[Pages S13403-S13428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Gorton,
Mr. Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 1816. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
provide meaningful campaign finance reform through requiring better
reporting, decreasing the role of soft money, and increasing individual
contribution limits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.

The Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000

<bullet> Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I join several of my
colleagues in introducing the ``Open and Accountable Campaign Financing
Act of 2000.'' This bill increases disclosure requirements on campaign
contributions and political broadcast advertisements. It also caps
``soft money'' contributions to political party committees at $60,000
and adjusts individual contribution limits for inflation. I am pleased
that the following Senators have joined me today in offering this bill:
Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Slade Gorton (R-WA), Bob
Kerrey (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Craig Thomas (R-WY).
Changing the way federal campaigns are financed is inevitable, the
American people will demand it. At some point, the Senate will have a
full and open debate on how best to reform our campaign finance system.
I was disappointed that floor procedures prevented us from doing so
last week, because several of us had intended to offer amendments to
the McCain-Feingold legislation.
My colleagues and I introduce this bill today as a bipartisan
alternative in what has been a very polarized debate. If we are ever to
move forward on this issue, we will need to look at a variety of ways
to reform the campaign finance system. This bill is a combination of
ideas offered by myself and a number of my colleagues. Several specific
provisions in this bill have widespread support by both Republicans and
Democrats, and, I believe, can form a base from which consensus can
build.
Confidence in our political system is the essence of representative
government. This begins with an open and accountable campaign financing
system. We need to rise above partisan, ideological and personal
rivalries, and find common ground on campaign finance reform.
There are several elements that must be part of any reform of our
campaign finance system. One of the most important is increased
disclosure for all who participate in the political process. We should
not fear an educated and informed body politic. If individuals and
organizations are going to participate in the election process, their
participation must be revealed to the public.
To provide for fuller disclosure, this bill increases the financial
reporting requirements for candidates and political parties. This
legislation also takes the rules on broadcast ads that apply to
candidates and extends them to all political broadcast ads. Under
current federal regulations, when a candidate buys a political ad, the
broadcaster is required to place information on the ad in a file that
is open to the public. This includes a record of the times the spots
are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased and at what
rates, and the names of the officers of the organization placing the
ad. Under current federal regulations, when an interest group places a
political ad with a broadcaster, it does not have to meet all of these
requirements. This bill requires that interest-group ads related to any
federal candidate or issue go into the broadcaster's public file. There
would be no added burden on the broadcaster. The broadcaster would
simply use the same form already used for candidate and party ads. Let
me make clear one thing the bill does not do. It does not require
organizations to identify individual donors or provide membership
lists. It preserves a reasonable balance between the public's right to
know which groups are attempting to influence an election, and the
privacy rights of individual donors.
In addition to disclosure, we need to look at soft money
contributions to national party committees. Most constitutional experts
say that an outright ban on soft money would be unconstitutional. But
this unaccountable, unlimited flood of soft money cascading over
America's politics must be stopped. We need to find a middle ground
between the extremes of banning soft money and leaving it unrestricted.
This bill limits soft money contributions to national party committees
to $60,000. This is not a ban on financial support of parties. It is a
return to the original intent of the campaign finance reforms of the
1970s, which worked well until they were exploited and abused.
We also need to increase the ability of individuals to participate in
the most accountable method of campaign financing. This bill adjusts
and indexes contributions to inflation and indexes them for further
years. For an individual, contribution limits would increase from
$1,000 to $3,000 per candidate, per election. I've heard the argument
that raising these limits would give the wealthy too much influence and
access. If we cap or eliminate soft money and do not adjust the hard-
money limits, we will chase more money into the black hole of third-
party ads, where the public cannot

