[Pages S5265-S5281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1028. A bill to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts
for injured parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the United
States Constitution, have been deprived by final actions of Federal
agencies, or other government officials or entities acting under color
of State law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

citizens access to justice act of 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the
``Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999,'' or CAJA. More precisely, I
am reintroducing the same bill that was voted out of the Judiciary
Committee last Congress, but was a victim of a filibuster by the left.
Why am I doing this? Some may say that it is fruitless. But even
though Senator Landrieu, other supporters of the bill, and myself, were
unsuccessful last Congress in passing this much needed bill, property
owners of Utah, and, indeed, of all of our States, still feel the heavy
hand of the government erode their right to hold and enjoy private
property. To make matters worse, many of these property owners often
are unable to safeguard their rights because they effectively are
denied access to federal courts. Our bill was designed to rectify this
problem. Let me explain.
In a society based upon the ``rule of law,'' the ability to protect
property and other rights is of paramount importance. Indeed, it was
Chief Justice John Marshall, who in the seminal 1803 case of Marbury v.
Madison, observed that the ``government of the United States has been
emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will cease
to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the
violation of a vested right.''
Despite this core belief of John Marshall and other Founders, the
ability of property owners to vindicate their rights in court today is
being frustrated by localities which sometimes create labyrinths of
administrative hurdles that property owners must jump through before
being able to bring a claim in Federal court to vindicate their federal
constitutional rights. They are also hampered by the overlapping and
confusing jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the federal
district courts over Fifth Amendment property rights claims. CAJA seeks
to remedy these situations.
The purpose of the bill is, therefore, at its root, primarily one of
fostering fundamental fairness and simple justice for the many millions
of Americans who possess or own property. Many citizens who attempt to
protect their property rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution are barred from the doors of the federal courthouse.
In situations where other than Fifth Amendment property rights are
sought to be enforced--such as First Amendment rights, for example--
aggrieved parties generally file in a single federal forum to obtain
the full range of remedies available to litigants to make them whole.
In property rights cases, property owners may have to file in different
courts for different types of remedies. This is expensive and wasteful.
Moreover, unlike situations where other constitutional rights are
sought to be enforced, property owners seeking to enforce their Fifth
Amendment rights must first exhaust all state remedies with the result
that they may have to wait for over a decade before their rights are
allowed to be vindicated in federal court--if they get there at all.
CAJA addresses this problem of providing property owners fair access to
federal courts to vindicate their federal constitutional rights.
Let me be more specific. The bill has two main provisions to
accomplish this end. The first is to provide private property owners
claiming a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause some
certainty as to when they may file the claim in federal court. This is
accomplished by addressing the procedural hurdles of the ripeness and
abstention doctrines which currently prevent them from having fair and
equal access to federal court. The bill defines when a final agency
decision has occurred for purposes of meeting the ripeness requirement
and prohibits a federal judge from abstaining from or relinquishing
jurisdiction when the case does not allege any violation of a state
law, right, or privilege. Thus, the bill serves as a vehicle for
overcoming federal judicial reluctance to review takings claims based
on the ripeness and abstention doctrines.
The second provision clarifies the jurisdiction between the Court of
Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., and the regional federal district
courts over federal Fifth Amendment takings claims. The ``Tucker Act,''
which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States by granting
the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain monetary claims
against the United States, actually complicates the ability of a
property owner to vindicate the right to just compensation for a
government action that has caused a taking. The law currently forces a
property owner to elect between equitable relief in the federal
district court and monetary relief in the Court of Federal Claims.
Further difficulty arises when the law is used by the government to
urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that the plaintiff
should seek just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, and is
used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on the ground
that plaintiff should first seek equitable relief in the district
court.
This division between law and equity is archaic and results in
burdensome delays as property owners who seek both types of relief are
``shuffled'' from one court to the other to determine which court is
the proper forum for review. The bill resolves this matter by simply
giving both courts concurrent jurisdiction over takings claims, thus
allowing both legal and equitable relief to be granted in a single
forum.
I must emphasize that the bill does not create any substantive
rights. The definition of property, as well as what constitutes a
taking under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, is
left to the courts to define. The bill would not change existing case
law's ad hoc, case-by-case definition of regulatory takings. Instead,
it would provide a procedural fix to the litigation muddle that delays
and increases the cost of litigating a Fifth Amendment taking case. All
the bill does is to provide for fair procedures to allow property
owners the means to safeguard their rights by having their day in
court.
Mr. President, I am very well aware that this bill has been opposed
by the

[[Page S5266]]

Department of Justice, many localities, some interstate governmental
associations, and certain environmental groups. I believe that there
concerns that the bill would hinder local prerogatives and
significantly increase the amount of federal litigation are highly
overstated. The bill is carefully drafted to ensure that aggrieved
property owners must first seek solutions on the local or state level
before filing a federal claim. It just sets a limit on how many
procedures localities may interpose.

Moreover, I seriously doubt that there will be a rush of new
litigation, as some have contended, flooding federal courts. That there
will be no significant increase was the conclusion of the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office in its study of last year's bill.
It is extremely difficult to prove a takings claim, and this bill
does not in any way redefine what constitutes a taking. These claims
are also expensive to bring. Paradoxically, localities' need to defend
federal actions may be lessened by the bill because localities already
must litigate property rights claims on federal ripeness grounds, which
take years to resolve.
Let me restate this. By providing certainty on the ripeness issue,
the bill may very well reduce litigation costs to localities.
Substantive takings claims, unless they are likely to prevail on the
merits, are simply too hard to prove and too expensive to bring in
federal court. And the issue of ripeness will have been removed by the
bill from the already crowded court dockets.
Mr. President, it is interesting to note that once many state
officials, localities, and state and trade organizations really examine
the measure, many become the bill's supporters. Those supporting the
bill and increased vigilance in the property rights arena include the
Governors of Tennessee, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and North Dakota.
They also include the American Legislative Exchange Council, which
represents over 3000 state legislators, and trade groups such as
America's Community Bankers, the National Mortgage Association of
America, the National Association of Home Builders, the National
Association of Realtors, and the National Federation of Independent
Businesses, the organ of small business in the United States. They also
include agricultural interests such as the American Farm Bureau, the
American Forest and Paper Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, and the National Grange.
Just as important, let me point out that 133 House sponsors of the
last year's House passed bill were former state and local
officeholders. I do not believe that they would have voted for the bill
if the bill would conflict with local sovereignty.
Mr. President, we have bent over backwards trying to accommodate
those expressing concerns about the bill which passed out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee last year. We met with city mayors, representatives
of local governmental organizations, attorneys generals, and religious
groups, to name just a few.
We held group meetings and asked for suggestions and changes to the
bill which would alleviate opposition and concerns. These changes are
incorporated in the present bill. These changes by and large alleviate
municipalities' concerns that the bill would become a vehicle for
frivolous and novel suits. They remove any incentive the bill may have
for property owners to file specious suits against localities. They
foster negotiations to resolve problems. And, they recognize the right
of the states and localities to abate nuisances without having to pay
compensation.
But I am under no illusion. I understand that many localities still
oppose the bill. The process that we so fruitfully began last year
should be continued. It is my hope that groups supporting property
rights and those localities and governmental entities that oppose the
bill should meet as soon as practicable. Let each side discuss their
problems and concerns. I believe--in the best tradition of American
pragmatic know how--that a solution to this problem can be worked out.
The bill I introduce today is a model. But it is a model that can be
improved. I assure all those concerned that we will consider all
reasonable suggested changes to the bill. After all, it is not pride of
authorship that is important. What is important, instead, is a viable
solution to a vexing and unfair problem.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the
bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1028

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 ``Citizens Access to Justice
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) property rights have been abrogated by the application
of laws, regulations, and other actions by all levels of
government that adversely affect the value and the ability to
make reasonable use of private property;
(2) certain provisions of sections 1346 and 1402 and
chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as
the Tucker Act), that delineate the jurisdiction of courts
hearing property rights claims, frustrate the ability of a
property owner to obtain full relief for violation founded
upon the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States
Constitution;
(3) current law--
(A) has no sound basis for splitting jurisdiction between
two courts in cases where constitutionally protected property
rights are at stake;
(B) adds to the complexity and cost of takings and
litigation, adversely affecting taxpayers and property
owners;
(C) forces a property owner, who seeks just compensation
from the Federal Government, to elect between equitable
relief in the district court and monetary relief (the value
of the property taken) in the United States Court of Federal
Claims;
(D) is used to urge dismissal in the district court in
complaints against the Federal Government, on the ground that
the plaintiff should seek just compensation in the Court of
Federal Claims;
(E) is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal
Claims in complaints against the Federal Government, on the
ground that the plaintiff should seek equitable relief in
district court; and
(F) forces a property owner to first pay to litigate an
action in a State court, before a Federal judge can decide
whether local government has denied property rights
safeguarded by the United States Constitution;
(4) property owners cannot fully vindicate property rights
in one lawsuit and their claims may be time barred in a
subsequent action;
(5) property owners should be able to fully recover for a
taking of their private property in one court;
(6) certain provisions of section 1346 and 1402 and chapter
91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the
Tucker Act) should be amended, giving both the district
courts of the United States and the Court of Federal Claims
jurisdiction to hear all claims relating to property rights
in complaints against the Federal Government;
(7) section 1500 of title 28, United States Code, which
denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain
a suit which is pending in another court and made by the same
plaintiff, should be repealed;
(8) Federal and local authorities, through complex, costly,
repetitive and unconstitutional permitting, variance, and
licensing procedures, have denied property owners their fifth
and fourteenth amendment rights under the United States
Constitution to the use, enjoyment, and disposition of, and
exclusion of others from, their property, and to safeguard
those rights, there is a need to determine what constitutes a
final decision of an agency in order to allow claimants the
ability to protect their property rights in a court of law;
(9) a Federal judge should decide the merits of cases where
a property owner seeks redress solely for infringements of
rights safeguarded by the United States Constitution, and
where no claim of a violation of State law is alleged; and
(10) certain provisions of sections 1343, 1346, and 1491 of
title 28, United States Code, should be amended to clarify
when a claim for redress of constitutionally protected
property rights is sufficiently ripe so a Federal judge may
decide the merits of the allegations.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) establish a clear, uniform, and efficient judicial
process whereby aggrieved property owners can obtain
vindication of property rights guaranteed by the fifth and
fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and
this Act;
(2) amend the Tucker Act, including the repeal of section
1500 of title 28, United States Code;
(3) rectify the unduly onerous and expensive requirement
that an owner of real property, seeking redress under section
1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C.
1983) for the infringement of property rights protected by
the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States
Constitution, is required to first litigate Federal
constitutional issues in a State court before obtaining
access to the Federal courts;

[[Page S5267]]

(4) provide for uniformity in the application of the
ripeness doctrine in cases where constitutional rights to use
and enjoy real property are allegedly infringed, by providing
that a final agency decision may be adjudicated by a Federal
court on the merits after--
(A) the pertinent government body denies a meaningful
application to develop the land in question; and
(B)(i) the property owner seeks available waivers and
administrative appeals from such denial; and
(ii) such waiver or appeal is not approved; and
(5) confirm the proper role of a State or territory to
prevent land uses that are a nuisance under applicable law.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the term--
(1) ``agency action'' means any action, inaction, or
decision taken by a Federal agency or other government agency
that at the time of such action, inaction, or decision
adversely affects private property rights;
(2) ``district court''--
(A) means a district court of the United States with
appropriate jurisdiction; and
(B) includes the United States District Court of Guam, the
United States District Court of the Virgin Islands, or the
District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands;
(3) ``Federal agency'' means a department, agency,
independent agency, or instrumentality of the United States,
including any military department, Government corporation,
Government-controlled corporation, or other establishment in
the executive branch of the United States Government;
(4) ``owner'' means the owner or possessor of property or
rights in property at the time the taking occurs, including
when--
(A) the statute, regulation, rule, order, guideline,
policy, or action is passed or promulgated; or
(B) the permit, license, authorization, or governmental
permission is denied or suspended;
(5) ``private property'' or ``property'' means all
interests constituting property, as defined by Federal or
State law, protected under the fifth and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution; and
(6) ``taking of private property'', ``taking'', or ``take''
means any action whereby restricting the ownership,
alienability, possession, or use of private property is an
object of that action and is taken so as to require
compensation under the fifth amendment to the United States
Constitution, including by physical invasion, regulation,
exaction, condition, or other means.

SEC. 5. PRIVATE PROPERTY ACTIONS.

(a) In General.--An owner may file a civil action under
this section to challenge the validity of any Federal agency
action as a violation of the fifth amendment to the United
States Constitution in a district court or the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
(b) Concurrent Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and notwithstanding the issues involved, the
relief sought, or the amount in controversy, the district
court and the United States Court of Federal Claims shall
each have concurrent jurisdiction over both claims for
monetary relief and claims seeking invalidation of any Act of
Congress or any regulation of a Federal agency affecting
private property rights.
(c) Election.--The plaintiff may elect to file an action
under this section in a district court or the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
(d) Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--This section constitutes
express waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States
with respect to an action filed under this section.
(e) Appeals.--The United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any
action filed under this section, regardless of whether the
jurisdiction of such action is based in whole or part under
this section.
(f) Statute of Limitations.--The statute of limitations for
any action filed under this section shall be 6 years after
the date of the taking of private property.
(g) Attorneys' Fees and Costs.--In issuing any final order
in any action filed under this section, the court may award
costs of litigation (including reasonable attorneys' fees) to
any prevailing plaintiff.

SEC. 6. JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
AND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

(a) United States Court of Federal Claims.--
(1) Jurisdiction.--Section 1491(a) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1) by amending the first sentence to read
as follows: ``The United States Court of Federal Claims shall
have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against
the United States for monetary relief founded either upon the
Constitution or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an
executive department or upon any express or implied contract
with the United States, in cases not sounding in tort, or for
invalidation of any Act of Congress or any regulation of an
executive department under section 5 of the Citizens Access
to Justice Act of 1999.'';
(B) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the first sentence
the following: ``In any case within its jurisdiction, the
Court of Federal Claims shall have the power to grant
injunctive and declaratory relief when appropriate.''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) In cases otherwise within its jurisdiction, the Court
of Federal Claims shall also have supplemental jurisdiction,
concurrent with the courts designated under section 1346(b),
to render judgment upon any related tort claim authorized
under section 2674.
``(4) In proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court
of Federal Claims which constitute judicial review of agency
action (rather than de novo proceedings), the provisions of
section 706 of title 5 shall apply.
``(5)(A) Any claim brought under this subsection to redress
the deprivation of a right or privilege to use and enjoy real
property as secured by the Constitution, shall be ripe for
adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United
States, that causes actual and concrete injury to the party
seeking redress.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, a final decision
exists if--
``(i) the United States makes a definitive decision
regarding the extent of permissible uses on real property
that has been allegedly infringed or taken; and
``(ii) one meaningful application as defined by applicable
law to use the property has been submitted but has not been
approved within a reasonable time, and the party seeking
redress has applied for one appeal and one waiver which has
not been approved within a reasonable time, where the
applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism for
appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency.
``(C)(i) The party seeking redress shall not be required to
submit any application or apply for any appeal or waiver
required under this section, if the district court determines
that such action would be futile.
``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `futile' means the
inability of an owner of real property to seek or obtain
approvals to use such real property, and the hardship endured
by such inability, as defined under applicable land use,
zoning, and planning law.
``(D) Nothing in this paragraph alters the substantive law
of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne
by the plaintiff.''.
(2) Pendency of claims in other courts.--
(A) In general.--Section 1500 of title 28, United States
Code is repealed.
(B) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking out the item relating to section 1500.
(b) District Court Jurisdiction.--
(1) Citizen access to justice action.--Section 1346(a) of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after
paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Any civil action filed under section 5 of the
Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999.''.
(2) United states as defendant.--Section 1346 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h)(1) Any claim brought under subsection (a) to redress
the deprivation of a right or privilege to use and enjoy real
property as secured by the Constitution shall be ripe for
adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United
States, that causes actual and concrete injury to the party
seeking redress.
``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision
exists if--
``(i) the United States makes a definitive decision
regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that
has been allegedly infringed or taken; and
``(ii) one meaningful application as defined by applicable
law to use the property has been submitted but has not been
approved within a reasonable time, and the party seeking
redress has applied for one appeal and one waiver which has
not been approved within a reasonable time, where the
applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism for
appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency.
``(B)(i) The party seeking redress shall not be required to
submit any application or apply for any appeal or waiver
required under this section, if the district court determines
that such action would be futile.
``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `futile' means the
inability of an owner of real property to seek or obtain
approvals to use such real property, and the hardship endured
by such inability, as defined under applicable land use,
zoning, and planning law.
``(3) Nothing in this subsection alters the substantive law
of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne
by the plaintiff.''.
(c) District Court Civil Rights Jurisdiction; Abstention.--
Section 1343 of title 28, United States Code, is amending by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Whenever a district court exercises jurisdiction
under subsection (a), the court shall not abstain from or
relinquish jurisdiction to a State court in an action if--
``(1) no claim of a violation of a State law or privilege
is alleged; and
``(2) a parallel proceeding in State court arising out of
the same core of operative facts as the district court
proceeding is not pending.
``(d) A district court that exercises jurisdiction under
subsection (a) in an action in which the operative facts
concern the uses of real property may abstain where the party
seeking redress--
``(1) has not submitted a meaningful application, as
defined by applicable law, to use such real property; and
``(2) challenges whether an action of the applicable
locality exceeds the authority

[[Page S5268]]

conferred upon the locality under the applicable zoning or
planning enabling statute of the State or territory.
``(e)(1) Where the district court has jurisdiction over an
action under subsection (a) in which the operative facts
concern the uses of real property and which cannot be decided
without resolution of an unsettled question of State law, the
district court may certify the question of State law to the
highest appellate court of that State. After the State
appellate court resolves the question certified to it, the
district court shall proceed with resolving the merits.
``(2) In making a decision whether to certify a question of
State law under this subsection, the district court may
consider whether the question of State law--
``(A) will significantly affect the merits of the injured
party's Federal claim; and
``(B) is patently unclear.
``(f)(1) Any claim or action brought under section 1979 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) to
redress the deprivation of a right or privilege to use and
enjoy real property as secured by the Constitution shall be
ripe for adjudication by the district courts upon a final
decision rendered by any person acting under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
State or territory of the United States, that causes actual
and concrete injury to the party seeking redress.
``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision
exists if--
``(i) any person acting under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
territory of the United States, makes a definitive decision
regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that
has been allegedly infringed or taken;
``(ii)(I) one meaningful application, as defined by
applicable law to use the property has been submitted but has
not been approved within a reasonable time, and the party
seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver which
has not been approved within a reasonable time, where the
applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or usage provides a
mechanism for appeal to or waiver by an administrative
agency; or
``(II) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable
law, to use the property has been submitted but has not been
approved within a reasonable time, and the disapproval at a
minimum specifies in writing the range of use, density, or
intensity of development of the property that would be
approved, with any conditions therefor, and the party seeking
redress has resubmitted another meaningful application taking
into account the terms of the disapproval, except that--
``(aa) if no such reapplication is submitted, then a final
decision shall not have been reached for purposes of this
subsection, except as provided in subparagraph (B); and
``(bb) if the reapplication is not approved within a
reasonable time, or if the reapplication is not required
under subparagraph (B), then a final decision exists for
purposes of this subsection if the party seeking redress has
applied for one appeal or waiver with respect to the
disapproval, which has not been approved within a reasonable
time, where the applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or
usage provides a mechanism of appeal or waiver by an
administrative agency; and
``(iii) in a case involving the uses of real property,
where the applicable statute or ordinance provides for review
of the case by elected officials, the party seeking redress
has applied for but is denied such review.
``(B)(i) The party seeking redress shall not be required to
submit any application or reapplication, or apply for any
appeal or waiver as required under this subsection, upon
determination by the district court that such action would be
futile.
``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `futile' means the
inability of an owner of real property to seek or obtain
approvals to use such real property, and the hardship endured
by such inability, as defined under applicable land use,
zoning, and planning law.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision
shall not require the party seeking redress to exhaust
judicial remedies provided by any State or territory of the
United States.
``(g) Nothing in subsection (c), (d), (e), or (f) alters
the substantive law of takings of property, including the
burden of proof borne by the plaintiff.''.

SEC. 7. ATTORNEYS FEES FOR LOCALITIES.

Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``In any action'' and inserting ``(1)
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in any action''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) In an action arising under section 1979 of the
Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983), where the taking of real
property is alleged, a district court, in its discretion, may
hold the party seeking redress liable for a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs where the takings claim is not
substantially justified, unless special circumstances make an
award of such fees unjust. Whether or not the position of the
party seeking redress was substantially justified shall be
determined on the basis of any administrative and judicial
record, as a whole, which is made in the district court
adjudication for which fees and other expenses are sought.
``(3) In an action arising under section 1979 of the
Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) where the taking of real
property is alleged, the district court shall decide any
motion to dismiss such claim on an expedited basis. Where
such a motion is granted and the takings claim is dismissed
with prejudice, the non-moving party may be liable for a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs at the discretion of the
district court, unless special circumstances make an award of
such fees unjust.''.

SEC. 8. DUTY OF NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS.

Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Every person''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) A party seeking redress under this section for a
taking of real property without the payment of compensation
shall not commence an action in district court before 60 days
after the date on which written notice has been given to any
potential defendant.''.

SEC. 9. DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS.

Whenever a Federal agency takes an agency action limiting
the use of private property that may be affected by this Act
(including the amendments made by this Act), the agency shall
give notice to the owners of that property explaining their
rights under this Act and the procedures for obtaining any
compensation that may be due to them under this Act.

SEC. 10. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with
the authority of any State to create additional property
rights.

SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act and shall apply to any agency action that occurs on or
after such date.
______

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)
S. 1029. A bill to amend title III of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to provide for digital education partnerships; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

digital education act of 1999

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Digital
Education Act, a bill to amend title III of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, joins me in introducing this
legislation to address some critical technology issues and the role of
public broadcasting in education.
This bill expands Ready to Learn, a program of combined successful
efforts in early childhood education. It expands MATHLINE, a proven
model of teacher professional development, and it supports production
of new digital educational material. The Digital Education Act includes
innovative applications of progressive technology to promote the best
practices in teaching and bring up to date information to classrooms
throughout the country.
The Federal Government, State departments of education, local
community businesses, and public television stations have made major
investments in educational technology in recent years. These
investments have focused on network infrastructure and computer
hardware. It is time to invest in instructional resources that will
make these new networks relevant and ensure that students and teachers
are prepared to benefit fully from the new technology.
The Ready To Learn Television program, first authorized in 1994, has
made a unique contribution to ensure that American children start
school ``ready to learn.'' The program has funded an unprecedented
blending of services, including quality children's educational
television programming broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service,
and a variety of outreach services for parents, teachers and other care
givers.
Ready to Learn outreach programs have had tremendous success. Local
public television stations that subscribe to Ready to Learn provide
training and other services to parents and care givers of
preschoolchildren. Ready to Learn has grown from 10 public television
stations to 130, reaching approximately 94 percent of the country. Each
month Ready to Learn distributes over 35,000 books to children and over
900,000 copies of a custom parent/care giver magazine, specifically
designed to integrate programming with reading. Ready to Learn is
providing the opportunities for children and parents to build that
foundation for success. Over 330,000 parents and child care
professionals have been trained in using television to encourage
reading. Using Ready to Learn techniques, these adults have nurtured
the reading of 4,331,829 children.
The Mississippi Educational Network in my home State, targets
outreach services to high poverty populations who are particularly
disadvantaged.

