Congressional Record
Proceedings, Debates of the U.S. Congress
September 30, 1999
106th Congress, 1st Session
Issue: Vol. 145, No. 130 — Daily Edition
Sections in This Issue:
All in Senate sectionPrev26 of 53Next
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - September 30, 1999)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S11726-S11734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 1669. A bill to require country of origin labeling of peanuts and
peanut products and to establish penalties for violations of the
labeling requirements; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
the Peanut Labeling Act of 1999
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor today to
introduce the Peanut Labeling Act of 1999. This bill will require
country of origin labeling for all peanut and peanut products sold in
the United States; specifically
[[Page S11727]]
it will require that consumers be notified whether the peanuts are
grown in the United States or in another country. The main purpose of
this bill is to provide American consumers with information about where
the peanuts they purchase are grown. This bill will allow consumers to
make informed food choices and support American farmers. And, with the
labeling requirement, should a health concern be raised about a
specific country's products, such as the Mexican strawberry scare we
witnessed a few year's back, consumers would have the information they
need to make their own choices about the products they buy at the
market.
Family farmers in America are facing dire circumstances. Farmers'
ability to grow and sell their products have been severely affected by
bad weather conditions, poor market prices, and trade restrictions.
This bill allows consumers to help American farmers in the best way
that they can--with their food dollar. Consumers are provided with
information about the country of origin of a wide range of products,
including clothes, appliances and automobiles. It only seems
appropriate and fair that consumers should receive the same information
about agricultural products, specifically peanuts. In fact, because
consumers purchase agricultural products, including peanuts, based on
the quality and safety of these items for their families, it seems even
more important to provide them with this basic information.
By providing country of origin labels, consumers can determine if
peanuts are from a country that has had pesticide or other problems
which may be harmful to their health. This is true particularly during
a period when food imports are increasing, and will continue to
increase in the wake of new trade agreements such as the WTO and GATT.
As I previously mentioned, recent outbreaks linked to strawberries in
Mexico, and European beef related to ``mad cow disease'' have raised
the public's awareness of imported foods and their potential health
impacts. Consumers should not have to wait for the same thing to happen
with peanuts before they have the information they need to make wise
food choices. With the labeling requirement, should such an outbreak
occur, consumers would have the information to not only avoid harmful
products, but to continue to purchase unaffected ones.
The growth of biotechnology in the food arena necessitates more
information in the marketplace. Research is being conducted today on
new peanut varieties. These research efforts include seeds that might
deter peanut allergies, tolerate more drought, and be more resistant to
disease. As various countries use differing technologies, consumers
need to be made aware of the source of the product they are purchasing.
GAO recently pointed out that FDA only inspected 1.7 percent of 2.7
million shipments of fruit, vegetables, seafood and processed foods
under its jurisdiction. Inspections for peanuts can be assumed to be in
this range or less. This lack of inspection does not provide consumers
of these products with a great deal of assurance.
Another purpose of this bill is to provide consumers with the ability
to gain benefit from the investments of their hard earned taxes paid to
the U.S. government. The federal government spends a large sum of money
on peanut research infrastructure that is by far the most advanced in
the world. This research not only increases the productivity of peanut
growers, but provides growers with vital information about best
management practices, including pesticide and water usage. It assists
growers in their efforts to more effectively and efficiently grow a
more superior and safer product for American consumers. Consumers
should be able to receive a return on this investment by being able to
purchase U.S. peanuts.
Polls have shown that consumers in America want to know the origin of
the products they buy. And, contrary to the arguments given by
opponents of labeling measures that such requirements would drive
prices up, consumers have indicated that they would be willing to pay
extra for easy access to such information. I believe that this is a
pro-consumer bill that will have wide support.
I am also very pleased that peanut growers in America strongly
support my proposal. I have endorsement letters for my bill from the
Georgia Peanut Commission, the National Peanut Growers Group, the
Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, the Alabama Peanut Producers
Association, and the Florida Peanut Producers Association.
In conclusion, as my colleagues know, we live in a global economy
which creates an international marketplace for our food products. I
strongly believe that by providing country of origin labeling for
agricultural products, such as peanuts, we not only provide consumers
with information they need to make informed choices about the quality
of food being served to their family but we also allow American farmers
to showcase the time and effort they put into producing the safest and
finest food products in the world. I believe this bill represents these
principles and I ask my colleagues for their support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1669
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Peanut Labeling Act of
1999''.
SEC. 2. INDICATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT
PRODUCTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Peanut product.--The term ``peanut product'' means any
product more than 3 percent of the retail value of which is
derived from peanuts contained in the product.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(b) Notice of Country of Origin Required.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a retailer of
peanuts or peanut products produced in, or imported into, the
United States (including any peanut product that contains
peanuts that are not produced in the United States) shall
inform consumers, at the final point of sale to consumers, of
the country of origin of the peanuts or peanut products.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the application of
paragraph (1) to a retailer of peanuts or peanut products if
the retailer demonstrates to the Secretary it is
impracticable for the retailer to determine the country of
origin of the peanuts or peanut products.
(c) Method of Notification.--
(1) In general.--The information required by subsection (b)
may be provided to consumers by means of a label, stamp,
mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the peanuts
or peanut products or on the package, display, holding unit,
or bin containing the peanuts or peanut products at the final
point of sale to consumers.
(2) Existing labeling.--If the peanuts or peanut products
are already labeled regarding country of origin by the
packer, importer, or another person, the retailer shall not
be required to provide any additional information in order to
comply with this section.
(d) Violations.--If a retailer fails to indicate the
country of origin of peanuts or peanut products as required
by subsection (b), the Secretary may impose a civil penalty
on the retailer in an amount not to exceed--
(1) $1,000 for the first day on which the violation occurs;
and
(2) $250 for each day on which the violation continues.
(e) Deposit of Funds.--Amounts collected under subsection
(d) shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States
as miscellaneous receipts.
(f) Application.--This section shall apply with respect to
peanuts and peanut products produced in, or imported into,
the United States after the date that is 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
____
Georgia Agricultural Commodity
Commission for Peanuts,
Tifton, GA, September 22, 1999.
Hon. Max Cleland,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cleland: On behalf of the Georgia Peanut
Commission, I strongly support your efforts to introduce the
``Peanut Labeling Act of 1999.'' Origin labeling of peanuts
and peanut products is extremely important to our peanut
industry in Georgia. It will not only benefit our Georgia
growers, but it will be an asset for growers across our
nation.
Requiring an origin of label allows our consumers the
choice to buy American products. Because our quality and
safety standards are among the best, our peanuts and peanut
products should be labeled in order to differentiate from
other foreign products. The consumer should have information
that allows them to discern which peanut and peanut product
is best for them.
We support and appreciate your efforts.
Sincerely,
Billy Griggs,
Chairman, Georgia Peanut Commission.
[[Page S11728]]
____
National Peanut Growers Group,
Gorman, TX, September 22, 1999.
Hon. Max Cleland,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cleland: The National Peanut Growers Group
endorses the ``Peanut Labeling Act of 1999.'' Our group,
which consists of grower representation from our peanut
producing regions across the nation, fully supports your
efforts to introduce this legislation. We believe origin
labeling of peanuts and peanut products is vital to our
industry's survival. Because our quality and safety standards
are the best in the world, our peanuts and peanut products
should be labeled in order to differentiate from other
foreign products. The consumer should have information that
allows them to discern which peanut and peanut product is
best for them.
Thank you for your support. We appreciate your efforts to
strengthen our peanut industry.
Sincerely,
Wilbur Gamble,
Chairman.
____
Southern Peanut
Farmers Federation,
September 22, 1999.
Hon. Max Cleland,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cleland: The Southern Peanut Farmers
Federation, an alliance of Alabama Peanut Producers
Association, Georgia Peanut Commission, and Florida Peanut
Producers Association, strongly supports the ``Peanut
Labeling Act of 1999.'' We appreciate the opportunity to
review the bill, and we believe its enactment will strengthen
our peanut industry.
This bill is very important to us for several reasons.
First, we believe that like most products made in America,
peanuts and peanut products should have a label of origin.
Secondly, we believe that by giving American consumers this
information, it allows them to buy American products. The
numbers of imported peanuts and peanut products continue to
rise each year. We believe that by labeling our products, our
growers will have a tool that keeps them at a level playing
field with the competition. The American consumer will want
to purchase products of high quality and that meets stringent
safety standards.
The labeling of peanuts and peanut products would alleviate
the numbers of peanuts and peanut products coming into the
country illegally. Many products are imported into our
country without trade restrictions, due to NAFTA, and sold to
our American consumer. Yet, some of those peanut products
originated from our domestic growers. With a labeling
requirement, we would be able to identify whether our
exported products are returned to our domestic market.
Alleviating this problem would keep our peanut market from
being saturated.
The ``Peanut Labeling Act'' is a tremendous step in the
right direction for our industry. It is a vital tool that
will allow our industry to compete in the future as our
country's trade policy is expanded.
Sincerely,
Billy Griggs,
Georgia Peanut Commission.
Carl Sanders,
Florida Peanut Producers Association.
Gregg Hall,
Alabama Peanut Producers Association.
____
Florida Peanut
Producers Association,
Marianna, FL, September 21, 1999.
Hon. Max Cleland,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cleland: The Florida Peanut Producers
Association Board of Directors, representing 1,100 peanut
farmers in Florida, without reservations, endorse your
``Peanut Labeling Act of 1999''. Mr. Bob Redding of the
Redding Firm in Washington has kept our board informed on the
language and movement of this bill. We feel strongly that a
Peanut Labeling Bill will once again give the American peanut
farmer the edge to compete with imported competition. We are
convinced the safety and quality of American grown will
always be the choice of our consumers, if given a choice by
origin labeling.
We appreciate your efforts concerning this issue, as well
as your over-all interest in Southern agriculture.
Sincerely,
Greg Hall,
President.
Jeff Crawford, Jr.,
Executive Director.
____
Alabama Peanut
Producers Association,
Dothan, AL, September 22, 1999.
To: Senator Max Cleland.
From: H. Randall Griggs.
On behalf of the peanut producers in Alabama, we appreciate
your efforts to introduce labeling legislation pertaining to
peanuts and peanut products. As the marketplace becomes more
globalized, the U.S. industry should be allowed to
differentiate itself from other origins. Also, consumers
should have the information necessary to choose and know
where their food products originate.
Again, we support and appreciate your efforts.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 1671. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
Campaign Finance Integrity Act of 1999
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senate is again considering
campaign finance reform. The problem is that almost every Senator has a
different definition of--and goal for--reform. Today I am introducing
the ``Campaign Finance Integrity Act.'' I believe this bill can
actually be agreed upon by a majority of this body that would want to
ensure that we improve the campaign finance system (a nearly
universally acknowledged goal) without being unconstitutional and
attempting measures that fly in the face of the First Amendment.
Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire
for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict,
and that you can't have both. But fortunately for those of us who
believe in the First Amendment rights of all American citizens, the
founding fathers and the Supreme Court are on our side. They believe,
and I believe, that we can have both.
I would hope that celebrating the value of the First Amendment on the
floor of the United States Senate is preaching to the choir, as the
expression goes, but let me go ahead and do it anyway. Thomas Jefferson
repeatedly stated the importance of the First Amendment and how it
allows the people and the press the right to speak their minds freely.
Jefferson clearly described its significance back in 1798 with, ``One
of the amendments to the Constitution * * * expressly declares that
`Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others.'' Again in 1808, he stated that ``The liberty
of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And in 1823,
Jefferson stated, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when
permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be
submitted to.'' Jefferson knew and believed that if we begin
restricting what people say, how they say it, and how much they can
say, then we deny the first and fundamental freedom given to all
Citizens.
The Supreme Court has also been very clear in its rulings concerning
campaign finance and the First Amendment. Since the post-Watergate
changes to the campaign finance system began, 24 Congressional actions
have been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the
First Amendment. Out of those nine, 4 dealt directly with campaign
finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that
political spending is equal to political speech.
In the now famous decision, or infamous to some, Buckley vs. Valeo,
the Court states that, ``The First Amendment denies government the
power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is
wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our
Constitution it is not the government but the people--individually as
citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political
committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of
debate on public issues in a political campaign.''
Simply stated, the government cannot ration or regulate political
speech of an American through campaign spending limits any more than it
can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print or what it
can print. This reinforces Jefferson's statement that to impede one of
these rights is to impede all First Amendment rights.
Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills believe
that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force giveaways of
public and private resources then all will be fine with the campaign
finance system. The Supreme Court agrees and is again very clear in its
intent on campaign spending. The Buckley decision says, ``. . . the
mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of
[[Page S11729]]
itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quantity
of campaign spending. . . .''
Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how
great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill''
to the ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable
instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one
sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more
expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable
the cost of campaigns are, the Supreme Court has stated that this is
not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other
groups involved in political speech.
We need a campaign finance bill that does not violate the First
Amendment, while providing important provisions to open the campaign
finances of candidates up to the scrutiny of the American people. I
believe the Campaign Finance Integrity Act does that.
My bill would:
Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their
contributions from individuals in the state or district in which they
are running.
Equalize contributions from individuals and political action
committees (PACs) by raising the individual limit from $1000 to $2500
and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to $2500.
Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation.
Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing
political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal
contribution of a candidate above $5000.
Require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate,
voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or
payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and
requires annual full disclosure of those activities to members and
shareholders.
Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless
the individual's profession and employer are reported.
Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports
by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that
information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours
of receipt.
Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings.
This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate
back into his district or state to raise money from individual
contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure
requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or
the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the
best disinfectant.
The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what
they want in a political campaign is preserved by the right of the
public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is
also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own
decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely
information.
Many of the proponents of other campaign finance bills try to reduce
the influence of interests by suppressing their speech. I believe the
best ways to reduce the special interests influence is to suppress and
reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special
interest funding and corporate subsidies, then there would be less
reason for influence-buying donations.
Objecting to the popular quest of the moment is very difficult for
any politician, but turning your back on the First Amendment is more
difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense
of the First Amendment. My legislation does this. Not everyone will
agree with the Campaign Finance Integrity Act, and many of us still
disagree on this issue, but the First Amendment is the reason we can
disagree and it must be honored here rather than just the
Courts.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1673. A bill to amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to
protect unborn victims of violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
unborn victims of violence act of 1999
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on behalf of
unborn children who are the victims of violence. I am here to be their
voice; I am here to fight for their rights.
We live in a violent world, Mr. President. Sadly, sometimes--perhaps
more often than we realize--even unborn babies are the targets,
intended or otherwise, of violent acts. I'll give you some disturbing
examples.
In 1996, Airman, Gregory Robbins, and his family were stationed in my
home state of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At
that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a
daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage,
Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt (to reduce the chance that
he would inflict visible injuries) and savagely beat his wife by
striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs.
Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus
ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal
cavity, causing Jasmine's death.
Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute the Airman for Jasmine's
death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal
code makes criminal such an act which results in the death or injury of
an unborn child. The only available federal offense was for the assault
on the mother. This was a case in which the only available federal
penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio
fetal homicide law to convict Mr. Robbins of Jasmine's death. This case
currently is pending appeal, and we do hope that justice will prevail.
Mr. President, if it weren't for the Ohio law that is already in
place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish
Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. We need a federal
remedy to avoid having to bootstrap state laws and to provide recourse
when a violent act occurs during the commission of a federal crime--
especially in cases when the state in which the crime occurs does not
have a fetal protection law in place. A federal remedy will ensure that
crimes against unborn victims are punished.
There are other sickening examples of violence against innocent
unborn children, Mr. President. An incident occurred in Arkansas just a
few short weeks ago. Nearly nine months pregnant, Shawana Pace of
Little Rock was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her
pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy
and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric Bullock wanted the baby to die. So, he
hired three thugs to beat Shawana so badly that she would lose the
unborn baby.
During the vicious assault against mother and child, one of the hired
hitmen allegedly said: ``Your baby is going to die tonight.'' Shawana's
baby did die that night. She named the baby Heaven. Mr. President, I am
saddened and sickened by the sheer inhumanity and brutality of this act
of violence.
Fortunately, the State of Arkansas, like Ohio, passed a fetal
protection law, which allows Arkansas prosecutors to charge defendants
with murder for the death of a fetus. Under previous law, such
attackers could be charged only with crimes against the pregnant woman.
As in the case of Baby Jasmine's death in Ohio, but for the Arkansas
state law, there would be no remedy--no punishment--for Baby Heaven's
brutal murder. The only charge would be assault against the mother.
In the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings--here too--
federal prosecutors were able to charge the defendants with the murders
of or injuries to the mothers--but not to their unborn babies. Again,
federal law currently only criminalizes crimes against born humans.
There are no federal provisions for the unborn.
This is wrong.
It is wrong that our federal government does absolutely nothing to
criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We must correct this
loophole in our law, for it allows criminals to get away with violent
acts--and sometimes even murder.
We, as a civilized society, should not--with good conscience--stand
for that.
[[Page S11730]]
So, today, I am introducing legislation, along with my distinguished
colleagues, Senator Tim Hutchinson and Senator Abraham, to provide
justice for America's unborn victims of violence. Our bill, the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, would hold criminals liable for conduct that
harms or kills an unborn child. It would make it a separate crime under
the Federal code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to kill or
injure an unborn child during the commission of certain existing
federal crimes.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would create a separate offense
for unborn children--it would acknowledge them as individual victims.
Our bill would no longer allow violent acts against unborn babies to be
considered victimless crimes. At least twenty-four (24) states already
have criminalized harm to unborn victims, and another seven (7) states
criminalize the termination of pregnancy.
Mr. President, in November of 1996, a baby, just three months from
full-term, was killed in Ohio as a result of road rage. An angry driver
forced a pregnant mother's car to crash into a flatbed truck. Because
the Ohio Revised Code imposes criminal liability for any violent
conduct which terminates a pregnancy of a child in utero, prosecutors
successfully tried and convicted the driver for recklessly causing the
baby's death. Our bill would make an act of violence like this a
federal crime. It would be a simple step, but one with a dramatic
effect.
Mr. President, we purposely have drafted this legislation very
narrowly. For example, it would not permit the prosecution for any
abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the
prosecution of a woman for any action (legal or illegal) in regard to
her unborn child. This legislation would not permit the prosecution for
harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical
treatment. And, the bill would not allow for the imposition of the
death penalty under this Act.
Mr. President, it is time that we wrap the arms of justice around
unborn children and protect them against criminal assailants. Those who
violently attack unborn babies are criminals. The federal penalty
should fit the crime. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in
support of this legislation. We have an obligation to our unborn
children.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S 1674. A bill to promote small schools and smaller learning
communities; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
small, safe schools act
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 1675. A bill to provide for school drop out prevention, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
national dropout prevention act of 1999
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1676. A bill to improve accountability for schools and local
educational agencies under part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
school improvement accountability act
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last week I introduced two
education bills related to raising standards and ensuring
accountability for the teachers in our schools. Today, I am pleased to
introduce three bills that relate to raising standards and ensuring
accountability for the performance of our schools--the Small, Safe
Schools Act, the National Dropout Prevention Act and the School
Improvement Accountability Act. Next week, I will introduce two bills
which relate to raising standards and ensuring accountability for
student achievement. All of these bills, which I hope to incorporate
into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
form the foundation for a comprehensive plan to improve the quality of
our public education system. The three bills that I am introducing
today focus on improving school performance.
The Small, Safe Schools Act would help to ensure that children have a
sense of belonging in their school by providing incentives for the
construction of smaller schools and providing resources to create
smaller learning communities in existing larger schools. In this way,
we can create school environments that keep our children safe and make
it easier for them to meet high standards for achievement. Research
demonstrates that small schools outperform large schools on every
measure of school success.
In the wake of the tragedy at Columbine High School, one of the most
important concerns regarding school quality is school safety. Issues of
school safety can be effectively addressed by creating smaller schools
or smaller learning communities within larger schools. Behavorial
problems, including truancy, classroom disruption, vandalism,
aggressive behavior, theft, substance abuse and gang participation are
all more common in larger schools. Teachers in small schools learn of
disagreements between students and can resolve problems before problems
become severe. Based on studies of high school violence, researchers
have concluded that the first step in ending school violence must be to
break through the impersonal atmosphere of large high schools by
creating smaller communities of learning within larger structures,
where teachers and students can come to know each other well.
School size also can have a critical impact on learning. Small school
size improves students grades and test scores. This impact is even
greater for ethnic minority and low income students. Small
institutional size has been found to be one of the most important
factors in creating positive educational outcomes. Studies on school
dropout rates show a decrease in the rates as schools get smaller.
Students and staff at smaller schools have a stronger sense of personal
efficacy, and students take more of the responsibility for their own
learning, which includes more individualized and experimental learning
relevant to the world outside of school.
Small schools can be created cost effectively. Larger schools can be
more expensive because their sheer size requires more administrative
support. More importantly, additional bureaucracy translates into less
flexibility and innovation. In addition, because small schools have
higher graduation rates, costs per graduate are lower than costs per
graduate in large schools.
The Small, Safe Schools Act would establish three programs designed
to promote and support smaller schools and smaller learning communities
within large schools. Schools or LEAs could apply for funds to help
develop smaller learning communities within larger schools. The bill
also authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to LEAs
and schools seeking to create smaller learning communities. In
addition, the bill would provide funding for construction and
renovation of schools designed to accommodate no more than 350 students
in an elementary school, 400 students in a middle school, and 800
students in a high school.
On behalf of myself and Senator Reid, I also offer the National
Dropout Prevention Act, which is a bill designed to reduce the dropout
rate in our nation's schools. While much progress has been made in
encouraging more students to complete high school, the nation remains
far from its goal of a 90 percent graduation rate for students by 2000.