[[Page S13404]]

view the flow of money. I want to bring more of that money into the
sunlight where the American people have access to who is giving money
and how much.
We have a great opportunity to restore some of the confidence the
American people have lost in their political system. Improving our
system that selects America's leaders--who formulate and implement the
policies that govern our Nation--is a worthy challenge.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I would like to express my
support for ``The Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of
1999,'' which would provide this country with much needed campaign
finance reform. Our Constitution lays out the requirements for someone
running for office. In order to run for the Senate, the Constitution
tells us that there are three requirements: you must be at least 30
years old; you must have been a U.S. citizen for nine years; and you
must be a resident of the state you wish to represent.
What the Constitution doesn't tell you about is a fourth requirement:
you must have an awful lot of money, or at least know how to raise it.
The Constitution doesn't tell you this because when the framers drafted
the Constitution, they could not have imagined the ridiculously large
amounts of time and money one must spend today if he or she wants to be
elected to office.
We need to change the law to give power back to working families,
restore their faith in the process, and make democracy work. That's why
I have been an avid supporter of the McCain-Feingold bill and the
Shays-Meehan bill that recently passed the House, and that's why I am
now a cosponsor of Senator Hagel's bill.
Earlier this month, the Senate debated the McCain-Feingold bill. This
year's version was a stripped down version of the McCain-Feingold bills
we've debated, and I have supported, in years past. Although I prefer
the more comprehensive House passed Shays-Meehan bill, I understood
Senators McCain and Feingold's decision to purposefully strip down
their bill. They knew the realities of the vote count in the Senate. We
didn't have the votes to pass anything more comprehensive, so they
introduced a ``barebones'' bill which essentially did one simple thing:
ban soft money.
Unfortunately, the bill was pulled from the floor after a vote
showing McCain-Feingold still didn't have the votes to pass. The good
news is we picked up one vote; the bad news is we still haven't passed
a campaign finance reform bill. We made progress. That is why it is
important to not let this issue die on the back burner. That is why I
am joining in Senator Hagel's effort to keep this issue alive.
Currently, soft money is uncapped and unregulated--corporations,
unions and wealthy individuals can contribute unlimited amounts of soft
money. Senator Hagel's bill would cap soft money at $60,000. Although I
prefer a complete ban, it is clear the Senate is a few votes short of
passing this ban. Senator Hagel's new approach just might be the
compromise that can muster enough votes to pass the Senate. Let me be
clear--while I prefer much more comprehensive reform of our campaign
financing system--I do believe Senator Hagel's proposal is a step in
the right direction. This bill, with its cap on soft money and
tightening of disclosure requirements, would be a good beginning.
The American people are frustrated with the millions of dollars they
see poured into campaigns. They are frustrated with out tendency to
talk instead of act. I am hopeful this bill can help make that happen.
In fact I want to applaud my friend, Senator Hagel for his efforts, and
urge our colleagues to support this bill.<bullet>
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S. 1820. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
national service educational awards from the recipient's gross income;
to the Committee on Finance.

americorps scholarship fairness act

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on
behalf of thousands dedicated volunteers around the country. The
legislation I am offering addresses an inequity in the tax code that
adversely affects AmeriCorps volunteers. I urge my colleagues to pass
it immediately.

Since 1994, in 4,000 communities across the country, AmeriCorps
participants have tutored and mentored more than 4 million children,
developed after-school programs for over one million young people, and
helped build more than 11,000 homes. Their dedication and commitment
are a tribute to the American tradition of public service. Currently,
at the conclusion of 1,700 hours of service, AmeriCorps members receive
an education award of $4,725. The award may be used by former
volunteers to pay for tuition expenses or the repayment of student
loans.
Under long-established tax law, scholarships and grants are
excludable from income. However, because the AmeriCorps awards are
considered to represent payment for services rendered, they must be
included in taxable income at the end of the year. This tax treatment
creates a significant hardship for former volunteers. Because
AmeriCorps education awards are sent directly to the loan agency or
educational institution, they do not represent income from which a
portion may be reserved by the beneficiary for the payment of tax.
After serving in AmeriCorps, many former volunteers work part-time to
pay for college, and the education award pushes their income above the
standard income tax deduction, creating tax liability for an individual
with little means to pay for it.
Mr. President, allow me to illustrate. