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank Senator Coverdell and add my voice in support
of the amendment by Senator Mack and Senator Hatch.
The marriage penalty appears in the Tax Code 66 different places.
That is a situation where we have a married couple who do not get the
same advantages as two people filing individually. Here is another case
where the marriage penalty occurs, and here is another case where we
are trying to pull it out of the Tax Code. That is why I add my voice
of support to this amendment by Senator Hatch and by Senator Mack to
eliminate this portion of the marriage penalty that appears in the
education IRAs.
Annually, there are about 22 million married couples who pay a
penalty of some sort or another in the Tax Code, for being married.
They pay an average of $1,480 more in Federal income taxes than they
would if they were single living together. I think it is a bad signal
that we send across the country. It is a bad signal in the Tax Code. It
is one we ought to ferret out wherever we possibly can.
This is a good place for us to address this particular issue. Our Tax
Code is riddled with provisions that penalize America's families. The
House has passed a bill to provide marriage tax penalty relief that is
separate and distinct from this particular area of the marriage
penalty. What they would do is provide marginal rate brackets that are
fair for the families. They would eliminate the marriage penalty that
exists in the standard deduction as well. However, even with those
changes, which I am hopeful we can pass this year, we still will have
more to do to ensure married people are not discriminated against in
our Tax Code.
In fact, our Tax Code penalizes marriage in over 60 different ways,
according to the American Association of Certified Public Accountants.
This is unacceptable. We must continually work to make our Tax Code
better, to make it fairer for America's families.
This amendment being offered by my colleagues, Senator Mack and
Senator Hatch, takes an important step in our Tax Code to end a bias
against marriage. I am hopeful we will pass this amendment on a strong
bipartisan basis. We will pass more substantive marriage tax penalty
relief later this year.
As my colleagues have already described, the Hatch-Mack amendment
eliminates the marriage penalty and the reduction in contributions to
education and individual retirement accounts. This important provision
will remove one of the marriage tax penalties that exists in our Tax
Code. I believe we must pass this important amendment.
I thank my colleagues who are introducing the amendment for allowing
me this time to speak on the bill and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment 2827. This
amendment, cosponsored by Senators Hatch and Murkowski, is very simple
and straightforward. It eliminates the marriage penalty in the
education savings accounts.
Married couples should not suffer a tax increase just because they
are married. The so-called marriage penalties in the Tax Code do just
that. Married couples often have to pay higher taxes than the couple
would owe if they were single filers. The House has recently addressed
this issue in the broader Tax Code, and we will soon do the same. But
it makes no sense to have marriage penalties built into newer programs
we have created, such as the tax-free education savings accounts.
Under this amendment, as under the administration's HOPE scholarship
tax credit and Lifetime Learning credit, the income eligibility for
joint filers would be double the amount for single filers. People who
qualify for these accounts when they are single should not lose this
valuable opportunity to provide for their children's education just
because they got married.
When the Senate first passed education savings accounts in the 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act, all Americans
[[Page S1047]]
were eligible to use these vehicles to save for their children's
education. While that bill was in conference, however, income limits
were added to this tax benefit, but these limits injected a marriage
penalty into this provision. There is absolutely no policy
justification for a marriage penalty in education tax benefits. This
should not be a partisan issue.
As I mentioned earlier, the administration's education proposal did
not contain a marriage penalty, but the income limits the
administration negotiated when the 1997 bill was in conference created
a marriage penalty in the education savings accounts. Now is the time
for us to eliminate this marriage penalty.
According to my Joint Economic Committee staff, this amendment will
allow over 2 million households to establish education savings accounts
for their children.
We should be looking to remove marriage penalties in the Tax Code
instead of making them worse. Our amendment will ensure that married
couples can save for their children's education on an equal basis, as
single individuals can.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is interesting that on a bill pertaining
to education, we are talking about how we can help 4 or 5 percent of
the people in this country. First of all, I have nothing against people
making $150,000 a year. I think that is wonderful, and I hope they make
even more money. But the Hatch amendment will allow married couples
earning between $150,000 and $190,000 to make full contributions to
ESAs and will allow couples with incomes up to $220,000 to make partial
contributions.
Under current law, the maximum income a married couple can earn for
an ESA contribution is $150,000. The proponents of this amendment
describe this amendment as a marriage penalty relief. Well, I guess
from one perspective they are right. The ability of the single tax
payer to make ESA contributions phases out between $95,000 and
$110,000. For married couples filing jointly, the phaseout range is
$150,000 to $165,000.
The Hatch amendment would make the phaseout range for married couples
twice that of single individuals; that is, $190,000, twice $95,000, to
$220,000, twice the $110,000 previously spoken of.
Accordingly, the only beneficiaries of this amendment are married
couples filing joint returns earning more than $150,000 but less than
$220,000 in a year. As I have said before, people making up to $220,000
a year can make partial contributions.
We have yet to obtain an estimate from the Joint Tax Committee.
Notice, no one has talked about how much this is going to cost. It will
cost plenty. We do know that families earning $150,000 in income are in
the top 5 percent of all American families. For 1997, the top 5 percent
was $137,080 and has likely increased since then. In other words, 95 or
96 percent of American families would not benefit from this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record tabular matter from
the Department of Commerce setting this forth.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
NO. 751.--SHARE OF AGGREGATE INCOME RECEIVED BY EACH FIFTH AND TOP 5 PERCENT OF FAMILIES: 1970 TO 1997
[Families as of March of the following year. Income in constant 1997 CPI-U-X1 adjusted dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income at selected positions (dollars) Percent distribution of aggregate income
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Number Upper limit of each fifth
(1,000) ------------------------------------------------ Top 5 Lowest 5th Second 5th Third 5th Fourth 5th Highest Top 5
Lowest Second Third Fourth percent 5th percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970.............................................. 52,227 19,820 32,333 43,910 60,357 94,240 5.4 12.2 17.6 23.8 40.9 15.6
1975.............................................. 56,245 19,954 32,857 45,694 63,266 99,099 5.6 11.9 17.7 24.2 40.7 14.9
1980.............................................. 60,309 20,282 34,148 48,365 67,866 107,260 5.3 11.6 17.6 24.4 41.1 14.6
1985.............................................. 63,558 19,816 34,138 49,451 71,940 117,787 4.8 11.0 16.9 24.3 43.1 16.1
1990.............................................. 66,322 20,687 35,666 51,625 75,510 125,696 4.6 10.8 16.6 23.8 44.3 17.4
1991.............................................. 67,173 20,033 34,305 50,672 74,229 121,169 4.5 10.7 16.6 24.1 44.2 17.1
1992 \1\.......................................... 68,216 19,119 33,946 50,335 73,272 121,275 4.3 10.5 16.5 24.0 44.7 17.6
1993 \2\.......................................... 68,506 18,849 33,322 50,016 74,190 125,714 4.1 9.9 15.7 23.3 47.0 20.3
1994 \3\.......................................... 69,313 19,429 33,898 50,901 75,808 130,006 4.2 10.0 15.7 23.3 46.9 20.1
1995.............................................. 69,597 20,084 34,738 51,589 76,101 130,228 4.4 10.1 15.8 23.2 46.5 20.0
1996.............................................. 70,241 20,132 35,102 52,258 77,044 130,937 4.2 10.0 15.8 23.1 46.8 20.3
1997.............................................. 70,884 20,586 36,000 53,616 80,000 137,080 4.2 9.9 15.7 23.0 47.2 20.7
White........................................... 59,515 22,576 38,258 55,783 82,442 142,400 4.6 10.2 15.7 22.8 46.8 20.7
Black........................................... 8,408 11,396 21,875 36,052 57,000 95,684 3.4 9.1 15.6 25.1 46.8 17.6
Hispanic origin \4\............................. 6,961 12,642 22,200 34,963 53,548 96,460 3.9 9.2 14.9 22.8 49.3 21.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on 1990 census population controls. \2\ See text, this section, for explanation of changes in data collection method. \3\ Introduction of new 1990 census sample design. \4\
Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-200; and <http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/index.html> (accessed 23 March 1999).
NO. 752.--MONEY INCOME OF FAMILIES--DISTRIBUTION, BY FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS AND INCOME LEVEL: 1997
[See headnote, Table 749. For composition of regions, see map inside front cover]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income level (1,000)
Number of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Median
Characteristic families Under $10,000 to $15,000 to $25,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 and income
(1,000) $10,000 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 over (dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All families................................................. 70,884 4,816 4,054 9,250 9,079 12,357 15,112 16,217 44,568
Age of householder:
15 to 24 years old............................................. 3,018 720 361 659 456 443 264 114 20,820
25 to 34 years old............................................. 13,639 1,363 922 1,814 1,846 2,637 3,080 1,977 39,979
35 to 44 years old............................................. 18,872 1,151 826 1,934 2,120 3,285 4,734 4,820 50,424
45 to 54 years old............................................. 14,695 530 500 1,112 1,420 2,303 3,640 5,189 59,959
55 to 64 years old............................................. 9,391 484 407 991 1,081 1,700 1,997 2,731 50,241
65 years old and over.......................................... 11,270 567 1,037 2,739 2,156 1,989 1,398 1,385 30,660
White.............................................................. 59,515 3,185 3,047 7,454 7,552 10,527 13,172 14,578 46,754
Black.............................................................. 8,408 1,428 824 1,486 1,193 1,302 1,344 832 28,602
Hispanic origin \1\................................................ 6,961 956 759 1,397 1,066 1,199 887 697 28,142
Northeast.......................................................... 13,338 904 608 1,570 1,596 2,158 2,853 3,648 48,328
Midwest............................................................ 16,594 898 797 1,993 2,122 3,093 3,862 3,829 46,734
South.............................................................. 25,682 2,008 1,689 3,718 3,492 4,565 5,230 4,981 41,001
West............................................................... 15,270 1,006 959 1,968 1,869 2,542 3,167 3,760 45,590
Type of family:
Married-couple families........................................ 54,321 1,488 2,100 5,899 6,497 9,978 13,200 15,159 51,591
Male householder, wife absent.................................. 3,911 358 292 703 707 694 716 440 32,960
Female householder, husband absent............................. 12,652 2,971 1,661 2,647 1,875 1,685 1,195 618 21,023
Unrelated subfamilies.............................................. 575 219 86 133 69 51 14 3 13,692
Education attainment of householder: \2\
Total........................................................ 67,866 4,096 3,693 8,590 8,622 11,913 14,848 16,103 45,874
Less than 9th grade................................................ 4,667 690 799 1,267 728 624 341 219 21,208
9th to 12th grade (no diploma)..................................... 6,604 1,027 753 1,465 1,085 1,101 778 395 25,465
High school graduate (includes equivalency)........................ 21,991 1,439 1,152 3,261 3,517 4,610 4,991 3,021 40,040
Some college, no degree............................................ 12,107 559 562 1,358 1,666 2,338 2,964 2,661 46,936
Associate degree................................................... 5,226 162 174 506 556 1,005 1,468 1,355 52,393
Bachelor's degree or more.......................................... 17,272 221 253 733 1,071 2,235 4,306 8,454 73,578
Bachelor's degree.............................................. 11,201 156 185 581 797 1,616 3,079 4,788 67,230
[[Page S1048]]
Master's degree................................................ 3,903 46 46 109 194 451 868 2,188 81,734
Professional degree............................................ 1,249 10 12 25 50 111 203 839 106,942
Doctorate degree............................................... 919 8 10 18 30 58 156 638 103,203
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. \2\ Persons 25 years old and over.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-200.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I have said, this is the time that we are
debating public education, I hope. And we are talking about taking
taxpayer money--that is what this is about--and giving tax relief to
the top 4 or 5 percent of people in America. I am not too sure that is
a proper allocation of income.
We have limited resources. We can talk about all the surpluses we
want, but, as we know, when it comes time to allocating moneys in the
appropriations process, there are very scarce dollars. There are very
scarce dollars for public education. As has been established in this
debate, the Federal Government contributes 2 percent of its resources
to public education in America. The Governors were in town from all 50
States crying for more money for all kinds of things, especially
education. Of course, we don't want to take the control of education
away from the local schools, but local schools, as Senator Murray from
Washington talked about yesterday, a former school board member, need
to get some financial relief. We should be spending these limited
resources not on trying to help somebody who makes up to $220,000 a
year; we should be getting resources to these schools with tight
budgets. We must focus on what we know works, what is going to help
children in school more. Is it this tax relief to 4 or 5 percent of the
American people or to do something about getting teachers who are
better trained? We need to recruit and monitor high-quality teachers
and principals. We need to do something about creating smaller classes.
With all due respect to the majority, they talk about smaller class
size--the Senator from New Hampshire talked about that yesterday.
Common sense dictates that if a teacher has 25 or 30 children as
compared to 15 children, where is that teacher going to do the better
job? Of course, it would be with 15 children. We need to have smaller
classes and we need to work on having smaller schools because we know
that works, too. We need to hold schools accountable for results. This
takes resources that local school districts don't have. We need to
ensure that children learn in modern, safe classrooms.
Some schools are badly in need of repair. It has been established in
the debate we have had over the last few days that the average school
in America is 42 years old. Well, I am sure those schools need some
renovation and repair. We need to expand access to technology. We rush
down--Democrats and Republicans--sponsoring and voting for a bill to
give these big corporations tax credits for donating computers to
schools. I think that is wonderful, but we should also be concerned
about the many schools that aren't properly equipped to use these
computers. They are not wired properly. They can't be wired properly a
lot of times because the schools are simply too old. We need to spend
money to ensure universal access to high-quality preschool programs and
to make college affordable.
I hope we all understand what we are here talking about. We are
talking about helping kids become better citizens of this country, and
the best way is through education. I respectfully submit that helping
people making up to $220,000, that is, 4 to 5 percent of the American
people, is not the best way to expend our very limited resources.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I wanted to put some information in the
Record. It is unfortunate that all Members did not have the information
as to what the cost of this amendment would be. It is nowhere near what
was implied by my friend who just concluded his comments.
The Joint Tax Committee has estimated the amendment will reduce taxes
by only $7 million over 10 years. That is point one. Point two, the
reason that is the case is because the individuals who would be
affected by this already have the option to use prepaid tuition plans.
Now, there seems to be agreement with respect to tuition tax plans of
people of high income, as Senator Reid indicated a moment ago. We have
all agreed it was fair to them. Why is it not fair to allow the same
benefits to derive to them under the education savings accounts as
under the prepaid tuition plan?
So, again, the cost is $7 million over 10 years. Roughly 2 million
families would be affected, not 20 percent of potential families. It is
narrowly focused and it is addressing the issue of a marriage penalty;
there is no place in our proposal, the education savings plan, for
discriminating against those who are married.
I thank the Chair for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 1\1/2\. The minority has 8\1/
2\.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COVERDELL. 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. COVERDELL. The hour of 10 a.m. has arrived. By prior order, the
vote is to begin. I am prepared to yield back our time so we can
commence with the vote. I hope the Senator from Nevada will do the
same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There still remains 4 minutes under the
control of the minority.
Mr. REID. We yield back that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2827. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
[[Page S1049]]
NAYS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Bond
McCain
Moynihan
The amendment (No. 2827) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, is recognized to offer an amendment
which the clerk will report.
Amendment No. 2869
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-free
expenditures from education individual retirement accounts for
elementary and secondary school expenses, to increase the maximum
annual amount of contributions to such accounts, and for other
purposes)
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], for himself, Mr.
Ashcroft, and Mr. Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered
2869.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Florida, Mr. Graham, is recognized to offer a second-degree amendment
which the clerk will report.
Amendment No. 2870 to Amendment No. 2869
(Purpose: To reinstate certain revenue raisers)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment
numbered 2870 to amendment No. 2869.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment to S.
1134, the Affordable Education Act.
First, my amendment makes this legislation a true tax cut bill for
education. My amendment removes all the bill's tax increases. We should
not be taxing away with one hand what we return with another in a time
of Federal budget surplus. Americans should not be taxed again to pay
for a national priority.
Second, my amendment makes permanent the increase from $500 to $2,000
in the annual contribution amount for a kindergarten-to-college
education IRA. Without these permanent increases in contribution limits
and spending flexibility, both would end after the year 2003. My
amendment removes that sunset because I believe that we should not be
sunsetting our Nation's future, which is the education of our children.
Education IRAs are extremely important. Not only does the increase to
$2,000 I propose make these accounts more attractive to families who
want to use them, but to institutions who want to offer them. And even
more important than these additional incentives to adults is the one
they give to children. As experts have testified, there is something
special about knowing that money is being put away for your future
education. It is an incentive to excellence for both today and
tomorrow.
Third, my amendment fixes a trap for the unwary. Currently, a student
who takes money from an education IRA is not able to use the HOPE or
Lifetime Learning Credit--even if they are for different education
expenses. That is wrong, and it is downright deceptive to families who
need both. My amendment allows parents to use both and to use both
permanently.
Finally, my amendment makes the tax-free treatment of employer-
provided educational assistance permanent--both undergraduate and
graduate. Something as important and necessary as continuing education
should not be wrapped up in the uncertainty of frequently needed
legislative action.
Why is the permanency of my amendment's provisions so important?
Because they would allow parents to contribute up to $2,000 annually
toward their child's education--from the day of birth to the first day
of college.
Even that may not seem like a lot but, like a train, it may start
slowly but it is very powerful. It will gain speed. It is a savings
express to college.
By putting their child on the savings express, after 18 years when
that child is ready to go to college, the parents will have over
$65,000. And that just assumes a 6-percent rate of interest--the rate
on a government security. Of course, other investments could yield even
more. Parents would have at least $65,000 toward their child's
education. Twenty-nine thousand dollars of that would be solely due to
the power of compounding interest. And every cent of that $29,000 would
be tax-free--it would go straight into education.
Maybe that still does not seem like a lot to some folks, but it sure
seems like a lot to parents who are struggling today to insure college
for their children tomorrow.
The national average annual cost of college--tuition, room, and
fees--is roughly $10,000 per year or $40,000 for the cost of college
education.
My amendment before us today will cover this. It will give parents
and students peace of mind and a piece of the American dream.
My amendment is a powerful incentive to save. It is an engine. It is
the engine that can pull a long train of savings--and dreams.
Like the ``Little Engine that Could,'' my amendment makes this
legislation the ``Education Savings Plan that Will.'' Parents and
children getting on this savings train, will get off at college to a
better future.
America has waited for this education savings plan for three long
years. This legislation brings it home today. My amendment makes sure
it stays there for families--not just for today, but for tomorrow and
all the days that follow. It is time that the President got on board.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in a bipartisan effort to make
education affordable for America's families.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I could not agree more with the comments
that were made by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee
relative to the importance of America investing in its future, and
education is one of the most fundamental ways in which we are able to
shape our future, by assuring that our young people are fully prepared
to meet the challenges of this exciting new century.
It was for that reason that I supported this legislation when it was
reported with a bipartisan vote from the Senate Finance Committee. I
also supported it because it recognized another aspect of our
responsibility to the future, and that is to act in a fiscally prudent
manner, particularly at this rare moment of opportunity we have before
us today.
The U.S. Government had its last surplus in 1969. We then had 30
years of deficit financing. Our national debt went from 1979's little
better than $900 billion to 1999's national debt of almost $5.5
trillion. That is trillion with a T.
That is the extent of the profligate fiscal policy in which this
country has engaged for the better part of three decades. But in the
last few years, we have started to get seriously committed to not
asking our children and grandchildren to pay our debts, and the result
of that has been a dramatic reduction in our annual deficits to the
point that now we are, for the first time in over three decades, in a
surplus position.
We have made a decision--and I hope we will stay faithful to that
decision--that we will commit all of the surplus
[[Page S1050]]
which is generated from Social Security to the reduction in the
national debt as the means by which we can make our greatest
contribution to the long-term solvency of the Social Security system.
Second, we would husband the non-Social Security surplus to use
against a set of yet-to-be-determined national priorities.
My concern is that the pattern we are now following--and I am going
to give a little history of what has happened in the past few months--
is that we are dissipating that opportunity to use the non-Social
Security surplus against a set of national priorities by an incremental
approach. A good idea or an appealing idea is presented, and we say: We
will buy that, and we will pay for it out of the non-Social Security
surplus.
Then a few days later another good idea comes along and we say: We
would like to buy that, too; we'll pay for it from the non-Social
Security surplus.
Do you know what is going to happen? It will not be long before there
isn't any credit line left in that non-Social Security surplus. We will
awaken and say: There were some really big things we needed to do. We
have a contract out here--a contract between the Federal Government and
the people of America for their Social Security.
Right now, our ability to meet that contract, even with the
investment we are going to make in reducing the national debt, is very
uncertain. We should be using some of this non-Social Security surplus
to help shore up our long-term ability to meet that contractual
obligation. But because we spent all the non-Social Security surplus on
these incremental piece-by-piece, toy-by-toy ideas, we will not have
any money when we want to give America a big gift, the security of the
Social Security system.
We also are not going to have any money to do other important things
for which we have a contract with the American people, such as to
assure there will be a health care system for our older citizens. We
know the Medicare system, as Social Security, has some very daunting
challenges facing it in the next few decades, as the number of eligible
Americans for Medicare and Social Security will double. Yet we will not
have the resources to make that kind of a commitment.
To focus on this specific issue, as I indicated earlier, I voted for
this bill when it was reported from the Finance Committee because I
thought it made good education policy but also because it was paid for.
We were not asking future generations to sacrifice the non-Social
Security surplus to pay for this program. We found some means within
our current spending and taxing policy to generate the resources to pay
for this program. We thought this program was important enough to pay
for it, not ask our grandchildren to pay for it. I think that is not a
failure; that is a statement of the seriousness of our intention.
It is a lot easier to buy something somebody else has to pay for than
to buy something you have to go into your own bank account and write
that check to pay for. That is a statement of an important and serious
commitment to the objective. We had made that statement of the
seriousness of this goal by our willingness to pay for it.
We are proposing to do two things: One, make it substantially more
expensive; and, two, not pay for it.
My amendment does a simple thing; that is, it says we should at
least, at a minimum, keep in this bill those items that would help to
pay for it, which the Senate Finance Committee, just a matter of a few
weeks ago, found to be an appropriate method of financing this program.
Let me put that simple principle into the context of what we are
doing.
First, we are making a series of significant fiscal decisions before
we have adopted the budget resolution. For those who are new or
unfamiliar with this process, the Congress, as one of its earliest
efforts to get a handle on the 30 years of deficits, adopted a complex
budget process which has, as its linchpin, a congressionally adopted
budget resolution.
That resolution would be analogous to an architect's set of plans for
constructing a building. It gives the general direction, framework, and
prioritization of Federal fiscal policy each year. Those priorities
then drive the individual appropriations and tax measures which will
support that architectural plan.
We have not yet seen the architectural plan for fiscal year 2001
which will be affected by this measure, and, therefore, we do not know
what within that plan is going to be the provision for tax-and-spending
measures that would support this educational proposal. We do not know
what will be the scale of the non-Social Security surplus.
We do know this: The scale of the non-Social Security surplus could
be as much as $1 trillion from the high to the low estimate. That
depends largely on what is going to be our spending appetite.
In the next 10 years, if we spend at the same rate we did in the last
year, for the year 2000 fiscal budget, according to CBO, we are going
to end up with a budget surplus of approximately $838 billion over the
next 10 years for the non-Social Security account.
If we go back to the budget caps we adopted in 1997--which I
supported last year, and for that reason I voted against the omnibus
appropriations bill--we would have a surplus over the next 10 years of
about $1.9 trillion. Those are the two extremes of the resources we
will have. Yet before deciding that fundamental question: Are we going
to be dealing with a surplus of $838 billion or are we going to be
dealing with a surplus of $1.9 trillion? we are making decisions as to
how to distribute the surplus.
Second, this is not the first example of that spending.
Let me catalog what we have already done.
In the Patients' Bill of Rights bill--and today is the start of its
conference--we have proposed to spend $30 billion over 10 years of non-
Social Security surplus in various tax reductions. The bankruptcy
bill--which has passed both Houses, and which is or soon will be in
conference--proposes to have tax cuts of $103 billion. The educational
savings bill--the bill before us today--with the amendment the Senator
from Delaware has proposed, would have a cost of approximately $13
billion. I use the word ``approximately'' because several of the
measures that are in this bill or may be proposed to the bill have not
been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The marriage penalty
bill, which passed the House, has a cost of $182 billion over the next
10 years.
If we were to reject the House approach and adopt the legislation
which has been introduced in the Senate Finance Committee, and which
was contained in last year's Taxpayers Refund Act of 1999, that would
increase the cost of the marriage penalty to $311 billion over 10
years.
The consequence of what we have already done, using the conservative
level on the marriage penalty, is we have already spent approximately
$328 billion of our $838 billion, 10-year, non-Social Security
surplus--before we have adopted a budget resolution, before we have
decided how much of the non-Social Security surplus should be used for
priorities such as strengthening Social Security and assuring its
solvency for three generations, before we have made a decision as to
how much should be spent on strengthening Medicare and modernizing
Medicare so it represents the kind of health care program our older
Americans deserve, before we have made decisions on what our defense
budget should be in order to protect the security of America.
All of those things have gone undecided. Yet we have decided to spend
$328 billion on this collection of tax-and-spending measures before we
have an architectural plan. It would be similar to the family who wants
to build a house, and before they have the architect draw the plans for
the house, they decide, ``We will go ahead and put in an attic family
room,'' without any context of how that is going to relate to the rest
of the house. It is always fun to be able to spend your money on those
things that are joyful and happy without having to put your mind to the
task of deciding what is of greatest importance.
My amendment is a very modest one. It proposes to put back into the
bill exactly the same items which were in the bill when it left the
Senate Finance Committee. Let me briefly mention what those items are.
First is a modification of the foreign tax credit carryover rules.
This has a
[[Page S1051]]
financial impact of $3.6 billion over 10 years. I point out that this
is not a new idea for the Senate to consider. In fact, the Senate has
already passed this bill, first in 1997, as part of the Taxpayer Relief
Act; in 1998, as part of the IRS restructuring program; in 1998, as
part of the Parent and Student Savings Act; in 1999, as part of the
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act; and in 1999, as part of work
incentives. It appears from that record that the Senate has studied, is
aware of, knowledgeable of this tax issue and has decided this would be
an appropriate measure to use as a partial offset for the educational
savings account.
The second measure is to limit use of the nonaccrual experience
method of accounting. This would contribute $300 million over the next
10 years. That proposal was first adopted in 1999 as part of the
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act, passed in 1999 as part of the trade
bill offset, and passed in 1999 as part of the Work Incentives Act--
again, not a novel idea, an idea that the Senate has had repeated
exposure to and repeatedly has found to be worthy.
The third item is the extension of IRS user fees. This would produce
$278 million over 10 years. This was passed as part of the 1999
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act and the 1999 work incentives.
The fourth item is to allow employers to transfer excess defined
benefit assets. That would make a contribution of $156 million. That
was included in the 1999 Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act.
Finally, with a contribution of $1.2 billion over 10 years, is to
impose a limitation on the prefunding of certain employee benefits.
This passed the Senate in 1999 as part of the Taxpayer Refund and
Relief Act and in 1999 as part of the Trade Act offset.
These five items aggregate to $5.5 billion over 10 years. These items
were part of the package that had the objective of fully funding the
educational savings account so it would not contribute to any reduction
in the non-Social Security surplus when this bill passed the Senate
Finance Committee.
I do not represent that these items will fund the bill in its current
form, because the bill has ballooned in cost since it has been on the
Senate floor. I suggest we ought to first take this modest step of at
least retaining the offsets that have already been voted by the Finance
Committee and which are in the bill and then, before we take a final
vote on this legislation, assess what the cost of this total program is
as amended by the full Senate, and then find an offset to pay for those
additional amounts.
Failing to do so is to make a statement that we are prepared to spend
the non-Social Security surplus without any frame of reference, without
any budget resolution, without any architectural plan as to what we
want to do. That is a prescription to return to the three decades of
deficit spending which threatened the fiscal solvency and the economic
future of this Nation. I believe it would be reckless for this
Congress, having worked so hard to get to a surplus, not to now use
this opportunity to make the hard decisions as to what is the priority
for the use of this surplus and then to have the discipline to follow
that set of priorities.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment which will be a
symbolic statement that we are prepared to exercise fiscal discipline
in times of potential prosperity and plenty, just as we had to exercise
fiscal discipline during the 1990s in order to remove ourselves from
the quagmire of deficits and exploding national debt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, my colleague from Florida has offered an
amendment he claims will offset the cost of this bill by keeping in
place its current tax increases. It will not and what's more it should
not, even if it did.
Senator Graham claims this education savings bill must be paid for.
Let me say the bill is already paid for. It has been paid for by a
surplus in income tax revenues from America's families.
According to the Senate Budget Committee, federal revenues, not
counting a cent of Social Security's surplus, will be $1.9 trillion
higher over the next ten years than this year's level of federal
spending. That means a $1.9 trillion overpayment by America's income
taxpayers. Are we saying that despite a $1.9 trillion overpayment that
we cannot afford to let families keep less than one percent of it for
their children's education?
Second, leaving these tax increases in this bill will still not pay
for it fully. They are simply tax increases then--not offsets.
Finally, when Senate Democrats offered their tax relief package last
July, it amounted to $290 billion over ten years. None of this was
offset. Why now, when the issue is education and the tax relief is just
a fraction of the amount that Senate Democrats supported last year,
must we now raise taxes to pay for it? This is simply inconsistent.
Perhaps an even better question is: Why must we raise taxes to
constitute this offset? Why could those wishing to pay for this, not
find the small amount of money necessary from a $1.8 trillion budget?
To pay for this from Washington's budget rather than the American
taxpayer's?
I am sympathetic to the argument of fiscal responsibility. However at
a time of substantial tax overpayment, why should it be so hard to
allow families to keep some of their own tax overpayment for their
children's education?