[[Page S5269]]

The services include basic lessons in parenting, developmental
benchmarks, health and nutrition, nurturing literacy in the home, and
using the television programs children watch most to reinforce the
lessons.
The families in these communities often have no reading material in
their house. The first book given to a child by Mississippi Ready to
Learn is quite likely to be the first book the child has ever owned.
And, while Ready to Learn is designed for prekindergarten children,
these families may have older children who may be equally in need. The
local design of Ready to Learn allows the Mississippi director,
Cassandra Washington, to tailor her workshops and even have a few older
child books on hand for these families. Ms. Washington has been very
resourceful in her outreach, finding non-traditional places for
education, such as the Women Infants and Children Distribution Centers
throughout Mississippi where families in need come regularly.
The International Reading Association stated recently, ``By the time
children are exposed to beginning reading instruction in kindergarten
and first grade, they should have a foundation that assures them early
success. Recent studies indicate just how critical those positive early
experiences are to cognitive development and lifelong reading.''
Congressionally authorized and Federally funded research at the
National Institutes of Health found that when parents read to their
young children, it literally stimulates the brain development of the
children. A recent University of Alabama study found that Ready to
Learn families: watch 40 percent less television, watch more education-
oriented programming, read more often with their children, read longer
at each sitting, read for more educational and informational purposes,
and took their children to libraries and bookstores more often than
others.
Using the best research tested information available, Ready To Learn
has driven the development of two major, commercial-free broadcast
series for young children. The first, ``Dragon Tales,'' will begin
airing this fall and will be integrated with carefully designed home
and school resources to develop reading skills in young children.
The Digital Education Act will build on the early successes of Ready
to Learn. It will authorize funding to increase station grants, produce
new outreach and training activities, and generate more services for
parents and care givers, so that more children start school truly ready
to learn.
The Digital Education Act provides for the demonstration of early
childhood education digital applications with public television
stations that are technologically ready. Currently, there are digital
broadcast public television stations in Mississippi, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington.
These stations can transmit several programming services
simultaneously. New applications include a dedicated channel for early
childhood education and transmission of Internet accessible
supplementary information text and video.
Today, children's programs produced by PBS and individual public
broadcasting stations are among the television shows most watched by
children and most used in classrooms. Many teachers and parents credit
these programs for stimulating curiosity, educating, and encouraging
continued learning through reading and other resources. The increased
funding authorized in this bill will continue the investment of Ready
to Learn resources in producing commercial-free children's programming
of the highest educational quality.
Thirty years ago, Federal funding seeded the creation of Sesame
Street. This carved out a meaningful place for educational children's
programming as analog public television developed. The Digital
Education Act stakes a new claim in the technological frontier for
children and educational broadcasting and will ensure that this
reinvention of television includes a major education component for
children from the beginning.
The second element of the Digital Education Act concerns teacher
professional development. In 1994, Congress authorized the
``Telecommunications Demonstration Project for Mathematics,'' which has
supported a project called MATHLINE. Through MATHLINE, PBS has
pioneered a new model of teacher professional development, utilizing a
blend of technologies, including online communications and video, to
provide quality resources and services to teachers of mathematics.
Through public and private funding, PBS MATHLINE developed The
Elementary School Math Project for teachers, grades K-5; The Middle
School Math Project for teachers, grades 5-8; The High School Math
Project: Focus on Algebra for teachers, grades 7-12; and The Algebraic
Thinking Math Project for teachers, grades 3-8.
Over 5,000 math teachers in 40 States and the District of Columbia
have participated in MATHLINE. These innovative teaching techniques
have taught more than 1.3 million students.
Three separate external evaluators have certified that MATHLINE is
making a positive impact on the way teachers teach. For example, an
evaluation of the Middle School Math Project by Rockman, et al. found,
``The impact of PBS MATHLINE is clear. It has influenced how teachers
see themselves and helped them create a powerful and enriching
mathematics environment in their classrooms * * * The gap between
belief and performance is narrowing * * * The combination of viewing,
communicating, and doing seems to have resulted in substantive changes
in teaching.''
The International Reading Association stated in February, ``The most
effective professional development programs are those planned by
teachers themselves, based on their assessments of their needs as
educators and their students' needs as learners.'' MATHLINE does just
that. It is real teachers, teaching real students, and passing success
on to more teachers. The MATHLINE demonstration has worked.
Our legislation would authorize the New Century Program for
Distributed Teacher Professional Development. Under this new program,
the successful MATHLINE model will expand to other core curriculum
areas, such as literature, science and social studies. It will also
connect the digitized public broadcasting infrastructure with digital
education networks at schools, colleges and universities throughout the
nation. Nearly every teacher in the United States will have access to
the New Century Program.
The third element of our legislation would authorize the Digital
Education Content Collaborative. As a nation, we have made tremendous
progress in the last decade bringing our schools from the 19th Century
to 21st Century technologically. However, there is still one major
element that needs to be in place to make it all work. That is world-
class educational content that rivals video games for students'
attention, is tied to state standards, which teachers seamlessly
integrate into daily learning activities.
Programs distributed by public broadcast stations are used by more
classroom teachers than any other because of their high quality and
relevance to the curriculum. A survey commissioned by the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting in 1997, found that 92 percent of teachers use
videos to improve their lessons and public broadcasting programs were
the highest rated. However, single channel analog distribution limited
station services to a few hours per day of linear video broadcasts.
Digital broadcasting will dramatically increase and improve the types
of services local public broadcasting stations can offer schools. One
of the most exciting is the ability to broadcast multiple video
channels and data information simultaneously. A vast library of
instructional video materials could be distributed on full time,
continuous channels and it could be available on demand, when teachers
and students need it. Digitally produced programs will allow local
stations broadcast flexibility and new interactive content that matches
state standards and fits local curriculums.
As Members of the United States Senate, working to reauthorize the
programs our elementary and secondary schools depend upon, we are also
looking for successful models that lead to true educational reform and
improvement.

[[Page S5270]]

The Digital Education Act takes the best of educational technology
programing; improves those proven to work; and places renewed
confidence in education's most trusted and successful content
development partners.
Mr. President, I am proud to be associated with the public
broadcasting community, and I am proud of their commitment to our
earliest learners. I hope more Senators will join us in supporting this
important education legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1029

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 ``Digital Education Act of
1999''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF PART C OF TITLE III.

Part C of title III of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) is amended to
read as follows:

``PART C--READY-TO-LEARN DIGITAL TELEVISION

``SEC. 3301. FINDINGS.

``Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) In 1994, Congress and the Department collaborated to
make a long-term, meaningful and public investment in the
principle that high-quality preschool television programming
will help children be ready to learn by the time the children
entered first grade.
``(2) The Ready to Learn Television Program through the
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and local public television
stations has proven to be an extremely cost-effective
national response to improving early childhood development
and helping parents, caregivers, and professional child care
providers learn how to use television as a means to help
children learn, develop, and play creatively.
``(3) Independent research shows that parents who
participate in Ready to Learn workshops are more critical
consumers of television and their children are more active
viewers. A University of Alabama study showed that parents
who had attended a Ready to Learn workshop read more books
and stories to their children and read more minutes each time
than nonattendees. The parents did more hands-on activities
related to reading with their children. The parents engaged
in more word activities and for more minutes each time. The
parents read less for entertainment and more for education.
The parents took their children to libraries and bookstores
more than nonattendees. For parents, participating in a Ready
to Learn workshop increases their awareness of and interest
in educational dimensions of television programming and is
instrumental in having their children gain exposure to more
educational programming. Moreover, 6 months after
participating in Ready to Learn workshops, parents who
attended generally had set rules for television viewing by
their children. These rules related to the amount of time the
children were allowed to watch television daily, the hours
the children were allowed to watch television, and the tasks
or chores the children must have accomplished before the
children were allowed to watch television.
``(4) The Ready to Learn (RTL) Television Program is
supporting and creating commercial-free broadcast programs
for young children that are of the highest possible
educational quality. Program funding has also been used to
create hundreds of valuable interstitial program elements
that appear between national and local public television
programs to provide developmentally appropriate messages to
children and caregiving advice to parents.
``(5) Through the Nation's 350 local public television
stations, these programs and programming elements reach tens
of millions of children, their parents, and caregivers
without regard to their economic circumstances, location, or
access to cable. In this way, public television is a partner
with Federal policy to make television an instrument, not an
enemy, of preschool children's education and early
development.
``(6) The Ready to Learn Television Program extends beyond
the television screen. Funds from the Ready to Learn
Television Program have funded thousands of local workshops
organized and run by local public television stations, almost
always in association with local child care training agencies
or early childhood development professionals, to help child
care professionals and parents learn more about how to use
television effectively as a developmental tool. These
workshops have trained more than 320,000 parents and
professionals who, in turn, serve and support over 4,000,000
children across the Nation.
``(7)(A) The Ready to Learn Television Program has
published and distributed millions of copies of a quarterly
magazine entitled `PBS Families' that contains--
``(i) developmentally appropriate games and activities
based on Ready to Learn Television programming;
``(ii) parenting advice;
``(iii) news about regional and national activities related
to early childhood development; and
``(iv) information about upcoming Ready to Learn Television
activities and programs.
``(B) The magazine described in subparagraph (A) is
published 4 times a year and distributed free of charge by
local public television stations in English and in Spanish
(PBS para la familia).
``(8) Because reading and literacy are central to the ready
to learn principle Ready to Learn Television stations also
have received and distributed millions of free age-
appropriate books in their communities as part of the Ready
to Learn Television Program. Each station receives a minimum
of 200 books each month for free local distribution. Some
stations are now distributing more than 1,000 books per
month. Nationwide, more than 300,000 books are distributed
each year in low-income and disadvantaged neighborhoods free
of charge.
``(9) In 1998, the Public Broadcasting Service, in
association with local colleges and local public television
stations, as well as the Annenberg Corporation for Public
Broadcasting Project housed at the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, began a pilot program to test the formal
awarding of a Certificate in Early Childhood Development
through distance learning. The pilot is based on the local
distribution of a 13-part video courseware series developed
by Annenberg Corporation for Public Broadcasting and WTVS
Detroit entitled `The Whole Child'. Louisiana Public
Broadcasting, Kentucky Educational Television, Maine Public
Broadcasting, and WLJT Martin, Tennessee, working with local
and State regulatory agencies in the childcare field, have
participated in the pilot program with a high level of
success. The certificate program is ready for nationwide
application using the Public Broadcasting Service's Adult
Learning Service.
``(10) Demand for Ready To Learn Television Program
outreach and training has increased dramatically, with the
base of participating Public Broadcasting Service member
stations growing from a pilot of 10 stations to nearly 130
stations in 5 years.
``(11) Federal policy played a crucial role in the
evolution of analog television by funding the television
program entitled `Sesame Street' in the 1960's. Federal
policy should continue to play an equally crucial role for
children in the digital television age.

``SEC. 3302. READY-TO-LEARN.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants to or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements
with eligible entities described in section 3303(b) to
develop, produce, and distribute educational and
instructional video programming for preschool and elementary
school children and their parents in order to facilitate the
achievement of the National Education Goals.
``(b) Availability.--In making such grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements, the Secretary shall ensure that
eligible entities make programming widely available, with
support materials as appropriate, to young children, their
parents, childcare workers, and Head Start providers to
increase the effective use of such programming.

``SEC. 3303. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING.

``(a) Awards.--The Secretary shall award grants, contracts,
or cooperative agreements under section 3302 to eligible
entities to--
``(1) facilitate the development directly, or through
contracts with producers of children and family educational
television programming, of--
``(A) educational programming for preschool and elementary
school children; and
``(B) accompanying support materials and services that
promote the effective use of such programming;
``(2) facilitate the development of programming and digital
content especially designed for nationwide distribution over
public television stations' digital broadcasting channels and
the Internet, containing Ready to Learn-based children's
programming and resources for parents and caregivers; and
``(3) enable eligible entities to contract with entities
(such as public telecommunications entities and those funded
under the Star Schools Act) so that programs developed under
this section are disseminated and distributed--
(A) to the widest possible audience appropriate to be
served by the programming; and
(B) by the most appropriate distribution technologies.
``(b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under subsection
(a), an entity shall be--
``(1) a public telecommunications entity that is able to
demonstrate a capacity for the development and national
distribution of educational and instructional television
programming of high quality for preschool and elementary
school children; and
``(2) able to demonstrate a capacity to contract with the
producers of children's television programming for the
purpose of developing educational television programming of
high quality for preschool and elementary school children.
``(c) Cultural Experiences.--Programming developed under
this section shall reflect the recognition of diverse
cultural experiences and the needs and experiences of both
boys and girls in engaging and preparing young children for
schooling.

``SEC. 3304. DUTIES OF SECRETARY.

``The Secretary is authorized--
``(1) to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements
to eligible entities described

[[Page S5271]]

in section 3303(b), local public television stations, or such
public television stations that are part of a consortium with
1 or more State educational agencies, local educational
agencies, local schools, institutions of higher education, or
community-based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness,
for the purpose of--
``(A) addressing the learning needs of young children in
limited English proficient households, and developing
appropriate educational and instructional television
programming to foster the school readiness of such children;
``(B) developing programming and support materials to
increase family literacy skills among parents to assist
parents in teaching their children and utilizing educational
television programming to promote school readiness; and
``(C) identifying, supporting, and enhancing the effective
use and outreach of innovative programs that promote school
readiness; and
``(D) developing and disseminating training materials,
including--
``(i) interactive programs and programs adaptable to
distance learning technologies that are designed to enhance
knowledge of children's social and cognitive skill
development and positive adult-child interactions; and
``(ii) support materials to promote the effective use of
materials developed under subparagraph (B) among parents,
Head Start providers, in-home and center-based daycare
providers, early childhood development personnel, elementary
school teachers, public libraries, and after- school program
personnel caring for preschool and elementary school
children;
``(2) to establish within the Department a clearinghouse to
compile and provide information, referrals, and model program
materials and programming obtained or developed under this
part to parents, child care providers, and other appropriate
individuals or entities to assist such individuals and
entities in accessing programs and projects under this part;
and
``(3) to coordinate activities assisted under this part
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services in order to--
``(A) maximize the utilization of quality educational
programming by preschool and elementary school children, and
make such programming widely available to federally funded
programs serving such populations; and
``(B) provide information to recipients of funds under
Federal programs that have major training components for
early childhood development, including programs under the
Head Start Act and Even Start, and State training activities
funded under the Child Care Development Block Grant Act of
1990, regarding the availability and utilization of materials
developed under paragraph (1)(D) to enhance parent and child
care provider skills in early childhood development and
education.