In fact, none of the states with large and diverse student populations
have yet come close to this goal, and dropout rates approaching 50
percent are commonplace in some of the most disadvantaged communities
during the period from ninth grade to senior year. The bill is based on
many of the findings of the National Hispanic Dropout Project, a group
of nationally recognized experts assembled during 1996-97 to help find
solutions to the high dropout rate among Hispanic and other at-risk
students. In addition to widespread misconceptions about why so many
students drop out of school and lack of familiarity with proven dropout
prevention programs, one of the main factors contributing to the lack
of progress in this area is that there is currently no concerted
federal effort to provide or coordinate effective and proven dropout
prevention programs for at-risk children. In fact, there is currently
no federal agency or office that is responsible for the multitude of
programs that include dropout prevention as a component.
[[Page S11731]]
The Act makes lowering the dropout rate a national priority. Efforts
to prevent students from dropping out would be coordinated on the
nation level by an Office of Dropout Prevention and Program Completion
in the Department of Education. The Office would disseminate best
practices and models for effective dropout programs through a national
clearinghouse and provide support and recognition to schools engaged in
dropout prevention efforts. In addition, this bill provides funds to
pay the startup and implementation costs of effective, sustainable,
coordinated, and whole school dropout prevention programs. Funds could
be used to implement comprehensive school-wide reforms, create
alternative school programs or smaller learning communities. Grant
recipients could contract with community-based organizations to assist
in implementing necessary services.
The School Improvement Accountability Act, the third bill I am
introducing today, sets more rigorous standards for States and LEAs
receiving Title I funds by strengthening the accountability provisions
in Title I. The Title I program provides supplemental services to
disadvantaged students and schools with high concentrations of
disadvantaged students. These students and these schools are often
short-changed by our educational system. The bill seeks to ensure that
all schools are often short-changed by our educational system. The bill
seeks to ensure that all schools receiving Title I funding achieve
realistic goals for student achievement and that all students reach
those goals, narrowing existing achievement gaps. Recipients will be
required to set goals for student achievement which will result in all
students (in Title I schools) passing state tests at a ``proficiency''
standard within 10 years of reauthorization. The bill also requires
States, LEAs and schools to focus on elimination of the achievement gap
between LEP, disabled & low-income students and other students and to
ensure inclusion of all students in state assessments.
The bill also modifies the corrective action section of the bill,
which is the section that is triggered when schools identified as being
in need of improvement, have not made sufficient gains towards the
goals set out in the schools Title I plan. The School Improvement
Accountability act would require schools failing to meet standards must
take one of three actions affecting personnel and/or management of the
schools: (1) decreasing decision-making authority at the school level;
(2) reconstituting the school staff; or (3) eliminating the use of
noncredentialed staff. Students in failing schools also would have a
right to transfer to a school which is not failing.
In order to ensure equal educational opportunities for all our
children, we must ensure that schools are safe, welcoming places. We
also must ensure that students in danger of dropping out of school are
not lost, but instead graduate high school with the skills that they
need to be productive members of our society. We must provide special
support to students with greater obstacles to learning, such as
disadvantaged students, students whose first language is not English,
and disabled students. We must ensure that schools serving these
students can provide high quality educational programs and that those
schools are held accountable for the success of all students. The bills
I offer today will do much to achieve these goals. I hope that my
colleagues will support these efforts.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 1677. A bill to establish a child centered program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
child centered program establishment legislation
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I am joined with Senator Hagel
in introducing a bill to allow States and schools districts to switch
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education from a school-based
to a child-based program.
We will soon take up the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The centerpiece of which is Title I which was
created in 1965 to provide extra educational assistance to low-income
students. Since its inception, Title I has grown into the largest
federal education program for elementary and secondary school students
with funding, in this year alone, at $7.7 billion.
Unfortunately, after more than 30 years and expenditures of $118
billion, national evaluations indicate that Title I has failed to
achieve its primary aim of reducing the achievement gap between
advantaged and disadvantaged students.
Reading scores in 1998 showed that only 6 States made progress in
narrowing the gap between White and African American students and just
3 made progress narrowing the gap between White and Hispanic students.
While the gap actually grew in 16 States. In math, nine year olds in
high poverty schools remain 2 grade levels behind students in low-
poverty schools.
In reading, nine year old students in high poverty schools remain 3
to 4 grade levels behind students in low poverty schools. Seventy
percent of children in high poverty schools score below even the most
basic level of reading. Two out of every three African American and
Hispanic 4th graders can barely read.
It is time to take a fresh look at this important program to ensure
that our neediest students are receiving the services they need. We
must provide enough flexibility in Title I for students to receive high
quality supplemental educational services, wherever those services are
offered.
In order to enable needy students to access high quality supplemental
services, States and school districts should be given the opportunity
to transform Title I from a school-based program to a child-centered
program. Which is exactly what my bill does. Let me explain.
Currently, Title I dollars are sent to States, then distributed to
school districts, and ultimately to schools--this is known as a school-
based program. Aid goes to the school, rather than directly to the
eligible child.
This process of sending dollars to districts and schools rather than
students has a serious unintended consequence--millions of eligible
children never receive the educational services promised to them by
this program.
To make matters worse, even schools which have been identified by
their States and communities as chronic poor performers continue to
receive Title I dollars, despite that fact that well over one-third of
eligible children (about 4 million children) receive no services.
Today, 4 million children generate Title I revenue for their school
district, but never receive Title I services; despite the fact that the
school district received federal funds to provide supplemental
educational services to those very children.
We should not continue the practice of sustaining failed schools at
the expense of our nation's children.
The very serious problem of under serving our neediest students can
be alleviated by giving States and school districts the ability to
focus their efforts by directly serving Title I eligible students
through a child-centered program.
This bill permits interested States and school districts to use Title
I dollars to create a child-centered program.