If we cannot say that when the federal government is running federal
surpluses worth, according to our Budget Committee, almost $2 trillion
over the next ten years; and we are seeking to return less than half a
percent for education, when can we ever have a reason to cut taxes?
The federal tax burden as a percentage of the economy is the largest
that it has been since World War II. The federal income tax burden as a
percentage of the economy is the largest in history. Those are not my
estimates but the President's. Once again I ask: if we cannot cut taxes
when they are at historically high levels, when can we cut them?
The tax overpayment is huge, the tax burden is historically high, and
the cost of this education provision is small, if we cannot cut taxes
now and for education--when and for what can we ever cut them?
Sadly, I cannot help but believe that there are some Senators who
must think that we can never cut taxes. That taxpayers' money is always
better spent in Washington than by the people who earned it. I am one
Senator who does not believe this is true.
I intend to vote against this amendment to raise taxes. Furthermore,
I intend to bring more legislation to the floor that will cut taxes--
not raise them.
I believe that this education legislation is precisely what America's
income tax surplus should be used for: America's families.
I urge my colleagues to join with me and reject the Graham amendment
and keep my proposed permanent tax relief for education.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the issue is not whether we believe
investment in education is an important part of America's future; we
all agree with that. It is not even whether we believe there should be
some tax reductions to encourage people to invest in their children's
education as well as other desirable goals. Most of us believe in that.
I certainly do. The question is, How do we have a rational process of
deciding how we are going to use the opportunities that are presented
to us here today?
It is interesting to me that as we start the third full century of
America's national history we might reflect back on what happened at
the beginning of the 19th century and the 20th century--the two other
full centuries of this Nation's existence. In both of those periods,
there seemed to be an energy that came from a new century and the new
beginnings that it represented--an energy that was channeled into areas
that have had a lasting, positive impact on our Nation.
In the beginning of the 19th century, the President of the United
States was one of the gentlemen whose bust appears above our Presiding
Officer--Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson had the vision to see that
America's future was not in being a scattering of States along the
Atlantic but, rather, as a continental empire. And at a time
[[Page S1052]]
when our country was small and struggling, and in some areas of Europe
derided as a false dream of a democracy, Thomas Jefferson had the
boldness to commit us to purchase from France the Louisiana Territory
and fundamentally reshaped America and created the possibility of the
great Nation we are today. That was the vision Thomas Jefferson and his
colleagues had for America at the beginning of the 19th century.
In the beginning of the 20th century, another man whose bust is close
to this Chamber, Theodore Roosevelt, was our President. He had a vision
of an America that would begin to achieve its international goals. The
Panama Canal was a statement not only of America's great technological
capacity but also America's understanding of its role in the world.
Theodore Roosevelt also understood the importance of investing in this
country. During his Presidency, we added to our national land trust an
amount of land that would be the equivalent of every acre from the
State of Maine to my State of Florida along the Atlantic coast of
America. Those were bold visions of the generation of Thomas Jefferson
and the generation of Theodore Roosevelt.
We have the opportunity now, both because of the start of a new
century and a new millennium and because we have paid the price to get
our national financial house in order, to begin to think boldly of what
we want to have history write about what America did at the beginning
of the 21st century. The concern I express today is that we are
dissipating that opportunity through a series of incremental,
uncoordinated, nonprioritized decisions that are going to have the
effect of continuing to dissipate the resources that could be used to
do something as bold as purchasing Louisiana or building the Panama
Canal.
The chairman of the Finance Committee said that the Budget Committee
has indicated we will have a budget surplus over the next 10 years from
non-Social Security funds of almost $2 trillion. Well, I say, let's
wait until we pass a budget resolution that indicates that is going to
be the amount of our budget surplus. As you will recall, we made a
commitment in 1997 that we were going to exercise budget discipline and
abide by budget caps. Those decisions would have caused us, last year,
to have had a discretionary spending account of approximately $575
billion. In fact, we ended up spending over $620 billion. We crushed
and we pulverized the budget ceilings that were supposed to be the
hallmark of fiscal discipline.
I want to be sure that we are going to declare that our 1999 actions
were an aberration rather than the path of future lack of fiscal
discipline before I conclude that we are going to have a nonbudget
surplus of $1.9 trillion. We are being asked to take a leap of faith
that runs directly counter to what we did a matter of a few weeks ago
when we passed that bloated final appropriations bill--that that was a
mistake, and that we asked for the repentance of the American people,
and we are going to go back to the fiscal discipline that would be
required to have a $1.9 trillion non-Social Security surplus, which is
the discipline of returning to those 1997 budget caps. I want to see us
make that commitment and live up to that commitment before we start
spending the money. Let's eat our spinach before we start having our
ice cream party.
Second, in addition to not having set a budget resolution, which is
the architecture of our fiscal policy, we haven't even had a serious
debate on what our strategic priorities should be at the beginning of
this century, that capability which fiscal discipline would give us. We
haven't decided what we are going to do about the fact that, whereas
today there are approximately 40 million Americans on Social Security
and Medicare, at the end of the next generation we are going to have 80
million Americans looking to Social Security and Medicare--looking to
the solemn contract that exists between the Government of the United
States of America and the people of the United States of America to
provide them financial and medical security in retirement. I think we
ought to be figuring out how we are going to meet that solemn
obligation before we do any of these other items--as attractive,
desirable, and important as we might think they are. I believe those
are our first two priorities.
I am seriously concerned that the course we are on, which is
following exactly what we did in 1999, is going to lead us to a
dissipation of our capacity to set rational priorities, that we will
become the first political leadership of America at the beginning of a
new century, and instead of being the giants of Jefferson and Theodore
Roosevelt, we will be the Pygmies in the toy store trying to fulfill
our immediate desires and needs without focusing on what is in the best
interests of America in this 21st century.
This vote today is not a giant vote of fiscal policy. I said in my
concluding remarks that this does not even purport to fund the bill
that is before us, in large part because the bill before us has been
growing almost hourly since it has been on the floor. This amendment
the Senator from Delaware offered would be the most gargantuan growth
of this bill we have experienced since it has been on the floor, an
addition of approximately $10 billion over 10 years.
I do not purport that this amendment will fund fully this bill. I say
this amendment is a critical statement of whether we are serious about
fiscal discipline, whether we are serious about setting a plan for the
fiscal future of this Nation--at least a plan for the next fiscal year
before we start spending our non-Social Security surplus--and whether
we are serious about setting some longer range priorities to meet these
very significant legal and moral obligations the American Government
has to the American people. That is what this vote is about.
Are we willing to take the very minor step of saying that we are
willing to strip out of this bill five relatively small tax changes,
all of which have been passed by this Senate, in most cases on multiple
occasions, and ask our grandchildren to pay out of the non-Social
Security surplus they will be contributing to over the next 10 years,
or are we going to step up and say this is the time we will make a
statement, a commitment, a pledge for fiscal discipline?
It is my strongest wish we in the Senate do not see this as some kind
of a partisan divide. We were able to contain the deficits and get to
the point that we are because we worked together as Americans, not as
members of any particular party or representatives of any region or
interest of this country. It is in America's interest that we exercise
this fiscal discipline.
Today is the day we can make an important statement that we are
prepared to do so. I urge us not to let this opportunity pass.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is somewhat fascinating to me that this
week and today we are being accused of spending too much on education;
that we cannot afford to dedicate something close to one-half of 1
percent to assure our American families the kind of education they need
these days. Yet a few days ago, the legislation was belittled for not
spending enough. We can't have it both ways.
What I think is particularly important to understand is that No. 1,
no matter is more important to the American family or to this Nation
than a well-educated citizenry.
I believe what is remarkable about this legislation as modified by my
amendment is it takes a very little amount to accomplish so much.
The continuing education of Americans is obviously critically
important because of the continuing technological revolution we are
enjoying. The new generation is going to be facing the need to continue
their education to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future.
I find it very puzzling when we recognize--and the administration, as
well, recognizes--that over the next 10 years we will have nearly a $2
trillion surplus, and we cannot take a very small part of that to help
assure American families of all backgrounds the opportunity to be well-
educated citizens.
I urge my friends and my colleagues to vote against the Graham
amendment, the Senator for whom I have the highest respect.
I think this is something for which we should use the surplus. I
think there is nothing more important than American education.
[[Page S1053]]
Let me point out once more that American families are paying higher
taxes than any time since the end of World War II. Close to 20 or 21
percent of gross domestic product is going to Federal taxes. It is my
solid belief that it is important we return part of that to the
American family. One of the most important reasons for returning it is
to assure they have the resources and are able to send their children
not only to the schools of their choice but to college and graduate
education as well.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the second-degree
amendment and to support my amendment which would make permanent many
of the benefits contained in this legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey, Senator
Lautenberg, wishes to speak on this amendment. It is my understanding
he is on his way over.
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. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that the yeas and nays be ordered on
the second-degree amendment, No. 2870.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ROTH. I ask for the yeas and nays on the first-degree amendment,
No. 2869.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. 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. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how is the time managed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is equally divided.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will begin by talking about the
underlying bill which is entitled the Affordable Education Act. I stand
in opposition to the bill as it is presented because I don't know who
can afford it. Can the citizens of this country afford to have
resources diverted from the public school system? With all of its
deficiencies, it is the underlying educational system that exists
throughout the country. The bill will shortchange our public schools
and provide more than 70 percent of the tax breaks to families in the
top 20 percent of the income brackets.
I come from the State of New Jersey. As everyone knows, New Jersey is
the most densely populated State in the country. We are essentially an
urbanized State. We do have some suburbs; we have very little by way of
rural population.
When we say we are going to provide our citizens with an ``option,''
the option is more or less to abandon the public school systems,
particularly in our urban centers which are struggling to make ends
meet and struggling to educate our children.
I was born in the city of Paterson, NJ. It is highly industrialized.
Initially its growth was from textile production, textile
manufacturing. My father and grandfather worked in those mills. I visit
the city of my birth quite often. It is a very low-income city, as is
Newark, our largest city in New Jersey, as is Jersey City, another of
our large cities in New Jersey--small in comparison with other States,
where one city can be 10 or 20 percent of the population. We don't have
that. We have lots of cities.
They struggle, and we are often disappointed in the SAT scores. We
look beyond the SAT scores and we see young people who can learn and
accomplish things and get through the maze and make something of their
lives despite the inconveniences that often come with insufficient
physical structure in the schools, schools with instructors who do not
have the appropriate teacher training, and schools that do not have
sufficient revenues to make the needed investments.
I, personally, since I come out of the computer business, have been
involved with some of our schools. I picked Patterson, NJ, in
particular and tried to make a financial as well as a physical
contribution, pulling wires into some of the schools so they could have
some connection to the Internet--not fully, not sufficient for all the
students, but we are living almost on spare change in cities such as
that. We have to figure out a way to improve those educational
standards.
By permitting people to avoid going to those schools, those few who
have enough income to go elsewhere, we are not going to help the basic
educational system that has done so well in this country. Before
private schools became as interesting as they are now, public schools
produced the talent and the brilliance and the leadership this country
has seen. We put up a sign that says: Abandon the schools if you can
afford it, abandon the public school system; get out of town if you
can.
We made mistakes in our planning over the years. One of the most
obvious is, although we did something very positive by building our
National Highway System--it was begun in the 1950s--it had an
unanticipated consequence and that was to encourage abandonment of the
cities. Move out of town, get some nice space--and I don't blame people
for wanting to do that--and leave the problems behind. As a
consequence, the average income of the people who inhabit the cities
has gone down substantially; the tax base has gone down substantially,
and the revenues are just not there.
So, as that happened, as people had less loyalty to the cities, they
also wanted different school options. Now what we are seeing is, with
these tax breaks for people who can afford to send their kids to
private schools, that they, too, will abandon their interest. It will
also cost the country, by my calculation, somewhere close to $15
billion over the next 10 years, possibly even more. That is significant
when we are trying to pay down the debt, trying to find ways to provide
prescription drugs for people who need them, when we are trying to find
other ways to improve the educational system altogether. Now we are
saying the plan in this act is to have the revenue losses offset by
other opportunities. Adding insult to injury, our distinguished friend,
Senator Roth, has offered an amendment that would eliminate the
revenue-raising portions of the bill and seek to spend surplus funds
for the tax breaks in the legislation.
To use an expression: That compounds the problem. Before we start
spending projected surpluses that may or may not exist, we ought at
least understand how large those surpluses are likely to be and have an
overall plan for using them. Otherwise, before we know it, we will have
frittered away the surpluses and used up funds that will be needed for
higher priorities.
In particular, I am concerned we reserve enough of the surpluses to
ensure we can protect Social Security, extend the life of Medicare,
make sure we consider the prescription drug program, give targeted tax
breaks, and pay down the debt. The American people salute that. They
know when you are in debt it is never easy to plan ahead. Boy, we would
set one incredible example if we could get our debt paid down by 2013,
which is the objective of the President's plan. I also think we ought
to make sure we protect those surpluses for other needs that will be
discussed in our upcoming budget debate, which I hope will commence
very shortly.
In my view, those priorities I discussed are more important than
subsidizing private schools for a relatively small number of families.
But even if you support the goals of this bill, I hope my colleagues
will agree that, at a minimum, we ought to have in front of us a plan
for using the surpluses before we start spending them. That makes
sense. Not many people make expenditures without knowing what their
paycheck is going to be. That is why we have a budget resolution. That
is why we have a budget process.
I am the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee and the chairman of
the committee, someone widely respected, is Senator Domenici. While we
[[Page S1054]]
have our differences, there is a process at play, and we want to see it
worked out before we start making expenditures from surpluses we are
not even sure of arriving or what the amount of those surpluses is
going to be.
The Budget Committee has not begun to mark up the budget resolution.
We still have some time to meet our deadline, so it is premature to be
considering a bill such as this. Before we start handing out scarce
private resources to public-subsidized private schools for a few
families, let's adopt a plan to protect Social Security, protect
Medicare. Let's provide prescription drugs for our seniors. Let's make
sure we are on a path toward eliminating our publicly held debt.
I also point out there is a technical flaw in this amendment. By
eliminating the revenue-raising provisions of the bill, this amendment
would trigger an across-the-board cut that we know as a sequester. Such
a cut would be required under the Budget Act. The end result is it
would force a cut in Medicare, veterans' benefits, farm aid, child
support enforcement and foster care, among other programs. I do not
think that is the intent of the sponsors. I think the point of this
amendment is to spend future projected surpluses. But its actual
effect, unless corrected, would be to cut programs such as Medicare and
others. Either way, I think it would be a mistake to support this
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Let's adopt a budget
resolution before we start squandering projected budget surpluses.
Let's make sure we can protect Social Security and Medicare before we
start raising these funds. And let's not adopt an amendment that
perhaps would unintentionally require real and immediate cuts in
Medicare, veterans' benefits, and other programs.
While I urge defeat for this amendment, I do not want it
misunderstood. I do not want it to ensure the passage of the underlying
bill, which is to give those tax benefits to people at the upper end of
the income scale and help abandon our schools, as opposed to facing up
to our problems and working on the public school system; just help
people walk away from it. I don't think that is a good way to solve
problems.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold for a second, I think on the
pending amendment, the second-degree amendment, we should yield back
the time on that?
Mr. ROTH. Yes. We are pleased to yield back the remainder of time on
both the first- and second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. REID. I also say the two leaders want to schedule a vote at some
later time. So with the permission of the majority, we will go to
another amendment.
I would say the order of business is to go to the Boxer amendment.
We have submitted to the majority the Boxer amendment. They indicated
they want some time to look at it. It deals with a very important
subject, and that is the safety of our children in schools.
We hope we can get to that debate as soon as possible. While they are
looking at that amendment, the Senator from North Dakota has an
amendment he desires to offer at this time.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to
allow the Senator from North Dakota to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 2871
(Purpose: To provide parents, taxpayers, and educators with useful,
understandable school report cards)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. It is an
amendment that has been duly noticed under the unanimous consent
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 2871.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2 between lines 2 and 3, add the following:
TITLE ____--STANDARDIZED SCHOOL REPORT CARDS
SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Standardized School Report
Card Act''.
SEC. ____02. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) According to the report ``Quality Counts 99'', by
Education Week, 36 States require the publishing of annual
report cards on individual schools, but the content of the
report cards varies widely.
(2) The content of most of the report cards described in
paragraph (1) does not provide parents with the information
the parents need to measure how their school or State is
doing compared with other schools and States.
(3) Ninety percent of taxpayers believe that published
information about individual schools would motivate educators
to work harder to improve the schools' performance.
(4) More than 60 percent of parents and 70 percent of
taxpayers have not seen an individual report card for their
area school.
(5) Dissemination of understandable information about
schools can be an important tool for parents and taxpayers to
measure the quality of the schools and to hold the schools
accountable for improving performance.
SEC. ____03. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to provide parents, taxpayers,
and educators with useful, understandable school report
cards.
SEC. ____04. REPORT CARDS.
(a) State Report Cards.--Each State educational agency
receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 shall produce and widely disseminate an
annual report card for parents, the general public, teachers
and the Secretary of Education, in easily understandable
language, with respect to elementary and secondary education
in the State. The report card shall contain information
regarding--
(1) student performance in language arts and mathematics,
plus any other subject areas in which the State requires
assessments, including comparisons with students from
different school districts within the State, and, to the
extent possible, comparisons with students throughout the
Nation;
(2) attendance and graduation rates;
(3) professional qualifications of teachers in the State,
the number of teachers teaching out of field, and the number
of teachers with emergency certification;
(4) average class size in the State;
(5) school safety, including the safety of school
facilities, incidents of school violence and drug and alcohol
abuse, and the number of instances in which a student was
determined to have brought a firearm to school under the
State law described in the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994;
(6) to the extent practicable, parental involvement, as
measured by the extent of parental participation in school
parental involvement policies described in section 1118(b) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(7) the annual school dropout rate, as calculated by
procedures conforming with the National Center for Education
Statistics Common Core of Data;
(8) student access to technology, including the number of
computers for educational purposes, the number of computers
per classroom, and the number of computers connected to the
Internet; and
(9) other indicators of school performance and quality.
(b) School Report Cards.--Each school receiving assistance
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, or
the local educational agency serving that school, shall
produce and widely disseminate an annual report card for
parents, the general public, teachers and the State
educational agency, in easily understandable language, with
respect to elementary or secondary education, as appropriate,
in the school. The report card shall contain information
regarding--
(1) student performance in the school in language arts and
mathematics, plus any other subject areas in which the State
requires assessments, including comparisons with other
students within the school district, in the State, and, to
the extent possible, in the Nation;
(2) attendance and graduation rates;
(3) professional qualifications of the school's teachers,
the number of teachers teaching out of field, and the number
of teachers with emergency certification;
(4) average class size in the school;
(5) school safety, including the safety of the school
facility, incidents of school violence and drug and alcohol
abuse, and the number of instances in which a student was
determined to have brought a firearm to school under the
State law described in the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994;
(6) parental involvement, as measured by the extent of
parental participation in school parental involvement
policies described in section 1118(b) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(7) the annual school dropout rate, as calculated by
procedures conforming with the National Center for Education
Statistics Common Core of Data;
[[Page S1055]]
(8) student access to technology, including the number of
computers for educational purposes, the number of computers
per classroom, and the number of computers connected to the
Internet; and
(9) other indicators of school performance and quality.
(c) Model School Report Cards.--The Secretary of Education
shall use funds made available to the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement to develop a model school report
card for dissemination, upon request, to a school, local
educational agency, or State educational agency.
(d) Disaggregation of Data.--Each State educational agency
or school producing an annual report card under this section
shall disaggregate the student performance data reported
under section ____4(a)(1) or ____4(b)(1), as appropriate, in
the same manner as results are disaggregated under section
1111(b)(3)(I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today deals with a
standardized school report card. I want to describe that, but first, I
will talk generally about this issue of education and about the debates
we have had in recent hours and days in this Chamber.
I talked about the schools I have visited recently in North Dakota. I
had a meeting yesterday in Washington, DC, with some people from the
Ojibwa School on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation in North
Dakota.
I want to describe it because we are talking today about how to spend
money to improve this country's education system. Some say: Let's
provide it in the form of tax credits for education savings accounts
that will allow parents to accrue money to send their kids to this
school or that school.
There is another way to handle it, and that is to make investments in
our schools so children are walking into school buildings that are
well-equipped and in good condition, repaired and renovated, and they
are going into school classrooms where they have quality teachers and
the classrooms are not crowded. That is another way to improve our
country's schools.
Because I just had a meeting yesterday with the folks from the Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservation about the Ojibwa School, a school I have
visited many times, I will read a couple of comments from eighth grade
students so Members of the Senate, as they discuss these issues, will
understand what eighth graders are saying about their school. I can
verify everything they say in these letters is true, and in some cases,
worse.
This is Cathy Renault. Cathy says:
In the 2 * * * short years I've been at Ojibwa, I have had
to go home during the day very often.
This is an eighth grader.
It isn't because of sickness or being checked out or
because a teacher or substitute weren't available. No, it's
because of very threatening subjects, things you wouldn't
find at other schools: Sewer backup, mold growing in
buildings, heat that's too hot in the summer and too cold in
the winter; harsh weather and having to walk from building to
building just to go to lunch.
This is an eighth grade kid. The Ojibwa School is in mobile
buildings, small buildings on a hill where young children are moving
back and forth. By the way, the fire escapes are made of wood. Figure
that one out. There are all kinds of problems with this school.
Does this eighth grade child get the same education as another child
where they have less crowding and better facilities? The answer is no.
Leslie Champagne is another eighth grade student. This is what she
says:
Last year our seventh grade teacher slipped and broke a
part of her foot and at the same time the other seventh grade
teacher had a cast on and had to step in all of the mold and
dirty water on the floor. There has been a lot of elders--
Again, this is on an Indian reservation--
There has been a lot of elders and children falling down
outside and getting seriously hurt walking to another
building.
Again, they are mobile buildings, like a double-wide trailer, sitting
on the side of a hill on the Indian reservation at Turtle Mountain.
There are even roofs caving in and leaking because of heavy
rain or snow. I haven't seen anything new in this school
for a long time. The only time I've seen something new is
just this year when we got a more decent gymnasium.
From Belcourt, ND, Shelly Selina Davis:
. . . we don't have shower systems that work properly.
After physical education class, we are not able to take a
shower and are forced to go through the rest of the school
day feeling our hygiene is unhealthy.
Last year and one time this year, the whole school had to
eat lunch in their classrooms or office, because there was a
sewage problem in the kitchen and it made the whole cafeteria
smell very badly.
Each year, during the winter, there are many students who
become ill and miss many school days because of their
sickness. The students became ill from having to walk from
building to building in the very cold winter weather.
These are grade-school students saying kids do not get to make the
decision if they want to be poisoned by a poor sewer system or mold.
Kids should be worrying about how they are going to do on a big test,
not whether the building is going to collapse. A new school is
something we need and have wanted for a long time. This is an eighth
grade kid imploring that they need help.
Yesterday, I talked about the Cannonball School. It is no different
than this school. Part of the Cannonball School is 90 years old and has
been condemned as a fire hazard. The second level of the school is
unusable because the stairs leading up to it are unsafe and the school
cannot afford to replace the steps. The sewer and the water systems are
old, and they back up regularly, sending the smell of sewage gas
throughout the school. Classes routinely have to be moved because of
the smell of sewage gas becoming so bad in classrooms. One wing of the
school does not have running water. There are 150, 160 kids and two
bathrooms, one water fountain. They are packed in 8-foot-by-12-foot
classrooms with desks so close they almost bump each other. They do not
have to worry about whether or not they have computers; they would not
have a place to put them. Of course, they could not hook them up anyway
in a school in that condition because they do not have the capability
to wire the computers.
I have said before that when Little Rosy Two Bears asked me the day I
visited that school--and I have done it a couple of times--``Mr.
Senator, are you going to build me a new school?'' the answer is I
cannot build her a new school. This is a public school with a public
school district and no tax base. We have mice running around, mold
growing, sewer gas coming up, kids crowded into classrooms, and that
little third grader walking through that classroom door is not getting
the same kind of education other kids are getting, and we ought to do
something about that.
We know about the value of education. This is not rocket science. The
way to solve this is not to give tax breaks to folks. The way to solve
this is to decide we are going to renovate, improve, and rebuild these
schools that are falling down. The Ojibwa folks need a new school, and
they need it now. Cannonball School needs to be replaced and replaced
now. If we care about kids all across this country who are going to
school under those conditions, we will do something about it. We will
not talk about it, we will do something about it.
My father left school at age 9. His mother died giving birth to a
younger sibling. His father was institutionalized for tuberculosis. My
father quit school in order to go to work and raise money. My father
worked all through his youth, so he had almost no education. Then my
father, in his fifties, one day came home and announced to us, when all
the family was together, with a smile, that he had just passed his GED.
He never even told us he was studying for it. He did not tell us he was
going to take it, but in his fifties, he decided he wanted to become a
high school graduate because he never had the opportunity. He had to
quit school when his mother died, and he had to help provide for his
brothers and sisters. Then at age 50, with a smile on his face, he told
us he was now a high school graduate.
We understand how much people care about education. I guess it is one
of the reasons my father and mother always impressed upon us that
education was paramount, you must invest in yourself.
Ben Franklin once said: Anyone who empties their purse in their head
will never be without riches.
Thomas Jefferson once said: Anyone who believes a country can be both
ignorant and free believes in something that never was and never can
be. We understand the value of education. That is why we are debating
it now.
[[Page S1056]]
But we are debating it in circumstances where I fear we will come out
with a wrong result.
One piece of a series of steps that makes sense to me is to provide
for a standardized school report card so parents will understand what
they are getting out of that school system. All parents get a report
card on how their child is doing every 6 weeks, every 9 weeks. They get
a report card on how their child is doing. But no parents get a report
on how their school is doing. How is their school doing in educating
children as compared to other schools in other school districts, in
other States, in other communities?
It seems to me, there ought to be some standardized way for parents
to understand: How is this school doing? We spend $350 billion a year
on elementary and secondary education and have no earthly idea how our
individual schools are doing for our children. Could we do that? We
could have a basis for a comparison of our schools with other schools--
our schools with other schools in the school district, between school
districts, between communities, and between States.
Some will say there already is a school report card. Most parents
have never seen it. Thirty-some States have some version of a school
report card, but most of them provide very little information, if any
at all.
I believe there are about eight standard things we ought to require
the State education authorities to provide on this school report card.
If we did that, every parent in this country--as a taxpayer and a proud
parent--would understand what the school is producing for their
children.
I say this, if we get to this kind of approach of providing a
standardized school report card on how the school is doing--not only
how the kids are doing but how the school is doing--we will only be
able to say, as parents, this school is doing fine if we are willing to
accept our responsibility to schools, such as the Ojibwa School and the
Cannonball School, and to rebuild, renovate, and repair schools that we
are sending children to that are not up to standards for educational
purposes.
In conclusion, there are two principal issues we have fought for on
the floor of this Senate--so far unsuccessfully. One issue is having a
smaller class size, because we know that with 15 or 18 kids in a
classroom there is a better relationship between teacher and students,
and education is much more effective than if a teacher is teaching in a
classroom with 30 or 35 students. We need more teachers to reduce class
sizes.
The second issue is that we also want to improve and renovate schools
that are in the condition I have just described that exist in
Cannonball and Ojibwa that ought not to exist. It is not going to be
solved by some scheme of giving tax cuts.
For every national ache or pain, we have someone who trots to the
floor of the Senate and says: I have a new idea. Let's provide a tax
cut. That is not a new idea. That is a substitute for what we ought to
do to fix real problems in education. Every time someone suggests
anything that describes some kind of national aspiration or goal,
someone else pops up and says: Oh, so you want some Federal bureaucrat
to run the education system? The answer to that is no, of course not.
But let's not brag about having no national goals or no aspirations
nationally as a country for our education system. Let's stop bragging
about that. That ought to be a source of despair.
We, as a country, ought to have national goals of what we want to
produce in our education system. If we develop those goals, then we
will also accept our responsibility to improve our schools, invest in
our schools, renovate, repair, and rebuild our schools, and reduce
class size. We know that works. We know how to do it, if we have enough
people who will stand up in the Senate and cast the right votes.
I will not seek a vote at this point. My understanding is that my
amendment will be set aside and dealt with at a later time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the managers have been working to try
to get some parameters on these amendments. Let me propound a unanimous
consent request.
I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be the only
remaining first-degree amendments in order, limited to 30 minutes
equally divided, except where noted differently, to be equally divided,
and all amendments subject to relevant second degrees, under a 20-
minute time constraint, and following the disposition of these
amendments the bill be immediately advanced to third reading, and
passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate.
Those amendments are: a Schumer amendment; a Feinstein amendment on
standards, 1 hour, equally divided; a Kennedy amendment, 90 minutes,
equally divided, on teacher quality; a Kerry amendment on quality; a
Boxer amendment on safety and protection in schools, 90 minutes,
equally divided; a Wellstone amendment regarding school counselors, 90
minutes, equally divided; a Dorgan amendment regarding school report
cards--which we have just considered--a Coverdell amendment; a Reid
amendment; a Kennedy amendment regarding Pell grants; a managers'
amendment; a Gramm amendment regarding the Federal Home Loan Board; a
Hatch amendment regarding student loan interest; a Graham of Florida
amendment, No. 2848, regarding school construction; and a Graham
amendment regarding offsets.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we want to make sure if, in fact, there are
relevant second-degree amendments, that will be fine--it is under a 20-
minute unanimous consent agreement.
I also note that under the unanimous consent request dealing with the
Wellstone amendment, he would have 45 minutes of the hour.
Mr. COVERDELL. We changed it. It is 90 minutes, equally divided.