``SEC. 3305. APPLICATIONS.

``Each entity desiring a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement under section 3302 or 3304 shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.

``SEC. 3306. REPORTS AND EVALUATION.

``(a) Annual Report to Secretary.--An eligible entity
receiving funds under section 3302 shall prepare and submit
to the Secretary an annual report which contains such
information as the Secretary may require. At a minimum, the
report shall describe the program activities undertaken with
funds received under section 3302, including--
``(1) the programming that has been developed directly or
indirectly by the eligible entity, and the target population
of the programs developed;
``(2) the support materials that have been developed to
accompany the programming, and the method by which such
materials are distributed to consumers and users of the
programming;
``(3) the means by which programming developed under this
section has been distributed, including the distance learning
technologies that have been utilized to make programming
available and the geographic distribution achieved through
such technologies; and
``(4) the initiatives undertaken by the eligible entity to
develop public-private partnerships to secure non-Federal
support for the development, distribution and broadcast of
educational and instructional programming.
``(b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall prepare and
submit to the relevant committees of Congress a biannual
report which includes--
``(1) a summary of activities assisted under section
3303(a); and
``(2) a description of the training materials made
available under section 3304(1)(D), the manner in which
outreach has been conducted to inform parents and childcare
providers of the availability of such materials, and the
manner in which such materials have been distributed in
accordance with such section.

``SEC. 3307. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

``With respect to the implementation of section 3303,
eligible entities receiving a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement from the Secretary may use not more than 5 percent
of the amounts received under such section for the normal and
customary expenses of administering the grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement.

``SEC. 3308. DEFINITION.

``For the purposes of this part, the term `distance
learning' means the transmission of educational or
instructional programming to geographically dispersed
individuals and groups via telecommunications.

``SEC. 3309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this part, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding
fiscal years.
``(b) Funding Rule.--Not less than 60 percent of the
amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal
year shall be used to carry out section 3303.''.

SEC. 3. REVISION OF PART D OF TITLE III.

Part D of title III of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6951 et seq.) is amended to
read as follows:

``PART D--THE NEW CENTURY PROGRAM FOR DISTRIBUTED TEACHER PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT

``SEC. 3401. FINDINGS.

``Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Since 1995, the Telecommunications Demonstration
Project for Mathematics (as established under this part
pursuant to the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994) (in
this section referred to as `MATHLINE') has allowed the
Public Broadcasting Service to pioneer and refine a new model
of teacher professional development for kindergarten through
grade 12 teachers. MATHLINE uses video modeling of standards-
based lessons, combined with professionally facilitated
online learning communities of teachers, to help mathematics
teachers from elementary school through secondary school
adopt and implement standards-based practices in their
classrooms. This approach allows teachers to update their
skills on their own schedules through video, while providing
online interaction with peers and master teachers to
reinforce that learning. This integrated, self-paced approach
breaks down the isolation of classroom teaching while making
standards-based best practices available to all participants.
``(2) MATHLINE was developed specifically to disseminate
the first national voluntary standards for teaching and
learning as developed by the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM). During 3 years of actual deployment, more
than 5,800 teachers have participated for at least a full
year in the demonstration. These teachers, in turn, have
taught more than 1,500,000 students cumulatively.
``(3)(A) In the first 3 years of the MATHLINE project, the
Public Broadcasting Service used the largest portion of the
funds provided under this part--
``(i) to produce video-based models of classroom teaching;
``(ii) to produce and disseminate extensive accompanying
print materials;
``(iii) to organize and host professionally moderated,
year-long, online learning communities; and
``(iv) to train the Public Broadcasting Service stations to
deploy MATHLINE in their local communities. In fiscal year
1998, the Public Broadcasting Service added an extensive
Internet-based set of learning tools for teachers' use with
the video modules and printed materials, and the Public
Broadcasting Service expanded the online resources available
to teachers through Internet-based discussion groups and a
national listserv.
``(B) To extend Federal funds, the Public Broadcasting
Service has experimented with various fee models for teacher
participation, with varying results. Using fiscal year 1998
Federal funds and private money, participation in MATHLINE
will increase by 10,000 MATHLINE scholarships to preservice
and inservice teachers. The Public Broadcasting Service and
its participating member stations will distribute
scholarships in each congressional district in the United
States, with teachers serving disadvantaged populations given
priority for the scholarships.
``(4) Independent evaluations indicate that teaching
improves and students benefit as a result of the MATHLINE
program.
``(5) The MATHLINE program is ready to be expanded to reach
many more teachers in more subject areas. The New Century
Program for Distributed Teacher Professional Development will
link the digitized public broadcasting infrastructure with
education networks by working with the program's digital
membership, and Federal and State agencies, to expand the
successful MATHLINE model. Tens of thousands of teachers will
have access to the New Century Program for Distributed
Teacher Professional Development, to advance their teaching
skills and their ability to integrate technology into
teaching and learning. The New Century Program for
Distributed Teacher Professional Development also will
leverage the Public Broadcasting Service's historic
relationships with higher education to improve preservice
teacher training.

``SEC. 3402. PROJECT AUTHORIZED.

``The Secretary is authorized to make grants to a nonprofit
telecommunications entity, or partnership of such entities,
for the purpose of carrying out a national
telecommunications-based program to improve teaching in core
curriculum areas. The program authorized by this part shall
be designed to assist elementary school and secondary school
teachers in preparing all students for achieving State
content standards.

[[Page S5272]]

``SEC. 3403. APPLICATION REQUIRED.

``(a) In General.--Each nonprofit telecommunications
entity, or partnership of such entities, desiring a grant
under this part shall submit an application to the Secretary.
Each such application shall--
``(1) demonstrate that the applicant will use the public
broadcasting infrastructure and school digital networks,
where available, to deliver video and data in an integrated
service to train teachers in the use of standards-based
curricula materials and learning technologies;
``(2) assure that the project for which assistance is
sought will be conducted in cooperation with appropriate
State educational agencies, local educational agencies,
national, State or local nonprofit public telecommunications
entities, and national education professional associations
that have developed content standards in the subject areas;
``(3) assure that a significant portion of the benefits
available for elementary schools and secondary schools from
the project for which assistance is sought will be available
to schools of local educational agencies which have a high
percentage of children counted for the purpose of part A of
title I; and
``(4) contain such additional assurances as the Secretary
may reasonably require.
``(b) Approval of Applications; Number of Sites.--In
approving applications under this section, the Secretary
shall assure that the program authorized by this part is
conducted at elementary school and secondary school sites in
at least 15 States.

``SEC. 3404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part, $20,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal
years.''.

SEC. 4. ADDITION OF PART F TO TITLE III.

Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``PART F--DIGITAL EDUCATION CONTENT COLLABORATIVE

``SEC. 3701. FINDINGS.

``Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Over the past several years, both the Federal and
State governments have made significant investments in
computer technology and telecommunications in the Nation's
schools. Tremendous progress has been made in wiring
classrooms, equipping the classrooms with multimedia
computers, and connecting the classrooms to the Internet.
``(2) There is a great need for aggregating high quality,
curriculum-based digital content for teachers and students to
easily access and use in order to meet the State standards
for student performance.
``(3) Under Federal Communications Commission policy,
public television stations and State networks are mandated to
convert from analog broadcasting to digital broadcasting by
2003.
``(4) Most local public television stations and State
networks provide high quality video programs, and teacher
professional development, as a part of their mission to serve
local schools. Programs distributed by public broadcast
stations are used by more classroom teachers than any other
because of their high quality and relevance to the
curriculum. However analog distribution has limited
kindergarten through grade 12 services to a few hours per day
of linear video broadcasts on a single channel.
``(5) The new capacity of digital broadcasting, can
dramatically increase and improve the types of services
public broadcasting stations can offer kindergarten through
grade 12 schools.
``(6) Digital broadcasting can contribute to the
improvement of schools and student performance as follows:
``(A) Broadcast of multiple video channels and data
information simultaneously.
``(B) Data can be transmitted along with the video content
enabling students to interact, access additional information,
communicate with featured experts, and contribute their own
knowledge to the subject.
``(C) Both the video and data can be stored on servers and
made available on demand to teachers and students.
``(7) Teachers depend on public television stations as a
primary source of high quality video material. The material
has not always been as accessible or adaptable to the
curriculum as teachers would prefer. Moreover, direct student
interaction with the material was difficult.
``(8) Public television stations and State networks will
soon have the capability of creating and distributing
interactive digital content that can be directly matched to
State standards and available to teachers and students on
demand to fit their local curriculum.
``(9) Interactive digital education content will be an
important component of Federal support for States in setting
high standards and increasing student performance.

``SEC. 3702. DIGITAL EDUCATION CONTENT COLLABORATIVE.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants to or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements
with eligible entities described in section 3703(b) to
develop, produce, and distribute educational and
instructional video programming that is designed for use by
kindergarten through grade 12 schools and based on State
standards.
``(b) Availability.--In making the grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements, the Secretary shall ensure that
eligible entities enter into multiyear content development
collaborative arrangements with State educational agencies,
local educational agencies, institutions of higher education,
businesses, or other agencies and organizations.

``SEC. 3703. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING.

``(a) Awards.--The Secretary shall award grants, contracts,
or cooperative agreements under this part to eligible
entities to--
``(1) facilitate the development of educational programming
that shall--
``(A) include student assessment tools to give feedback on
student performance;
``(B) include built-in teacher utilization and support
components to ensure that teachers understand and can easily
use the content of the programming with group instruction or
for individual student use;
``(C) be created for, or adaptable to, State content
standards; and
``(D) be capable of distribution through digital
broadcasting and school digital networks.
``(b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under subsection
(a), an entity shall be a local public telecommunications
entity as defined by section 397(12) of the Communications
Act of 1934 that is able to demonstrate a capacity for the
development and distribution of educational and instructional
television programming of high quality.
``(c) Competitive Basis.--Grants under this part shall be
awarded on a competitive basis as determined by the
Secretary.
``(d) Duration.--Each grant under this part shall be
awarded for a period of 3 years in order to allow time for
the creation of a substantial body of significant content.

``SEC. 3704. APPLICATIONS.

``Each eligible entity desiring a grant under this part
shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in
such manner, and accompanied by such information as the
Secretary may reasonably require.

``SEC. 3705. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

``An eligible entity receiving a grant under this part
shall contribute to the activities assisted under this part
non-Federal matching funds equal to not less than 100 percent
of the amount of the grant. Matching funds may include funds
provided for the transition to digital broadcasting, as well
as in-kind contributions.

``SEC. 3706. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

``With respect to the implementation of this part, entities
receiving a grant under this part from the Secretary may use
not more than 5 percent of the amounts received under the
grant for the normal and customary expenses of administering
the grant.