Here is how it would work. Interested states and school districts
could use their Title I dollars to establish a per pupil amount for
each eligible child--any child between the ages of 5-17 from a family
at or below the poverty line. The per pupil amount would then follow
the child to the school they attend. The per pupil amount would be used
to provide supplemental educational (``add-on'' or ``extra'') services
to meet the individual educational needs of children participating in
the program.
Since some schools continue to fail to provide high quality
educational services to their neediest students, students could use
their per-pupil amount to receive supplemental educational (``add-on'')
services from either their school or a tutorial assistance provider, be
that a Sylvan learning center, a charter school or a private school.
The idea behind this provision is to allow parents to use their per-
pupil amount to purchase extra tutorial assistance for before or after
school.
There are numerous benefits to turning Title I into a child-centered
program. It increases the number of disadvantaged children served by
Title I. It ensures that federal dollars generated by a particular
student actually
[[Page S11732]]
benefit that student. It rewards good schools and penalizes failing
schools, as children would have the option to go the schools that best
meet their needs and take their Title I money with them. A child-
centered program decreases the practice of financially rewarding
schools that consistently fail to provide a high quality education to
their students. And, it ensures that students who are stuck in a bad
school have access to educational services outside the school, by
permitting parents to use their child's per-pupil allotment for
tutorial assistance.
In short, this bill creates a much-needed market for change in that
it gives families the ability to take their federal dollars out of a
school that is not using them effectively and purchase services
somewhere else. Families are empowered and schools are compelled to
improve in order to keep their students.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Turning Title I into a
child-centered program puts Title I back on the right track, focusing
on what is best for the child first and foremost.
I ask that it be printed in the Record.
The bill follows:
S. 1677
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHILD CENTERED PROGRAM.
Part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Subpart 3--Child Centered Program
``SEC. 1131. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subpart:
``(1) Eligible child.--The term `eligible child' means a
child who--
``(A) is eligible to be counted under section 1124(c); or
``(B)(i) the State or participating local educational
agency elects to serve under this subpart; and
``(ii) is a child eligible to be served under this part
pursuant to section 1115(b).
``(2) Participating local educational agency.--The term
`participating local educational agency' means a local
educational agency that elects under section 1133(b) to carry
out a child centered program under this subpart.
``(3) School.--The term `school' means an institutional day
or residential school that provides elementary or secondary
education, as determined under State law, except that such
term does not include any school that provides education
beyond grade 12.
``(4) Supplemental education services.--The term
`supplemental education services' means educational services
intended--
``(A) to meet the individual educational needs of eligible
children; and
``(B) to enable eligible children to meet challenging State
curriculum, content, and student performance standards.
``(5) Tutorial assistance providers.--The term `tutorial
assistance provider' means a public or private entity that--
``(A) has a record of effectiveness in providing tutorial
assistance to school children; or
``(B) uses instructional practices based on scientific
research.
``SEC. 1132. CHILD CENTERED PROGRAM FUNDING.
``(a) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
each State or participating local educational agency may use
the funds made available under subparts 1 and 2, and shall
use the funds made available under subsection (c), to carry
out a child centered program under this subpart.
``(b) Participating Local Educational Agency Election.--
``(1) In general.--If a State does not carry out a child
centered program under this subpart or does not have an
application approved under section 1134 for a fiscal year, a
local educational agency in the State may elect to carry out
a child centered program under this subpart, and the
Secretary shall provide the funds that the local educational
agency (with an application approved under section 1134) is
eligible to receive under subparts 1 and 2, and subsection
(c), directly to the local educational agency to enable the
local educational agency to carry out the child centered
program.
``(2) Submission approval.--In order to be eligible to
carry out a child centered program under this subpart a
participating local educational agency shall obtain from the
State approval of the submission, but not the contents, of
the application submitted under section 1134.
``(c) Incentive Grants.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under
paragraph (3) for a fiscal year the Secretary shall award
grants to each State, or participating local educational
agency described in subsection (b), that elects to carry out
a child centered program under this subpart and has an
application approved under section 1134, to enable the State
or participating local educational agency to carry out the
child centered program.
``(2) Amount.--Each State or participating local
educational agency that elects to carry out a child centered
program under this subpart and has an application approved
under section 1134 for a fiscal year shall receive a grant in
an amount that bears the same relation to the amount
appropriated under paragraph (3) for the fiscal year as the
amount the State or participating local educational agency
received under subparts 1 and 2 for the fiscal year bears to
the amount all States and participating local educational
agencies carrying out a child centered program under this
subpart received under subparts 1 and 2 for the fiscal year.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this subsection for fiscal year 2000 and each of
the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
``SEC. 1133. CHILD CENTERED PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Uses.--Each State or participating local educational
agency with an application approved under section 1134 shall
use funds made available under subparts 1 and 2, and
subsection (c), to carry out a child centered program under
which--
``(1) the State or participating local educational agency
establishes a per pupil amount based on the number of
eligible children in the State or the school district served
by the participating local educational agency; and
``(2) the State or participating local educational agency
may vary the per pupil amount to take into account factors
that may include--
``(A) variations in the cost of providing supplemental
education services in different parts of the State or the
school district served by the participating local educational
agency;
``(B) the cost of providing services to pupils with
different educational needs; or
``(C) the desirability of placing priority on selected
grades; and
``(3) in the case of a child centered program for eligible
children at a public school, the State or the participating
local educational agency makes available, not later than 3
months after the beginning of the school year, the per pupil
amount determined under paragraphs (1) and (2) to the school
in which an eligible child is enrolled, which per pupil
amount shall be used for supplemental education services for
the eligible child that are--
``(A) subject to subparagraph (B), provided by the school
directly or through a contract for the provision of
supplemental education services with any governmental or
nongovernmental agency, school, postsecondary educational
institution, or other entity, including a private
organization or business; or
``(B) if requested by the parent or legal guardian of an
eligible child, purchased from a tutorial assistance
provider, another public school, or a private school,
selected by the parent or guardian.