Mr. REID. Yes. Furthermore, the Harkin amendment has been deleted.
Did you note that?
Mr. COVERDELL. I do not have it.
Mr. REID. It was deleted. The only addition would be another Boxer
amendment dealing with pesticides. She asks for 20 minutes on that.
Mrs. BOXER. Equally divided.
Mr. REID. Equally divided.
Mr. COVERDELL. Did you add a Harkin amendment?
Mr. REID. No.
Mr. COVERDELL. We have eliminated the Harkin amendment.
Mr. REID. But as a result of a note handed to me, we add a Senator
Bingaman amendment dealing with teachers, for 30 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. Thirty minutes?
Mr. REID. For him.
Mr. COVERDELL. That would be an hour equally divided.
I assume the one on pesticides is education related?
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. COVERDELL. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object--I
simply want to understand. I have been waiting since last night to
offer an amendment on safety in schools related to gun violence.
Originally, I was told I would have the first Democratic amendment up
today. There was some objection on the other side. I wonder if I could
get some idea from the other side of the aisle, if not from my own
side--Senator Reid has been trying to give me assurances of time--when
I could finally get to offer that amendment.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from California, who has been here
since yesterday, Senator Kennedy has been doing many things today. With
the permission of the majority--which we have already obtained--Senator
Kennedy is going to offer his amendment next. We would hope, following
that, we would be able to go to the Boxer amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, I say to my friends.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I send an amendment to the desk.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
[[Page S1057]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Will the Senator from Massachusetts renew his amendment request?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Has the pending amendment been temporarily set aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Amendment No. 2872
(Purpose: To establish programs to enable States and local educational
agencies to place a qualified teacher in every classroom)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 2872.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text
of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments
Submitted.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have a time limitation on
this of 45 minutes a side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 90 minutes equally divided.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The Teacher Quality amendment would strike the underlying Coverdell
K-through-12 tax breaks and authorize $2 billion for the Qualified
Teacher in Every Classroom Act. The amendment would direct the $1.2
billion from the Coverdell bill to the teacher quality program, and the
other would consist of an authorization for appropriations at a later
time.
We have had a debate about the Coverdell tax bill over the last few
days. One of the things we are asking the Senate to consider is whether
we ought to be putting the $1.2 billion equally between the public and
private schools, even though 90 percent of the children in this country
go to public schools, or whether we can use those resources more
effectively.
I believe they can be used more effectively. That is what this
amendment is about. As an alternative to the Coverdell tax bill, I
offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues to say let us move our
Nation forward to insist that we are going to have a well-qualified
teacher in every classroom--that the key to enhancing academic
achievement and accomplishment is not going to be subject to just any
one single or simple solution but certainly among a handful of
solutions. I suggest perhaps the most important one is to make sure
that a teacher, who is before the 50 million children who are going
through K through 12, is going to be well qualified to teach
effectively with regard to the academic subject in which the teacher
teaches. That is the purpose of this amendment.
It is reasonable to ask, where did you come up with these various
proposals that you have in this qualified teacher amendment? I refer my
colleagues to a very important study from 1996, the National Commission
on Teaching and America's Future in Education. The board itself is made
up of some of the most distinguished educators and is bipartisan in
nature.
We have effectively incorporated in our amendment the series of
recommendations this panel virtually unanimously recommended including:
how to recruit individuals who will be the best for the students in
this country; how we will maintain them by the development of mentoring
programs; how we will ensure professional development and; how to
utilize and expand some of the imaginative and creative efforts to
develop teachers, including hometown teachers, which are developed
within various constituencies, and expanding Troops to Teachers, which
currently has 3,600 teachers nationwide.
What did this panel, made up of some of our best educators and most
thoughtful teachers in the country, conclude virtually unanimously?
This commission starts with three simple premises: First, what teachers
know and can do is the most important influence on what students learn;
second, recruiting, preparing and retaining good teachers is the
central strategy for improving our schools; and, third, school reform
cannot succeed unless it focuses on creating the conditions in which
teachers can teach--and teach well.
Those are the principles. I wonder how anyone in this body could
question those rather basic, common sense principles, a well-qualified
teacher in every classroom. This study has indicated how that best can
be done, and we have followed these various recommendations.
First of all, they talk about some problems. They are talking about
education generally. Some problems are national in scope and require
special attention. Critical areas such as math and science have long
had shortages of qualified teachers that were only temporarily solved
by Federal recruitment centers during the post-Sputnik years.
Currently, more than 40 percent of math teachers and 30 percent of
science teachers are not fully qualified. They recognize there has to
be a particular focus on math and science teachers, and we incorporate
that in our legislation.
Secondly, it talks about, how we distributed the funds, basically the
same formula that was used by our Republican colleagues when they had a
proposal to try to deal with the teacher shortage. That falls short for
many different reasons. We had hoped to be able to get into that if we
had continued our markup in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee yesterday. Nonetheless, what we are basically doing is saying
we will have a program in terms of recruitment, we will have a program
in terms of mentoring.
We find there is a very important and significant contrast with the
results of maintaining teachers with a mentoring program; we have 23%
of teachers leave within their first three years of teaching, and 30-
50% leave within the first three to five years. Yet 93% of teachers
taking part in mentoring programs stayed on the job--far above the rate
for new teachers.
Let's take what we know works. Let's make sure that when we are going
out and recruiting the teachers, they are going to be recruited in the
areas of most critical need; that is, in math and science. Let's make
sure that when they go into the classroom, they are going to be well
prepared in their courses.
This amendment will insist that these teachers are going to qualify
according to the State requirements in the course they have selected.
No other legislation is going to do that. It is going to make sure they
have a mentoring program. We will also make sure that there is going to
be professional development, that very important third factor this
study has pointed out. They mention in this study that most U.S.
teachers have no regular time to consult together or learn about new
teaching strategies, unlike their peers in many of the European nation
countries, which teach at a substantial time plan and at a higher
level.
What this amendment is about is very simple and fundamental. We are
saying it is a wiser use of taxpayer funds to move us to an effective
program in terms of ensuring we will have a well-trained teacher in
every classroom, rather than having the tax credits, only half of which
will even be available to parents whose children will be going to
public schools, the other half to the parents of children who will be
going to the private schools.
Having well-qualified teachers is absolutely essential. Now, we can
argue--and we have colleagues on our Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee who say this really isn't a role for the Federal
Government. We know we provide only 7 cents out of every dollar that
comes from the Federal Government and goes into the local communities.
It comes through the States--about 98 cents of the dollars that come
through the Federal Government actually go into the classrooms
themselves, according to the General Accounting Office.
What we are saying is, with a very limited amount of resources, we
ought to target areas where there are very important needs and where
there is a very sound and compelling case to be made in support of it.
Certainly, I think that of all of the areas we are talking about in
terms of classrooms today, we are all reminded by recent tragedies
about the importance of safety and security in the classroom--we are
reminded constantly about that issue.
Secondly, we are reminded that there is nothing more important than
having
[[Page S1058]]
well-trained teachers. That is why we think this amendment is so
important and so compelling.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes
be postponed to occur in a back-to-back series at 2:15 today in the
following order: No second-degree amendments in order prior to the
vote, and 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation. They are:
Graham, No. 2870; Roth, No. 2869; Dorgan, No. 2871; Kennedy, No. 2872.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. For the information of all Senators, Senator Dorgan's
will be a voice vote. Therefore, we expect 3 back-to-back votes at 2:15
today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 7 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let me review specifically exactly how
this amendment works. Our amendment provides the States with $1.7
billion by a formula--50 percent poverty, 50 percent population--to
improve the teacher quality. States can keep up to 10 percent for State
activities, including strategies to raise teacher salaries, reduce the
number of teachers placed out of field, and reduce the number of
emergency certified teachers.
Second, this guarantees that 56 percent of the funds that go to the
States--$960 million--is for professional development and mentoring,
which provides for 200,000 new teachers a year. We know we need 2
million teachers over the next 10 years, or 200,000 a year. This will
provide the mentoring for those 200,000 teachers each year. Funds go by
formula to the districts on the basis of 75 percent poverty, 25 percent
population. That allocation, in terms of poverty population, is
basically noncontroversial. It is basically the formula we have used in
the past and is the formula being used even under the current
legislation being considered.
This guarantees that 30 percent of the funds that would go to the
States for competitive local recruitment programs in high-need
districts, to recruit and train highly qualified candidates.
Next, it guarantees that teachers are trained to address the needs of
children with disabilities. None of the other teacher programs or
teacher training programs ensures that we are going to have teachers
who will be able to teach children with disabilities--it is enormously
important.
It holds the States accountable for having a qualified teacher in
every classroom within 4 years of enactment of the law.
It requires that the first $300 million of the State grants go toward
professional development, the mentoring and recruitment in the math and
science area. There is an incredible need there. Ninety-five percent of
urban districts report a critical need for math teachers; 98 percent
report the need in science; 97 percent report a need for special
education teachers. That is what the current reports are. That is why
we have given focus in terms of the recruitment in math and science.
It also holds districts accountable for results. They must show
progress in: improved student performance; increased participation in
sustained professional development and mentoring; reduced beginning
teacher attrition rate for the district and; reduced number of teachers
who aren't certified or licensed and the number who are out-of-field
teachers for the district.
Listen to what the Wall Street Journal reported on February 29:
Schools turn to temp agencies for substitute teachers. Most
school districts begin each day with a nerve-racking hunt for
substitutes to fill in for absent teachers. With the tight
labor market making the task especially tough, a few are
starting to outsource the job. Kelly Services, Inc. unveiled
the first nationwide substitute teacher program four months
ago and now handles screening and scheduling for 20 schools
in 10 States.
A school official in Edinburg, Indiana, says the contract
the system signed this month with Kelly simply acknowledges
``they're more proficient than we are'' in the temporary help
arena. Temp outfits generally charge schools a premium while
paying subs at the same rate as before.
That is what is happening in the United States of America. That is
what is happening. Last year, 50,000 unqualified teachers were hired
across the country and are appearing before classrooms of children
today--50,000 hired last year appearing before them today. We ought to
be able to say, OK, we only have a limited amount of resources; how are
we going to be able to expend those resources effectively?
I believe the case has been made about having a well-qualified
teacher in every classroom, having smaller class sizes, having
afterschool programs that do so much in terms of helping and assisting
children in doing homework and keeping the children out of trouble--a
program, I might point out, that still has a broad opportunity to reach
hundreds of thousands more children.
It is important to make sure we have the new technology, so children
are able to learn with new computers. Various studies show that it
takes time for teachers to get up to speed--not just in using the
computers, but in training the teachers to use computers in ways that
are going to be consistent with the curriculum they are trained to
teach. We are not doing that.
And then we know there is obviously the pathway in continuing in
higher education. These are the components and the elements that are
being offered out here. The bottom line on the issue of accountability
has been to make sure the scarce resources that we have are actually
going to be utilized in an effective way with effective results.
I recognize that starting in 1965 when we started the ESEA program,
we expended a good deal of resources and we didn't have the kind of
accountability we should have had. But what we have seen is that over
the period, particularly since the last reauthorization, where we are
beginning to make some progress--measurable progress--we will hear
speeches that, oh, no, we are not making progress, we are falling
further behind. Certainly, there are some schools where progress still
hasn't been made. But if you are looking across the board, we are
making measurable progress. I think we should find out what is
happening, and what is best to continue that measured progress.
When we look over the range of different activities that are out
there today, how can we measure the activities? One of the important
ways we measure it is by the various programs such as Project STAR in
the State of Tennessee, where students in smaller class sizes performed
better than student in large classes in each grade from kindergarten
throughout third grade.
The second one, which I think should be self-evident and obvious, is
having teachers in front of classes who are qualified to teach in the
subject matter.
The third is the afterschool programs that assist children with their
homework, and offer availability and accessibility of computers to make
sure they are going to keep up to speed with technology.
When we have limited resources and have an opportunity to focus some
of these scarce resources on a needed national problem, we ought to be
willing to consider what the overwhelming majority of thoughtful
educators, Presidents, practitioners, and individuals who have studied
education over the course of a lifetime have virtually unanimously
recommended: Increasing teachers' knowledge of academic content and
effective teaching skills through sustained, intensive professional
development; mentoring programs to keep new teachers in the job; and
recruitment programs to draw talented individuals into the teaching
profession. That is really what our proposal does.
I see my colleague and friend, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Bingaman. I have stated many times, with the progress made in the
various programs, that Senator Bingaman has been the leader in the
Senate in making sure that whatever resources are going to be accounted
for, are accounted for effectively in every one of these educational
programs. He has done that in other programs as well but particularly
in the education. We have incorporated his recommendations into this
legislation. We know that at the end of the day we are going to have
improved school performance, we are going to have teachers who are
going to be able to teach and pass the State exams, and we know we are
going to hold the States and local communities accountable.
[[Page S1059]]
I see him now. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 25 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield whatever time the Senator wishes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his
leadership on this and all of the issues that relate to education that
we deal with in the Senate. I commend him particularly for this
amendment that deals with teacher quality and recruiting and training
the people who go into the teaching profession.
I think it is clear from the experience in my State--that is the
experience that I come from and understand a little bit, at least--that
we have too few funds available for the training of teachers, people
who are already in the workforce who need additional training, and
people who are going into teaching. Clearly the Federal funds made
available for that purpose meet a real need. Despite the fact a lot of
money is spent on education nationally--I certainly concede a lot is--
there are other pressures on local school boards. There are other
pressures on States that tend to result in too little of the money
going to train the teachers and going to upgrade their skill levels.
This amendment would ensure that at least a portion of the Federal
funds we are providing to States for education go to this vital
activity.
I think the amendment is absolutely crucial. I hope every Senator
will vote for it.
When you look at all the factors that affect education, I think there
are many studies which have concluded correctly that the factor, if you
have to pick one, that is most significant in determining the quality
of a child's education is the quality of the teacher and the training
of that teacher to provide that instruction. This amendment goes
directly to that. It says we need to keep our priorities straight when
we spend public money. We need to be sure the funds go to what is most
important in terms of improving the education of the children involved.
That means training the teachers.
I compliment Senator Kennedy very much for this amendment. I am very
pleased to speak for it, and am very pleased to support it. I think
this goes to the heart of what we are trying to do. It goes to the
heart of the concern I hear all over my State from a lot of people
about the inadequacies of our educational system.
We have a sad circumstance in my State. I have encountered something
which we call a ``permanent substitute.'' I go to school districts and
they say: OK, you are trying to ensure that more of the accredited
teachers are actually accredited to teach in the subjects they are
teaching. That is not our problem. Our problem is we have people
teaching on a semipermanent basis in our classrooms, and we call them
``permanent substitutes.'' They not only are not qualified in the
subject area they are being asked to teach, but they are not really
qualified to be teaching. They haven't been accredited.
This is a sad commentary. You have to go through licensing procedures
to be a hairdresser in our State. You have to go through licensing
procedures to pursue virtually any career. We need to be sure we impose
accountability on the teaching of professionals as well.
Teachers themselves want to see this happen. This is not an
antiteacher proposal. This is something teachers themselves want to see
more funds available for in training and upgrading their skills.
This is an amendment I strongly support. I commend Senator Kennedy
for proposing this amendment. I hope all Senators will review it
carefully and will determine to support the amendment when it comes up
for a vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for
his statement. He has, as I mentioned, enormously contributed in terms
of these accountability provisions.
Professional development, mentoring, and the recruitment have been
found to be important and significant in communities across the
country. Let me mention some of the examples.
Since the late 1980s, New York City's District 2 has invested in
sustained, intensive, professional development and made it the central
component for improving schools. The district believes student learning
will increase as the knowledge of educators grows--and it is working.
The investment has contributed to steady increases in student
achievement and in 1996, student math scores were second in the city.
According to a recent study, the longer California math teachers
engaged in ongoing, curriculum-centered and professional development,
that supported a reform-oriented teaching practice, the better their
students did on the State math assessments.
This demonstrates what is happening out there. It is happening in too
few districts. Let's make sure we are going to do it in other places
across the country.
In the area of mentoring and recruitment, in Illinois, the Golden
Apple Scholars Program recruits promising young men and women for
teaching professions by selecting them during their junior year in high
school, then mentoring them through the rest of high school, college,
and 5 years of actual teaching. Sixty of the Golden Apple scholars
enter the teaching field each year; 90 percent of them are staying in
the classroom compared to 50 percent of others dropping out within
their first five years.
These are young people, recruited locally, involved through high
school, attending various kinds of meetings and conferences on
education, furthering their efforts through college, coming back to
their communities.
I have visited programs similar to this in Dade County, FL. They have
had extraordinary success locally. That is what we are talking about.
Project Promise at Colorado State University recruits prospective
teachers from fields such as law, geology, chemistry, stock trading,
and medicine. Current teachers mentor these new recruits in the first 2
years of teaching. More than 90 percent of the recruits enter the field
and 80 percent stay in the teaching for at least 5 years.
There are some very creative ways of recruiting. A North Carolina
Teaching Fellows Program recruits talented high school students in the
teaching profession with a minimum 1,100 SAT score, higher that 3.6
GPA, and in the top 10 percent of the class. The program provides
$5,000 per year for 4 years to 400 outstanding North Carolina high
school seniors who agree to teach for 4 years, following graduation in
one of the North Carolina public schools or U.S. Government schools.
They find they are retaining some 90 percent of these teachers.
There is a similar program called Teach Boston, a collaborative
effort between Boston Public Schools, Boston Private Industry Council,
and Boston Teachers Union. They created model future teacher academies
in two Boston high schools.
There are different ways of doing this. We give local communities the
flexibility in the development of the programs. We say to those who
want to do this kind of a program in their local community that there
will be some resources that will be available to them.
The Hometown Program provides $25 million to support the efforts of
high-poverty school districts to recruit teachers as early as the high
school to meet long-term teacher shortages. Currently, 20 districts--
including Wichita, Milwaukee, Wayne County, North Carolina, and States,
including South Carolina, Ohio, and Washington--have pipeline systems
for long-term programs for teacher recruitment.
In South Carolina, between 35 and 40 percent of students who complete
the State Teacher Cadet Corps either become or plan to become teachers.
Currently, there are approximately 5,000 graduates of the Teacher Cadet
Corps serving as teachers in South Carolina. Independent evaluators of
the South Carolina program have found one former cadet entered college
with a jump-start on the teacher education program, and two reported a
higher rating than other teachers. They have raised standards for
classmates in college.
[[Page S1060]]
In Wichita, KS, 70 participate in the Grow Your Own Teacher projects
and completed their college education; 58 are currently employed as
teachers in the Wichita public schools.
These programs are around the country but in too few places. We are
saying we will provide some $25 million to support those programs that
have worked.
Finally, the success of the Troops to Teachers. They have hired over
3,600 teachers nationwide. These teachers are likely to be in math and
science, and more likely to be minorities than the general recruitment
of high school teachers. There are more than 85 percent male, compared
to 25 percent nationally--from the Troops to Teachers program. They are
teaching in over 900 rural counties, 25 percent; 40 percent are in
suburban areas; 40 percent in urban. They have an 82-percent retention
rate, returning each year to teaching.
We have a significant expansion of that program. The opportunities
are out there. California has hired nearly 300 teachers from the Troops
to Teachers, including a former Navy pilot who used to hunt submarines
and now faces two dozen kindergarten students. He says it does not pay
as much but the job satisfaction is incredible. Florida hired 200
Troops to Teachers, including a former Navy instructor who now teachers
honors algebra to high school students. The students say he gets
excited and he definitely knows what he is talking about. The teacher
took a pay cut but he enjoys the kids and enjoys the school.
Today, we are talking about Kelly Girls--or Kelly Men--as substitute
teachers advertised in the Wall Street Journal this week. We are
talking about limited resources.
We have recommended smaller class sizes, which are key and have
demonstrated effectiveness; well-trained teachers, with the support of
mentoring; professional development; afterschool programs; computer
programs so children will not be left out or left behind; and strong
accountability measures. We believe these are the ways we can make
important difference in terms of enhancing the academic opportunities
for children in this country.
My friend and colleague from the State of Washington has been our
leader in moving this Nation toward smaller class sizes. Having visited
a number of the schools in my own State of Massachusetts, it is making
a major difference. We want to make sure that effort is going to be
continued.
I yield such time as the Senator desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor with my
colleague, Senator Kennedy, to talk about an issue that many think is
the most important issue facing America today. That is the issue of
education. We are finally in the Senate talking about issues that are
relevant to families. As they sit at the kitchen table in the evening,
they, too, understand education is absolutely critical to the future of
this country.
We are finally today with this amendment talking about a measure
which will ensure that every teacher in this country is fully qualified
and has the tools and the support to help our children reach their full
potential. For years, parents and teachers have been asking for support
on teacher quality.
Last year, I came to the Senate floor to introduce a bill to help
recruit, retain, and reward America's best educators. I am thrilled
today to discuss many of the items in that bill. I hope we will have an
up-or-down vote on this amendment so families across our country can
see whether or not this Senate supports quality teaching.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for helping this day become
possible and by leading to make education a front and center issue in
this Congress, as it is in the classrooms and homes across America.
Before I discuss the specifics of the amendment, I wish to make
another point loudly and clearly: Today there are thousands of world-
class, high-quality teachers in our schools. They are professionals.
They care deeply about the quality of our children's education. Any
Member would be lucky to have our children in those classrooms.
However, the current system makes it harder and harder for teachers
to do their best. Instead of offering them the support they need to
make a difference--smaller classes, classrooms that are safe,
afterschool care--this current system puts too maybe roadblocks in
front of too many teachers.
We are here today to discuss teacher quality. I want my colleagues to
keep in mind that we are not criticizing teachers. They are overworked
and underpaid and not given enough respect. They are, indeed, heroes.
We are trying to change the system to allow more teachers to become
master teachers.
I hope throughout this debate my colleagues will refrain from
attacking the very people who try their hardest day in and day out to
help our children and do the right thing for our country. As I said
many times before, teachers do one of the most important jobs in
America, and we should make it easier, not harder, for them to do their
best.
The amendment from the Senator from Massachusetts could not come at a
better time because there are so many challenges to quality teaching,
and those challenges just keep growing.
Teachers and parents have told me the main challenges are the three
Rs: Recruiting great teachers, retaining great teachers, and rewarding
great teachers. Statistics today show we need more educators to meet
our growing student population. In fact, in the United States, we are
expecting to face an unprecedented teacher shortage in the next few
years. The National Center for Educational Statistics estimates we will
need between 1.7 to 2.7 million new teachers by the year 2008.
One reason not many people want to go into the teaching profession is
there are not enough incentives for recent college graduates to become
teachers. With the wide range of employment opportunities available to
young people today, to our college graduates, teaching is not the most
attractive option. The teaching profession, as we all know, is just not
a lucrative place to be. In the USA Today Teacher Survey, 69 percent of
teachers said most people do not consider teaching to be an attractive
career choice. So we are not attracting enough talented people into the
teaching profession.
As I am sure has happened to many of my colleagues, I have gone into
a classroom and asked: How many of you young people intend to be a
teacher? Very few hands go up. But if you ask those young people: How
many of you would become teachers if you knew you would get the
training, the support, the money, and the respect that other
professionals get? A lot more hands in those classrooms go up. So our
first challenge is recruiting young people into the teaching
profession. That is what this amendment does.
Next, we need to retain great teachers. When you think about it,
there really is nowhere for a great teacher to go. If they move up,
they move out of the classroom into administration or into another
profession. While we need great administrators, we should do everything
we can to keep our really great teachers in the classrooms. We need to
give our teachers options such as becoming master teachers, so they can
continue to grow while helping our kids in their classrooms.
There are a lot of reasons for this retention problem. Unlike any
other profession, teachers do not have adequate access to continuous
high-quality professional development, so we need effective, ongoing
professional development programs that are aligned with local standards
and curricula.
Finally, we need to reward our good teachers.
Mr. President, I have come to the floor to thank Senator Kennedy for
his leadership on the most critical issue we see facing our students
today--making sure every teacher in every classroom is a quality
teacher. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, and I urge my
colleagues to support this critical amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator
from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota. How
much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
[[Page S1061]]
Mr. KENNEDY. I have 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Rhode Island, if he will
give me 1 minute, I will be pleased for him to have the last 4 minutes.
Mr. REED. Surely. I yield 1 minute, or Senator Kennedy does.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for this
amendment. I want to mention the part of this amendment I have had a
chance to work on. I thank the Senator for letting me do this with him.
It is the Teacher Corps part, where we basically put together a
marriage of school districts that need teachers in certain areas along
with schools of education. It is actually after students have already
graduated, but they may want to go back and get certification, or they
may be in their forties or fifties and go into teaching.
During that 2-year certification period, it will be tuition free if
they agree to teach in these areas for 3 years. It is allocated to
local needs, it puts everything together in a promising way, and it is
good for inner-city and suburban schools. It puts the schools together
with good teachers. Everybody agrees this is the key.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy
amendment. Senator Kennedy has focused on one of the critical aspects
of education reform in the United States; that is, improving the
quality of teachers in this country. Teachers want this kind of
assistance. If you ask them, they are universally disappointed in their
opportunities to improve their skills as teachers.
Just a few days ago, in this debate we supported, in large part,
Senator Collins' amendment to allow increased tax preferences for
educational courses teachers might take. But that is just the surface.
The way to reinvigorate and reform schools in this country is to
improve the professional development in the classroom--not in graduate
schools, not in taking correspondence courses, but getting those
teachers in classrooms watching other qualified teachers, giving them
the opportunity to participate with their principals in developing
curricula, developing their own skills and their own attributes.
That is what the Kennedy legislation does. It calls for the
incorporation in our schools of professional development that is
embedded within the curriculum. It is consistent, sustained, long-term,
throughout the academic year--indeed, throughout the entire year.
What is happening today? The reality is, teachers spend between 1
hour and 8 hours during the academic year on professional development.
Most times, it is gathering in a big hall listening to a lecturer who
the superintendent of the system thinks makes sense, but in some cases
the teachers are wondering why they are at that location.
We can change that. Indeed, we must change that. Unless we improve
the quality of teaching--and I agree wholeheartedly with Senator
Murray; we have excellent teachers in America--we will not respond to
the challenges of this new century to prepare, in public schools, the
best educated citizens of this country. Indeed, our first obligation
has to be this effort to reform and reinvigorate and reignite the
quality of excellence in our public education system throughout the
country.
The underlying proposal does not do that. It essentially siphons off
dollars to those, principally wealthy, Americans who choose to send
their children to private schools. Our obligation, I believe very
fervently, is to ensure there is a real choice so that, indeed, there
are excellent public schools and an American family can choose those
excellent public schools or a private, independent or parochial school.
But until we have excellent public education throughout this country,
we are failing in a fundamental obligation we have to our country and
to our citizens.
One of the best ways to assure excellent public education is the way
that has been suggested by the amendment of the Senator from
Massachusetts, and that is to provide professional development that is
sustained, embedded in a classroom, that calls upon mentoring, that
calls upon all the things we are learning from the real world.
We are learning from observing places such as district II in New York
City, which is committed to this type of professional development. I
had a chance to visit with a school in that district and listen and
watch the teachers as they discussed among themselves the issues that
were critical as they developed new curricula, as they talked about new
strategies. This is what is going to improve the quality of our
teaching. When we do this, we will improve the quality of education
throughout the entire country.
This is also what we heard at hearings during consideration of the
ESEA. We heard experts from around the country, teachers from around
the country, coming to tell us they need more support for this type of
professional development. If we are really, fundamentally asking
ourselves how we can improve education in this country, it is not
through a tax credit device that will essentially subsidize, on
average, wealthy Americans to send their children to private schools;
it is investing in teachers in our public schools so they will be able
to educate this generation of Americans to continue the leadership role
of this Nation in the world in this new century.
I emphatically and fervently support the Kennedy amendment. I urge
its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time now is controlled by the Senator from
Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Rhode Island
is here. I did not have a chance to respond to his remarks the other
day on the education savings account, and we do have a fairly
significant disagreement, beyond the philosophy, over some of the data.
I think we are making headway on this.
The implication that the education savings account is a vehicle for
people who drive around in limousines is inaccurate. The Joint Tax
Committee has found the education savings accounts would be used 14
million times over, it would be used by 14 million families, 70 percent
of whom have incomes of $75,000 or less.
More importantly, though, the point I want to make--and I am not
going to dwell on this because I know we have our differences--is that
several years ago the President and the Congress passed the higher
education savings account. It was for $500. The criteria for the
families who could use those accounts are the identical criteria being
used for these education savings accounts. There is no difference.
I take some issue with the fact we in Congress and the President are
applauding this wonderful account we have set up for higher education
for $500, and yet on an identical scope of use for this savings
account, it somehow gets into class warfare.
All that has happened is we have taken a $500 account we all passed
and applauded and said it could be expanded to $2,000 or four times. If
a family chooses to, they can use it in kindergarten through high
school. The odds are the majority of them will use it just as the
higher education savings account does, for college.
I did want to make that point. It has come up several times.
I am the only one who has time, but I yield a few minutes to my
colleague from Rhode Island to respond.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I respect the Senator's efforts to try to
improve education. We may very well disagree on the philosophy.
In specific response to his question about the Joint Tax Committee
studies, I think there is a difference between coverage and effect. The
coverage might include a broad range of American families, from the
very wealthiest to low-income families, but the effects--who gets the
benefits--are decisively skewed toward very wealthy Americans.
That same tax analysis in 1998 showed that 7 percent of families who
have children in private schools who use this provision will receive 52
percent of the tax benefit and the other 93 percent of the families
will receive 48 percent.
Frankly, the way, as we all realize, the tax structure is
established, tax credits and tax benefits are more beneficial to the
higher income level, unless
[[Page S1062]]
they are particularly targeted to low-income citizens. These are not.