``SEC. 3707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and such sums as may
be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Cochran
in sponsoring the ``Digital Education Act of 1999.'' I commend him for
his leadership in improving technology for children and families, so
that more children come to school ready to learn.
In the early 1990's, Dr. Ernest Boyer, the distinguished former
leader of the Carnegie Foundation, gave compelling testimony to the
Senate Labor Committee about the appallingly high number of children
who enter school without the skills to prepare them for learning. Their
lack of preparation presented enormous obstacles to their ability to
learn effectively in school, and seriously impaired their long-term
achievement.
In response, Congress enacted the Ready-to-Learn program in 1992, and
two years later its promise was so great that we extended it for five
years. Because of the Department of Education and the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, the Ready-to-Learn initiative became an innovative
and effective program. By linking the power of television to the world
of books, many more children have been enabled to become good readers
much more quickly.
Many children who enter school without the necessary basic skills are
soon placed in a remedial program, which is costly for school systems.
It is even more costly, however, for the students who face a bleaker
future.
Today, by the time they enter school, the average child will have
watched 4,000 hours of television. That is roughly the equivalent of
four years of school.
For far too many youngsters, this is wasted time--time consuming
``empty calories'' for the brain. Instead, that time could be spent
reading, writing, and learning. Through Ready-to-Learn television
programming, children can obtain substantial education benefits that
turn T.V. time into learning time.
As a result of Ready-to-Learn television, millions of children and
families have access to high-quality television produced by public
television

[[Page S5273]]

stations across the country. Tens of thousands of parents and child-
care providers have learned how to be better role models, to reinforce
learning, and to be more active participants in children's learning
from programs funded through Ready-to-Learn.
For many low-income families, the workshops, books, and television
shows funded through this program are a vital factor in preparing
children to read. These programs help parents and child-care providers
teach children the basics, preparing them to enter school ready to
learn and ready to succeed.
Ready-to-Learn provides 6.5 hours of non-violent educational
programming a day. These hours include some of the best programs
available to children, including Arthur, Barney & Friends, Mister
Rogers' Neighborhood, The Puzzle Place, Reading Rainbow, and Sesame
Street.
One of the most successful aspects of Ready-to-Learn is that it helps
parents work more effectively with their children. Parents who
participate in Ready-to-Learn workshops are more thoughtful consumers
of television, and their children are more active viewers. These
parents have more hands-on activities with their children, and they
read more often with their children. They read less often for
entertainment, and more often for education. They take their children
more often to libraries and bookstores.
The workshops provided by the Ready-to-Learn program are considered
the best of their kind. It also brings needed literacy services to
parents and children at food distribution centers, homeless shelters,
employment centers, and supermarkets.
Many of the innovations under Ready-to-Learn have come from local
stations. WGBH in Boston is one of the nation's leaders in public
broadcasting. It created the Reading Rainbow, and Where in the World is
Carmen San Diego, which are leaders in educational programming across
the country.
Last year, WGBH hosted 34 Ready-to-Learn workshops in Massachusetts.
1,100 parents and 265 child-care providers and teachers attended. These
parents and providers in turn worked with 3,400 children, who are now
better prepared to succeed in their schools.
WGBY of Springfield is the mainstay of literacy services for Western
Massachusetts. This station trained 250 home day-care providers, who
serve 2,500 children. A video lending library makes PBS materials
available to teachers to use in their classroom.
Workshop participants receive training on using children's programs
as the starting point for educational activities. Participants receive
free books. For some, these are the only books they have ever owned.
They receive the PBS Families magazine, in English or Spanish, and they
also receive the broadcasting schedules. Each of these resources builds
on the learning that begins with viewing the PBS programs.
Through partnerships with the Massachusetts Office of Child Care
Services and community-based organizations such as Head Start, Even
Start, and the Reach Out & Read Program at Boston Medical Center,
Ready-to-Learn trainers are reaching many low-income families with
media and literacy information.
In Worcester, the Clark Street Developmental Learning School offers a
family literacy program that uses Reading Rainbow or Arthur in every
session with families. In addition, the school has now expanded its
efforts to create an adult literacy center in the school. Many of the
parents involved in the Ready-to-Learn project now attend the adult
education program there.
Similar successes are happening across the nation. Since 1994, the
sponsors of Ready-to-Learn workshops have given away 1.5 million books.
Their program has grown from 10 television stations in 1994 to 130
television stations today. They have conducted over 8,500 workshops
reaching 186,000 parents and 146,000 child care providers, who have in
turn affected the lives of over four million children.
The ``Digital Education Act of 1999'' we are introducing today will
continue this high-quality children's television programming. Equally
important, it will take this valuable service into the next century
through digital television, a powerful resource for delivering
additional information through television programs.
The Digital Education Act will also increase the authorization of
funds for Ready-to-Learn programs from $30 million to $50 million a
year, enabling these programs to reach even more families and children
with these needed services.
The Digital Education Act also authorizes $20 million for high-
quality teacher professional development. Building on the success of
the MATHLINE program, the bill will expand the program to include
materials for helping teachers to teach to high state standards in core
subject areas.
Participating stations make the teachers workshops available through
districts, schools, and even on the teachers' own television sets. In
this way, at their own pace, and in their own time, teachers can review
the materials, observe other teachers at work, and reflect on their own
practices. They can consider ways to improve their teaching, and make
adjustments to their own practices. Teachers will also receive
essential help in integrating technology into their teaching.
Teachers themselves are very supportive of the contribution that
television can make to their classrooms. 88% of teachers surveyed in
1997 by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting said that quality
television used in the classroom helped them be more creative, 92% said
that it helped them be more effective in the classroom.
Finally, the Act will create a new ``Digital Education Content
Collaborative,'' with an authorization of $25 million. Its goal is to
stimulate quality content and curriculum through video and digital
programs that will enable students to meet high state standards. Local
public telecommunications agencies will create the programs, so that
teachers can teach more effectively to the state standards and assess
how well children are learning.
Again, I commend Senator Cochran for his leadership, and I urge my
colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation, so that
many more children can come to school ready to learn.
______

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Burns, Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Lugar):
S. 1032. A bill to permit ships built in foreign countries to engage
in coastwise trade in the transport of certain products; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

freedom to transport act of 1999

<bullet> Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing
legislation that will expand capacity and increase competition within
the domestic transportation system. This legislation, which will allow
foreign built ships to transport bulk commodities, forest products, and
livestock between U.S. ports, will help to expand the overall capacity
by allowing ship operators to expand their fleets through obtaining
affordable ships.
Currently, Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly
referred to as the Jones Act, requires that merchandise being
transported on water between U.S. ports travel on U.S. built, U.S.
flagged, and U.S. citizen owned vessels that are documented by the
Coast Guard for such carriage. The bill I am introducing today, The
Freedom to Transport Act of 1999, does not seek to repeal the Jones
Act. Rather, it provides very targeted modification--to allow foreign
built ships to carry bulk cargo in domestic trade. These ships would
have to register in the United States and comply with all U.S. laws,
including Jones Act ownership and crewing requirements.
The current law makes it infeasible for domestic coastwise shipments
of agricultural commodities to occur on bulk shipping vessels. This is
largely because the cost of purchasing a ship in the United States is
as much as three times higher than it can be obtained on the world
market. As a result, there has been little capital infusion into the
domestic Jones Act fleet for many years. As a consequence, the cost of
transport on bulk Jones Act vessels, if they are available at all, is
prohibitively high.
Agriculture is a pillar to the Kansas economy, and an efficient
transportation is critical to American agriculture. Laws that raise the
cost of conducting business and impede efficient means for transporting
product have a negative impact on farmers around the country, including
Kansas. Moreover, the cost of transporting

[[Page S5274]]

goods is always a proportionately high cost of the delivered product
for bulk commodities, but especially now as grain prices are at the
lowest levels seen in years. Having means to the most cost-effective
and efficient means for transporting product is now, more than ever,
critical to American farmers.
If ocean transportation between U.S. ports were more efficient, more
product might be delivered to its destination by ocean rather than by
rail. For example, the poultry and pork producers in the grain deficit
southeastern United States could bring in grain by ocean through the
Great Lakes rather than by across the country by railroad. Since little
of this type of trade currently occurs, this could have the effect of
increasing the overall capacity of the domestic
transportation infrastructure. That would make more railcars available
for transport in places like Kansas, particularly during the harvest
season when there is often a shortage of available cars. Furthermore,
more efficient coastwise transportation would bring down prices for
trade to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska, which oftentimes find it less
expensive to purchase products from other countries than to pay the
inflated costs of shipping from the mainland U.S.

I am aware that the maritime industry has supported the Jones Act as
a protection of domestic industry for many years, and resists any
change to the current law. However, despite the ``protective'' nature
of the Jones Act, it has protected very little. In the last 50 years
the merchant marine has lost 40,000 jobs and over 60 shipyards have
closed since 1987. In my view this legislation would not only benefit
the customers of transportation services, but would also inject new
life into an industry that has missed out on the unprecedented growth
that the rest of the economy has enjoyed in the last generation. I want
to work with the maritime industry to address their concerns and look
forward to their eventual support of this legislation, which I envision
will help them as much as it will help agricultural shippers.
I would like to point out that the legislation as introduced enjoys
broad support not only in the agriculture industry, but also among many
industries that ship bulk commodities--including oil, coal, clay, and
steel. Additionally, those engaged in commerce with the non-contiguous
U.S. are supportive, including the Puerto Rico Manufacturers
Association, the Hawaii Shippers Council, and the Alaska Jones Act
Reform Coalition. Finally, the National Taxpayers Union and Americans
for Tax Reform support this as a measure that would save consumers over
$14 billion annually.
A healthy maritime industry increases competitiveness, lowers costs,
and improves service for customers of transportation. It creates jobs
in the U.S. not only for the people who crew the ships, but for those
who repair them, who own them, and who are employed by industries who
buy transportation services. It is a win-win-win-win proposal.
I hope my colleagues will join me in reducing stifling government
regulation and support this important bill.<bullet>
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1033. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to
coordinate the penalty for the failure of a State to operate a State
child support disbursement unit with the alternative penalty procedure
for failures to meet data processing requirements; to the Committee on
Finance.

child support penalty fairness act

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Child
Support Penalty Fairness Act. This important legislation will remedy a
flaw in federal child support laws that could cost California $4
billion annually.
On April 30, the Department of Health and Human Services announced
its intent to reject the State of California's plan for child and
spousal support because California does not have a centralized ``State
Disbursement Unit'' that distributes child support collections to
families. The mandatory penalty for this failure is loss of all federal
child support administrative funding, which amounts to $300 million a
year.
In addition, because the 1996 welfare reform law requires states to
have an approved child support plan in order to receive the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families block grant, California could lose its
entire TANF block grant of $3.7 billion a year.
In other words, California faces a $4 billion annual penalty for its
failure to operate a State Disbursement Unit.
This so-called ``nuclear penalty'' is completely unjust and out of
proportion. It will devastate the State of California's ability to
serve low-income children and families--both families on welfare, and
families who need child support so that they can stay off welfare. The
penalty also will cripple the State's budget, seriously harming the
largest economy in this nation.
I am not questioning the value of a State Disbursement Unit, or
California's need to develop one. On the contrary, I am urging Governor
Davis and the State legislature to come up with a plan to develop a
State Disbursement Unit as quickly as possible. But I do not believe
that poor families should be severely punished because the State has
not gotten its act together.
Moreover, California's failure to develop a State Disbursement Unit
is a direct result of its failure to develop a statewide computer
system that tracks child support cases--and California is already
paying a penalty for the computer failure.
The computer system penalty, which Congress established just last
year, is fair and proportionate. More importantly, it rises over time,
giving California a powerful incentive to get a computer system up and
running. If California does not have a computer system in place by
2002, it will lose over $109 million annually in federal funds.
It is simply unfair to levy a $4 billion penalty against California
for not having a State Disbursement Unit, when the State's failure to
establish the unit is a direct result of a computer failure for which
the State is already being penalized.
The Child Support Penalty Fairness Act would provide that States
could not be penalized for failure to develop centralized disbursement
units, if they are already paying a penalty for computer-related
problems.
Under this bill, California would still have to pay a significant
penalty for its computer-related troubles. Moreover, if California gets
a statewide computer system in place, but still fails to operate a
centralized disbursement unit, the State would be subject to additional
severe penalties. This provides powerful incentive for the State to
develop both a computer system, and a central disbursement unit,
quickly.
I believe that this bill is proportionate and fair. It will prompt
the State of California to develop a State Disbursement Unit in a
timely fashion, without placing aid to low income children and families
at risk. It is simply the right thing to do. I hope that my colleagues
will take up and pass the Child Support Penalty Fairness Act as quickly
as possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1033

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 ``Child Support Penalty
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURE FOR FAILURE TO OPERATE
STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT.