``(b) Schoolwide Programs.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a public school in which
50 percent of the students enrolled in the school are
eligible children, the public school may use funds provided
under this subpart, in combination with other Federal, State,
and local funds, to carry out a schoolwide program to upgrade
the entire educational program in the school.
``(2) Plan.--If the public school elects to use funds
provided under this part in accordance with paragraph (1),
and does not have a plan approved by the Secretary under
section 1114(b)(2), the public school shall develop and adopt
a comprehensive plan for reforming the entire educational
program of the public school that--
``(A) incorporates--
``(i) strategies for improving achievement for all children
to meet the State's proficient and advanced levels of
performance described in section 1111(b);
``(ii) instruction by highly qualified staff;
``(iii) professional development for teachers and aides in
content areas in which the teachers or aides provide
instruction and, where appropriate, professional development
for pupil services personnel, parents, and principals, and
other staff to enable all children in the school to meet the
State's student performance standards; and
``(iv) activities to ensure that eligible children who
experience difficulty mastering any of the standards
described in section 1111(b) during the course of the school
year shall be provided with effective, timely additional
assistance;
``(B) describes the school's use of funds provided under
this subpart and from other sources to implement the
activities described in subparagraph (A);
``(C) includes a list of State and local educational agency
programs and other Federal programs that will be included in
the schoolwide program;
``(D) describes how the school will provide individual
student assessment results, including an interpretation of
those results, to the parents of an eligible child who
participates in the assessment; and
``(E) describes how and where the school will obtain
technical assistance services and a description of such
services.
``(3) Special rule.--In the case of a public school
operating a schoolwide program under this subsection, the
Secretary may, through publication of a notice in the Federal
Register, exempt child centered programs under
[[Page S11733]]
this section from statutory or regulatory requirements of any
other noncompetitive formula grant program administered by
the Secretary, or any discretionary grant program
administered by the Secretary (other than formula or
discretionary grant programs under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act), to support the schoolwide
program, if the intent and purposes of such other
noncompetitive or discretionary programs are met.
``(c) Private School Children.--A State or participating
local educational agency carrying out a child centered
program under this subpart for eligible children at a private
school shall ensure that eligible children who are enrolled
in the private school receive supplemental education services
that are comparable to services for eligible children
enrolled in public schools provided under this subpart. The
supplemental education services, including materials and
equipment, shall be secular, neutral, and nonideological.
``(d) Open Enrollment.--
``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to carry out a
child centered program under this subpart a State or
participating local educational agency shall operate a
statewide or school district wide, respectively, open
enrollment program that permits parents to enroll their child
in any public school in the State or school district,
respectively, if space is available in the public school and
the child meets the qualifications for attendance at the
public school.
``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive paragraph (1) for a
State or participating local educational agency if the State
or agency, respectively, demonstrates that parents served by
the State or agency, respectively--
``(A) have sufficient options to enroll their child in
multiple public schools; or
``(B) will have sufficient options to use the per pupil
amount made available under this subpart to purchase
supplemental education services from multiple tutorial
assistance providers or schools.
``(e) Parent Involvement.--
``(1) In general.--Any public school receiving funds under
this subpart shall convene an annual meeting at a convenient
time. All parents of eligible children shall be invited and
encouraged to attend the meeting, in order to explain to the
parents the activities assisted under this subpart and the
requirements of this subpart. At the meeting, the public
school shall explain to parents how the school will use funds
provided under this subpart to enable eligible children
enrolled at the school to meet challenging State curriculum,
content, and student performance standards. In addition, the
public school shall inform parents of their right to choose
to use the per pupil amount described in subsection (a) to
purchase supplemental education services from a tutorial
assistance provider, another public school or a private
school.
``(2) Information.--Any public school receiving funds under
this subpart shall provide to parents a description and
explanation of the curriculum in use at the school, the forms
of assessment used to measure student progress, and the
proficiency levels students are expected to meet.
``SEC. 1134. APPLICATION.
``(a) In General.--Each State or participating local
educational agency desiring to carry out a child centered
program under this subpart shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require. Each such
application shall contain--
``(1) a detailed description of the program to be assisted,
including an assurance that--
``(A) the per pupil amount established under section
1133(a) will follow each eligible child described in that
section to the school or tutorial assistance provider of the
parent or guardian's choice;
``(B) funds made available under this subpart will be spent
in accordance with the requirements of this subpart; and
``(C) parents have the option to use the per pupil amount
to purchase supplemental education services for their
children from a wide variety of tutorial assistance providers
and schools;
``(2) an assurance that the State or participating local
educational agency will publish in a widely read or
distributed medium an annual report card that contains--
``(A) information regarding the academic progress of all
students served by the State or participating local
educational agency in meeting State standards, including
students assisted under this subpart, with results
disaggregated by race, family income, limited English
proficiency, and gender, if such disaggregation can be
performed in a statistically sound manner; and
``(B) such other information as the State or participating
local educational agency may require;
``(3) a description of how the State or participating local
educational agency will make available, to parents of
children participating in the child centered program, annual
school report cards, with results disaggregated by race,
family income, limited English proficiency, and gender, for
schools in the State or in the school district of the
participating local educational agency;
``(4) in the case of an application from a participating
local educational agency, an assurance that the participating
local educational agency has notified the State regarding the
submission of the application;
``(5) a description of specific measurable objectives for
improving the student performance of students served under
this subpart;
``(6) a description of the process by which the State or
participating local educational agency will measure progress
in meeting the objectives;
``(7)(A) in the case of an application from a State, an
assurance that the State meets the requirements of
subsections (a), (b) and (e) of section 1111 as applied to
activities assisted under this subpart; and
``(B) in the case of an application from a participating
local educational agency, an assurance that the State's
application under section 1111 met the requirements of
subsections (a), (b) and (e) of such section; and
``(8) an assurance that each local educational agency
serving a school that receives funds under this subpart will
meet the requirements of subsections (a) and (c) of section
1116 as applied to activities assisted under this subpart.