Essentially, what we have is, yes, low-income families and medium-
income families will, in fact, be able to get some benefits. It has
been estimated that over 4 years, this benefit to the average family is
about $20. The benefit for very wealthy Americans will be significantly
more.
Again, this might be more anecdotal than analytical. If you look at
the population of students going to private schools, they generally
come from upper-middle-income to upper-income families because of the
nature of funding.
I know the Senator wants his time. Let me make a quick point. When we
start making these comparisons between higher education and elementary
and secondary education, not only do we have a principle difference,
i.e., we have a fundamental obligation to elementary and secondary
education, do we have the same to higher education? We can disagree
about that.
The other thing we have to do is put it in context. The tax benefits
in higher education are on top of Pell grants which are specifically
directed at low-income parents. They are really, if you will, icing on
the cake, and the cake is really Pell grants, Stafford loans--a whole
panoply of higher education benefits which we supported for years and
years. To make the transfer or analogy of it is just like what we do
for higher education, it is not only philosophically questionable but
also, in terms of the context, questionable. I thank the Senator for
his time.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I will respond briefly because the
clock is running. The demographics in parochial schools and private
schools--and we studied this very closely--are within 10 percent, the
same as demographics in public schools. Parochial schools, for example,
in New York, have identical demographics as the public schools. Sixty
percent in parochial schools make $50,000 or less. The idea that people
in these parochial or private schools are somehow a class of wealth is,
I believe, not correct and cannot be substantiated, No. 1.
No. 2, 70 percent of the families who use this education savings
account are going to be in public schools; 30 percent in private. The
funds the Senator from Rhode Island describes are pretty much evenly
divided. I suspect because people in private schools are still paying
local property taxes for public schools, they have a higher hurdle, and
it does make them save more. This is a debate we can continue at
another time. I appreciate the Senator's response. I give him 1 minute.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am not familiar with the data about New
York parochial schools, but I am very eager to look at it, if the
Senator will provide it.
Mr. COVERDELL. I will be glad to.
Mr. REED. Second, it is one of those things: What do you measure? Do
you measure parochial schools in New York City or are you measuring all
the private schools, very exclusive schools? All I can speak to with
great compulsion and experience is in my home State of Rhode Island,
generally speaking, the parochial schools mirror some of the public
school systems. But when you go to some of the private schools, that is
not quite the case. I suggest if it is not limited to parochial
schools, it is going to be taken advantage of.
Mr. COVERDELL. I will show the Senator the data. We all see private
schools that stand out. That is what forms the image. I am saying when
you look at all the private schools across the country, you come up
with a lot of people who do not have many resources.
We will discuss this at a further time. To explain to my good friend
from Nevada, I am going to talk for 5 minutes and then yield back our
time. It would then be appropriate, in the queue of events, that we
move to Senator Boxer.
Mr. President, with regard to the Kennedy amendment, which I have
here, this amendment was laid down yesterday in the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee. It is the first amendment that was
offered in the committee, and it is in the process of being discussed.
There are controversies in it. Folks on our side think, once again,
it is a story of mandates and regulations and instructions to local
schools about how to manage the affairs at the local level. The
appropriate place for this amendment to be decided is in the committee
of jurisdiction.
The other point I want to make, and I have made it repeatedly, is
that this is about the fifth or sixth attempt by the other side to come
to the Senate floor with what are very laudable ideas, but they are all
constructed in a way that is either/or. If we adopt the Kennedy
amendment or any one of these other five amendments we have been
dealing with for the last several days, the main effect is to cancel
the education savings account.
If we do that, we are saying to 14 million American families: Sorry,
we are not going to let you create an education savings account. These
happen to be the parents of 20 million children, which is almost half
the school population. No deal; we are not interested in letting your
families create education savings accounts that will direct money to
your specific needs and, most important of all, they blow away, they
open the safe and run off with $12 billion of savings that would occur
with these education savings accounts for families to use for
educational purposes anywhere from kindergarten through college and
beyond college, frankly, if there was a disability incurred.
The amendment, while it may be laudable--maybe it will be adopted in
committee--the way it is designed is to destroy the opportunity to
empower 14 million families and parents who are raising 20 million
children and their attempts to save money to help them get that job
done.
Obviously, we will, once again, when the appropriate time for voting
comes, oppose this amendment, not necessarily on its merits--the
committee will decide that--but because its main purpose is to destroy
the education savings account.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time on the Kennedy
amendment. I believe the other side has chosen to go ahead with the
Boxer amendment at this time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the Kennedy amendment
aside, which was envisioned in the unanimous consent request we
propounded a few minutes ago.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kennedy
amendment prior to it being set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers for accommodating me.
I have been waiting for a while.
Amendment No. 2873
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on improving the learning
environment by ensuring safe schools)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Levin, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Robb, proposes an
amendment numbered 2873:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A SAFE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Every school child in America has a right to a safe
learning environment free from guns and violence.
(2) Any education measure passed by Congress is undermined
by violence in the schools.
(3) The February 29, 2000 shooting at Buell Elementary
School in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, is evidence that
the tragic gun violence in America's schools continues.
(4) In the last 12 months, there have been at least 50
people killed or injured in school shootings in America.
(5) Every day in America, on average, between 12 and 13
children under the age of 18 die of gunshots from homicides,
accidental shootings, and suicides.
(6) In the 10\1/2\ months since the shooting at Columbine
High School in Littleton, Colorado, the United States
Congress has failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun
control measures that would help to make schools safer,
improve the learning environment, and stem the tide of gun
violence in America.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that before April 20, 2000, Congress shall make schools safe
for learning by
[[Page S1063]]
implementing policies that will reduce the threat of gun
violence in schools.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the clerk for reading the amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It is a
commonsense amendment. It is an opportunity for the Senate to be heard
on the issue of gun violence.
I thought we were making progress after Littleton when we passed--a
month after Littleton--a number of very important, commonsense gun
control measures. We have yet to see those measures come back to us for
final passage. We have yet to see those measures come back to us from
conference. We have yet to see an interest on the part of the majority
to move these important, commonsense gun control measures.
I am hopeful that this sense of the Senate, which calls on the
Congress to act by the year anniversary of Littleton, will have some
meaning to people. I trust this will pass 100-0.
Children in schools have a right to be safe. It is very fundamental
that they be safe, almost as fundamental as their right to a free
public education.
A safe school is essential to ensuring an environment where children
can learn. We can stand here, from morning until night, with great
ideas on education. Governors can come up with their own proposals on
education. Local school districts can do the same. But if there is a
shooting in a school, no one learns. The only thing they learn is
tragedy, at an age way too young to deal with it.
We have an unacceptable situation in our country. If children sit in
a classroom wondering if they are going to hear gunshots in the
schoolyard or in the hallway, they cannot concentrate on a math problem
in their classroom.
Again, I know the Senator from Georgia believes very strongly in his
education savings account legislation. I know that we all have issues
we want to put forward: smaller class sizes, rebuilding our broken-down
schools. We all have a tremendous interest in improving education. But
it means nothing when violence invades our schools and children are
hurt or they die--schools are closed; education is disrupted. None of
it means much if we cannot at least ensure safety.
As we said in the resolution, in the last 12 months, at least 50
people have been killed or injured in school shootings. This week it
was a little 6-year-old girl who was killed in an elementary school in
Michigan. My God, what is it going to take for this Senate to act? A 6-
year-old child gets a gun and kills a classmate. He got the gun because
an adult left it lying around. There was no trigger lock.
We have a bill dealing with that; it has been tied up. I do not think
that is a very radical proposal. I do not think it is a dangerous
proposal to put a child safety lock on a gun. That child would have
brought the gun to school, it would not have gone off, and a child
would not be dead. We would not have to see these children, at a tender
age--a tender, tender age--I have a 4\1/2\-year-old grandchild, and I
just think about the horror of a child at that age, 5\1/2\ or 6 or 7
dealing with this kind of violence. It is wrong. It is unacceptable.
Last December, it was four middle school students who were injured by
gunfire in a middle school in Oklahoma.
Last November, it was a 13-year-old girl who was shot in the head in
a New Mexico school.
Last May, six students were injured at a high school in Georgia.
Of course, last April, 15 people died and 23 more were injured in
Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. Anyone who has watched the
followup stories in that community knows that the injuries done then
are not fading. They have torn that community apart.
What are we waiting for? Sensible gun control legislation was passed
by this Senate. The Vice President, Al Gore, cast a tie-breaking vote
on closing the gun show loophole so people who should not have a gun
would not be able to get a gun. I do not know what it will take for
this Senate to act.
I see a couple of my friends who have come to the floor to discuss
this issue with me.
Yesterday, there was a multiple shooting outside Pittsburgh.
There was a shooting in September in a Baptist church in Texas.
Last September, there was a shooting in the West Anaheim Medical
Center in California.
Last August, there was a shooting at the North Valley Jewish
Community Center's day-care center in Los Angeles. Will we ever forget
those children, holding the hands of the police officers --babies
trying to cope with what was going on.
Last April, there was a shooting at the Mormon Family History Library
in Salt Lake City.
These bullets are randomly shot. It does not matter how old you are.
If you are there, you are in trouble.
This is chaos, my friends. What did we do after Littleton? We came
together. We passed gun control measures that are very sound. They are
reasonable, they are moderate, and they will keep guns out of the hands
of children. They will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They
will keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill. They
will not take guns out of the hands of people who need to have a gun to
protect themselves, who are upstanding citizens.
So what are we waiting for? More and more of these deaths?
I ask my friends from California, Illinois, and Michigan how much
time they would like to take on this? I am delighted to yield to them.
Why don't they give me that information, and then we will set up an
order.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If it is convenient, 10 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Five minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Three minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Done. Why don't we start with Senator Levin. I yield him
3 minutes of my time. We will then go to Senator Durbin and then
Senator Feinstein. Then I will take it back and close the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for
raising the question of the proliferation of guns and gun violence in
our schools as we debate education on the Senate floor. We should not
be debating education without addressing the question of the gun
violence which strikes so many of our schools.
It has now been almost a year since the deadly shooting at Columbine.
The images of Columbine's teenagers clinging for life and screaming in
terror are forever printed in our minds. Not many of us could forget
the horror of those scenes as they unfolded before us on national
television. Yet somehow it seems that Congress has forgotten the
unforgettable.
Now, in yet another school shooting, the tragic, senseless death of
another child--this time in my home State of Michigan --has reminded us
of the terror of gun violence and the toll it takes on young people.
According to a press report, the shooting stunned even gun control
advocates immersed in the details of school violence. If a 6-year-old
can get a gun, they said, the problem is worse than anyone thought. The
first grade shooting that occurred this week in Mount Morris Township
near Flint, MI, is surely shocking because of the nature of the
circumstances: An alleged 6-year-old gunman living in a house with easy
accessibility to guns and little comprehension of the consequences of
his actions. No one can really any longer claim shock or surprise that
another young life was lost to gun violence. No one can any longer
claim shock or surprise that another one of our children did not make
it home from school.
We have known, long before Columbine, that gun violence claims the
lives of 12 children, on average, each day. We know gun violence
results in injury and death, destroys families, and causes lasting
psychological and emotional harm. Buell Elementary's counselors will
now try to cope with the trauma that comes when schoolchildren shoot
schoolchildren. Too many other districts now know that violence and the
fear of violence is not only devastating to the children and the
families involved, it can also infect the learning environment. We
cannot allow ourselves to become desensitized to the tragedies of gun
violence. As a Detroit Free Press writer put it:
[[Page S1064]]
[At Buell] the first-grade classroom, so vibrant with the
piping voices of children early Tuesday morning, had been
commandeered by police detectives, searching for the meaning
behind the unthinkable.
Congress must pass gun safety legislation before more children's
voices are silenced by the sounds of gunfire and sirens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from California for her leadership.
It is critically important that this issue be raised at this time.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Michigan.
My friend from Illinois wanted 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I totally support this resolution.
Could one imagine the Senate today debating education and ignoring
the obvious? When the front-page headlines, news story after news
story, remind us that mere infants now have access to handguns, that a
6-year-old can take a handgun to school and kill your son, your
daughter, grandson, and granddaughter, is this America? Is this the
best we can do? I think we can do a lot better.
Senator Boxer challenges this Senate to go on record when it comes to
school safety. I support her completely. It is important to talk about
how you pay for schools. It is important to talk about the
qualifications of teachers and how many kids are in a classroom and
whether you have access to the Internet. But the most important
question is whether you can send that little child you love to school
in the morning and expect them to come home safely at night. That is
why this resolution is important. Before we start talking about the
finer points of improving education, let us first dedicate ourselves to
safety in classrooms across America.
I will support her resolution. It should receive a unanimous vote.
Who in the world can stand here and say we should not be on record
against the school violence we find taking place more and more every
single day? A little later on in this debate, I will offer a specific
grant program through the Department of Education to deal with school
violence and gun violence.
Make no mistake about it, that 6-year-old didn't go out and purchase
that handgun. Some adult failed in their responsibility. I don't know
the circumstances; maybe we will never know the circumstances. But time
and again, children are getting access to guns with tragic results.
Many times, they take them down from the top shelf in the closet and
play with them, either harming themselves or another classmate or
another one of their friends who ordinarily visits the home. Then the
sad stories when they take them to school. What we saw in Michigan is
not an exception; it is happening more and more.
My wife and I decided early on never to have a firearm in the house
as long as our kids were small. We just thought it was too dangerous.
That was our family decision. But even though we made that decision, it
didn't cross my mind until much later to really wonder what the parents
of my kids' friends had decided. That happens, too. Your little boy or
girl goes to the house next door to play, and you don't know what those
kids are doing. How many times do you pick up the newspaper and read
about kids playing with guns and one kid being injured? It happens too
often.
In this case, we are finding more and more that kids are picking up
these guns and carrying them to school, where they find victims in
their classmates and teachers. This isn't an isolated situation. Those
who want to dismiss it and say, come on, you are just responding to a
single headline, ignore the obvious.
The U.S. Department of Education, in the 1997-98 school year, found
that 3,930 children in schools across America were expelled for
bringing guns to school. Almost 4,000 kids in that school year brought
guns to school across America. I am glad to say that very few of them
resulted in death, but think about the potential for disaster and
tragedy.
I sincerely hope--and I mean this, though I fought the gun lobby and
the National Rifle Association every step of the way--that for once
they will have a heart and the good sense to support this resolution
that says, as a matter of policy, before we talk about education and
its future, we will talk about the safety of kids in the classroom.
Take a look at the language in this resolution. In the last 12
months, 50 people killed or injured in school shootings in America.
Every day, on average, between 12 and 13 children under the age of 18
die from gunshots, from homicides, drive-by shootings, accidental
shootings, and suicides.
America has made a decision. We have decided as a nation that people
can own guns, legally, constitutionally; they have the right to do so.
But make no mistake, an obligation comes with the ownership of those
guns, not just to buy them, not just to buy the ammunition, not just to
own them and use them for sport or hunting, but to store them safely.
I have introduced legislation called the child access prevention law.
It says that, as with 17 States across America, the whole Nation should
be held to a standard where gun owners keep their guns away from kids.
It is not enough to put it on the top shelf in the closet or to put it
in a drawer by the night stand because, mark my words, kids are always
going to find Christmas gifts and guns no matter where we put them.
And any adult owner who believes they have hidden them and the kids
will never find them ignores reality.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield the Senator 1 more minute. I hope he will leave
time for me to ask him a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I hope the Senate goes on record
unanimously, on a bipartisan basis. If it doesn't, I hope families
across America who are worried about the safety of their kids ask each
and every Senator how we can vote against a resolution saying we are
going to make it a national priority in the sense of the Senate to make
schools safe and implement policies that reduce the threat of gun
violence.
I yield for a question.
Mrs. BOXER. I just want to share with the Senator two numbers because
he had a lot of important statistics. This is from Time magazine: Fifty
percent of children ages 9 to 17 are worried about dying young, and 31
percent of children ages 12 to 17 know someone their age who carries a
gun. I ask my friend to respond to that, and take as much time as he
needs, and then we will yield 10 minutes to Senator Feinstein.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is a sad reality that with the
proliferation of over 200 million guns in America, more and more
children who, in my generation, would be the schoolyard bullies are now
the kids bringing guns to school, and other children know it. They know
about the easy access to these weapons. The kid who used to go out in
the schoolyard and punch somebody in the nose now turns out to be the
kid who brings the gun to school. It is a sad reality, one that every
family in America faces.
I don't care if you live in California, Illinois, or Michigan; there
is not a school district or a child we can be sure is safe today until
we take measures to restore sanity to the classrooms across America, to
protect not only the kids but the teachers and all of the parents who
share, as we do, the love for these children.
I thank the Senator from California for her leadership.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his leadership.
I yield to my colleague, the senior Senator from California, who, I
think it is important to note, brought us our first victory on
commonsense gun control several years ago with her assault weapons ban.
She has kept on this issue continuously, and I am very honored that she
is here to speak in connection with this sense of the Senate.
I yield to Senator Feinstein for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Boxer
from California, for her leadership and for this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution, which I am very happy to support fully.
Today, I received a packet of letters. They are from fourth and fifth
grade children. I want to read just a few parts of these letters:
[[Page S1065]]
My name is Nikki. * * * I am 11 years old. * * * No one in
my household has a gun, not one of them. * * * One day, I saw
a neighbor of mine get shot on her way to the candy house.
She got shot 4 times. She got shot 3 times in her side and
once in her leg. Now she's paralyzed for life. That really
hurt me and a lot of other people. She was only 12 years old
and she was a nice girl.
Here is another one:
I am Talia and I am 11 years of age. And when I'm coming
home from school, I see little 13 year old teenagers playing
with guns like it's a thing to do. I walk across the street
to go get some ketchup for my cousin's house and I see people
dragged into the * * * park.
* * * We're little kids. We need to live in a safer
community and this is not safe. So write to all the gun
stores and let them know what kids think about guns.
Here is another one:
My opinion is no people should have guns, because one day
in the summer that passed this girl was in her house. Then a
man dragged her out of her house up the stairs. After he
punched her and shot her in the leg, she had a hole in her
leg. The police and ambulance had to come and wrapped her leg
up.
* * * I want the Senator to make guns no more. No more guns
in this world.
Here is another one:
I am a fifth grader. And mainly every year I hear at least
20 gunshots. I am scared at night because I think it's going
to be a drive-by. I even sometimes can't go outside to recess
because gunshots are heard.
Here is another one:
My name is Justin. I am in the fifth grade.
* * * At night in my neighborhood there are gunshots and
sometimes it keeps me awake. When I walk home from school,
there is gangs in one spot and another gang in another spot.
Could you please help and make guns illegal? All the kids
in my class want you to help. If you help, then I thank you
very much.
Here is another one:
What I know about guns and gun control is to not let guns
get into the wrong hands.
* * * What I want is to not let guns get in the wrong
hands. To let it not go to people that just came out of
prison to get payback. That is what I want and I hope you can
do something about this and I want support of gun control
laws.
Here is another one:
* * * When I was 3 years old, I saw a black and silver gun.
When I saw it, I ran in my house and saw the person get shot
by it. I was so scared I cried my eyes out. So please support
us.
Another one:
* * * I think you should stop people from shooting other
people. People should have to get a license and people should
have to have a background check for getting guns.
Please support gun control laws.
Another one:
* * * My experiences are hearing guns, like one day when it
was my Aunt's birthday, we were all in the house looking out
the window. We had seen this man on top of the hill. He had a
gun. Then he just started to point it and then he started to
shoot. We all had to drop to the floor. It was scary.
What I want is only the police to have guns because they're
the only ones who's using them right. I want you to vote to
have only police have guns, it's just right. And if police
are not using them right, please take them away. I want gun
control over guns.
Another one:
* * * I am 10 years old. And I have seen people shoot
another person. One night I had heard gunshots. I looked out
the window and saw a man running, and another man lying on
the street. He was shot about fifty times. My uncle was shot
on Christmas night on his way home from work.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this is the real world. This is
what is happening out there. How can we stand by and not do anything?
I speak as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have been on
this committee for as long as I have been in the Senate. I am a
supporter of the juvenile justice bill. That day when we debated four
commonsense, targeted gun measures--all of them, I thought, no-
brainers--I was so proud to be a Member of this body. I remember that
Senator John Ashcroft moved an amendment to say that youngsters,
children, could not buy assault weapons. That was a no-brainer. It went
through this body. The second amendment was on trigger locks. My
colleague from California and others in this body have championed
that--that is, that guns should have trigger locks. That way, a 6-year-
old can't use the gun.
A 5-year-old from Memphis, TN, took a gun to school to kill his
kindergarten teacher because the teacher gave him a ``time-out'' the
day before. A simple $15 gun lock, or trigger lock, would have stopped
that from happening. That was the second measure. Plugging the gun show
loophole so that children from a school can't go to a gun show and buy
a gun, no questions asked, was the third one.
The fourth one was mine, to prohibit the importation of these big
clips that are coming in from all over the world by the tens of
millions. Some of them are as big as 250 rounds.
Those are four simple, commonsense, targeted gun regulations. And
what has happened? Nothing. The children from Columbine came here and
they begged for help, as did the children in these letters, and what
happens? Nothing. I talk to Members of the Senate and I ask, ``Why is
nothing happening?'' They tell me that the Gun Owners of America are
really resolved that they don't want any legislation.
We say the time has come to recognize that the majority of our people
have certain basic rights--that our children have the right to go to
school without fear, that our children have the right to sleep without
hearing gunshots, that you have the right to walk down the street and
not fear getting killed by a drive-by shooter.
In Los Angeles, in the last 16 years, over 7,000 people have been
killed by drive-by shooters. That is what the plethora, the abundance,
the avalanche of guns in this country is doing to the real world
outside of this beltway.
I say to those who yield to this special, unrelenting interest that
says, ``You either vote our way or we will defeat you at the polls,''
that the American people have had enough, and the time has come to pass
some targeted, commonsense regulations.
The resolution of my colleague from California is a beginning. It at
least puts us on record. Hopefully, if it should pass, it will send a
message to the Judiciary Conference Committee of both these noble
Houses. That message is: Pass the juvenile justice bill, and pass these
four targeted measures.
I defy any Member of this House or the other House to tell me that
the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States prohibits
the regulation of firearms.
Let me add one thing. Today in gun shops all around this great
country they are selling .50 caliber weapons, a military weapon, a
weapon capable of sending a bullet 4 miles, a weapon capable of
producing a shot that can go through a concrete wall. Tell me that we
need weapons such as this in a civilized society. Tell me that the
second amendment of the Constitution prevents us from regulating
firearms. Tell me that these children begging to be safe and to not
hear gunshots at night, to not get shot in the car, and not to stand in
a living room and have a bullet come through their wall are wrong.
I thank the Senator from California for her good work. I add my
support.
I yield the floor.*****- -Name: -Payroll No. -Folios: -Date: -
Subformat:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President.
I say to my friend from California how proud I am to have her
support. She brought to the floor of the Senate today the voices of the
children. How can we possibly have a bill dealing with education that
doesn't address these voices begging us to act?
I am so pleased she took the time because I know she has another
amendment which she has to get ready for. I appreciate the Senator
coming over to the floor.
Thirteen children every single day are killed by gun violence--13
innocent lives. There is not one Senator who doesn't agree with the
statement that our children are our future. How many times do we put
that in our speeches?
I am saddened that I don't see Members from the other side of the
aisle on the floor. I don't understand why we don't have unanimity in
this. In April, it is going to be a year since the tragedy of
Columbine. The vision of that tragedy is on everyone's mind--the young
man, not even 18 years old, trying to get out of the window of a school
library with his limbs dangling from the injuries he received, the
faces of the parents, and the tearing apart of that community, which
has been happening ever since that tragedy. If we don't act by that
date, we don't deserve to be here.
I agree with Senator Feinstein. This is harsh talk, yes. But what are
we
[[Page S1066]]
here for if we are not protecting our citizens and our children? What
could be more important? An education savings account that gives people
$7 a year? That is lovely. Great. But what does it mean if they lose
the child for whom they are saving this money?
This is in many ways, yes, an emotional issue. It is frustrating for
so many of us.
Senator Feinstein told you about the four commonsense gun control
measures that were voted out of the Judiciary Committee and that passed
on this floor. There was one more that requires the Federal Trade
Commission and the Attorney General to study the gun industry's
marketing practices for children. I think the American people would be
stunned to know these manufacturers are now producing shocking pink
guns and green guns and guns that look like camouflage. They are making
real guns now look like toy guns. We used to have a problem with toy
guns looking like real guns. Now they are making real guns look like
toy guns. That needs to be studied, too.
This is an amazing place. I offered the simplest amendment to an
appropriations bill that passed unanimously. All it said was, if you
are obviously inebriated--in other words, drunk--you cannot walk into a
gun store and buy a weapon. Talk about a no-brainer.
We already have a law that says if the vendor thinks you are high on
drugs, you can't buy a gun. So we said: Gee, this must have been an
oversight. And after a little bit of debate, the other side said: Oh,
OK. That is fine. They asked if I thought there ought to be a
breathalyzer test. No. Of course not; this is just common sense. If you
walk in and you are, obviously, inebriated such that it is obvious to
the vendor, he or she cannot sell you a gun. It passed unanimously. But
something happened on the way out of the conference. When the bill came
back--the appropriations bill for Commerce-State-Justice--guess what
was missing? This amendment. A simple amendment such as that was
dropped because the NRA didn't like it.
Let us not be vague about this. This is what it was.
We have to start thinking about the welfare of the people of this
country, the welfare of the children of this country, the well-being of
the families of this country, and the well-being of the students of
this country ahead of some special interest group that has it in its
head that because you would enact a few sensible gun control measures
you are threatening the country. No one is threatening the country.
Our European friends look at us; they cannot believe it. Our Japanese
friends look at us; they cannot believe it because of these rates of
death.
To me it is not even common sense to argue with them that we are
right and they are wrong. This is from 1996: New Zealand, 2 people were
murdered by guns; in Australia, 13; in Japan, 15; in Great Britain, 30;
Canada, 106 in that year; Germany, 213; and, in the United States, in
that same year, 9,390 of us died by gunshot wounds.
What are we doing? Nothing is the answer. We are doing nothing
because of a special interest that gives a lot of money.
This is a war that is going on in this country. In 11 years of the
Vietnam war, which was a tragedy, 58,168 of our citizens were killed.
Their families will never be the same and they have never been the
same.
Mr. President, 58,168 of our brave men and women were killed in 11
years of the Vietnam war where this country came to its knees. Do you
know how many gun deaths there were in America in 11 years? 396,572.
Let me say that again: In 11 years of the Vietnam war, roughly 58,000
deaths; in 11 years of gun violence rampant in our country, 396,000-
plus deaths.
Does it make any sense that our country would come to its knees over
the Vietnam war--as we all did, whatever side one was on--and have the
biggest debate we have ever had in the history of our country over a
war--many Members got into politics because of that situation--and yet
with 396,572 gun deaths in America over the same period of time we
cannot get out of the conference committee five commonsense gun control
measures?
It is not to be believed.
In 49 days it will be the 1-year anniversary of Columbine. In this
sensible measure before the Senate, we are calling for the President,
the Senate, and the House to work together and get these commonsense
proposals into law. That must be the finish line. Mr. President, 49
days; that is a long time. It is enough time to do this job. After all,
these proposals have gone through rigorous debate and they have passed.
It is the sense of the Senate that before April 20, 2000,
Congress shall make schools safe for learning by implementing
policies that will reduce the threat of gun violence in the
schools.
Pretty simple.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a listing of
the recent school shootings in our Nation and, in addition, a list of
the multiple shootings in general, in public places such as McDonald's.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
RECENT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Location Deaths Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 2, 1996...................... Moses Lake, Washington. 3 (2 students; 1 1 (student).
faculty).
February 19, 1997..................... Bethel, Alaska......... 2 (1 student; 1 2 (students).
faculty).
October 1, 1997....................... Pearl, Mississippi..... 2 (students) (also 7 (students).
killed mother at
home).
December 1, 1997...................... West Paducah, Kentucky. 3 (students).......... 5 (students).
March 24, 1998........................ Jonesboro, Arkansas.... 5 (4 students; 1 10 (students).
faculty).
April 24, 1998........................ Edinboro, Pennsylvania. 1 (faculty)........... .......................
April 28, 1998........................ Pomona, California..... 2 (students).......... 1 (student).
May 19, 1998.......................... Fayetteville, Tennessee 1 (student)........... .......................
May 21, 1998.......................... Houston, Texas......... ...................... 1 (student).
May 21, 1998.......................... Springfield, Oregon.... 2 (students) (also .......................
killed parents at
home).
June 15, 1998......................... Richmond, Virginia..... ...................... 2 (faculty).
April 20, 1999........................ Littleton, Colorado.... 15 (14 students; 1 23 (students).
faculty) (includes
the shooters).
May 20, 1999.......................... Conyers, Georgia....... ...................... 6 (students).
November 19, 1999..................... Deming, New Mexico..... 1 (student)........... .......................
December 6, 1999...................... Fort Gibson, Oklahoma.. ...................... 4 (students).
February 29, 2000..................... Mt. Morris Township, 1 (student)........... .......................
Michigan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Multiple Shootings
January 14, office building, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 dead;
1 injured.
March 18, law office, Johnson City, Tennessee: 2 dead.
April 15, Mormon Family History Library, Salt Lake City,
Utah: 3 dead, including gunman (who was shot by police); 4
injured.
April 20, Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado: 15
dead, including the two teenage gunmen; 23 injured.
May 20, Heritage High School, Conyers, Georgia: 6 injured.
June 3, grocery story, Las Vegas, Nevada: 4 dead.
June 11, psychiatrist's clinic, Southfield, Michigan: 3
dead, including the gunman; 4 injured.
July 12, private home, Atlanta, Georgia: 7 dead, including
the gunman.