(a) In General.--Section 455(a)(4) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 655(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(E) The Secretary may not disapprove a State plan under
section 454 against a State with respect to a failure to
comply with section 454(27) for a fiscal year as long as the
State is receiving a penalty under this paragraph with
respect to a failure to comply with either section 454(24)(A)
or 454(24)(B) for the fiscal year.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by
section 101 of the Child Support Performance and Incentive
Act of 1998.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Murray, and Ms.
Collins):
S. 1034. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
increase the amount of payment under the Medicare program for pap smear
laboratory tests; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S5275]]

INVESTMENT in WOMEN's HEALTH act of 1999

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today marks the 116th birthday of Dr.
George Papanicolaou, who developed one of the most effective cancer
screening tests in medical history--the Pap smear. Cervical cancer was
one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in women in the United
States 50 years ago and it is still a major killer of women worldwide.
I rise today to introduce the Investment in Women's Health Care Act, a
bipartisan bill to increase the reimbursement for Pap smear laboratory
tests under the Medicare program. I am pleased to be joined by my
colleagues--Senators Snowe, Murray and Collins.
The inadequacy of current lab test reimbursement was brought to my
attention by pathologists who alerted me to the significant cost-
payment differential for Pap smear testing in Hawaii. According to the
American Pathology Foundation, Hawaii is one of the 23 States where the
cost of performing the test greatly exceeds the Medicare payment. In
Hawaii, the cost ranges between $13.04 and $15.80. Yet the Medicare
reimbursement rate is only $7.15.
The large disparity between the reimbursement level and the actual
cost of performing the test may force labs in Hawaii and around the
Nation to discontinue Pap smear testing. The below-cost reimbursement
may compel some labs to process tests faster and in higher volume to
improve cost efficiency. This situation increases the risk of
inaccurate results and can severely handicap patient outcomes.
This bill would increase the a reimbursement rate for Pap smear
labwork from its current $7.15 to $14.60--the national average cost of
the test. This rate is important because it establishes a benchmark for
many private insurers.
Last year, we were successful in having language included in the
omnibus appropriations conference report recognizing the large
disparity between the costs incurred to provide the screening tests and
the amount paid by Medicare. The conferees noted that data from
laboratories nationwide indicates that the cost of providing the test
averages $13.00 to $17.00, with the costs in some areas being higher.
Accordingly, conferees urged the Health Care Financing Administration
to increase Medicare reimbursement for Pap smear screening. Although
HCFA has indicated a willingness to increase this payment, I am
concerned that the adjustment the agency is considering may be
significantly less than the costs incurred by most laboratories in
providing this service. Therefore, my colleagues and I are compelled to
reintroduce legislation that would implement what we believe to be an
appropriate increase.
Mr. President, no other cancer screening procedure is as effective
for early detection of cancer as the Pap smear. Over the last 50 years,
the incidence of cervical cancer deaths has declined by 70 percent due
in large part to the use of this cancer detection measure. Evidence
shows that the likelihood of survival when cervical cancer is detected
in its earliest stage is almost 100 percent, if treatment and follow-up
is timely. If the Pap smear is to continue as an effective cancer
screening tool, it must remain widely available and reasonably priced
for all women. Adequate payment is necessary to ensure women's
continued access to quality Pap smears.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan
legislation. Mr. President, I also ask consent the text of my bill be
included in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows:

S. 1034

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 ``Investment in Women's Health
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR PAP SMEAR LABORATORY
TESTS.

(a) In General.--Section 1833(h) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 13951(h)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7) In no case shall payment under the fee schedule
established under paragraph (1) for the laboratory test
component of a diagnostic or screening pap smear be less than
$14.60.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to laboratory tests furnished on or
after January 1, 2000.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in introducing the Investment in Women's Health
Act.
Today we celebrate the 116th birthday of Dr. George Papanicolaou, the
physician who developed the Pap smear. In the 50 years since Dr.
Papanicolaou first began using this test, the cervical cancer mortality
rate has declined by an astonishing 70 percent. There is no question
that this test is the most effective cancer screening tool yet
developed. The Pap smear can detect abnormalities before they develop
into cancer. Having an annual Pap smear is one of the most important
things a woman can do to help prevent cervical cancer.
Congress has recognized the incomparable contribution of the Pap
smear in preventing cervical cancer and nine years ago directed
Medicare to begin covering preventive Pap smears. Medicare
beneficiaries are eligible for one test every three years, although a
more frequent interval is allowed for women at high risk of developing
cervical cancer. And through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress
expanded the Pap smear benefit to also include a screening pelvic exam
once every 3 years.
But the Medicare reimbursement rate is artificially low and does not
accurately reflect the true cost of providing this vital test. The
current Medicare rate of reimbursement is $7.15, though the mean
national cost of the test is twice that amount: $14.60 per test. The
bill we introduce today, The Investment in Women's Health Act, will
raise the Medicare reimbursement rate for Pap smears to at least $14.60
per test.
Women understand the usefulness and life-saving benefit of the Pap
smear. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported
last year that 95 percent of women age 18 years old and over have
received a Pap smear at some point in their lives. And 85 percent of
women age 18 years and older across the country have received a Pap
smear within the last 3 years.
Unfortunately, the artificially low reimbursement rate threatens both
our country's local clinical laboratories and the health of women
across the country. Pathologists are increasingly concerned that low
Medicare reimbursement for Pap smears will force them to stop providing
the service and to ship the slides to large out-of-state laboratories.
Shipping the slides to non-local, large-scale laboratories--``Pap
mills''--reduces quality control, brings up continuity of care issues,
and puts women at risk of higher rates of ``false positives'' or
``false negatives.''
Providing Pap smears locally facilitates the likelihood of follow-up
by a pathologist, comparison of a patient's Pap smear to cervical
biopsy, and facilitates better communication and consultation between
the patient's pathologist and attending physician or clinician. When
Pap smears are shipped out of the local community these vital
comparisons are much more difficult to complete and are more prone to
inconsistencies and error.
Inadequate reimbursement for Pap smears provided through Medicare
threatens not only a woman's health but the financial stability of the
laboratory as well. If a lab is forced to continue to subsidize
Medicare Pap smears they will eventually either stop providing the
Medicare service or go out of business--and neither option is
acceptable. Finally, local laboratories have a proven track record of
providing better service for the patients. A Pap smear is less likely
to get lost in a local lab than among the tens of thousands of other
tests in a ``Pap mill'' and cytotechnicians have better supervision by
a pathologist in smaller laboratories than in large volume operations.
The Pap test has contributed immeasurably to the fight against
cervical cancer. We cannot risk erasing our advancements in this fight
because of low Medicare reimbursement. I urge my colleagues to join us.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1035. A bill to establish a program to provide grants to expand
the availability of public health dentistry programs in medically
underserved areas, health professional shortage areas, and other
Federally-defined areas that lack

[[Page S5276]]

primary dental services; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.

DENTAL HEALTH ACCESS EXPANSION ACT

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
address a troubling--but little recognized--public health problem in
this country, and that's access to dental health.
Unlike many public health problems, there are clinically proven
techniques to prevent or delay the progression of dental health
problems. These proven techniques are not only more cost-effective, but
also are relatively simple if done early. I'm specifically referring to
the use of fluoride and dental sealants. The combination of fluoride
and sealants is so effective against tooth decay that it has been
likened to a ``magic potion.'' In fact, an article in Public Health
Reports called the ``one-two combination of fluoride and sealants . . .
similar to that of vaccinations.''
With such an effective prevention method in place, one might assume
that dental disease is becoming increasingly rare in this country. But
that's not the case, Mr. President, because, in order to receive these
preventive treatments--this ``magic potion'' against dental disease--
you need to see a dentist, and there simply are not enough dentists to
provide these basic services to everyone who needs them. As of
September 30 of last year, the United States had 1,116 dental health
professions shortage areas, or Dental HPSA's according to the Health
Resources and Services Administration. The chart I have here shows the
counties in Wisconsin that have areas designated as shortage areas, but
every single state in our Nation has a portion designated as a dental
shortage area.
There are proven methods for preventing dental disease, yet 1,116
communities across our country--particularly underserved rural and
inner-city communties--do not have enough dentists to provide simple
preventive services. Barriers to dental care are particularly acute
among lower income families, Medicaid enrollees, and the uninsured.
Studies indicate that the prevalence of dental disease increases as
income decreases. In many areas, there simply are not enough dentists
to provide basic treatment to all who need them, and although there is
a federal method for designating such areas as dental health
professional shortage areas (DHPSA's) to become eligible for additional
funding, the designation process can be so tedious that State dental
directors simply lack the resources to complete the necessary
documentation.
To illustrate this problem of undercounting shortage areas, as of
September 30 of last year, only eight counties in Wisconsin had
portions designated as DHPSA's according to the Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA), but statewide only 23 percent of
Medicaid enrollees had received dental care. As you can see from this
chart, in 13 Wisconsin counties, fewer than 10 percent of Medicaid
enrollees received dental care. According to Wisconsin's state dental
director, Dr. Warren LeMay, 80 percent of tooth decay is found in the
poorest 25 percent of children. Given the effectiveness of dental
health care in preventing dental disease--particularly the combination
of check-ups, fluoride, and sealants--the access problems are simply
unacceptable.
And the impact of so many people going without dental care is
devastating. Those of us who have ever had a toothache remember how
excruciating that pain can be, making it difficult if not impossible to
work, go to school or otherwise go about our business. For those
Americans who lack access to dental services, however, the toothache is
more than a bad memory--it is the here and now.
Mr. President, imagine you had a child, a daughter, in need of dental
services. But you lack insurance, and cannot afford to pay out-of-
pocket to see a dentist. Or you may have Medicaid, but the nearest
dentist is more than 2 hours away, and you don't own a car. Since your
child hasn't received the preventive care treatments, she has a lot of
untreated tooth decay--decay that leads to infection, fevers, stomach
aches, and, worst of all, debilitating pain, making it almost
impossible for her to concentrate in school. She may also develop
speech difficulties, since she may lack the teeth necessary to form
certain words and sounds. When you try to get her emergency dental
services, you find that the few dentists in the area have waiting lists
of two months or more.

Mr. President, one mother, from Rhinelander, WI--which is in Oneida
County in the northern part of my state--called me to tell me about her
8-year-old daughter in just that situation. He daughter was in
excruciating pain because of a severe toothache, but the one dental
provider in the area had a waiting list of several weeks, so that
mother had no choice but to take her child to the nearest hospital
emergency room, where the child was given painkillers to use until she
could be seen by a dentist. Whereas routine primary dental care could
have prevented this decay altogether, this mother had to take her young
child to the hospital emergency room for prescription painkillers in
order to make the wait before seeing the dentist bearable.
Mr. President, the unfortunate reality is that I hear such stories
from my constituents on a regular basis, and I have heard enough to
know that it's time to stop this needless suffering from dental disease
by increasing access to dental care.
The legislation I am introducing today, the Dental Health Access
Expansion Act, will establish take three important steps to promote
access to dental health services:
First, the bill creates a federal grant program to be administered by
the Health Resources and Services Administration through which
community health centers and local health departments in designated
dental health professionals shortage areas can apply for funding to
assist in the hiring of primary care dentists. Strengthening locally
run dental access programs ensures a safety net for these vitally
important services.
The bill also creates a grant program to give bonus payments to
dentists in shortage areas who devote at least 25 percent of their
practice to Medicaid patients. More than 90 percent of America's
dentists are in private practice, and incentive payments for dentists
to increase their Medicaid practice helps to bring needy patients into
the dental care mainstream.
Finally, the bill requires that HRSA work with the Association of
State and Territorial Dental Directors and other organizations
interested in expanding dental health access to simplify the process
for designating dental shortage areas. Right now the system is so
complicated that states simply don't have the resources to fill out the
paperwork needed to get the designation.
Mr. President, the Dental Health Access Expansion Act is meant to
complement existing initiatives--such as Health Professions Training
Program expansions of general dentistry residencies, and the National
Health Service Corps scholarship program--to increase access to primary
care dental services in underserved communities. I have supported these
and other programs in the past, and will continue to do so. My
legislation is also meant to complement the excellent oral health
initiatives proposed by my colleague, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. I
am thankful for the good work he has done in increasing awareness about
this issue, and look forward to working with him to increase access to
dental health services.
Through the legislation I am proposing, we can increase the number of
dentists providing care to underserved communities, and in doing so
strengthen our nation's existing network of Community Health Centers
and local health departments.
Advances in dentistry have given us the tools to eradicate most
dental diseases--what we need now is to provide people with access to
dental care so that they can receive the simple preventive treatments
they need, and that's what my legislation can help us achieve.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 1036. A bill to amend parts A and D of title IV of the Social
Security Act to give States the option to pass through directly to a
family receiving assistance under the temporary assistance to needy
families program all child support collected by the State and the
option to disregard any child support that the family receives in
determining a family's eligibility for, or

[[Page S5277]]

amount of, assistance under that program; to the Committee on Finance.