``SEC. 1135. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
``(a) Program Duration.--A State or participating local
educational agency shall carry out a child centered program
under this subpart for a period of 5 years.
``(b) Administrative Costs.--A State may reserve 2 percent
of the funds made available to the State under this subpart,
and a participating local educational agency may reserve 5
percent of the funds made available to the participating
local educational agency under this subpart, to pay the costs
of administrative expenses of the child centered program. The
costs may include costs of providing technical assistance to
schools receiving funds under this subpart, in order to
increase the opportunity for all students in the schools to
meet the State's content standards and student performance
standards. The technical assistance may be provided directly
by the State educational agency, local educational agency,
or, with a local educational agency's approval, by an
institution of higher education, by a private nonprofit
organization, by an educational service agency, by a
comprehensive regional assistance center under part A of
title XIII, or by another entity with experience in helping
schools improve student achievement.
``(c) Reports.--
``(1) Annual reports.--
``(A) In general.--The State educational agency serving
each State, and each participating local educational agency,
carrying out a child centered program under this subpart
shall submit to the Secretary an annual report, that is
consistent with data provided under section 1134(a)(2)(A),
regarding the performance of eligible children receiving
supplemental education services under this subpart.
``(B) Data.--Not later than 2 years after establishing a
child centered program under this subpart and each year
thereafter, each State or participating local educational
agency shall include in the annual report data on student
achievement for eligible children served under this subpart
with results disaggregated by race, family income, limited
English proficiency, and gender, demonstrating the degree to
which measurable progress has been made toward meeting the
objectives described in section 1134(a)(5).
``(C) Data assurances.--Each annual report shall include--
``(i) an assurance from the managers of the child centered
program that data used to measure student achievement under
subparagraph (B) is reliable, complete, and accurate, as
determined by the State or participating local educational
agency; or
``(ii) a description of a plan for improving the
reliability, completeness, and accuracy of such data as
determined by the State or participating local educational
agency.
``(2) Secretary's report.--The Secretary shall make each
annual report available to Congress, the public, and the
Comptroller General of the United States (for purposes of the
evaluation described in section 1136).
``(d) Termination.--Three years after the date a State or
participating local educational agency establishes a child
centered program under this subpart the Secretary shall
review the performance of the State or participating local
educational agency in meeting the objectives described in
section 1134(a)(5). The Secretary, after providing notice and
an opportunity for a hearing, may terminate the authority of
the State or participating local educational agency to
operate a child centered program under this subpart if the
State or participating local educational agency submitted
data that indicated the State or participating local
educational agency has not made any progress in meeting the
objectives.
``(e) Treatment of Amounts Received.--The per pupil amount
provided under this subpart for an eligible child shall not
be treated as income of the eligible child or the parent of
the eligible child for purposes of Federal tax laws, or for
determining the eligibility for or amount of any other
Federal assistance.
``SEC. 1136. EVALUATION.
``(a) Annual Evaluation.--
``(1) Contract.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall enter into a contract, with an evaluating entity
that has demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations,
for the conduct of an ongoing rigorous evaluation of child
centered programs under this subpart.
``(2) Annual evaluation requirement.--The contract
described in paragraph (1) shall
[[Page S11734]]
require the evaluating entity entering into such contract to
annually evaluate each child centered program under this
subpart in accordance with the evaluation criteria described
in subsection (b).
``(3) Transmission.--The contract described in paragraph
(1) shall require the evaluating entity entering into such
contract to transmit to the Comptroller General of the United
States the findings of each annual evaluation under paragraph
(2).
``(b) Evaluation Criteria.--The Comptroller General of the
United States, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
establish minimum criteria for evaluating the child centered
programs under this subpart. Such criteria shall provide for
a description of--
``(1) the implementation of each child centered program
under this subpart;
``(2) the effects of the programs on the level of parental
participation and satisfaction with the programs; and
``(3) the effects of the programs on the educational
achievement of eligible children participating in the
programs.
``SEC. 1137. REPORTS.
``(a) Reports by Comptroller General.--
``(1) Interim reports.--Three years after the date of
enactment of this subpart the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit an interim report to Congress on
the findings of the annual evaluations under section
1136(a)(2) for each child centered program assisted under
this subpart. The report shall contain a copy of the annual
evaluation under section 1136(a)(2) of each child centered
program under this subpart.
``(2) Final report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a
final report to Congress, not later than March 1, 2006, that
summarizes the findings of the annual evaluations under
section 1136(a)(2).''.
``SEC. 1138. LIMITATION ON CONDITIONS; PREEMPTION.
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed--
``(1) to authorize or permit an officer or employee of the
Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State,
local educational agency, or school's specific instructional
content or student performance standards and assessments,
curriculum, or program of instruction, as a condition of
eligibility to receive funds under this subpart; and
``(2) to preempt any provision of a State constitution or
State statute that pertains to the expenditure of State funds
in or by religious institutions.''.
____________________
All in Senate sectionPrev26 of 53Next