July 29, two brokerage firms, Atlanta, Georgia: 10 dead,
including the gunman; 13 injured.
August 5, two office buildings, Pelham, Alabama: 3 dead.
August 10, North Valley Jewish Community Center, Los
Angeles, California: 5 injured (postal worker killed later).
September 14, West Anaheim Medical Center, Anaheim,
California: 3 dead.
September 15, Wedgwood Baptist Church, Fort Worth, Texas: 7
dead, including gunman; 7 injured.
November 2, office building, Honolulu, Hawaii: 7 dead.
November 3, office building, Seattle, Washington: 2 dead; 2
injured.
December 6, Fort Gibson Middle School, Fort Gibson,
Oklahoma: 4 injured.
Mrs. BOXER. I am very proud that Senators came to the floor, with
their
[[Page S1067]]
very busy schedules, on behalf of this amendment.
Again, I don't know whether the Republican side of the aisle will
support this amendment. I hope they will. I cannot imagine why they
would fail to support it. I want to have a vote on this. I want
everyone to be on record. If they vote for this, they are saying that
by April 20 we should have these proposals back before the Senate on
the way to the President's desk.
How many more shootings is it going to take? How many more people
have to write condolence notes or call parents and families? I trust,
my friends, that we will not take any more time. We have done the heavy
lifting. We have had the debate. We have had the Vice President in the
Chair. He has cast the tie-breaking vote so that we can close the gun
show loophole. God bless him for that. Without him in that Chair, that
would not have happened. Closing that gun show loophole means people
who are mentally imbalanced, people with a criminal record, people who
are underage, will not get guns.
I could spend a long time on this floor reading more into the record
about these instances that have occurred in our Nation, but I think I
have said what I have to say. I trust the other side will not offer a
second-degree amendment to this. I trust the other side will reach over
and take the hand of those on this side of the aisle who believe it is
important to work on this in a bipartisan fashion.
How much time remains of the 45 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes and 40 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with
the time being counted equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time in discussing
the Boxer amendment for a moment.
First, I came to the floor to commend Senator Boxer for her amendment
and applaud her for her leadership in drawing attention once again to
this very important matter. This amendment simply highlights the fact
that students can't learn when they are afraid.
Why are they afraid? They are afraid because too many communities and
too many children live worried that today's playground will be
tomorrow's crime scene. This week's tragedy in Michigan is just one
more bloody reminder of this phenomena.
As the President stated today, now is the time for us--for the
Administration, for the Congress--to do its part to respond. So, I say
with as much heartfelt emphasis as I can, now is the time for Congress
to stop stalling.
It was on May 20 of 1999 that the Senate passed the juvenile justice
bill. That was over 9 months ago. It was on June 17 of 1999 that the
House passed the juvenile justice bill. That was over 8 months ago.
After waiting weeks, on August 5 of 1999, almost 7 months ago, the
juvenile justice conference had its first, and regrettably, only
meeting.
We are still stalled, with a phantom conference, today. Stalled in
that conference are measures that will help keep guns out of the hands
of criminals and children, help keep schools safe, and provide some
balance, some degree of confidence that children can go to school more
safe and more secure than they are today.
What are we talking about? We are talking about handgun safety locks,
something that could have easily helped this week. We are talking about
a measure to close the gun show loophole. We are talking about a
juvenile Brady bill. And we are talking about the banning of the
importation of high-capacity ammunition clips, once and for all. That
is what we are talking about.
On virtually every one of these issues, the overwhelming majority of
the American people said: Why didn't you do this last year or years
before? Why is it now, the year 2000, 9 months after the Senate began
this debate, and we still have yet to act? How many more children must
die? How much more must we and the American people endure? We need to
stop listening to narrow special interests and pass these commonsense
gun safety measures now.
The tragedy in Michigan should shock us all into action; although
Columbine and Jonesboro, and countless other shootings have not seemed
to prompt Congress into action. Just think, a 6-year-old girl lost her
life, lost her life, because a young boy, who probably still doesn't
understand the consequences of his act, had access to a deadly weapon.
The truly sad fact is these tragedies happen every day in this country
and do not generate the news attention this particular incident did. If
they did, we would all be in the Chamber today. If we had a daily
rollcall of those who no longer are living as a result of our inaction,
we would all be called to action. Thirteen children under the age of 19
are killed with guns every single day, and other children suffer from
witnessing those deaths and fearing for their own lives.
I just listened to the letters by children read by Senator Feinstein.
All you have to do is listen to one of them. All you have to do is
imagine a child sitting down writing that letter. A child should be
writing about baseball and soccer and all the good things that happen
in school. But they are writing about fear. They are writing about
guns. They are writing about violence. They are writing about death. I
do not know how much more tragedy this country has to endure before
Congress wakes up.
This amendment simply asks us to recognize we need to act now. This
amendment should be more than just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It
should be a call to action. Today, we lay down a marker that if by
April 20, the anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, the Congress has
not sent the President a juvenile justice bill that includes
commonsense gun safety measures, we have failed. We have failed. That
is what this amendment is all about. That is the endeavor in which I
hope all my colleagues will join.
This does not have to be, and is not, a partisan issue. This is an
education issue. It is a family issue. It is a life or death issue. I
hope we all realize its consequences.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been almost a year since the
tragic shooting at Columbine High School. In literally dozens of cases
since then, youths have brought guns to schools, and there have been at
least four school shootings since Columbine. Yet in spit of wake-up
call after wake-up call after wake-up call, Congress has failed to act.
It is time for Congress to finish the job we began last year and pass
the gun control provisions in the juvenile justice legislation.
Students, parents, and teachers across America are waiting for our
answer.
We need to help teachers and school officials recognize the early
warning signals and act before violence occurs.
We need to assist law enforcement officers in keeping guns away from
criminals and children.
We need to close the gun show loophole.
Above all, we need to require child safety locks on firearms, so that
we can do all we can to prevent the senseless shocking first grade
shooting that occurred two days ago in an elementary school in
Michigan.
The Senate passed such legislation with overwhelming support last
year. The House of Representatives also passed its own version of this
legislation. It is time for House and Senate conferees to write the
final bill and send it to the President, so that effective legislation
is in place as soon as possible.
Every day we delay, this critical problem of gun violence affecting
schools and children continues to fester. This is not a new problem,
but as this week's events have shown, it is an increasingly serious
problem, and Congress cannot look the other way and continue to ignore
it.
The public overwhelmingly supports more effective steps to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals and juveniles. We cannot accept ``NO''
for an answer from the National Rifle Association. It is long past time
for Congress to face up to this challenge. The continuing
[[Page S1068]]
school shootings are an urgent call to action to every Member of
Congress. Will we finally do what it takes to keep children safe? Or
will we continue to sleepwalk through this worsening crisis of gun
violence in our schools and our society?
The lack of action is appalling and inexcusable. Each new tragedy is
a fresh indictment of our failure to act responsibly.
We have a national crisis, and common sense approaches are urgently
needed. If we are serious about dealing with youth violence, the time
to act is now. There is no reason why this Congress cannot enact this
needed legislation now. This month the citizens of this country deserve
better than what this do-nothing Congress has given them so far.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support Senator Boxer's sense-of-the-
senate amendment that Congress pass effective juvenile justice
legislation by the one year anniversary of the Columbine High School
tragedy--April 20, 2000. Unfortunately, the Senate-passed Juvenile
Justice legislation has been languishing in a House-Senate conference
for months.
Sadly, another school shooting is in the news. In Mount Morris
Township in the State of Michigan, a six-year-old boy fatally shot a
six-year-old girl at an elementary school. As a father and grandfather,
it breaks my heart to hear about a first grader shooting one of his
fellow classmates. And yesterday a deranged man shot five people in a
McDonalds in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I have owned firearms for many years and often enjoy target shooting
with my friends and family in Vermont. I understand that the vast
majority of gun owners in Vermont and around the country use and enjoy
their firearms in a responsible and safe way.
I am, however, deeply disturbed by the rash of recent incidents of
school violence throughout the country. The growing list of schoolyard
shootings by children in Arkansas, Washington, Oregon, Tennessee,
California, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Mississippi, Colorado, and Georgia
is simply unacceptable and intolerable.
It pains me even more to now add the Michigan elementary school
shooting to this growing list of schoolyard shootings. This tragic
incident of school violence took the life of a 6-year-old, Kayla
Rolland.
What we should be doing is redoubling our efforts to enact the Hatch-
Leahy juvenile crime legislation and its sensible public safety
provisions that passed the Senate last May with 73 votes. I do not
fault Senator Hatch. I know that he is doing what he can on this and
that he shares my frustration that the House-Senate conference
committee has been stymied in our effort to report that measure back to
the House and Senate for final passage.
I again urge the Republican leadership in the House and Senate to
pass that bill without further obstruction and delay. Let the Congress
act and do what it can to help end this senseless violence. Six-year-
olds killing other 6-year-olds is unthinkable but now, tragically, all
too real.
For more than two years, I have worked with other Senators to craft
responsible and effective juvenile crime legislation to curb this
senseless violence. Last May, the Senate passed the Hatch-Leahy
juvenile justice bill, S. 254, by a strong bipartisan vote of 73-25.
Our comprehensive legislation provides states and local governments
with resources to fund programs to prevent juveniles from committing
crimes and to properly handle juvenile offenders if they commit crimes.
Our balanced approach to juvenile justice also includes provisions to
keep children who may harm others away from guns. These provisions
include: bans on the transfer to juveniles and the possession by
juveniles of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips;
increased criminal penalties for transfers of handguns, assault
weapons, and high capacity ammunition clips to juveniles; bans on
prospective gun sales to juveniles with violent crime records; trigger
locks to be sold with all handgun sales; background checks on all
firearm sales at gun shows; and increased federal resources to enforce
firearms laws by $50 million a year.
But the majority refuses to move ahead with final passage of a
juvenile justice conference report. In fact, the majority even refuses
to reconvene the House-Senate conference to meet to discuss the bill.
The members of the juvenile justice conference have met only once--on
August 5, 1999. That one meeting of the House-Senate juvenile
conference was more than six months ago.
It is shameful that the majority refuses to act upon a final juvenile
justice bill. A bill that would help keep guns out of the hands of
children and criminals, while protecting the rights of law-abiding
adults to use and enjoy firearms.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I support the objective of the Senator
from California that the Senate should do all it can to implement
policies ``that will reduce the threat of gun violence in schools.''
I would like, however, to note that the amendment contains an
erroneous factual finding. This amendment states that ``Every day in
America, on average, between 12 and 13 children under the age of 18 die
of gunshots from homicides, accidental shootings and suicides.'' That
is incorrect.
According to the 1997 statistics collected by the National Center for
Health Statistics there were 4,205 firearms-related deaths of persons
aged 0 to 19, 85 percent of whom were between the ages of 15 and 19.
Thus, the daily average stated in this amendment is young adults and
children under the age of 20, not under 18 as this amendment says.
Of course, this number is far too high regardless of whether it is
young adults and children under 18 or under 20. It is a national
tragedy either way, and the Senate should do all it can to reduce that
number. I just want to make the record clear, consistent with my belief
that the Senate has an obligation when it makes findings of fact to be
accurate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the manager of the bill, the Senator from
Georgia, has graciously agreed to allow 5 minutes of the time on this
amendment to be yielded to the Senator from Virginia to speak on behalf
of the Graham amendment which was a second-degree amendment to the Roth
amendment.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Georgia. Since I am, in effect, speaking for the other side, I am
particularly grateful. I am in wholehearted support of the Boxer
amendment. I commend the Senator from California for all she has done
to raise our consciousness with regard to school violence, and the very
difficult environment that is created for learning if we cannot
guarantee our children go to their classrooms with relative safety.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Amendment No. 2870 To Amendment No. 2869
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to spend a moment talking in
support of my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, in his efforts to
maintain at least a semblance of fiscal discipline at a time when many
of our colleagues are thinking primarily about how to spend the surplus
on new programs or major tax cuts. As the baby boomers head toward
retirement, we have a responsibility to address their future needs. The
current Social Security and Medicare programs simply are not equipped
to handle our aging population. We need to strengthen these programs,
but we cannot do that with our current national debt. Conventional
wisdom has always been, in times of prosperity we save for the bad
times. It is hard to fathom more prosperous times than we are currently
enjoying. Yet we continue to avoid making tough choices that will
prepare us for the future.
Until we muster the political courage to strengthen Social Security
and Medicare, we need to focus on paying down the debt. There are three
ways to pay for our priorities. We can borrow from our parents by using
the Social Security trust fund, we can borrow from our children by
adding to our Nation's debt, or we can pay for our priorities
ourselves. In my view, the only responsible approach is to pay for our
priorities ourselves. How can we even consider tax cut legislation that
is not paid for when we have not even determined how much of the budget
should be allocated to tax cuts?
[[Page S1069]]
We are still several weeks away from the actual debate on the budget
resolution and even further away from an agreement. If we are going to
vote tax legislation off the floor before the budget resolution is in
place, it should be paid for. That is the only responsible thing to do.
Currently, the public debt is more than $5.75 trillion. In order to
maintain this debt, we need to dedicate billions of dollars to making
interest payments. Last year alone we paid over $230 billion in
interest payments on the publicly held debt. Can you imagine what we
could do if we were able to use even one-tenth of this money on our
Nation's schools?
We can argue all day about the proper role of the Federal Government
in public schools, but I assume we all agree something needs to be
done. We owe it to our children to give them the best head start
possible. Mr. President, $230 billion would go a long way toward
solving this problem.
We need to remember that the surplus is what we have left over once
we have met all our obligations. We have not yet decided what our
obligations are, so how can we know how much our surplus is going to be
and how much extra money we are going to have?
I urge our colleagues to support the Graham amendment when it comes
up for a vote. I yield any time that may be allotted to me.
I thank the Senator from Georgia for his courtesy.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to associate my remarks with those
of my colleagues over the past few days while we have discussed S.
1134, the education savings accounts bill. I am pleased that education
has been raised as a priority by this body. Education will continue to
be a high-profile issue as we continue to work on the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which the Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee has started to markup. At this time, I would like to
talk about a number of related issues that need to be addressed from
the Federal level.
I began my career as an educator. I taught music, social studies,
math, and other subjects in Hawaii's classrooms. I ran schools as a
vice principal and principal. In my current position, I still come in
direct contact with students who travel thousands of miles from my
great State of Hawaii to tell me what is good and what is bad about
their education. It is no surprise that the bulk of these students are
in public school, since 90 percent of American students are served by
the public school system. When I ask students what makes the biggest
difference in how they learn, they talk about teachers who motivate and
the commitment they put into subjects. When asked about how their
education can improve, students lament the poor conditions of
playgrounds and classrooms, overcrowding in classrooms, the lack of
proper textbooks, and the need for more and better computers.
My colleagues have touched on these, and many other problems, as they
debated amendments to S. 1134. I supported the amendment offered by my
colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb, which sought to authorize $24.8
billion in school modernization bonds and a $1.3 billion grant and
zero-interest loan program for urgent school repairs. The modernization
bonds would build or modernize 6,000 schools and the grant/loan program
would finance about 8,300 urgent repair projects. Although states have
addressed some of these needs, students are still learning in
substandard conditions.
The Federal Government can assist with these projects. This has been
acknowledged through the inclusion of a school construction provision
in S. 1134. Unfortunately, this provision will only help a handful of
schools in need, as opposed to the comprehensive assistance that would
have been made available if the Robb amendment were adopted.
Regarding the conditions in Hawaii's schools, 73 percent need to
upgrade or repair buildings to good overall condition, 57 percent have
at least one inadequate building feature--such as a condition related
to plumbing or electricity--and 78 percent report at least one
unsatisfactory environmental factor such as poor air quality or
ventilation. Because of Hawaii's temperate climate, we do not have to
worry about having to heat our classrooms in the winter. However, we
face other challenges such as corrosion due to the amount of salt in
the air from the ocean. Funding in the Robb amendment would take into
account the differences across states and provide assistance for the
myriad of problems facing our schools.
The Campaign to Rebuild America's Schools tells me that Hawaii faces
a $955 million cost for school modernization--nearly 80 percent for
infrastructure and more than 20 percent of that for technology needs.
The school modernization initiative would provide Hawaii's schools with
$63 million to meet some of these needs. I will continue to work with
my colleagues to pass this legislation.
I have also been a long-time supporter of class size reduction
efforts. I voted for the Murray amendment, which would continue the
help to communities to hire 100,000 quality teachers to reduce class
size in lower grades. I was pleased to see the second installment of
this initiative funded through last year's appropriations process,
which will provide Hawaii with more than $6 million in fiscal year
2000. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 would
increase this funding to Hawaii to more than $8 million.
Our students deserve the best possible learning environment. Larger
classes of 30 or 35 students tend to be noisier, have greater potential
to be disruptive, and provide less teacher time to each student,
compared to classes with fewer students. Many students are struggling
through courses, and some of this can be attributed to their presence
in larger classes. Impending teacher shortages will compound this
problem, as well as will record school enrollments that will only
increase, into the new millennium. The class size reduction initiative
would help mitigate these problems facing our school-age generations.
I support other amendments that were taken up and are anticipated to
S. 1134, and I commend my colleagues for their work on this bill. These
include Senator Abraham for working to provide more computers and
increased technology in classrooms and Senators Graham and Hutchison
for encouraging individuals to transition their careers into teaching.
I also support Senator Wellstone in his ongoing effort to look at the
levels and effects of child poverty.
Mr. President, I would like to make a final point about worthy
legislation in this area. I have a bill, S. 1487, the Excellence in
Economic Education Act, that would work to boost economic literacy in
the country. I will not offer my bill as an amendment to S. 1134 at
this time, but I intend to do so when the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act comes before the Senate. In this debate about education,
I must highlight the need for us to educate Americans, starting from a
young age, about the importance of many aspects of economic education:
personal finance, consumer education, entrepreneurship, career and
retirement planning. It is important for our students to have a
practical understanding of economics to help them in their daily lives,
and my bill would help. It provides funding directly to the State and
local level by giving grants to economic education councils and centers
nationwide through the National Council on Economic Education. It also
provides assistance on the national level to boost resources developed
by the National Council that help states and schools teach economics to
teachers and students. I hope that my colleagues will support my effort
to pass this legislation during ESEA debate.
Mr. President, I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about the
importance of education. We must continue to make significant
investments in the future of this country, and we can accomplish this
by magnifying the resources that we provide to education.
To finish my remarks, I would like to comment on one more thing that
I hear
[[Page S1070]]
from Hawaii's students. I am frequently impressed by the thoughtful
ideas and expressions of concern voiced by the young men and women I
meet. Students talk about issues that are surprisingly values-based:
the need to treat one another with kindness and respect. Or, as we say
in Hawaiian, ``malama'': to take care of, to care for, or to support.
With all of the tragic incidents at our schools, I hope that our
students can achieve a better understanding of the value of human life
so that these incidents can be reduced. America's youth should strive
to understand why we must treat others as we would like to be treated.
Some of this helpful dialogue is occurring naturally, initiated by the
students themselves, in our schools. We must do what we can to support
our young people as they tangle with these often overwhelming and
disturbing issues.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, I believe a voting order has been established to begin at
2:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Amendment No. 2870
The PRESIDING OFFICER. According to the understanding, there will be
2 minutes evenly divided before we vote on the amendment. The first
vote is on the amendment of the Senator from Florida.
Who yields time?
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
prescribed time for debate before this vote be vitiated and we proceed
with the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2870. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 73, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]
YEAS--25
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Daschle
Dodd
Graham
Hollings
Inouye
Kerrey
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Robb
Rockefeller
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wyden
NAYS--73
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
McCain
Moynihan
The amendment (No. 2870) was rejected.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes on
the Roth amendment, which will be next, and the Kennedy amendment be
limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time on the amendment?
Amendment No. 2869
Mr. ROTH. My amendment increases from $500 to $2,000 the annual ESA
contribution. It makes the educational savings account permanent. It
would make employer provided educational assistance permanent. It
removes all tax increases and makes this a pure education tax cut bill.
America has waited for this education savings plan for 3 long years.
This legislation brings it home today. My amendment makes sure it stays
there for families, not just for today but for tomorrow and all the
days that follow.
I yield the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. REID. We yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2869. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]
YEAS--59
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--40
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The amendment (No. 2869) was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. 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 Georgia.
Amendment No. 2871
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent
agreement, the next order of business is the Dorgan amendment. I have
conferred with Senator Dorgan. He has agreed to a voice vote. I yield
back the proponents' and opponents' time. I, of course, oppose the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2871.
The amendment (No. 2871) was rejected.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I ask one question? What happened
to our 10-minute votes? Can we try to do these in 10 minutes?
Amendment No. 2872
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next amendment
is the Kennedy amendment No. 2872.
Who yields time on the Kennedy amendment?
Mr. FITZGERALD. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, are there 2 minutes to a side or 1 minute
to a side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute per side.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we all know, there are scarce
education resources. The Federal Government only
[[Page S1071]]
provides 7 cents out of every dollar. The question is: How are we going
to use those scarce resources?
This amendment is basic and fundamental. It says we need a well-
trained, qualified teacher in front of every classroom in America. That
is what this amendment provides. We know we need 2 million teachers
over the next 10 years. We are training 200,000. This last year, we
employed 50,000 unqualified teachers.
The situation has become so desperate that the Wall Street Journal
now shows the ad of Kelly Services which unveiled for the first time
nationwide substitute teachers.
This amendment is simple. It provides assistance to local communities
to recruit qualified teachers, provides current teachers with
professional development, and it provides 200,000 new teachers a year
with trained mentors. My amendment also holds States and schools
accountable for the results.
This seems to be a wiser way to expend scarce resources than the
underlying bill, and I hope it will be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have several points to make. This
amendment was laid down in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee today. There are controversies. It embraces the idea of
Federal intervention, but that will be settled in committee, A.
B, this is about the fifth time we have had to deal with an amendment
that makes moot the entire debate we have had for the last week and a
half because it removes the funding from the education savings account,
sweeping away 14 million people, 20 million students who will benefit,
and, more importantly, $12 billion in new resources that will be
volunteered by these families for education.
We ought to do the same thing we have done with all these amendments
that make moot the proposal for which we have been fighting. I will
vote against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2872.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--60
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The amendment (No. 2872) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, there probably will not be any other
votes until 6 or after. It has taken us an hour and 15 minutes to cast
one 20-minute vote and two 10-minute votes. Both sides are really
suffering from this. If it is a 10-minute vote, let's vote in 10
minutes.
If there is any remaining time on our side on the Boxer amendment, I
yield it back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
Amendment No. 2874 to Amendment No. 2873
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on improving the learning
environment by ensuring safe schools)
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to
the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an
amendment numbered 2874 to amendment No. 2873.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A SAFE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Every school child in America should have a safe
learning environment free from violence and illegal drugs.
(2) Violence and illegal drugs in the schools undermine a
safe and secure learning environment.
(3) Any instance of violence or illegal drugs in schools is
unacceptable and undermines the efforts of Congress, state
and local governments and school boards, and parents to
provide American children with the best education possible.
(4) In the last 12 months, there have been at least 50
people killed or injured in school shootings in America.
(5) From 1992 through 1998, the number of referrals made by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for federal firearms prosecutions
fell 44%, which resulted in a 40% drop in prosecutions and a
31% decline in convictions, allowing criminals to remain on
the streets preying on our most vulnerable citizens,
including our children.
(6) From 1996 to 1998, the Justice Department only
prosecuted an average of seven persons per year for illegally
transferring a handgun to a juvenile.
(7) Since 1992, the percentage of 8th grade students using
marijuana, cocaine, and heroin in the past 30 days has
increased 162%, 86%, and 50%, respectively, according to the
respected Monitoring the Future survey.
(8) The February 29, 2000, shooting at Buell Elementary
School in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, is evidence that
gun violence in American schools continues, that the drug
culture contributes to youth violence, and that the breakdown
of the American family has contributed to the increase in
violence among American children.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the reauthorization of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program that Congress soon will be considering should target
the elimination of illegal drugs and violence in our schools
and should encourage local schools to insist on zero-
tolerance policies towards violence and illegal drug use.
Amendment No. 2874, as Modified
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending second-degree amendment be modified to reflect a first-degree
status and that the time restraints be limited to 10 minutes equally
divided on both amendments, and following the use or yielding back of
time the amendments be laid aside with votes occurring at a time to be
determined by the two leaders and no second-degree amendments be in
order to either amendment.
I further ask unanimous consent that the votes occur in relation to
the Coverdell amendment to be followed immediately by a vote in
relation to the Boxer amendment and that no other amendments relative
to guns be in order other than the Durbin amendment which replaces the
Reed amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I apologize to my friend,
but I was preoccupied speaking to another Senator. We will have to go
over the unanimous consent request again.
Mr. COVERDELL. Would my colleague like me to read the request again?
Mr. REID. Please.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending second-degree amendment be modified to reflect a first-degree
status and that the time restraints be limited to 10 minutes total,
equally divided, on both amendments. That means we
[[Page S1072]]
would each have 5 minutes before our amendment. And following the use
or yielding back of time, the amendments be laid aside with votes
occurring at a time to be determined by the two leaders and no second-
degree amendments be in order to either amendment.
I further ask unanimous consent that the votes occur in relation to
the Coverdell amendment to be followed immediately by a vote in
relation to the Boxer amendment and that no other amendments relative
to guns be in order other than the Durbin amendment which replaces the
Reed amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent agreement
be amended. What the Senator from Georgia has read is just fine, but
due to the grace of the Senator from California, she has agreed to
allow Senator Bingaman to offer the Kennedy amendment next. That would
be the next amendment that would be offered. Senator Bingaman has asked
for 8 minutes on his side.
After that, for the information of other Senators, following that
will be, of course, the Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein has been
here all day waiting to offer her amendment. After that, Senator
Landrieu; Senator Landrieu is going to make a statement for
approximately a half an hour. She will not require a vote, she has
indicated to us. Following that, there would be an amendment by Senator
John Kerry, and he has asked for 7 minutes on his side. Following that,
would be Senators Schumer, Boxer, Durbin, and Wellstone.
Mr. COVERDELL. I have no objection. That is basically just embracing
the order of amendments on the other side.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want
to be clear that I will have a second-degree amendment to the Feinstein
amendment.
Mr. REID. You have a right to do that.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest that the unanimous consent
request be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request being so
modified? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A SAFE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Every school child in America should have a safe
learning environment free from violence and illegal drugs.
(2) Violence and illegal drugs in the schools undermine a
safe and secure learning environment.
(3) Any instance of violence or illegal drugs in schools is
unacceptable and undermines the efforts of Congress, state
and local governments and school boards, and parents to
provide American children with the best education possible.
(4) In the last 12 months, there have been at least 50
people killed or injured in school shootings in America.
(5) From 1992 through 1998, the number of referrals made by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for federal firearms prosecutions
fell 44%, which resulted in a 40% drop in prosecutions and a
31% decline in convictions, allowing criminals to remain on
the streets preying on our most vulnerable citizens,
including our children.
(6) From 1996 to 1998, the Justice Department only
prosecuted an average of seven persons per year for illegally
transferring a handgun to a juvenile.
(7) Since 1992, the percentage of 8th grade students using
marijuana, cocaine, and heroin in the past 30 days has
increased 162%, 86%, and 50%, respectively, according to the
respected Monitoring and Future survey.
(8) The February 29, 2000, shooting at Buell Elementary
School in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, is evidence that
gun violence in American schools continues, that the drug
culture contributes to youth violence, and that the breakdown
of the American family has contributed to the increase in
violence among American children.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the reauthorization of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program that Congress soon will be considering should target
the elimination of illegal drugs and violence in our schools
and should encourage local schools to insist on zero-
tolerance policies towards violence and illegal drug use.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest to anybody trying to figure
out their schedule that we are not likely to see any votes until 6 or
after. We would begin with the Coverdell-Boxer amendments and then
follow down the amendments as enumerated by the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 2875
(Purpose: To increase funding for Federal Pell Grants)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Reed, and Senator Feingold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for Mr.
Kennedy, for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Feingold,
and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 2875.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike section 101 and insert the following:
SEC. 101. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.
There are appropriated to carry out subpart 1 of part A of
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1070a) $1,200,000,000, which amount is equal to the projected
revenue increase resulting from striking the amendments made
to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by section 101 of this
Act as reported by the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Wellstone be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes of the 8
minutes allocated for advocating this amendment. Then I will defer to
Senator Feingold.
This amendment is very straightforward. It would provide an
additional $1.2 billion for the Pell Grant Program. I think all of us
who have paid any attention to Federal support for education know that
the one program that is most helpful to those trying to go to college
in our States is the Pell grant. We have a great many young people in
this country--and some of them not so young--who are taking advantage
of this program. In fact, we have nearly 4 million people in this
country who receive Pell grants every year. The average size of those
Pell grants this year will be a little over $2,000. This amendment
says, let's take the funds that were otherwise provided as a $5-per-
student tax benefit in this pending bill and increase by $400 the
maximum grant for Pell grants. The current limit on what can be
provided in the Pell grant is $3,300 per year. We say, let's raise that
to $3,700 per year.
Now, most students don't get that maximum amount, but we want to have
the opportunity there for them to get the maximum amount, if possible.
The estimate we have is that, today, the maximum grant permitted under
the Pell Grant Program is 86 percent of the 1980 value of the Pell
grant in constant dollars. The simple fact is that we are not keeping
up with the increase in the cost of higher education. We used to
provide substantial support by providing grants and much less in the
way of loans. In the time I have been in the Senate, we have seen that
change dramatically. Now we provide loans but little in the way of
grants. This amendment would help to correct that to some small degree.
This is very meaningful for my State. Over $64 million, this year, goes
to Pell grants, and that amount would increase if the amendment I have
offered on behalf of Senator Kennedy and the other Senators is
accepted.