children first child support reform act of 1999

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along
with my colleagues Senator Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Rockefeller
of West Virginia, to provide more resources to America's children and
families by encouraging more parents to live up to their child support
obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform
Act, would enhance the options and incentives available to states to
allow more child support to be paid directly to the families to whom it
is owed and not be counted against public assistance benefits. My
legislation will help assure more noncustodial parents that the child
support they pay will actually contribute to the wellbeing of their
child, rather than the government, and also help reduce administrative
burdens on the state.
As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State
Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child
support for families receiving public assistance and other families
that request help in enforcing child support. Toward this end, the
program works to establish paternity and legally binding support
orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so
that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy,
nurturing surroundings.
But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on
behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, actually works
against families.
Under current law, if a family is not on public assistance, support
collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program is generally sent
directly to the family. However, and this is the crux of the problem,
support collected on behalf of families receiving public assistance is
kept by the State and Federal Governments as reimbursement for welfare
expenditures. Thus, for families on public assistance, the child
support program ends up benefiting the financial interests of the
government, rather than their children.
The research shows that many noncustodial parents are discouraged
from paying child support because they realize and resent the fact that
their payments go to the government rather than benefiting their
children directly. In addition, some custodial parents are skeptical
about working with the child support agency to secure payments since
the funds are generally not forwarded to them. Obviously, these builtin
program obstacles to reliable, timely child support payments serve to
undermine the program's intended goals of promoting self-sufficiency
and personal responsibility.
Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not
need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to
them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than
$43 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of
child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true
today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it
has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is
not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider
this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures.
But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not be cast off
entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform
law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work
requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families
to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended,
unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and
responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give
families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and
ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance.
We fundamentally changed welfare, now we fundamentally reexamine the
central role of child support in helping families as they struggle to
become and remain self-sufficient. To this end, we've made some, but
not nearly enough, progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will
eventually be required to distribute state-collected child support
arrears owed to the family before paying off arrears owed to the state
and Federal governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states
were provided with some ability to continue or expand the $50
passthrough that had been required under previous law. But only one
state--my homestate of Wisconsin--has opted to let families retain all
support paid. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national
model in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program,
child support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for
welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child
support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other
words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial
parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their
child support payments go to their children. And both parents are
presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the
life of their child.
I worked with Wisconsin to secure the waivers necessary to pursue
this innovative policy and want to provide the other states with
additional flexibility and options so that they can follow Wisconsin's
example.
In addition to helping families, the expanded passthrough and
disregard approach also has significant benefits on the administrative
side. The current distribution requirements place significant
accounting and paperwork burdens on the states. They are also costly.
Data from the Federal Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly
20 percent of program expenditures are spent simply processing
payments. States are required to maintain a complicated set of accounts
to determine whether support collected should be paid to the family or
kept by the government. These complex accounting rules depend on
whether the family ever received public assistance, the date a family
begins and ends assistance, whether the non-custodial parent is current
on payments or owes arrears, the method of collection and other
factors.
We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of
automation, systems integration and welfare law child support
enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will
lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and
improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a
distribution system in which child support collected would
automatically be delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A
distribution system in which child support agencies would distribute
current support and arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in
exactly the same way?
Mr. President, child support financing must be addressed in the near
future. First, our current distribution scheme is out of step with the
philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the child support
program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all families.
Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable. TANF
caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child support
caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs additional
resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those resources is
decreasing. We must put the child support program on a sound financial
footing that confirms a strong Federal and state commitment to the
program and gives states additional flexibility to put more resources
into the hands of children and let families keep more of their own
money.

Let me strongly affirm that by advocating an expanded passthrough and
disregard approach, I am absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in
our child support system by either the Federal government or the
states. Our commitment to this program must remain strong and
steadfast. I am working to expand the passthrough for the reasons that
I've explained, but I am also committed to paying for it in a
responsible way. Not knowing what the proposal will cost today
necessarily requires that we keep ourselves open to adjustments as the
debate proceeds.
That said, it is time for us to envision a child support program that
truly serves families and works to advance, not undermine, the TANF
policy goals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility with which
it is inextricably

[[Page S5278]]

combined. Because assistance is now time-limited, we must give families
the tools to survive in a world without public help, a world where they
must rely on their own resources. In that equation, we all know that
child support is fundamental. Letting as many as 5 years go by with
child support payments either not being or accuring to the state rather
than the family does nothing to advance those goals.
Mr. President, it's time to put our children first and envision a
child support program that truly serves families. We can do that by
passing this legislation to improve the public system, let families
keep more of their own money, and make child support truly meaningful
in the everyday lives of children on public assistance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1036

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 ``Children First Child Support
Reform Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTED
BY THE STATE.

(a) State Option to Pass All Child Support Collected
Directly to the Family.--
(1) In general.--Section 457 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 657) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``(e) and (f)'' and
inserting ``(e), (f), and (g)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) State Option to Pass Through All Support Collected to
the Family.--
``(1) In general.--At State option, subject to paragraph
(2), and subsections (a)(4), (b), (e), (d), and (f), this
section shall not apply to any amount collected on behalf of
a family as support by the State and any amount so collected
shall be distributed to the family.
``(2) Income protection requirement.--A State may not elect
the option described in paragraph (1) unless the State also
elects (through an amendment to the State plan submitted
under section 402(a)) to disregard any amount so collected
and distributed for purposes of determining the amount of
assistance that the State will provide to the family under
the State program funded under part A pursuant to section
408(a)(12)(B).
``(3) Option to pass through amounts collected pursuant to
a continued assignment.--At State option, any amount
collected pursuant to an assignment continued under
subsection (b) may be distributed to the family in accordance
with paragraph (1).
``(4) Release of obligation to pay federal share.--If a
State that elects the option described in paragraph (1) also
elects to disregard under section 408(a)(12)(B) at least 50
percent (determined, at the option of the State, in the
aggregate or on a case-by-case basis) of the total amount
annually collected and distributed to all families in
accordance with paragraph (1) for purposes of determining the
amount of assistance for such families under the State
program funded under part A, the State is released from--
``(A) calculating the Federal share of the amounts so
distributed and disregarded; and
``(B) paying such share to the Federal Government.''.
(2) Authority to claim passed through amount for purposes
of tanf maintenance of effort requirements.--Section
409(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by inserting ``, and, in
the case of a State that elects under section 457(g) to
distribute any amount so collected directly to the family,
any amount so distributed (regardless of whether the State
also disregards that amount under section 408(a)(12) in
determining the eligibility of the family for, or the amount
of, such assistance)'' before the period.
(b) State Option to Disregard Child Support Collected For
Purposes of Determining Eligibility For, or Amount of, TANF
Assistance.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) State option to disregard child support in
determining eligibility for, or amount of, assistance.--
``(A) Option to disregard child support for purposes of
determining eligibility.--A State to which a grant is made
under section 403 may disregard any part of any amount
received by a family as a result of a child support
obligation in determining the family's income for purposes of
determining the family's eligibility for assistance under the
State program funded under this part.
``(B) Option to disregard child support in determining
amount of assistance.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 may disregard any part of any amount received by
a family as a result of a child support obligation in
determining the amount of assistance that the State will
provide to the family under the State program funded under
this part.''.
(c) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Section 454 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (32), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (33), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(34) provide that, if the State elects to distribute
support directly to a family in accordance with section
457(g), the State share of expenditures under this part for a
fiscal year shall not be less than an amount equal to the
highest amount of such share expended for fiscal year 1995,
1996, 1997, or 1998 (determined without regard to any amount
expended that was eligible for payment under section
455(a)(3)).''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 457(f) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 657(f)) is amended by striking
``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Amounts Collected On
Behalf of Children in Foster Care.--Notwithstanding''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 1999.
______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 1037. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to provide
for a gradual reduction in the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation to nationally phase-out the use of the fuel oxygenate
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). My bill provides for a priority
phase-out schedule designed to immediately prohibit MTBE use in areas
where it is leaking into ground and surface waters, to prevent the
spread of MTBE to areas where its use is currently limited or
nonexistent, and to set us on a course to removing MTBE in all other
areas of the nation.
MTBE has been used in the blending of gasoline since the 1970s, but
its use increased dramatically following the passage of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. In regions of the country with particularly
poor air quality, including Southern California and Sacramento, the Act
required the use of reformulated gasoline.
Under the Act, reformulated gasoline must contain 2% oxygenate by
weight.
Today, about 70% of the gasoline sold in California contains 2%
oxygen by weight due to this requirement. While other oxygenates like
ethanol may be used to meet this 2% requirement, the ready availability
of MTBE and its chemical properties made it the oxygenate of choice
among most oil companies.
While the oxygenate of choice, however, MTBE is also classified as a
possible human carcinogen. Moreover, when MTBE enters groundwater, it
moves through the water very fast and very far. Once there, MTBE
resists degrading in the environment. We know very little about how
long it takes to break down to the point that it becomes harmless. We
do know that at even very low levels, MTBE causes water to take on the
taste and odor of turpentine--rendering it undrinkable.
That is, it makes water smell and taste so bad that people won't
drink it.
I first became aware of the significance of the threat MTBE posed to
drinking water following the discovery that MTBE had contaminated
drinking water wells in Santa Monica. Ultimately, Santa Monica was
forced to close drinking water wells that supplied approximately half
of its drinking water due to that contamination. Clean up of Santa
Monica's drinking water supply continues today under the oversight of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at significant cost.
Following that discovery, I held a California field hearing of the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am a
member, on the issue of MTBE contamination. Based upon the testimony I
received at that hearing, I became convinced that MTBE posed a
significant threat to drinking water not only in California, but
nationwide. Shortly after the hearing, I wrote what would be one of
many letters to the Administrator of EPA urging her to take action to
remove this threat to the nation's drinking water supply.
While EPA has taken many laudable actions to speed the remediation of
MTBE contaminated drinking water, it has been slow to respond to my
calls for a nationwide MTBE phase-out. EPA maintains that it lacks the
legal authority to phase-out the use of this harmful gasoline additive.
In the face of this federal inaction, and since the discovery of MTBE
contamination in Santa Monica and my

[[Page S5279]]

hearing in California, revelations of MTBE contamination in California
and the nation have proliferated. In June 1998, the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory estimated that MTBE is leaking from over 10,000
underground storage tanks in California alone. Potential clean up costs
associated with MTBE contamination in my state range between $1 to $2
billion. Reports of MTBE contamination in the northeastern United
States are also now becoming more common, and several state
legislatures have introduced legislation to phase-out or ban MTBE use.
This flurry of activity in the northeastern states follows upon the
first state action to prohibit the use of MTBE. Specifically, on March
26, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis provided that MTBE use in
California will be prohibited after December 31, 2002.
While the action in California and several other states to begin to
address the MTBE problem is certainly to be commended, I believe it
demonstrates a failure of federal policymakers to design a national
solution to what is clearly a national problem.
The legislation I introduce today would provide that solution.
First, my bill empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
immediately prohibit MTBE use in areas where the additive is leaking
into ground or surface waters. In my view, we must swiftly stop the use
of MTBE in areas where we know we've got leaking underground storage
tanks. That's just common sense.
Second, my bill prohibits the use of MTBE after January 1, 2000 in
areas around the nation where the use of oxygenates like MTBE is not
required by law. It has been recently revealed that oil companies have
been adding significant quantities of MTBE to gasoline in the San
Francisco area even though oxygenates like MTBE are not required to be
used in that area. Notwithstanding California's MTBE phase-out, such
MTBE use may legally continue throughout California until the state
phase-out deadline of December 31, 2002.
As we face an estimated $1 to $2 billion in MTBE clean up costs in
California alone, I believe we must swiftly take steps to prevent the
spread of MTBE contamination to areas where its use is currently
limited and is in no sense required under the law.
Third, the bill prohibits MTBE use nationwide after January 1, 2003,
and provides for specific binding percentage reductions of MTBE use in
the interim. Finally, the bill requires EPA to conduct an environmental
and health effects study of ethanol use as a fuel additive.
I am hopeful that my House and Senate colleagues can act quickly to
ensure the passage of my legislation to provide a nationwide solution
to the nationwide problem of MTBE contamination.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1037

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

SECTION 1. USE OF METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER.

Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2605) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether.--
``(1) Prohibition on use in specified nonattainment
areas.--Effective beginning January 1, 2000, a person shall
not use methyl tertiary butyl ether in an area of the United
States that is not a specified nonattainment area that is
required to meet the oxygen content requirement for
reformulated gasoline established under section 211(k) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k)).
``(2) Prohibition on use in areas of leakage.--If the
Administrator finds that methyl tertiary butyl ether is
leaking into ground water or surface water in an area, the
Administrator may immediately prohibit the use of methyl
tertiary butyl ether in the area.
``(3) Upgrading of underground storage tanks.--In enforcing
the requirement that underground storage tanks be upgraded in
accordance with section 280.21 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, the Administrator shall focus enforcement of the
requirement on areas described in paragraph (2).
``(4) Use of methyl tertiary butyl ether in gasoline.--
``(A) Interim period.--
``(i) Phased reduction.--

``(I) In general.--The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations to require--

``(aa) by January 1, 2001, a \1/3\ reduction in the
quantity of methyl tertiary butyl ether that may be used in
gasoline; and
``(bb) by January 1, 2002, a \2/3\ reduction in the
quantity of methyl tertiary butyl ether that may be used in
gasoline.

``(II) Basis for reductions.--Reductions under subclause
(I) shall be based on the quantity of methyl tertiary butyl
ether in use in gasoline in the United States as of the date
of enactment of this subsection.

``(ii) Labeling.--During the period beginning on the date
of enactment of this subsection and ending December 31, 2002,
the Administrator shall require any person selling gasoline
that contains methyl tertiary butyl ether at retail to
prominently label the fuel dispensing system for the gasoline
with a notice that the gasoline contains methyl tertiary
butyl ether.
``(B) Prohibition.--Effective beginning January 1, 2003, a
person shall not use methyl tertiary butyl ether in
gasoline.''.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF FUEL COMPONENTS.

Not later than July 31, 2000, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall--
(1) conduct a study of the behavior, toxicity,
carcinogenicity, health effects, and biodegradability, in air
and water, of ethanol, olefins, aromatics, benzene, and
alkylate; and
(2) report the results of the study to Congress.
______

By Mr. FRIST:
S. 1041. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to permit
certain members of the Armed Forces not currently participating in the
Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program to participate in
that program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans
Affairs.

gi education opportunity act of 1999

<bullet> Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation
that will assist the men and women serving in our armed forces in
attaining an education. The GI Education Opportunity Act is targeted at
a group serving in our military that has been forgotten since the
passage of the Montgomery GI Bill. Before the GI Bill was enacted in
1985, new servicemen were invited to participate in a program called
the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program, or VEAP. This program
offered only a modest return on the service member's investment and, as
a consequence, provided little assistance to men and women in the armed
services who wanted to pursue additional education. It was and is
inferior to the Montgomery GI Bill that every new serviceman is offered
today.
The GI Education Opportunity Act would allow active duty members of
the armed services who entered the service after December 31, 1976 and
before July 1, 1985 and who are or were otherwise eligible for the
Veterans' Educational Assistance Program to participate in the
Montgomery GI Bill. This group of military professionals largely
consists of the mid-career and senior noncommissioned officer ranks of
our services--the exact group that new recruits have as mentors and
leaders. If we really believe in the importance of providing our
servicemen and women with the education opportunities afforded by the
Montgomery GI Bill, it is critical that we offer all service members
the opportunity to participate of they choose.
It is important to remember that much of the impetus for the creation
of the Montgomery GI Bill was that the Veterans' Educational Assistance
Program was not doing the job. It was not providing sufficient
assistance for young men and women to go to college. It was expensive
for them to participate, and provided little incentive for young men
and women to enter the military. The Montgomery GI Bill offers those
serving in the military a significant increase in benefits over its
predecessor and has been one of the most important recruiting tools
over the last decade. It is essential that active military still
covered under VEAP but not by the Montgomery GI Bill be brought into
the fold.
The injustice that my bill attempts to address is that new recruits
are eligible for a better education program than the noncommissioned
officers responsible for their training and well-being. Expanding
Montgomery Bill eligibility to those currently eligible for VEAP would,
in many cases, help mid-career and senior noncommissioned officers, who
are the backbone of our force and set the example for younger troops,
become better educated. This legislation is modest in its scope and
approach, but is enormously important

[[Page S5280]]

for the individual attempting to better himself through education.
Moreover, this legislation sends a meaningful message to those serving
to protect the American interest that Congress cares. S. 4, the
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines Bill of Rights Act which I was
proud to cosponsor was an enormous step in this direction, and my
legislation complements that effort.
Some of the common sense provisions of The GI Education Opportunity
Act are: 1. Regardless of previous enrollment or disenrollment in the
VEAP, active military personnel may choose to participate in the GI
Bill. 2. Participation for VEAP-eligible members in the GI Bill is to
be based on the same ``buy in requirements'' as are currently
applicable to any new GI Bill participant. For example, an active duty
member is required to pay $100 a month for twelve months in order to be
eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill. The same would be required of
someone previously eligible for VEAP. 3. Any active duty member who has
previously declined participation in the GI bill may also participate.
4. There will be a one year period of eligibility for enrollment.
I believe that if we are to maintain the best trained, and most
capable military force in the world, we must be committed to allowing
the people that comprise our armed forces to pursue further education
opportunities. I believe that this modest legislation will have a
positive effect on morale and give our noncommissioned officers
additional opportunities for self-improvement and life-long learning. I
ask for my colleagues support in this effort.<bullet>
______

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Lott, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Brownback, and Mr. Gramm):
S. 1042. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
encourage domestic oil and gas production, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.

DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION SECURITY AND STABILIZATION ACT

<bullet> Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce
with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, the Domestic Energy
Production Security and Stabilization Act. This bill represents a
necessary and workable proposal to ensure that the United States does
not lose even more of its energy independence.
Mr. President, the oil and gas industry in this country is in a state
of unprecedented crisis. Over the last year-and-a-half, oil and gas
prices have been a historic lows. This has led to the closing of over
200,000 domestic oil and gas wells, has brought new exploration to a
virtual standstill, and has cost an estimated quarter of a million
American jobs.
Not only is this an economic issue, it is also a national security
issue. We are importing more oil than we produce. This is not a healthy
situation for shaping our foreign policy agenda. If our domestic
industry is to survive, then Congress needs to act now to provide tax
incentives to encourage energy production in America.
To reverse these trends and increase our energy independence, I have
worked on a bipartisan basis to develop the Domestic Energy Production
Security and Stabilization Act. The bill provides tax incentives in our
significant areas to ensure that our domestic energy infrastructure is
not decimated during prolonged periods of low energy prices.
First, the legislation would provide a $3 dollar a barrel tax credit,
on the first three barrels that can offset the cost of keeping marginal
wells operating during periods of critically low oil and gas prices.
Marginal wells are those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. There
are close to 500,000 such wells across the U.S. that collectively
produce 20 percent of America's oil, more oil than we import from Saudi
Arabia.
Second, the bill would provide some relief from the alternative
minimum tax (AMT), again during prolonged periods of low energy prices.
In a time of financial crisis for the oil and gas industry, this tax
has had the effect of exacerbating the impact of low commodity prices
and driving even more producers out of business. The AMT was enacted to
ensure that companies reporting large financial income paid at least
some level of taxes. Unfortunately, for the oil and gas industry, the
AMT has only served to make a bad situation worse.
Third, Mr. President, this legislation would change the net income
limitation on percentage depletion by eliminating the 65 percent
taxable income limitation. Carried-over percentage depletion could also
be carried back ten years. This would enable companies to fully utilize
their percentage depletion allowance, which many have not been able to
do since the onset of the oil and gas crisis.
Finally, Mr. President, this bill brings the U.S. Tax Code in line
with the present-day realities of the oil and gas industry by allowing
oil and gas exploration (geological and geophysical) costs to be
expensed rather than capitalized, and by allowing delay rental lease
payments to be deducted in the year in which they are paid, rather than
when the oil is actually pumped. Even the Treasury Department has
tacitly endorsed these proposed changes as making for sound economic
and tax policy.
Taken together, these four major tax provisions will help the job-
creating oil and gas sector of the economy to withstand the volatility
of the international oil and gas markets. We simply must not allow our
nation to become even more dependent on foreign oil. Nor can we afford
to shut-down our domestic gas production capability, particularly since
natural gas consumption is expected to grow rapidly in the near future,
and, unlike oil, natural gas is not imported.
Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue, and I appreciate the
support of Senator Breaux and my other colleagues who are cosponsoring
the bill. Most importantly, I urge my other colleagues, particularly
those from non-energy producing states, to join with us in supporting
this effort. America simply has too much at stake to stand by and let
our domestic oil and gas industry jobs and infrastructure be lost to
the whims of the world markets.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the
distinguished Senator from the State of Texas. Senator Hutchinson, in
introducing the Domestic Energy Production Security and Stabilization
Act. I believe it is legislation all of our colleagues should support.
First, I'd like to outline the problem and then discuss how this
legislation helps address it. Oil prices may be in the early stages of
recovery, but over the last 17 months, a glut in the world market
forced crude oil prices down to their lowest inflation-adjusted levels
in 50 years. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates
that, since November 1997, when the price of oil began to decline, more
than 136,000 crude oil wells and more than 57,000 natural gas wells
have been shut down.
The U.S. petroleum industry last year lost almost 30,000 jobs because
of falling crude prices, according to the American Petroleum
Institute's annual report. Despite the recent rise in oil prices, job
losses continue. Another 3,600 jobs were lost between February and
March. This brings the loss since December 1997 to about 54,400 jobs, a
decline of 16 percent. In the first three months of 1999, losses
amounted to about 24,000 jobs, or a drop of almost 8 percent.
Mr. President, independent producers account for almost a third of
Gulf of Mexico oil production on the outer continental shelf (OCS), and
almost half of natural gas production. According to the Minerals
Management Service, on a per-day basis, the OCS accounts for 27 percent
of the nation's natural gas production and 20 percent of the nation's
crude oil production. In 1997, production on the federal OCS off
Louisiana resulted in $2.9 billion or 83 percent of the $3.5 billion
royalties received for all of the OCS. It is not difficult to see that
as domestic production falls, so will federal royalty receipts.
And, let's not forget the thousands of jobs created in non-energy
sectors to service the energy industry: computers, steel and other
metals, transportation, financial and other service industries. When
domestic oil and gas production increases, so does the number of jobs
created in all these sectors.
This legislation will provide marginal well tax credits, alternative
minimum tax relief, expensing of geological and geophysical costs and
delay

[[Page S5281]]

rental payments and other measures to encourage domestic oil and gas
production. It is a safety net. The bill's provisions phase in and out
as oil prices fall and rise between $17 and $14 per barrel and natural
gas prices fall and rise between $1.86 and $1.56 per thousand cubic
feet. It will provide a permanent mechanism to help our domestic
producers cope with substantial and unexpected declines in world energy
prices.

Let's examine how one aspect of this bill--marginal well production--
affects this nation. A marginal well is one that producers 15 barrels
of oil per day or 60,000 cubic feet of natural gas or less. Low prices
hit marginal wells especially hard because they typically have low
profit margins. While each well produces only a small amount, marginal
wells account for almost 25 percent of the oil and 8 percent of the
natural gas produced in the continental United States. The United
States has more than 500,000 marginal wells that collectively produce
nearly 700 million barrels of oil each year. These marginal wells
contribute nearly $14 billion a year in economic activity. The marginal
well industry is responsible for more than 38,000 jobs and supports
thousands of jobs outside the industry.
The National Petroleum Council is a federal advisory committee to the
Secretary of Energy. Its sole purpose is to advise, inform, and make
recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on any matter requested by
the Secretary with relating to oil and natural gas or to the oil and
natural gas industries. The National Petroleum Council's 1994 Marginal
Well Report said that:

Preseving marginal wells is central to our energy security.
Neither government nor the industry can set the global market
price of crude oil. Therefore, the nation's internal cost
structure must be relied upon for preserving marginal well
contributions.

The 1994 Marginal Well Report went on to recommend a series of tax code
modifications including a marginal well tax credit and expensing key
capital expenditures. The Independent Petroleum Association of America
estimates that as many of half the estimated 140,000 marginal wells
closed in the last 17 months could be lost for good.
Mr. President, the facts speak for themselves. The U.S. share of
total world crude oil production fell from 52 percent in 1950 to just
10 percent in 1997. At the same time, U.S. dependence on foreign oil
has grown from 36 percent in 1973 (the time of the Arab oil embargo) to
about 56 percent today. That makes the U.S. more vulnerable than ever--
economically and militarily--to disruptions in foreign oil supplies.
This legislation will provide a mechanism to help prevent a further
decline in domestic energy production and preserve a vital domestic
industry.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison and a number of other colleagues in the introduction
of legislation which we believe will provide critically needed relief
and assistance to our beleaguered domestic oil industry.
Our bill contains a number of incentives designed to increase
domestic production of oil and gas. The decline in domestic oil
production has resulted in the estimated loss of more than 40,000 jobs
in the oil and gas industry since the crash of oil prices at the end of
1997. Our legislation will not only put people back to work, it will
revitalize domestic energy production and decrease our dependence on
imports.
I have sought relief for the oil and gas industry from a number of
sources this year. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I
strongly opposed the $4 billion tax which the Clinton budget proposed
to levy on the oil industry. As my colleagues know, that tax is now
dead.
Earlier this year I contacted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
and urged her to conduct a thorough review of our current policy which
permits Iraq to sell $5.25 billion worth of oil every six months. The
revenue generated from such sales is supposed to be used to purchase
food and medicine but reports make it clear that Saddam Hussein has
diverted these funds from their intended use and that they are being
used to prop up his murderous regime. The United States should not be a
party to such a counterproductive policy.
Senator Hutchison and I earlier this year introduced legislation
which contained a series of tax law changes intended to spur marginal
well production. The legislation which we introduce today contains
those provisions as well as others, such as reducing the impact of the
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) on the oil and gas industry and relaxing
the existing constraints on use of the allowance for percentage
depletion.
I am looking forward to working with my colleagues in an effort to
enact the legislation as soon as possible.<bullet>
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1043. A bill to provide freedom from regulation by the Federal
Communications Commission for the Internet; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

____________________