The average family income for families whose children are taking
advantage of the Pell Grant Program is $14,500 a year. So if a Senator
is concerned about getting the money to where it is most needed--to the
families who most need that money for education--this amendment will do
that. It takes money that otherwise is being spread to many people who
are much better off than that and concentrates it where the families
need it the most--in this case, the families who are eligible for Pell
grants.
This $400 increase will translate into 96,000 new recipients of Pell
grants this next year. In May of 1999, the Health and Education
Committee that Senator Jeffords heads and of which Senator Kennedy is
the ranking member passed a bipartisan resolution to increase the basic
Pell grant by $400, which is exactly what this amendment does.
[[Page S1073]]
We have a chance with this amendment to make good on that promise
with real money for a change and not just a resolution. I urge my
colleagues to vote to put aid to needy college kids ahead of the tax
breaks that are provided in this bill for families or individuals who
are much better off.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Feingold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
amendment of Senator Bingaman and Senator Kennedy to raise the maximum
individual Pell grant to $3,700, an increase of $400.
Higher education is one of the most vital keys to open the door to
success in this country. Without a college degree, or significant
postsecondary education, it is a lot harder to find a successful path
through today's labor market. Without Pell grants, many individuals
simply can't consider college. Without a college degree or serious
postsecondary training, some employers won't consider hiring these
individuals.
In general, workers with a bachelor's degree are much better off
financially compared to less-educated workers. In 1998, the average
male college graduate earned about 92 percent more than the average
high school graduate.
While I commend the supporters of this legislation for their desire
to promote increased access to an affordable higher education, I think
their approach is seriously flawed. Specifically, I take exception with
those who believe that the education IRA component of this legislation
is the best way to help increase accessibility to affordable education.
Instead of helping those truly in need, as Senator Bingaman has said,
this provision would disproportionately help the most affluent families
and provide little or no assistance to low- and middle-income families.
A Treasury analysis concluded that 70 percent of the tax benefits
from this provision would go to the top 20 percent of all taxpayers.
Now, in sharp contrast to these targeted tax breaks, Pell grants
provide essential financial assistance to those who are truly in need.
Unfortunately, the individual Pell grant award has not kept pace with
the rising cost of a postsecondary education. In fact, I have been told
that the maximum Pell grant has declined in constant dollars by 14
percent over the last 20 years.
This decline is even more significant when we look at the rising cost
of a college education. Over the past 10 years, tuition alone has
increased by 41 percent at 4-year private colleges, and 53 percent at
4-year public colleges and universities. What is even more troubling
about the trends of increasing tuition and decreasing grant value is
how students, especially low-income students, make up the difference
between aid and tuition. Because of a decreasing real value of
assistance, such as the Pell grant, more and more students are relying
on debt to finance their college education. Last year alone, the number
of students who took out non-Federal loans increased by 25 percent.
These loans inevitably are, in large part, the reason students are
leaving college with more and more debt every year.
One of the other concerning trends is the emergence of a widening
educational gap between the rich and poor. Statistic after statistic
illustrates that students from low-income families are pursuing a
postsecondary education at a much lower rate than individuals from
upper- and middle-income families. By supporting an increase for the
Pell Grant Program, Congress has a chance to address this growing
disparity. After all, Congress created need-based student financial aid
programs to ensure that individuals from low-income families are not
denied postsecondary education because they cannot afford it.
The Pell Grant Program is vital to paving the way to an affordable
higher education. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
support a real increase in the individual Pell grant award. I thank my
friend from New Mexico for his leadership on this issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Your side had 8 minutes?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes.
Mr. COVERDELL. I will keep my remarks within that same constraint.
Let me say that every year since the Republicans gained the majority
we have worked to increase the maximum Pell grant. For more than 7
years, the Pell grant maximum fluctuated between $2,300 and $2,400.
Last year, the President's budget cut the Pell grant. But we have been
dedicated on this side.
This is about the seventh time I have lost track of an amendment that
has come from the other side. They may have a laudable goal, but the
underlying goal is to make moot the central premise of the legislation
we are discussing, which is to allow families to set up education
savings accounts.
If you take the amendment the way it is constructed, it obliterates
the possibility to set up these education savings accounts, which means
14 million people will not set up an account who otherwise would. Of
the 20 million children in school, almost half the population will not
be beneficiaries of the account that otherwise would. But, more
importantly, $12 billion that would be accumulated voluntarily in these
accounts to help education at every level--kindergarten through
college--would go away similar to snuffing out a candle. It makes no
sense to do that.
The Senator from Wisconsin cited statistics from the Treasury
Department that we can't get but the Joint Tax Committee finds
incorrect, which is that 70 percent of all benefits from these savings
accounts will go to families making $75,000 or less.
I will tell you why that is undoubtedly the correct analysis--because
the people who would open these savings accounts are identical by
criteria to those who can open up the college savings account the
President and the Congress passed several years ago. It is identical.
The same families who can use those accounts are the ones to whom these
accounts would apply. I don't think the President or the Congress
passed an education savings account for people driving around in black
limousines. It was means tested to help the middle class or less, and
the identical means testing applies to this amendment that this
amendment would obviate.
I yield the floor. I believe the next order of business is Senator
Feinstein.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment that was just offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is a
set-aside.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 2876
(Purpose: To provide for achievement standards and assessment of
student performance in meeting the standards)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Sessions, Byrd,
and Lieberman, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) for herself,
and Mr. Sessions, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an
amendment numbered 2876.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT
PERFORMANCE.
In order to receive Federal funds under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 each local educational agency
and State educational agency shall--
(1) require that students served by the agency be subject
to State achievement standards in the core curriculum, to be
determined by the State, for all elementary through secondary
students; and
(2) assess student performance in meeting the State
achievement standards at key transition points, such as
grades 4, 8, and 12, before promotion to the next grade
level.
SEC. ____. POLICY PROHIBITING SOCIAL PROMOTION.
(a) Policy.--No education funds appropriated under the
Elementary and Secondary
[[Page S1074]]
Education Act of 1965 shall be made available to a local
educational agency in a State unless the State demonstrates
to the Secretary of Education that the State has adopted a
policy prohibiting the practice of social promotion.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``practice of
social promotion'' means a formal or informal practice of
promoting a student from the grade for which the
determination is made to the next grade when the student
fails to achieve a minimum level of achievement and
proficiency in the core curriculum for the grade for which
the determination is made.
(c) Waiver Prohibited.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of Education may not waive the
provisions of this section.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Sessions, Byrd,
Lieberman, and I are offering an amendment to address one of the most
significant detriments to good education in our public schools. That is
the practice of passing children on to the next grade regardless of
whether they make passing grades. It is called social promotion. While
this practice may be politically correct, it has, I believe, become the
single most important factor leading to the decline in quality of
public education in America.
Under our amendment, in order to receive Federal funds, States would
be required to prohibit the practice of social promotion and adopt
achievement standards in the core academic subjects. Decisions about
how to implement a nonsocial promotions policy would be left to the
States and localities.
Implicit in the amendment is that remedial education is necessary and
can be provided through a number of different Federal, State, and local
sources.
This amendment is carefully written so that implementation is left
with State and local governments. For example, State and local
officials would decide all specifics of promotion policy and the
criteria for passing and holding back students, achievement standards,
subjects that constitute the core curriculum, grades when students
would be tested, grading methods, testing methods, and remedial
education.
The amendment defines social promotion as a formal or informal
practice of promoting a student from the grade for which the
determination is made to promote or not to promote to the next grade
when the student fails to achieve a minimum level of achievement and
proficiency in the core curriculum for the grade for which the
determination is made.
The amendment covers elementary through secondary grades--grades 1
through 12. It is carefully crafted so that reform changes could be
made incrementally, grade by grade, or in any fashion the State or
local school districts see fit.
Social promotion misleads our students, their parents, and the
public. Even educators have concluded that it doesn't work.
Let me give you the conclusion of a study conducted by the American
Federation of Teachers. I quote:
Social promotion is an insidious practice that hides school
failure and creates problems for everyone: For kids who are
deluded into thinking they have learned the skills to be
successful, or get the message that achievement doesn't
count; for teachers who must face students who know that
teachers wield no credible authority to demand hard work; for
the business community and colleges that must spend millions
of dollars on remediation; and for society that must deal
with the growing proportion of uneducated citizens unprepared
to contribute productively to the economic and civic life of
the nation.
The American Federation of Teachers has said that social promotion is
rampant and that only 22 States have standards in the four core
disciplines of English, math, social studies, and science that are well
grounded in content and that are clear and specific enough to be used.
They surveyed 85 of the Nation's 820 largest school districts in 32
States representing one-third of the Nation's public school enrollment.
None of the districts in the AFT national survey has an explicit
policy of social promotion. But almost every district has an implicit
practice. According to the U.S. Department of Education, a third of
students across the United States perform below the basic level of
proficiency; 15 percent who graduate from high school cannot balance a
checkbook or write a letter to a credit card company to explain an
error on a bill.
Mike Wright, a San Diegan, told the San Diego Tribune he continued to
get promoted from grade to grade and even graduated from high school
even though he failed subjects. At the age of 29, he enrolled in a
community college to learn to read.
Let me talk for a moment about social promotion in Los Angeles.
School officials decided they would end the practice. That is the
good news. The bad news was that if it were done all at once, they
found that one-half of the entire student population --350 students--
would have to be held back. More than two-thirds of eighth graders
would be flunked if social promotion were fully ended.
The problem was so massive that they have had to scale back their
plans and implement the new policy more slowly. They have taken a
multistep, phased-in plan, and this legislation is structured to give
school officials the flexibility to do just that.
I would like to read a letter sent to me yesterday from the
superintendent of that school district, a man who was superintendent of
public instruction when I was mayor of San Francisco and whom I respect
greatly. He points out:
One of the solutions is to institute an intensive program
of standards-based promotion, eliminating the dastardly
practice of social promotion that has advanced the student
from one grade to the next without having learned what was
required in his current grade. In its initial phase, we are
targeting the second and eighth grade and focusing on
reading, because that is the foundation of all learning. Our
program is very practical in design, and is based on
classroom space, materials, professional development, and the
availability of staff.
It would be my proudest hope that we can and will provide
the education for our children of poverty that they deserve.
These are the disadvantaged, who in this district are
predominantly children of color. I see the end of social
promotion as a way to ensure that all children will have
the basic skills to become contributing Members of their
community.
The Governor of California, Gov. Gray Davis, has endorsed our
amendment. In a February 29 letter to me he wrote:
I write to express my support for your amendment that
provides for achievement standards, assessment of student
performance in meeting those standards, and an end to the
practice of social promotion. As you know, improving
education in California is my first, second, and third
priority. Last year, I sponsored the California Public
Schools Accountability Act which established a comprehensive
high stakes school accountability system, the various
components of which will be phased in over the next several
years. Your amendment will provide an added impetus to
reinforce our State's commitment to ensuring the achievement
of all students.
Mr. President, at least half of my State's 5.6 million students
perform below their grade level. California ranks 36th out of 39 States
in fourth grade reading proficiency, 32nd out of 36 States in eighth
grade reading proficiency, 41st out of 43 States in fourth grade math
performance.
Let me speak about Chicago, the major city of the Presiding Officer.
On June 1, I took a group of top-level California educators and experts
to Chicago and spent the day discussing what was being done. In
Chicago, they have abolished social promotion. They have established
content standards. They test student performance in meeting the
standards. They have adopted a core curriculum, teacher lesson plans.
They evaluate schools on a regular cycle. They intervene with failing
schools. They have performance criteria for teachers and principals and
they put in place extensive remedial and afterschool programs providing
the very necessary help for struggling students. The Chicago school
district is 90 percent minority and 90 percent poverty.
If it can be done in Chicago, it can be done everywhere else. The
results are there: Reading, up 12 percent; math, up 14 percent. Scores
are improving.
Chicago stands as an example, but it takes political will and courage
to make these changes. Our legislation provides the incentive.
I yield 10 minutes to my cosponsor, the distinguished Senator from
Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
California and appreciate being able to work together with the Senator
on this
[[Page S1075]]
important piece of legislation and with the others who are cosponsoring
it.
I think this Senate will come together, both sides of the aisle. The
time has come. We know social promotion, the concept of moving kids
along when we have failed to make sure they have learned the basics of
the course level in which they should be operating, is the wrong thing
to do. I believe that very strongly. I think the American people
understand it and care about it.
We need to identify, at the earliest possible time, children who are
falling behind. If we do not have a core curriculum, if we do not have
standards, and we cover up or we deny what is happening when we know
students are not getting the required amount of knowledge in school, it
is time to confront this.
In some ways we are utilizing that psychiatric principle called
``enabling.'' We are enabling bad behavior to successfully continue
unacceptable behavior, unacceptable performance by a school system,
unacceptable performance by students.
It is time to confront that, not because we want to be mean or harsh
but because we love these children. We care about the children. If we
love them and if we care about them, we will set reasonable and tough
standards; we will insist they adhere to them. When we find out they
are not consistently adhering to them, we find ways to get them to the
level they need.
Maybe their parents need to be more involved. Some say: I didn't know
Billy was that far behind.
If we end social promotion, they will know; if there is testing, they
will know. Maybe they need a member of the family to help with the
homework. Maybe a tutor would be appropriate. Something has to be done.
The school systems are going to have to participate better, also.
We had an incident in Alabama not long ago where a former all-pro
football player could not pay his child support and could not get a
job. He said the reason he couldn't get a job was because he couldn't
read and write.
Such a sad statement. Too often in America we are passing kids along
who have not learned how to read and write effectively. They are not
going to be able to perform effectively in the commercial sector, and
they are not going to be able to care for their families effectively.
Alabama has adopted one of the toughest programs in the Nation. The
Fordham Foundation says it is the toughest. They have tested the 4th,
8th and 11th grades. We will do that this year. We want to know at what
level the children are operating. A 60-person commission is undertaking
right now a detailed study on how to implement the end of social
promotion. It is something that ought to be done around this country.
We want our education system in Alabama to be better. I want it to be
better all over America. I know we can do that.
There are a number of things we have to recognize when we ask: Is
this really a problem; do we need to confront this?
American 12th graders rank 19th out of 21 industrial nations in
mathematics achievement and 16th out of 21 nations in science. Our
advanced physics students rank dead last.
Since 1983, 10 million Americans have reached the 12th grade without
having learned to read at a basic level. Over 20 million have reached
their senior year unable to do basic math. Almost 25 million have
reached the 12th grade not knowing the essentials of U.S. history.
In 1992, a Department of Education survey found between 21 and 23
percent--more than 1 out of 5--or 40 million of the 191 million adults
in this country were in the bottom 5th of literacy assessment
proficiency categories.
We are saying we do care about education. That is not always
reflected in how much money we spend. I hope we can continue to spend
more. We increased the budget this year substantially over last year,
and we will increase the education budget next year.
Kansas City brought their per pupil spending up to $11,700 and
brought down the student teacher ratio to 13-1 without seeing any
increase in test scores.
What is it that we are about? I think children respond to challenges.
I think children reach up to the level they are asked to reach, that
they are expected to reach. If we set reasonable standards and we
challenge students to meet them, and the teachers are motivated to make
sure the children reach certain standards, and parents get engaged
because they know what the tests are going to be like and they want to
be sure their children meet those standards, this will increase
learning more in this country than any other thing we can do.
I am pleased to support this legislation with the Senator from
California. I think it will have broad support in this body.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who seeks recognition? The
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do my colleagues have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California controls 13
minutes. The opposition has 30 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall not take all my time. I will be
interested in hearing from my colleagues. Then I will have a second-
degree amendment after this debate is over.
I hope Senators will look at the empirical evidence. I appreciate the
sentiment behind this amendment, but I think it is profoundly mistaken.
Part of the language reads:
No education funds appropriated under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be made available to a
local educational agency in a State unless the State
demonstrates to the Secretary of Education that the State has
adopted a policy prohibiting the practice of social
promotion.
Then it goes on to be a definition.
I want my colleagues to carefully examine the evidence. I want to
offer a second-degree amendment which says these provisions would apply
as long as we make sure every child has the same opportunity to learn.
We had testimony in the HELP Committee from Dr. Hauser, who is a
professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He
has received numerous awards. He also serves on the Board of Test and
Assessment for the National Research Council. He is a prolific writer,
a very key researcher in the field.
Can I summarize his findings? His findings related to social
promotion:
Students who have been held back typically do not catch up.
Low-performing students learn more if they are promoted even
without remedial help than if they are held back. Students
who have been held back are much more likely to drop out
before completing high school. The long-term costs of holding
students back are high to students and to school systems. The
negative effect of holding students back are often
invisible to those who make retention decisions because
they occur many years later.
I now wish to move on to some of the critical findings. There is
abundant evidence which shows that this practice of high stakes testing
and holding kids back as young as age 8 has not only been unsuccessful
but it is also harmful. It is ethically questionable, basically, to
experiment with our children. I am going to cite evidence. Maybe my
colleagues can refute it. I am not sure they can.
First of all, low-achieving students do better academically if they
move forward with their peers rather than if they are held back. Dozens
of studies over the past two decades have found that retaining students
contributes to academic failure and behavioral difficulties rather than
success in school. That is the evidence.
I quote from ``Using Standards and Assessments To Support Student
Learning,'' Linda Darling-Hammond and Beverly Falk. Linda Darling
Hammond addressed our caucus. She is a distinguished professor at
Stanford University. This piece was in the Phi Delta Kappan, November
1997. A scientific review of 63 controlled studies of grade retention
through the mid-1980's revealed that 54 of the 63 yielded overall
negative effects of retention.
The best of these studies have shown the negative effects of
retention. The authors concluded that ``[o]n average, retained children
are worse off than their promoted counterparts on both personal
adjustment and academic outcomes.''
I am just giving my colleagues the evidence.
Ignoring educational research, too many of us and too many school
districts have continued to hold out retention as educational reform
instead of the failed approach that it is.
In Chicago, they tried to do this in the 1970s and 1980s, and it
failed. Then
[[Page S1076]]
they decided to do it again. Here is some of the data that is now
forthcoming:
In 1998, researchers Ann McCoy and Arthur Reynolds at the
University of Wiconsin-Madison completed longitudinal studies
on the population of the Chicago students retained in grade.
Their report, cited above, found ``[f]or all achievement
comparisons, retained children consistently underperformed
their promoted [low-achieving] peers, and usually
significantly. No positive effects of grade retention were
detected.''
There is no evidence that this works.
They concluded that grade retention is, at best, an
insufficient intervention strategy for promoting student
achievement and, at worst, it impeded children's academic
success and should be substantially modified or replaced by
programs and policies which demonstrate effectiveness . . .
On January 21, 1999, the New York Times reported that a
whopping 5,500 Chicago students are repeating the third grade
and 964 are repeating the third grade for a second time.
The Washington Post reported on August 1, 1999, that 1,300
15-year-old Chicago students were sent to ``academic
halfway houses between the eighth and ninth grades''
because of failing scores.
The evidence from all of the studies is that retention leads to
increased school dropouts. ``Researchers at the University of Wisconsin
also found that 30 percent of those who were retained dropped out of
school compared to 21 percent of those students who were not,''
controlling for academic ability; thus, there was a 42-percent increase
in dropping out. That is from a piece titled ``Grade Retention Doesn't
Work,'' Arthur Reynolds, Judy Temple, Ann McCoy, Educational Week,
September 17, 1997.
The August 21, 1999, New York Times reported preliminary
results showing that 35 to 40 percent of the third, sixth,
and eighth graders who took standardized tests at the end of
mandatory summer school in New York City had failed to make
the required score . . . Predictions are that many other
students will be held back.
Chicago showed similar results following mandatory summer school
during its first 2 years. Summer school has not moved a large extent of
these low-achieving students to acceptable levels of performance. They
are held back, and when they are held back, they do not do better; they
do worse.
Research does show that there are preventive measures that do work,
that if you put the emphasis--are we surprised?--into early childhood
development, it makes a huge difference.
Researchers found preschool participation was associated
with a 24-percent reduction in the rate of school dropout and
that participation for 5 or 6 years was associated with a 27-
percent reduction in the rate of early school dropout . . .
My second-degree amendment, which we will get to, says that the
provisions of this section will not apply to any child who was not
afforded by the State educational agency or the local educational
agency an opportunity to learn the material necessary to meet the
achievement standards. I do not know how colleagues can be opposed to
it. I hope we will put the two amendments together.
When I offer the second-degree amendment, I will list specifically
what I have in mind. Again, I have cited study after study which shows
retention has not worked. I have cited study after study which show it
leads to increased dropout. I have cited study after study by the best
people in the country, including those who testified before our
committee and addressed our own Democratic caucus, that this is a
mistake. Then what I said is, at least let's make sure these children
have the same opportunity to achieve these results, to pass these
tests, before we make this operational.
I will yield the floor and listen to my colleagues, but when we look
at what is going on with these tests and the assessments, I hardly
think retention has been a successful strategy.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, which is adamantly opposed to the direction of
this amendment, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
September 1999.
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund Opposes ``Quick Fix'' Repeat-a-
Grade Policies for Low-Achieving Students Because Abundant Empirical
Research Shows Grade Retention To Be Unsuccessful and Educationally
Harmful, LDF Calls for High Quality, Early and Comprehensive
Educational Interventions
So-called ``end social promotion'' proposals to require
schools to hold low-achieving students back in grade until
they meet certain standards--often an arbitrarily set score
on a standardized test unrelated to instruction provided in
the classroom--have been gaining popularity recently as a
viable instrument of school reform. Chicago leads the list of
school districts that have recently adopted retention-in-
grade policies. This approach unquestionably is targeted
primarily for disadvantaged youth in failing schools. But
retention in grade is not new. Despite its apparent drawing
power, districts that have recently embraced, such as Chicago
and New York City, often have a record as recent as the
1980's of trying it and abandoning it--for good reason. They
learned that holding children back in grade decreased
achievement and increased drop outs.
Numerous empirical studies establish that in the vast
majority of cases, retention causes serious harm to those who
are retained. Thus, current efforts to promote retention-in-
grade as a sound and useful educational practice warrant
strong opposition. Where abundant evidence shows that an
educational practice is not only unsuccessful but also
harmful, it is at best ethically questionable to continue to
experiment with it on children.
For students who are facing learning difficulties, LDF
calls instead for interventions that have shown promise such
as high quality early childhood education, increased
instructional time, high quality teaching, standards and
corresponding curricular materials, smaller classrooms,
parental involvement programs, and adequate resources.
Large numbers of children, especially minorities and the
poor, are retained in grade now. While there are no national
statistics on the numbers of children retained in grade,
available data show that ``among children who entered school
in the late 1980's, 21 percent were enrolled below the usual
grade at ages 6 to 8; 28 percent were below the usual grade
at ages 9 to 11; 31 percent at ages 12 to 14; and this rose
to 36 percent at ages 15 to 17 . . . [M]inorities and poor
children are the most likely to be held back . . . by ages 15
to 17, 45 percent to 50 percent of black and Hispanic youth
are below the expected grade levels for their ages.'' (``What
if We Ended Social Promotion?'' Robert M. Hauser, Education
Week, April 7, 1999.) General estimates are that by the time
children reach the third grade, one in five has been
retained. (``Grade Retention and School Performance: An
Extended Investigation,'' Ann McCoy and Arthur Reynolds,
Institute for Research on Poverty, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1998). In large, urban districts
upwards of 50 percent of the students who enter
kindergarten are likely to be retained at least once
before they graduate or drop out. (``Retention Policy,''
Nancy R. Karweit, Encyclopedia of Educational Research,
Vol. 3, 6th Edition, 1992.)
Low-achieving students do better academically if they move
forward with their peers than if they are held back. ``Dozens
of studies over the past two decades have found that
retaining students contributes to academic failure and
behavioral difficulties rather than success in school.''
(``Using Standards and Assessments to Support Student
Learning,'' Linda Darling-Hammond and Beverly Falk, Phi Delta
Kappan, November 1997.) A scientific review of 63 controlled
studies of grade retention through the mid-1980's revealed
that 54 of the 63 yielded overall negative effects of
retention, and the best studies showed the largest negative
effects of retention. The author concluded that ``[o]n
average, retained children are worse off than their promoted
counterparts on both personal adjustment and academic
outcomes.'' (``Grade Level Retention Effects: A Meta-Analysis
of Research Studies,'' (C.T. Holmes, in Flunking Grades;
Research and Policies on Retention, eds, L.A. Shephard and
M.L. Smith, 1989).
Ignoring educational research, politicians and school
districts continue to hold out retention as a promising
educational reform, instead of the failed approach that it
is. Ironically, despite research showing that retention
failed to improve academic achievement in the Chicago Public
Schools in the 1970's and 1980's, in 1996, Chicago again
adopted a strict retention in grade program for students in
the third, sixth, eighth and ninth grades. Those who fail to
make a set score on a norm-referenced, standardized test, the
Iowa Test of Basic Skills, are held back.
In 1998, researchers Ann McCoy and Arthur Reynolds at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison completed longitudinal
studies on populations of Chicago students retained in grade.
Their report, cited above, found, ``[f]or all achievement
comparisons, retained children consistently underperformed
their promoted [low-achieving] peers, and usually
significantly. No positive effects of grade retention were
detected.'' They concluded that grade retention is at best an
insufficient intervention strategy for promoting student
achievement . . . [and] [a]t worst, grade retention impeded
children's academic success and should be substantially
modified or replaced by programs and policies with
demonstrated effectiveness.'' Chicago presses ahead
nonetheless. On January 21, 1999, The New York Times
reported that a whopping 5,500 Chicago students are
repeating the third grade and 964 are repeating the third
grade for the second time. The Washington Post reported on
August 1, 1999, that 1,300 15
[[Page S1077]]
year old Chicago students were sent to ``academic halfway
houses between the eighth and ninth grades'' because of
failing scores.
Retention leads to increased school drop outs. Researchers
at the University of Wisconsin also found that 30 percent of
those who were retained dropped out of school compared with
21 percent of those students who were not. Thus, retention
was associated with a 42 percent increase in dropping out.
(``Grade Retention Doesn't Work,'' Arthur Reynolds, Judy
Temple, and Ann McCoy, Education Week, September 17, 1997.) A
1996 study found that only 24 percent of retained students in
their study graduated compared to 52 percent of their low-
achieving peers. (``Is Grade Retention an Appropriate
Academic Intervention? Longitudinal Data Provide Further
Insights,'' S.R. Jimerson and M.R. Schuder, June 1996.) In
1994, a large-scale, longitudinal study with extensive
statistical controls, including test scores, examined the
effect of grade retention on 5,500 students whose school
attendance was followed from 1978-79 to 1985-86. That study
found that students who were currently repeating a grade were
70 percent more likely to drop out of high school than
students who were not (Douglas Anderson study, cited in
Hauser above.) A similar study conducted in 1998 using
longitudinal data for almost 12,000 students and controlling
for academic achievement, including test scores and grades,
found that being held back before the 8th grade increase the
relative odds of dropping out by the 12th grade by a factor
of 2.56. (R.W. Rumberger and K.A. Larson, American Journal of
Education, 1998).
LDF urges comprehensive approaches to improve the academic
performance of low-achieving students. LDF recognizes that
the problem policy makers attempt to address with retention
is a difficult one. What can we do to improve the academic
achievement of students who are performing at low levels?
Simply moving them on the next grade is not the answer. LDF
supports an approach that keeps students in age-appropriate
settings while providing immediate and intensive
interventions to help them master the necessary skills.
Some lessons are evident from recent experience, such as
the fact that summer school alone is insufficient. The August
21, 1999, New York Times reported preliminary results showing
that approximately 35-40 percent of the third, sixth and
eighth graders who took standardized test at the end of
mandatory summer school in New York City had failed to make
the required score. School Chancellor Rudy Crew is quoted as
saying, ``It's that absolute. I am not letting kids go
forward if they did not pass the tests.'' Predictions are
that many thousands of students will be held back. Chicago
showed similar results following mandatory summer school
during its first two years. Clearly, summer school alone is
not effective in moving a large percentage of low-achieving
students to acceptable levels of performance.
Research does show that preventative measures are
critically important. A recently completed longitudinal study
of the Chicago Child-Parent Center program showed very
positive results. The program provides child education and
family support services from preschool through second or
third grade in 20 sites in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods.
Researchers found that preschool participation was associated
with a 24 percent reduction in the rate of school dropout and
that participation for 5 or 6 years was associated with a 27
percent reduction in the rate of early school dropout,
relative to less extensive participation. (``Can Early
Intervention Prevent High School Dropout? Evidence from the
Chicago Child-Parent Centers,'' Judy Temple, Arthur Reynolds,
Wendy Miedel, August 1999.) Other studies have shown the
benefits of quality teacher preparation and smaller class
size. (``What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future,''
Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future, New York, 1996; Ronald F. Ferguson, ``Paying for
Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money
Matters,'' Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol, 28, Summer
1991).
Stifling educational opportunities for thousands of low-
achieving students by making them repeat a grade is not only
unfair, it is unwise. LDF opposes punitive schemes that try
to flunk our way our of the effects of failing schools
instead of providing children with the means to experience
the positive and continuous educational progress necessary to
become productive citizens interested in life-long learning
and self-improvement.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think Members can now see the Catch-
22. Of course, retention without remedial education is not going to
work, but there is not one who can say that our public education system
is working with the policy of promoting youngsters even when they are
failures, of never coming to grips with failure and then promoting them
and graduating them when they cannot read or write, multiply, divide,
add, recognize China on a map, or count change in their pocket. How do
they get a job in the workplace of this new millennium? They do not.
That is why we have had employers come in to us and say: You have to
raise the H-1B quota. We need more foreign nationals from other
countries because we cannot hire public school graduates who can think,
who can do what they need to do, and more and more employers have to
provide remedial education which should be the job of the public school
system.
I went to public school for all of my elementary school. There was a
policy of no social promotion, and youngsters learned. There was
remedial education. Districts are putting that back into play now.
We have different statistics. My staff yesterday talked with the
superintendent of the Chicago school district, and these are the
figures we were given:
No. 1, in 1996, 20.5 percent of students performed at or above
national norms in 9th and 11th grade reading. In May of 1999, 32.5
percent of students performed at that level. That is a 12-percent
increase in performance.
No. 2, he told us elementary reading scores are at their highest
since 1990. In 1996, 26.5 percent of students were at or above national
norms. In 1999, 36 percent were. That is up 10 percent.
No. 3, math scores are up, too. In 1996, 30 percent of children
scored at or above national norms in elementary math. In May of 1999,
they had risen to 44 percent. That is up 14 percent.
During this time, the very mayor who put this system into effect was
up for reelection, and the people of Chicago reelected him. The day I
was there, there was no question in my mind what parents thought about
this program. They liked it. They wanted their children to learn,
particularly parents of students of color. They know this is the only
way their children are going to get the kind of education they need.
The President of the United States has called for ending social
promotion. The Secretary of Education has prepared guidelines for
educators on ending social promotion and guidelines for using Federal
funds to adopt sound promotion policies.
In 1998, the California Legislature ended social promotion. Districts
are now implementing it. For example, San Diego school officials will
now require all students to earn a C overall average and a C grade in
core subjects for high school graduation, effectively ending social
promotion for certain grades for high school graduation.
I have a hard time understanding how people can speak against having
accountability and excellence as a goal in public education, how they
can rationalize this to say that the system that has brought us to be
the 39th among 41 industrialized nations in education is one that we
should not change.
Studies show that title I moneys are not producing the dividends we
had hoped they should. Better those funds be spent on remedial
education for poor children, better they be spent in teaching
youngsters the basic fundamentals than spent diffusely throughout
school districts and not achieving any change.
Public education, as we know it today, is in deep trouble. The
Achilles' heel of education is this path of least resistance: Simply
promoting a youngster regardless of whether they are in school, whether
they are a truant, whether they are getting Ds or Fs, and not worrying
about it because next year the light may go on and they might learn. I
think the facts are clear, the light does not go on.
I tell you, I do not buy this business about increasing dropouts
because you work with them in remedial education. I do not buy that at
all. I think that unless our schools have basic standards, hold
teachers and students accountable for performance, public education, as
we know it today, will simply continue to sink below the waves.
I am proud that the largest State in the Union has taken some steps.
I think if we were to target and provide the incentive that title I
moneys from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would only go to
schools that were willing to observe accountability, and were willing
to put in remedial education, and were willing to see the grades mean
something, and that students are able to master basic core
fundamentals, we would have the enlightened workforce of the future,
which would mean that we would not have to continue to increase H-1B
[[Page S1078]]
quotas to bring foreign nationals into this country to carry out some
of the finest occupations we have that should be going to our own
students.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time does my colleague from
California have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 15 minutes more in opposition under
the control of Senator Coverdell.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I think that is my time. I am the one opposing the
amendment.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I heard the Chair say that 15 minutes was
controlled by Senator Coverdell, but that is not the case. I think if
you check with the Parliamentarian the time is controlled by whoever is
in opposition to the amendment. At this time, that would be Senator
Wellstone.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I make a point of inquiry, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is correct. He has
15 minutes more.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Point of inquiry: How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Six minutes. I thank the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, it would seem to me that
if we are talking about children doing well--and we want to look at the
evidence about what makes for a good education and equal opportunity
for every one of our children--then the second-degree amendment that I
have to this amendment would be agreed to.
What I am simply saying with the second-degree amendment is: Let's
make sure, in fact, every child has had the opportunity to learn the
material that is necessary to meet the achievement standards. Don't we
want to make sure that every child has had that opportunity?
I talk about how a child has to be taught by fully certified or
qualified teachers as defined by the State; that the child's parents
have multiple opportunities for parental involvement; that the child
has access to high instructional materials; that the child has the
opportunity to reach the highest performance level, regardless of
income or disability; that the child receives the services for which
the child is eligible under title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act; that the child receives proper bilingual education and
special education services; and that the child has good early childhood
development. Let's get real. If you do not do that, then we already
know which children are going to fail. I am saying, before you start
failing third graders and holding them back, let's make sure every
third grader has the same opportunity to do well.
Does anybody on the floor of the Senate want to argue that you do not
need to do that first? When Secretary Riley testified, he said: Yes.
Let's have standards, but let's also make sure every child has the same
opportunity to meet those standards.
This is incredible. We do not make the investment in early childhood
development. We do not have the title I money. We do not put the money
into bilingual education. We do not make sure these children have the
same support services. We do not do enough to help children who are in
some schools where they do not have the good teachers and they do not
have adequate resources.
Without doing that, and without making that commitment to every child
having the same opportunity to learn--it is called equity; it is called
equality of opportunity--then what we do is we fail these students. And
then we pound our chests and say: We're being rigorous, and we have
done something good for these children. That is my first point.
My second point is, in all due respect, the superintendent from the
Chicago schools can say one thing, but I say to the Senator from
California and other Senators, I have come out on the floor and I have
combined the best evidence of studies around the country.
Again, I go to Robert Hauser, who is an acknowledged expert. He
testified before our HELP Committee. Here are what his findings were
related to retention: Students who have been held back, they don't
catch up. You are not doing them any favor. Low-performing students
learn more even if they are promoted, even without remedial help, than
if they are held back. Students who have been held back are much more
likely to drop out of school.
In all due respect--we talk about Chicago--there was an independent
study done, the 4-year Evaluation Report of the Chicago Public Schools
Leadership by Parents United For Responsible Education and the Chicago
Association of Local School Councils. This is what they found on
retention: rising dropout rates, declining enrollment citywide,
increased instructional time devoted to testing for the tests. That is
another thing the teachers are ending up doing, testing for the test.
Just rote drills, memorization.
Then, drawing from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
letter, which pulled together such important research, the fact is,
there is abundant evidence that--frankly, I have not heard any of my
colleagues refute any of it--not only has retention been unsuccessful
but it has been harmful.
I cited a number of different studies. I cited the work of Linda
Darling Hammon, who addressed us Democrats. In fact, I asked her about
this. She said that as we look at dozens of studies that have been done
over the past two decades, they have found that retaining students
contributes to academic failure and behavioral difficulties rather than
success in school.
Then I went on and talked about work that the professor had also done
with Beverly Falk. Then, I went on and quoted from another study:
``Grade Level Retention Effects: A Meta-Analysis of Research Studies,''
C.T. Holmes, in Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on
Retention, that concluded that on average retained children are worse
off because of retention.
Then I went on and quoted about four or five different studies of
what has been going on in Chicago and New York and quoted from the
Washington Post and the New York Times and pointed out that the summer
school remedial program didn't even help these kids.
We don't have the evidence that retention has helped these kids
because there isn't the evidence. The evidence is the retention has had
a harmful effect on these kids. These kids don't do better; they do
worse. They drop out of school. It has a devastating impact. If you
keep them in age-appropriate settings, you move them on, but you give
them the additional help. We should do that. If you want to make sure
by the time they graduate they are, indeed, qualified, do that, but
don't do something that is harmful.
Given the evidence, I don't know how we can support this amendment
unless my second-degree amendment is accepted, which says, again, the
provisions of this section shall not apply to any child who was not
afforded by the State educational agency or the local educational
agency an opportunity to learn the material necessary to meet the State
achievement standards.
Do my colleagues mean to tell me they are going to vote for retention
when the evidence shows it is harmful and they won't even vote for an
amendment that says, let's make sure that at least every child has the
same opportunity to pass these tests before we fail them and hurt them?
That is unbelievable.
I would be interested, if my colleagues have a lot of evidence from
across the country that retention has been a great reform that has
helped these children who have been retained, who have been flunked as
young as age 8. I see no evidence.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I just read statistics given to me by
the superintendent of public instruction of Chicago which showed a 12-
to 14-percent improvement in core curriculum grade scores since Chicago
ended the policy of social promotion and put in motion remedial
education and decreased class size and also set some standards holding
students accountable for performance and teachers accountable for
performance as well.
[[Page S1079]]
I have a very difficult time with what the Senator from Minnesota is
saying because he is essentially calling this a policy, in a sense, of
guaranteed retention. It is not that at all. It is a policy that says
there should be standards; that there should be achievement levels set
in each of the grades; that there should be a minimum pass requirement
for promotion; and that schools should mean something in terms of
learning.
The problem with the amendment is it obfuscates our amendment. It
prevents a clean vote on our amendment, and in effect it would destroy
our amendment because it sets up a series of seven conditions which
would make it virtually impossible to enact our amendment.
For example, the child was taught by fully certified or qualified
teachers as defined by the State. In my State, we probably have 30,000
teachers who are not certificated. This would mean under this
provision, California should not go ahead and abolish social promotion,
put forward standards of accountability for teachers and for students,
which, of course, California is now in the process, by the Governor's
statement, by the legislature's action, and by individual school
districts, of beginning to do.
Secondly, that the child's parents had multiple opportunities for
parental involvement. I don't know what multiple opportunities for
parental involvement are, but it is not just opportunities for parental
involvement. It is multiple opportunities for parental involvement,
which gives a basis, again, to essentially poison what we are trying to
achieve.
In addition, that the child has access to high-quality instructional
materials and instructional resources to ensure that the child had the
opportunity to achieve the highest performance level, regardless of
disability, income, and background, that is something we would all
subscribe to, but when it is put in this form, it becomes a way of
avoiding accountability and avoiding performance.
We do not tell a State or a local jurisdiction how to do this. This
is up to them. As I have tried to point out, Los Angeles is now doing
it in an incremental fashion, in a grade-by-grade fashion. I suspect
that schools throughout this country would implement accountability and
standards in a different way. That is fine with me. But what this
amendment says is, we are not going to waste taxpayers' money by
providing money when there is no evidence it is going to provide the
remedial education or the kind of opportunity for students that the
framers intended in the first place.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague says: What the Senator has
said is that the child has to be taught by fully certified or qualified
teachers.
You don't have that. You don't have the certified or qualified
teachers, but you are willing to go ahead and flunk these kids.
I am saying the children who are in classes as young as age 8, who
don't have fully certified and qualified teachers, probably ought not
to be flunked and held back because other kids in other schools who had
highly qualified and certified teachers were able to pass those tests.
Don't Senators think we should include an amendment which would say
every child is going to have the same opportunity to pass these tests?
That is an incredible argument to make. To make an argument to
Senators, wait a minute, Senators, you can't vote for the Wellstone
second-degree amendment because he is saying there have to be qualified
and certified teachers before we flunk these third graders, that is
unbelievable. That is exactly the point of my amendment.
Let us have the standards, but let's make sure all the children have
the same opportunity to achieve those standards. If the second-degree
amendment is accepted, if passed, then we have an amendment that talks
about standards, but we also have an amendment that makes sure these
children have the same chance to reach those standards.
I hate to say this but, one more time, I have presented about 10
different studies. I have presented the best testimony we have had in
the Senate. I have presented the best testimony we had in our Senate
Democratic conference about retention. Again, we had what the
superintendent of the Chicago schools said.
Well, I gave the Senate a different report, a 4-year independent
evaluation: rising dropout rates, declining enrollment citywide. Then I
have drawn on the best research from around the country, and the
Senator from California and the Senator from Alabama have not refuted
any of it.
I don't want to repeat it again, but please vote on the facts. What
did they show? Students who have been held back typically don't catch
up. Actually, low-performing students learn more if they are promoted
even without remedial help than if they are held back. Students who
have been held back are much more likely to drop out.
With all due respect, there is not a shred of evidence that my
colleagues have presented which shows retention works.
Again, I have a second-degree amendment which says, let's at least
make sure every child has the same opportunity to pass these tests,
determining whether or not they will pass a grade. That seems to me to
be reasonable. Let's make sure they have certified teachers. Let's make
sure we fund it properly, fund title I. Let's make sure we have the
bilingual education fund so the kids who come from homes where English
is a second language, such as the Hmong children in St. Paul, have a
chance. Why would that not be accepted?
And the second point I made is, right now, what we have out here is
an amendment that says retention is really good, it is all about rigor
but there is not a shred of evidence that it works for these children.
In addition, it is an amendment which doesn't recognize that these
children aren't going to do well unless we get it right on the
prevention piece.
I have a second-degree amendment that talks about what we should do.
I ask unanimous consent that I may send my second-degree amendment to
the desk.
Mr. SESSIONS. I object. I don't believe it is time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may inquire of my friend from Alabama,
we have approximately 4 minutes left. We would like to say that he can
offer that amendment when that time has expired, but is there any
reason he can't offer it now?
Mr. SESSIONS. He has the floor. He can use his time or not. I believe
the Senator from Minnesota can use his time or not.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Chair notify me when the time has expired--
when the other side's time has expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the remainder of my time.
Amendment No. 2878 To Amendment No. 2876
(Purpose: To provide a limitation regarding the policy prohibiting
social promotion)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 2878 to amendment No. 2876.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, after line 23, add the following:
(d) Limitation.--
(1) In general.--The provisions of this section shall not
apply to any child who was not afforded, by the State
educational agency or the local educational agency, an
opportunity to learn the material necessary to meet the State
achievement standards.
(2) Opportunity.--A child shall not be considered to have
been afforded an opportunity to learn under paragraph (1)
unless--
(A) the child was taught by fully certified or qualified
teachers as defined by the State;
(B) the child's parents had multiple opportunities for
parental involvement;
[[Page S1080]]
(C) the child had access to high quality instructional
materials and instructional resources to ensure that the
child had the opportunity to achieve to the highest
performance levels, regardless of disability, income, and
background;
(D) the child received the services for which the child is
eligible under title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act;
(E) if necessary, the child received proper bilingual
education and special education services; and
(F) the child had the opportunity to receive high quality
early childhood education.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is an amendment I think Senators
can vote for and I think feel comfortable about because, on the one
hand, you can vote for the first-degree amendment, but you can also
vote for the first-degree amendment with the understanding that the
provisions of this section shall not apply to any child who was not
afforded, by the State educational agency or the local educational
agency, an opportunity to learn the material necessary to meet the
State achievement standards.
I am simply saying, let's make sure every child is afforded the
opportunity to do well on these achievement standards. This says: ``the
child has been taught by fully certified or qualified teachers as
defined by the State; the child's parents had multiple opportunities
for parental involvement.''
My colleague asked what that meant. That means to understand what
homework is about, make sure you know when you can come in, understand
what the standardized tests are about, understand how the child's
performance is being measured. We are all for parent involvement.
Next is: ``the child had access to high quality instructional
materials and instructional resources''--how can anybody be opposed to
that?--``to ensure that the child had the opportunity to achieve the
highest performance levels, regardless of disability, income, and
background; the child received the services for which the child is
eligible under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act .
. . and if necessary, the child received proper bilingual education and
special education services, and that the child had the opportunity to
receive high quality early childhood education [developmental child
care].''
Colleagues, even if you don't believe me, all I have to tell you in
this debate is, I presented all kinds of evidence suggesting that
retention has been harmful and hasn't worked. I never was refuted at
all. Now what I am saying is that even if you want to go in that
direction, at least let's make sure that every child has the
opportunity to do well in these tests and to achieve, that there are
highly qualified instructors and certified teachers, that we have
followed through on title I commitment, that we make sure they are the
same resources.
Don't you think we want to make sure children in our schools have the
lab facilities and the textbooks and the good teachers, that there has
been good pre-K education? Let's make sure every one of our children
has had the same opportunity to achieve. That is what this amendment
says. I hope there will be 100 votes for it.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will speak in opposition to the
second-degree amendment proposed by the Senator from Minnesota.
First and foremost, as everybody knows who has been participating in
this debate and can understand how the system works, the second-degree
amendment, as proposed, would gut Senator Feinstein's and my first-
degree amendment. It would simply make it impossible to enforce. Of
course, that is what the Senator from Minnesota desires. He is not for
testing or accountability or the end of social promotion.
I respect that position. But his President, the President of the
United States, in his State of the Union Address, to a cheer from the
audience, called for an end of social promotion. It is something whose
time has come and gone. It is time to care about children and to care
about the billions of dollars we are spending on education. And we are
going to spend more next year than we did this year. But if we care
about what is happening with it, we have to ask if there is some
accountability. We can't simply allow children to go on and on, be
promoted, and end up being an all-pro football player who can't read
and write. That is happening in America, to a lesser degree mostly, but
to a sad degree too often throughout this country. We are not making
sure children are meeting minimum standards. When we do so, problems
arise. They have to be confronted.
Right now, we are denying the problem. We are enabling an inefficient
system to continue. We refuse to do what is required to point out to
everybody who is not meeting minimum standards. Once we find that out,
then we can all get together and do something to fix it. There is
plenty of money in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--soon to
be passed, I hope--that will provide a continual flow of money for
disadvantaged schools throughout America, so we can improve that
system.
This amendment is nothing more than a gutting and an elimination and
a wiping out of the total intent of the Feinstein-Sessions amendment.
It will not allow an end to social promotion in America. Our amendment
will. But it will allow the States to decide how to do it. If the
States decide to have different standards for children who have
difficulties, or disadvantaged or special education kids, they can do
so. We are not saying how they ought to do it. But if we care about
those children, we have to know, ourselves, whether or not they are
learning. If they are not learning, we have to confront that fact. We
can't enable this unacceptable behavior to continue. Some of it is on
the part of the kids, some of it is on the part of their parents, and
some of it may be a poor school. We have to end that.
We care about our children. I think Senator Feinstein has made it
clear that she cares about them. I do. I want to see the system
improved. I am convinced that we must move to eliminate the passing
along of kids who are not meeting the most basic of standards. That is
why I will oppose the Senator's second-degree amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, all this amendment says is let's have
the standards, though I presented a lot of irrefutable evidence about
retention not working and even being harmful. I understand the politics
of some of these votes. It is not a pretty picture if anybody cares
about the evidence.
This second-degree amendment requires that if you are going to have
these tests and these standards which determine whether or not a child
as young as age 8 passes or not, or is held back, especially if
retention is so harmful, and there is no evidence it is helping
children--I thought we were trying to help the children--at least let's
ensure we have met the standards that all these children have had the
opportunity to pass these tests and do well.
My colleague from Alabama says I am trying to gut the amendment
because by this amendment we want to ensure these children are taught
by fully certified and qualified teachers. If that guts his amendment,
his amendment should be gutted.
To make sure the child has had access to high-quality instructional
material, to make sure the child has received the services for which
the child was eligible under title II, to make sure the child has
received adequate bilingual education, to make sure the child has had
the opportunity to receive high-quality early childhood education, this
is a no-brainer, colleagues.
We all know this is critical to making sure the children do well in
school. My colleague was referred to those who graduate and have a
third-grade reading level. What I am talking about is critical to that.
Let's make sure that before we fail all of these children and act as if
that is doing something great for them, why don't we make sure those
children also have the same opportunity to do well and to pass our
achievement tests.
Is it too much to ask other Senators to vote in favor of certified
and qualified teachers, making sure there is parental involvement,
making sure there are good instructional materials, making sure we live
up to our title I commitments, and making sure there is adequate
bilingual education?
[[Page S1081]]
Colleagues, you know this is critically important. Let's vote for
``standards.'' That is the way you view it. But let's also vote for
equality of opportunity for all of our children.
I especially thank the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund for all
of the research they have pulled together that I have been able to
present today about why it is so important that we pass the second-
degree amendment and meet the test of decency. This is true equality of
opportunity for our children. If you do not do that, then what you have
done is very harmful. It is brutal.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Are my colleagues prepared to yield the remainder of time?
I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will use 2 minutes and then yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment provision of
this section--that is, the end of social promotion--shall not apply to
any child who is not afforded by the State educational agency an
opportunity to learn the material necessary. I don't know what that
means. That can mean almost anything to anyone.
One of the requirement that has to be in the amendment or this bill
does not apply is that a child has the opportunity to receive high-
quality early childhood education. What does that mean? It means
anything anybody says it does.
The President of the United States says it is time to end social
promotion. The overwhelming majority of American people believe so.
Certainly the people on this side of the aisle believe so. I believe a
majority on that side of the aisle believe so.
Let's not go with some meddling second-degree amendment that will, in
effect, undermine the import of the amendment Senator Feinstein has
offered. Let's not do that. Let's send a clear message that we care
about children and we want to confront them at an early age and find
out whether or not they are meeting basic standards. If they are not,
let's start helping them. We are not going to put them in jail if they
are not meeting standards. We ought to set about to find out who is not
meeting those standards and start helping them. That is what it is all
about. That is what we need to do.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me conclude this way.
I think there is a bitter irony here. There is no evidence the
retention works, and there is a certain amount of evidence that it is
harmful. We should let the States decide, for those colleagues who
worry about States and States making decisions. This amendment requires
States to do retention, and if they do not do retention, then they are
not going to get education funds.
That is flaw No. 1. I think some of my colleagues would be troubled
by that. Frankly, I think my colleague from Alabama would be troubled
by that.
If the States decide, on the basis of what they know, not to do the
retention because of all of the evidence, we are now saying: You have
to do it, States, or we will cut off Federal money.
That is unbelievable. This amendment should be defeated for that
reason. The Federal Government ought not to be doing that to States,
especially given the evidence.
The second point my colleagues are bothered by is my second-degree
amendment which says let's make sure every child has the same
opportunity to do well in these achievement tests. Let's make sure
these children are taught by fully qualified teachers, that there is
parental involvement, that they have good instructional material, that
we live up to our commitment on title I, that we make sure the child
has had the opportunity to receive good early childhood development,
that there is bilingual education available.
My colleagues are telling Members to vote against this? We are all
for that.
The evidence says retention doesn't work and can be harmful. If your
State decides it doesn't want to do that, it doesn't matter because now
if Members vote for this amendment, they are telling States they have
to have retention of students, even if it is harmful. If they don't do
what they think is right, we will cut off Federal funds.
Do Members want to vote for that?
I have a second-degree amendment I think colleagues should vote for
because it makes elementary sense. Let's make sure these children have
the same opportunity for achievement on these tests. If we don't do
what I suggest in this amendment and don't make that commitment, what
we will have done to children will be very harmful, brutal, and
unconscionable.
I yield back the remainder.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I conclude by explaining why this
amendment is so impractical. It says children have to have multiple
opportunities for parental involvement.
I don't know what that means.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I defined that twice. I didn't know the Senator would
speak against the amendment. I talked about the amendment three times.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator does not define it in the statute. They
won't know what the Senator said on the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. We want to make sure parents know what the homework
requirements are, know what the standards are.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reclaim my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. What is the balance of my time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Minnesota,
but I say to the Senator, parents would get a lawyer and sue: You can't
hold my child back; you didn't call me enough times.
The amendment doesn't say how many times.
Or my child didn't have an opportunity to receive a high-quality
early childhood education.
Well, you had kindergarten; that was not enough.
This amendment does not say what it is. It will turn it into a
conglomeration of things that are not healthy.
I note, as Senator Feinstein from California so eloquently said, we
are not saying what the standards are. The States can set standards
that require parental involvement. I hope they do. I hope they do a lot
of things that are not mentioned by the Senator from Minnesota in
setting a fair, objective standard for testing.
However, we do need some objective standards for testing. If we do
so--as Chicago has found, as California will be moving toward, as
Alabama will move very soon to accountability and the end of social
promotion--we will find that students are learning more because they
are challenged. There is an incentive there. Parents are going to know
certain standards must be met. Teachers and principals will know it.
The children will know it. They will respond and meet the challenges.
We will end this slide in which we spend more and more money and get
less and less productivity.
From 1960 to 1990, we tripled the amount of money spent on education
in America. It went up every single year. But SAT scores declined 73
points.
In Kansas City, they spent $11,700 per pupil. They raised education
figures consistently to reach this very high level; they had a teacher-
pupil ratio of 13-1, without raising test scores for the kids.
We have to challenge children because we care about them. We care
about America. We cannot continue to move children through the system
when they do not know how to read and write and perform effectively in
this society of which we are a part. I wish we could do it kindly,
without having to tell people: Sorry, you didn't meet the standards;
you have to take this course over again.
Oftentimes that is what we have to do. It is the way life is on the
football field or in a military unit. You have to meet certain
standards. We are in a world that demands first rate competition. If we
are not prepared, we will lose out. I am concerned about it. All of
America is concerned. I think we can make progress toward that goal.
I believe we should reject this amendment to the underlying amendment
proposed by Senator Feinstein and myself. With that, we can send a
message to America that we will have
[[Page S1082]]
some accountability, that we will encourage children to improve. When
we recognize that large numbers of students are not meeting those
standards, we can redirect resources to find out exactly what that
problem is and rectify it.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to state
that I agree with the position of my distinguished colleague from
California on the issue of social promotion. We must end this practice.
Far too many of our young people are graduating without the skills that
they need to secure good jobs because they are being passed from grade
to grade without accountability for what they have learned. Many young
people are also dropping out of school because they find themselves in
high schools without the knowledge that they need to succeed in that
forum. I am a strong supporter of efforts to end this practice.
I have voted for legislation in the past that would have given States
and local districts incentives to eliminate social promotion policies.
I currently am cosponsoring legislation, based on a proposal from the
President, which seeks to end social promotion in all our schools. I
must vote against Senator Feinstein's amendment, however, because it
would cut all federal funding for education to a State based on this
sole issue and provides no flexibility on the State or local level. If
this amendment were to become law, we would be imposing a strict
requirement without providing adequate resources to achieve the goal.
As the Elementary and Secondary Education Act moves to the floor,
however, I will work with my distinguished colleague from California to
develop legislation that addresses this critical issue.
Amendments Nos. 2859 and 2824, en bloc
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following
two amendments be considered en bloc: The amendment introduced by
Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, No. 2859, relating to AmeriCorps; the
Hatch amendment, No. 2824, relating to the marriage penalty and student
loan interest deduction.
These amendments have been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous
consent the amendments be agreed to, any statement relating to these
amendments be printed, and that the motions to reconsider to be laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my amendment addresses a specific and
serious problem for Americans repaying student loans. Many of our
colleagues may not be aware of it, Mr. President, but there is a severe
marriage penalty lurking in the deduction for student loan interest
expense that Congress enacted in 1997.
This marriage penalty arises because, when Congress established the
deduction for student loan interest, we targeted it so that only
taxpayers with incomes below a certain amount could use it. For single
taxpayers, that income threshold is $40,000. For taxpayers with
Adjusted Gross Income above $40,000 the deduction begins to phase out.
The deduction is fully phased out over the next $15,000 of income, so
that when a single taxpayer's income reaches $55,000, there is no
deduction allowed.
For married taxpayers filing a joint return, there is a different
threshold--$60,000. This is where the deduction begins to phase out,
and it is gone at an income level of $75,000. This is the heart of the
problem, Mr. President. Because the threshold for married taxpayers
filing a joint return is less than twice as high as the threshold for
singles, there is a marriage penalty.
Let me illustrate the problem with an example. Let's consider a
couple from my home state. Dave and Joann met at Utah State University
and married right after graduation last year. Dave is the assistant
manager of a grocery store an earns $38,000 per year. Joann is a
computer programmer making $40,000 annually. These are not high income
people, Mr. President, although their income puts them in the 28
percent marginal tax bracket.
Dave and Joann each borrowed to finance their education, and each has
$2,000 in interest expense from their student loans. The full $2,000
interest expense would be fully deductible if they were single, saving
them each $560 in taxes. However, simply because Dave and Joann are
married, and their combined income exceeds $75,000, they lose the full
$4,000 student loan interest deduction.
Unfortunately, the $1,120 marriage penalty inherent in the student
loan interest deduction is only the tip of the marriage penalty iceberg
for Dave and Joann. This is only one of at least 66 marriage penalties
that resides in the Internal Revenue Code. Not every one of these 66
marriage penalties affect every married couple in America, but many
couples are hit with at least one, and often more than one, marriage
penalty. In our example here, Dave and Joann are hit with two other
marriage penalties.
As you can see, the total amount of marriage penalty affecting Dave
and Joann is a whopping $2,650. This means their tax burden is 27
percent higher than it would be if they were single, Mr. President!
This is simply not fair. It is poor tax policy, it is poor education
policy, and it is poor family policy. Taxpayers should not pay more in
taxes just because they are married.
The other marriage penalties affecting Dave and Joann stem from the
fact that the standard deduction for married couples is less than twice
the amount of the standard deduction of singles, and from a similar
problem that exists in the tax rate schedules. These two marriage
penalties are not the subject of this amendment.
I will note, however, that H.R. 6, the marriage penalty alleviation
bill passed by the House in early February, would correct most of this
marriage penalty for Dave and Joann. I know that Chairman Roth plans to
take up marriage penalty legislation in the Finance Committee in the
next few weeks. I look forward to working with him to solve these other
problems.
The marriage penalty problem the House bill would not correct,
however, is the one inherent in the student loan interest deduction.
The solution to this marriage penalty is simple. This amendment merely
increases the income threshold for joint returns to $80,000, twice the
level of the single taxpayer threshold.
The marriage tax penalty problem is a complex one. We are not going
to solve it all at once. I am gratified to see the Congress focusing on
this important family issue, and I hope we can see real progress on
alleviating the problem this year.
This amendment is a good place to start. Some might argue that this
is relatively minor marriage penalty. And, compared with some of the
other ones. maybe it is. However, it is not small to Dave and Joann and
to the millions of young Americans who pay more in taxes simply because
they have formed the basic unit of society--a family.
This small step today will eliminate the marriage penalty that hurts
married taxpayers who are repaying educational loans. Then, in a few
weeks when the Finance Committee takes up broader marriage penalty
legislation, we can address some of the other problems.
The amendments (Nos. 2859 and 2824) were agreed to en bloc, as
follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2859
(Purpose: To exclude national service educational awards from the
recipient's gross income)
On page 21, between lines 3 and 4, insert:
SEC. 204. EXCLUSION OF NATIONAL SERVICE EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.
(a) In General.--Section 117 (relating to qualified
scholarships) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Qualified National Service Educational Awards.--
``(1) In general.--Gross income for any taxable year shall
not include any qualified national service educational award.
``(2) Qualified national service educational award.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified national service
educational award' means any amount received by an individual
in a taxable year as a national service educational award or
other amount under section 148 of the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12604) to the extent such
amount does not exceed the qualified tuition and related
expenses (as defined in subsection (b)(2)) of the individual
for such taxable year.
``(B) Limitation.--The total amount of the qualified
tuition and related expenses (as so defined) which may be
taken into account under subparagraph (A) with respect to an
[[Page S1083]]
individual for the taxable year shall be reduced (after the
application of the reduction provided in section 25A(g)(2))
by the amount of such expenses which were taken into account
in determining the credit allowed to the taxpayer or any
other person under section 25A with respect to such
expenses.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1999.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2824
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the
marriage penalty in the phaseout of the education loan interest
deduction)
At the end of title II, insert:
SEC. . ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN PHASEOUT OF
EDUCATION LOAN INTEREST DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 221(b)(2)
(relating to limitation based on modified adjusted gross
income) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$60,000'' in clause (i)(II) and inserting
``$80,000'', and
(2) by inserting ``($30,000 in the case of a joint
return)'' after ``$15,000'' in clause (ii).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
Feinstein-Sessions amendment, No. 2876.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
Wellstone amendment No. 2878.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois takes the
floor, I alert my colleagues that following Senator Durbin, Senator
Landrieu is expected to be here to make her presentation, Senator
Boxer, Senator John Kerry, and Senator Schumer. That will complete the
work for today except for the final vote on the bill. We would hope
everyone would be here as quickly as possible.
The two leaders have told Members we will complete all amendments and
final passage tonight, so the quicker we get to these amendments, the
quicker we get out of here.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move that the pending amendment and
the Feinstein amendment be laid aside for sequential voting later this
evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2879
(Purpose: To reduce violence in schools)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 2879.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . REDUCTION IN SCHOOL VIOLENCE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``School
Violence Reduction Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Every school child in America has a right to a safe
learning environment free from guns and violence.
(2) The U.S. Department of Education report on the
Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act found that 3,930
children were expelled for bringing guns to school during the
1997-98 school year.
(3) Nationwide, 57 percent of the expulsions were high
school students, 33 percent were in junior high and 10
percent were in elementary school.
(c) Grants.--The Secretary of Education shall award grants
to elementary and secondary schools (as such terms are
defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)) to enable such
schools to:
(1) develop and disseminate model programs to reduce
violence in schools,
(2) educate students about the dangers associated with
guns, and
(3) provide violence prevention information (including
information about safe gun storage) to children and their
parents.
(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (b), an elementary or secondary school shall
prepare and submit to the Secretary of Education an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
(e) Public Service Announcements.--The Secretary of
Education shall provide for the development and dissemination
of public service announcements and other information on ways
to reduce violence in our Nation's schools, including safe
gun storage and other measures.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this Act, there are authorized to be
appropriated funds of up to $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2001
and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four
succeeding fiscal years.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the headlines in our morning papers are a
sad reminder: America Faces a National Gun Crisis.
USA Today is published across America. This morning's paper, on its
front page, speaks of the shooting of a little 6-year-old girl in Mount
Morris Township, MI. Her name was Kayla Rolland. Her parents sent her
to the first grade. She never came home.
Turn the page and find on page 3:
Pa. Gunman Flies into a Fatal Rage.
Firearms are easy to come by--for 6-year-olds and psychotics. That is
the state of affairs in America today. The violence in America is not
confined to mean streets. It is in our homes, it is in our fast food
restaurants, and, yes, it is even in our schools. We passed legislation
several years ago to make certain that Congress and the American people
would know, on an annual basis, about the evidence of gun violence in
our schools. From the school year 1997 and 1998, the Department of
Education reports to us grim statistics about what we face as a nation.
Let me recount for you what they have told us.
The U.S. Department of Education's recent report on the
implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act found that 3,930 children
were expelled for bringing guns to school during the 1997-1998 school
year, almost 4,000 children. Nationwide, 57 percent of the expulsions
were high school students, 33 percent were junior high, 10 percent were
elementary school. That means almost 400 elementary students were
expelled for bringing firearms to school. These children were as young
as 6 years old.
In this situation in Mount Morris, MI, Kayla Rolland, this beautiful
little girl, was gunned down by a 6-year-old killer. In my home State
of Illinois, 86 students were expelled during the year in question for
bringing a gun to school: 49 high school students, 31 junior high
school students, and 6 elementary school students.
In Illinois, firearms are the leading cause of injury and death to
children. The next most common cause is car crashes. On average, 364
children die every single year in Illinois from guns, almost 1 child
every single day. Do not believe for a moment this is a story unique to
Illinois. The tragedy of Kayla Rolland was in Michigan. Another tragedy
yesterday occurred in Pennsylvania.
If you follow the headlines in the paper, you will see a sad reminder
on a regular basis of infants and children who have access to guns:
``Eighth Grader Takes Principal Hostage''; ``5-Year-Old Girl Shoots
Herself In The Head,'' in New Orleans; in Chicago, ``Girl Killed In An
Accidental Shooting''; Kansas City, ``6-Year-Old Accidentally Shoots 1-
Year-Old Cousin To Death''; Memphis, ``Angry 5-Year-Old Takes A Gun To
School''; Miami, ``15-Year-Old Takes Gun To School, Injures Himself In
Horseplay''; in Cleveland, ``4-Year-Old Caught Again For A Second Time
With A Gun At Day Care.''
Did he say 4 years old? Yes, a 4-year-old with a gun at day care; a
5-year-old accidentally shoots to death a 10-year-old boy in Grand
View, MO; a child brings guns to school in Topeka, KS--on and on and
on. What I am addressing today is not an exception. It is becoming a
rule. It is becoming a sad reality in America.
We talk a lot about education on the floor of the Senate, as we
should. It may be America's highest priority. But before we start
talking about funding education and paying and training teachers,
before we talk about smaller class sizes, before we talk about modern
buildings and new technology, for goodness' sake, should not we first
talk about the safety of our children in the schools themselves?
It is unfortunate that this Congress is in virtual denial about the
crisis which I have described. We have had an opportunity ever since
Columbine High School, and even before, to pass sensible gun control
legislation. We have
[[Page S1084]]
failed to do it. America faces a national epidemic of gun violence.
Guns are a deadly social virus. The same USA Today in its editorial
page spells this out so well:
Guns are a deadly social virus that can strike down
children like the horrible diseases of old.
And yet this Congress refuses to acknowledge it. We refuse to
consider even the most basic commonsense gun control. Because this
Congress refuses to seriously consider any efforts under law to keep
deadly firearms out of the hands of children and convicts, I urge my
colleagues to, at the very least, consider as an alternative the
amendment which I offer today. It is an amendment which tries to give
families across America fair warning of the scourge of gun violence and
what it can do to so many families. Guns kill 34,000 Americans every
year; between 12 and 13 children every day. They kill more teenagers
than any natural cause. The American people, especially mothers in
suburban areas who are sending their children to school, want some
assurance that their children will come home at the end of the day.
That is why I am offering this amendment. It creates the School
Violence Reduction Act. What will it do? It is simple. It establishes a
grant program for the U.S. Department of Education to develop and
disseminate model programs to reduce violence in schools. I would much
rather these dollars, the $7 million part of this amendment, be used
for other purposes--to buy computers, to train teachers, to reduce
class size, to modernize school buildings. But I say to those who
follow this debate, we have to deal with the basics, the safety of our
schools, before we can consider even the process of education. We need
to educate students about the dangers associated with guns. I am sad to
report we have to start at the earliest ages to educate them.
We need to provide information about safe gun storage to children and
their parents. The amendment provides funds for public service
announcements and other information to reduce violence in our schools.
Six-year-olds do not go out and buy guns, not in the ordinary course of
events. The guns are left lying around the house.
I read some about this child's situation in Mount Morris, MI. It is
clear this child lived in a terrible situation, exposed to things with
which no adult could cope. This tiny little boy, for whatever reason,
faced the life of a dysfunctional family, of drugs, God knows what kind
of abuse, and exposure to guns on a regular basis. But that is not the
only way kids come by guns. Kids come by guns when parents are
neglectful, when they are negligent, when they do not meet their
obligation to store guns safely.
The President, after this situation in Michigan, renewed his call for
a national standard for trigger locks to make sure if a child gets his
hands on a handgun he can't shoot it and kill someone, some other
innocent victim or himself. But we can't do that in Congress. That is
beyond us. The gun lobby will not stand for it.
The idea of putting safety devices on guns is something the National
Rifle Association will not buy. So let us at least try, through our
schools, to create public information and education efforts so families
across America at least know that there is a right way to store guns
safely, out of the hands and out of the reach of children.
We passed legislation last year, when Vice President Gore came to the
floor of the Senate and broke a tie, which dealt with some of the
problems we have in our country involving guns: for background checks
at gun shows, the amendment of Senator Feinstein of California to
reduce the importation of these high-capacity magazine clips from
overseas into the United States, things that move us down the road
toward protecting Americans from the abuse of guns. Trigger locks:
Senator Kohl of Wisconsin has been a leader on that as well.
What happened to this legislation? Dead on arrival in the House of
Representatives. There has not even been a conference committee on this
bill. Yet day in and day out we read these terrible headlines.
I looked in the face of this little girl, Kayla Rolland, and saw so
many thousands of little kids I have seen across my State of Illinois,
kids I have seen in the day-care classes with my 3 1/2-year-old
grandson. This beautiful little girl is no longer with us because of
someone who was negligent in handling a gun and because of a 6-year-old
who took a gun to school.
There are so many who do this across America on a regular basis that
we have to come to grips with this challenging national situation. I
urge my colleagues, whatever their opinion of gun control, to at least,
at the very least, join me in this effort to create a program so
schools across America, on their own, with a voluntary application, can
receive assistance from the Federal Government to deal with this gun
violence. I believe this is a step in the right direction. I believe it
will give to many schools the resources they need to educate the
children and the parents and all who will listen to the public service
announcements about the reality of reducing gun violence in our
schools.
I pray to God this is the last story we will read in the year 2000 of
another infant, another child who lost her little life because of this
kind of gun violence, because of the negligence of a gun owner or
someone who possessed a gun so a child could come in contact with it.
History tells me it will not be the only story of the year. It will
be one of many.
To those parents who think it is not their problem, I am sorry to
report it is. If you do not have a firearm in your house, can you ever
be sure your little child's playmate does not have a firearm in his
house? Can you ever be certain the child sitting behind your son or
daughter at school does not have a handgun in his backpack?
That is the reality of America today. That is the national gun crisis
we face. There have been a lot of suggestions about improving education
in America. This bill suggests one of the ways to do it is to save
families on average $7 in this tax benefit package if they will send
their children to public schools. Before we start saving less than $10
when it comes to education, let's talk about saving the lives of our
priceless children in our schools.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in this
effort.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Illinois. A long
time ago, he and I talked about the importance of having a school
safety fund where if schools felt they needed assistance, whether it
was to purchase equipment--a metal detector--whether it was to teach
the children about how to resolve their differences without violence,
that we should set this up in a way that local schools could put
together their own programs.
I want to ask my friend this: There is a lot of talk around here of
local control. Isn't this what my friend is doing, he is designing a
grant program so if school districts decide they want to partake, if
they have this problem, they have an opportunity to do so?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from California is absolutely right. It is
totally voluntary. There is no Federal mandate involved. If a school
district says they are concerned enough about this problem that they
want to put together a program that is going to try to educate children
about the danger of guns, that is going to try to educate parents about
the safe storage of guns, public service announcements to encourage
trigger locks, then they can apply for these funds. It is only $7
million, which by Federal standards is a very small amount of money.
I hope it will give some school districts the resources they need to
step forward and protect children from needless tragedies which we read
about every day.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend another question. As I read these hair-
raising accounts of what happened in Michigan with this little baby of
6 years old bringing a gun to school, shooting a child, and then
actually after it was done, coloring something, drawing some pictures,
having no concept he committed this murder, if you will, I think this
points out to us that kids do not understand what gun violence can
really do.
I commend my friend and ask him if he has read those accounts and how
chilling it is and how appropriate it is
[[Page S1085]]
to have a vote on this. As my friend said, the underlying bill gives $7
a year. Now they want to give help to people even in higher incomes
while our kids are losing their lives. I am very pleased my friend has
offered this amendment, and I am proud to join him.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California who earlier offered a
sense-of-the-Senate amendment as to whether we are going to make a
concerted and dedicated effort to reduce violence in the schools. Her
leadership on this issue in her State and across the Nation has been a
model for all of us. This program I am suggesting is a very modest
approach as well. It is a $7 million grant that is available, and when
you consider these headlines which I went through earlier about
children coming to day care with a gun, a 4-year-old caught a second
time bringing a loaded handgun to day care in Cleveland, OH.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional
seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to those in the Senate, regardless
of your position on gun control, I hope we all concede we need to get
the resources to schools, parents, and families so they can do their
best to protect their kids and try to eliminate a senseless tragedy
such as we saw in Michigan this week and, sadly, we have seen repeated
across America.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin
amendment be set aside and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry,
be allowed to offer his amendment with a 14-minute time agreement
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. What was the agreement on time? I am sorry, I could not
hear you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Fourteen minutes equally divided.
Amendment No. 2866
(Purpose: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
scholarships for future teachers and loan forgiveness and cancellation)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
2866 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an
amendment numbered 2866.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
TITLE ____--AMENDMENTS TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
SEC. ____01. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR FUTURE TEACHERS.
Part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Subpart 9--Scholarships for Future Teachers
``SEC. 420L. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this subpart to establish a
scholarship program to promote student excellence and
achievement and to encourage students to make a commitment to
teaching.
``SEC. 420M. SCHOLARSHIPS AUTHORIZED.
``(a) Program Authority.--The Secretary is authorized, in
accordance with the provisions of this subpart, to make
grants to States to enable the States to award scholarships
to individuals who have demonstrated outstanding academic
achievement and who make a commitment to become State
certified teachers in elementary schools or secondary schools
that are served by local educational agencies.
``(b) Period of Award.--Scholarships under this section
shall be awarded for a period of not less than 1 and not more
than 4 years during the first 4 years of study at any
institution of higher education eligible to participate in
any program assisted under this title. The State educational
agency administering the scholarship program in a State shall
have discretion to determine the period of the award (within
the limits specified in the preceding sentence).
``(c) Use at Any Institution Permitted.--A student awarded
a scholarship under this subpart may attend any institution
of higher education.
``SEC. 420N. ALLOCATION AMONG STATES.
``(a) Allocation Formula.--From the sums appropriated under
section 420U for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall
allocate to each State that has an agreement under section
420O an amount that bears the same relation to the sums as
the amount the State received under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 bears to the
amount received under such part A by all States.
``(b) Amount of Scholarships.--The Secretary shall
promulgate regulations setting forth the amount of
scholarships awarded under this subpart.
``SEC. 420O. AGREEMENTS.
``The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with each
State desiring to participate in the scholarship program
authorized by this subpart. Each such agreement shall include
provisions designed to ensure that--
``(1) the State educational agency will administer the
scholarship program authorized by this subpart in the State;
``(2) the State educational agency will comply with the
eligibility and selection provisions of this subpart;
``(3) the State educational agency will conduct outreach
activities to publicize the availability of scholarships
under this subpart to all eligible students in the State,
with particular emphasis on activities designed to assure
that students from low-income and moderate-income families
have access to the information on the opportunity for full
participation in the scholarship program authorized by this
subpart; and
``(4) the State educational agency will pay to each
individual in the State who is awarded a scholarship under
this subpart an amount determined in accordance with
regulations promulgated under section 420N(b).
``SEC. 420P. ELIGIBILITY OF SCHOLARS.
``(a) Secondary School Graduation or Equivalent and
Admission to Institution Required.--Each student awarded a
scholarship under this subpart shall--
``(1) have a secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent;
``(2) have a score on a nationally recognized college
entrance exam, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or
the American College Testing Program (ACT), that is in the
top 20 percent of all scores achieved by individuals in the
secondary school graduating class of the student, or have a
grade point average that is in the top 20 percent of all
students in the secondary school graduating class of the
student;
``(3) have been admitted for enrollment at an institution
of higher education; and
``(4) make a commitment to become a State certified
elementary school or secondary school teacher for a period of
5 years.
``(b) Selection Based on Commitment to Teaching.--Each
student awarded a scholarship under this subpart shall
demonstrate outstanding academic achievement and show promise
of continued academic achievement.
``SEC. 420Q. SELECTION OF SCHOLARS.
``(a) Establishment of Criteria.--The State educational
agency is authorized to establish the criteria for the
selection of scholars under this subpart.
``(b) Adoption of Procedures.--The State educational agency
shall adopt selection procedures designed to ensure an
equitable geographic distribution of scholarship awards
within the State.
``(c) Consultation Requirement.--In carrying out its
responsibilities under subsections (a) and (b), the State
educational agency shall consult with school administrators,
local educational agencies, teachers, counselors, and
parents.
``(d) Timing of Selection.--The selection process shall be
completed, and the awards made, prior to the end of each
secondary school academic year.
``SEC. 420R. SCHOLARSHIP CONDITION.
``The State educational agency shall establish procedures
to assure that a scholar awarded a scholarship under this
subpart pursues a course of study at an institution of higher
education that is related to a career in teaching.
``SEC. 420S. RECRUITMENT.
``In carrying out a scholarship program under this section,
a State may use not less than 5 percent of the amount awarded
to the State under this subpart to carry out recruitment
programs through local educational agencies. Such programs
shall target liberal arts, education and technical
institutions of higher education in the State.
``SEC. 420T. INFORMATION.
``The Secretary shall develop additional programs or
strengthen existing programs to publicize information
regarding the programs assisted under this title and teaching
careers in general.
``SEC. 420U. APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are
appropriated, to carry out this subpart $10,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005, of which not more than
0.5 percent shall be used by the Secretary in any fiscal year
to carry out section 420T.''.
SEC. ____02. LOAN FORGIVENESS AND CANCELLATION FOR TEACHERS.
(a) Federal Stafford Loans.--Section 428J of Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of subsection
(b)(1), by striking ``for 5 consecutive complete school
years'';
[[Page S1086]]
(2) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (c) to read as
follows:
``(1) Amount.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall repay--
``(i) not more than $5,000 in the aggregate of the loan
obligation on a loan made under section 428 or 428H that is
outstanding after the completion of the second complete
school year of teaching described in subsection (b)(1); and
``(ii) not more than $5,000 in the aggregate of such loan
obligation that is outstanding after the fifth complete
school year of teaching described in subsection (b)(1).
``(B) Special rule.--No borrower may receive a reduction of
loan obligations under both this section and section 460.'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated, to
carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.''.
(b) Direct Loans.--Section 460 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087j) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i) of subsection
(b)(1)(A), by striking ``for 5 consecutive complete school
years'';
(2) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (c) to read as
follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall repay--
``(A) not more than $5,000 in the aggregate of the loan
obligation on a Federal Direct Stafford Loan or a Federal
Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loan that is outstanding after
the completion of the second complete school year of teaching
described in subsection (b)(1)(A); and
``(B) not more than $5,000 in the aggregate of such loan
obligation that is outstanding after the fifth complete
school year of teaching described in subsection (b)(1)(A).'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, and there are appropriated, to carry out this
section $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001 through
2005.''.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia, and I
thank the Senator from Nevada for their assistance in moving things
along. I will try not to take very long. In fact, I want to say a few
words about the schoolchild my friend from Illinois was talking about.
Let me try to get through the substance and see where I am timewise
before I do that.
Whatever the dynamic we are locked into in the Senate, it is clearly
not promising or anything substantive to pass. Our friends on the other
side of the aisle have decided that nothing substantive with respect to
education will fundamentally pass. Yesterday we passed a study on
welfare offered by Senator Wellstone, but every other effort to deal
with education is preordained.
I understand in standing up here the fate of this amendment.
Notwithstanding that, I want to make it clear, and I think my
colleagues who preceded me have made it clear, that these are the real
issues that face the country and these are the choices the Senate ought
to be making. If our colleagues simply choose to dismiss them out of
hand, then that is a reality the American people, I hope, will begin to
digest at the appropriate time, which is obviously election time in
this country. There may be another chance when we will deal with some
of these issues. We certainly hope there will be. But not being
guaranteed that opportunity, we have to take this opportunity now.
Everyone in this country knows we have a teacher shortage of
remarkable proportions. We are supposed to hire some 5 million teachers
over the course of the next 10 years, 2 million of them in the next 5
years. If one looks at an article that appeared in the Washington Post
at the beginning of this school year, it tells us the story of some of
that hiring. A principal in Northern Virginia was so desperate for
teachers to begin the school year that she was wooing shoppers at Wal-
Mart in an effort to find people to teach in her school.
The last thing the parents of our children and our school
administrators want is an unprepared, unqualified, uncertified adult
simply there supposedly to fill a quota and ``teach,'' and I put quotes
around that.
If we continue on our present course, we are going to face many
similar stories. But we know because of the pressures of attrition, the
pressures of the classroom itself, the lack of pay, and other problems
attendant to teaching today, we are losing many more people than are
coming into the profession. Thirty to 40 percent of the people who
teach leave within the first 3 to 5 years. We have a remarkable rate of
loss and a remarkable rate of turnover.
We also know we have an incredible shortage of teachers who teach in
the field for which they may have gone to school or in which they have
a degree. Again, I am not going to take up all the time, but the
statistics with respect to teachers who are qualified to teach math or
science is extraordinarily distressing, not to mention other subjects
that people also come to teach.
The amendment I offer today addresses this by seeking to address the
question of how do we create an incentive to draw people into teaching.
I met with young people this morning, interns in my office, about 15,
16 of them. Not one of them is planning to be a teacher or is even
thinking about it.
When I speak at colleges and universities there may be whatever
number of people in the room, and I ask them: How many of you are
planning to be teachers? You are lucky if you get one or two or three
hands going up because most people cannot afford to do it based on the
loans they have at the end of their schooling. Also, many of them find
the opportunities of the private sector simply too great, too alluring,
so they are drawn away from teaching. Thirdly, our school systems
today, because of the lack of adequate resources, structures, support,
curriculum, reform standards, and other things, are not particularly
enticing to many young people in terms of a career option.
We have to offer greater incentives to attract people, particularly
measured against the marketplace. Therefore, the current law already
forgives $5,000 in student loans after 5 years in teaching.
My amendment seeks to recognize the reality of that principle, which
we have already adopted, that an incentive works. But recognizing that,
the second reality is that because of the marketplace, the incentive
isn't strong enough. So we need to find a way to add an additional
incentive. My amendment would provide an additional $5,000 in
forgiveness for teachers after 2 years of teaching, providing
additional relief for those who are faced with leaving teaching in
order to make more money.
In addition, we would offer a grant for States to be able to
establish a program to provide college scholarships to students with
SAT scores or grade point averages in the top 20 percent of each
State's high school graduating class. That would be in return for a
commitment by the individual to become a State-certified teacher for a
period of 5 years.
We have always tried to attract people into our military service by
offering them, either through the Service academies or through ROTC or
through the GI bill, the opportunity to be able to have payment in
exchange for a service that we value greatly: Service to country.
Here we are trying to apply the same principle, and we are trying to
draw some of the top students. Those who have performed the best in
high school will have an opportunity to have college scholarships so
they can go to college, not come out with the burden of debt and,
indeed, dedicate 5 years of their life to teaching in return.
In a sense, it is a GI bill for teaching. I hope my colleagues will
recognize this principle and the value of it.
The teacher shortage our schools are facing now will pale in
comparison to what we're looking at over the next 10 years as large
numbers of teachers are expected to retire and enrollments are expected
to increase. The pressures of attrition, of retirements, will only be
compounded by the impact of hundreds of other important education
improvement efforts taking root all over the country, whether it's
class-size reduction or higher standards for teachers, and that too
will exacerbate the teacher shortage.
So what do we do about it? We must pass legislation that helps
increase the supply, and the quality, of teachers in this country. And
to do that, we must make the teaching profession more attractive to our
young people and to those many thousands of people who are certified
teachers but have left the profession because of financial constraints.
The amendment I offer today addresses the teaching crisis plaguing
our Nation's schools and impairing our children's ability to learn and
succeed.
[[Page S1087]]
My amendment will provide full-time state certified public school
teachers who teach in low-income areas or who teach in areas with
teacher shortages such as math, science, and special needs with loan
forgiveness of up to $5,000 after 2 years of teaching and an additional
$5,000 after 5 years of teaching.
I know the Congress believes loan forgiveness is an important way to
attract and retain qualified teachers, because current law already
forgives $5,000 in student loans after five years of teaching. My
amendment would provide an additional $5,000 in forgiveness for
teachers after 2 years of teaching, providing relief for teachers who
are faced with leaving teaching to make more money, and providing an
incentive for them to continue in the field. Coupled with increased
ongoing education opportunities that are the focus of so many Senators,
particularly my colleague from Massachusetts, who has contributed so
much to the education debate over the years, Senator Kennedy, coupled
with increased professional development opportunities that I hope we
will enact, we have the capability of recruiting and retaining
thousands of highly qualified teachers around the country.
My amendment would also provide grants for states to establish a
program to provide college scholarships to students with SAT scores or
grade point averages in the top 20 percent of each state's high school
graduating class in return for a commitment to become a state certified
teacher for 5 years. States would contribute 20 percent of the funds
for the scholarships. This amendment would also establish a national
hotline for potential teachers to receive information on a career in
teaching.
Demand for teachers is so great that it is projected that 50,000
unqualified teachers have been hired annually on emergency or
substandard licenses. And the situation is most severe in poor urban
and rural areas. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, these districts have such a hard time recruiting and
retaining qualified teachers that 39 percent of their teachers have
neither a college major or minor in their primary field of course work.
What does this mean for our children's education? In urban schools
where children are already crippled by an unfair playing field, a lack
of adequate resources, too often the teachers they do have are
unqualified. And over the next 10 years the situation will get even
worse, virtually guaranteeing that the percentage of unqualified
teachers in these schools will increase.
I ask you this: How are our young people supposed to get engaged in
the learning process if they only have warm bodies in their classrooms?
Who will answer the questions that children have about their lessons if
the teachers themselves are not sure of the answers? I have heard from
people all over my state, deans of engineering schools in my state,
high school administrators, parents, about a decrease in the number of
young people interested in pursuing math, science, and engineering
degrees after they graduate from high school. Is it any coincidence
then that the greatest shortage of teachers in this country is in the
areas of math and science? No wonder our young people are seeking math
and science degrees in lower numbers. They aren't excited about these
subjects because the teachers weren't there to get them excited, to
provide them with good instruction, to encourage them on. And I won't
even get into the shortage of hi-tech workers before us now and that we
are in dire need of greater numbers, not fewer, of graduates in math,
science, and engineering.
I can guarantee you that this additional loan forgiveness and a
scholarship program are necessary, that the existing laws will not
recruit the numbers and quality of students we need. Thirty to fifty
percent of all new urban teachers leave the teaching profession within
the first 3 to 5 years of teaching. And while we can't be sure that all
of these young teachers leave because of inadequate salaries and
blossoming student loans, when you look at the data you can be sure
looming students loans and low paying comprise a great deal of the
incentive for these teachers to leave.
We need to attract the best and the brightest teachers into our
public schools to cultivate the minds of our children. But can we
realistically expect those students graduating from 4-year institutions
and saddled with thousands of dollars in student loans--the average
private college students graduates with $14,000 of loans that must be
repaid--to enter career where they can expect a starting salary that
barely reaches the mid-twenties? How can we expect our young people to
turn their backs, particularly in this booming economy, on higher-
paying jobs as analysts, in technology companies.
Consider the case of Bridgewater State College, which was the first
college in Massachusetts to obtain accreditation under the new National
Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education standards. One-fifth
of Bridgewater State students go on to become teachers in Massachusetts
and throughout the country. But these students graduate with an average
of $8,693 in student loans that must be repaid. And that is from a
public school, where in-state tuition is just $8,000. A student
graduating from a private college, of which there are many in my state,
faces a average of $14,000 in loans to be repaid.
Now, we all know that first-year teachers are poorly paid. The
average starting salary is in the mid-twenties. it is simply too
difficult for young teachers to make ends meet when, in addition to
paying rent, buying groceries, maybe saving for graduate school, or for
a car, they must also pay back these loans.
We must act on this legislation now. If not because we are facing an
imminent teacher shortage, then because of the rising cost of tuition.
From 1990 to 1996, average tuition for a full-time resident
undergraduate student rose 43.8 percent, but during that same period,
the consumer price index rose only 15.4 percent. And at the same time,
Mr. President loans are comprising a greater percentage of student's
tuition than grants or income. In the early 1980s, loans covered about
40 percent of total aid. Now, loans cover 58 percent of total aid and
during that period, grants went from covering 55 percent of total aid
to just 40 percent of total aid. Mr. President, we must address this
issue. We must provide assistance to aspiring teachers. We must act
now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KERRY. I ask my colleague from Georgia if he would mind if I took
a moment, maybe 3 or 4 minutes, to say something about the shooting in
Michigan. May I ask for 4 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from our time.
Mr. KERRY. The Senator is very generous. Knowing the outcome of this
vote, I know the Senator does not have to expend a lot of eloquence to
defeat me. I am very appreciative for his consideration.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
____________________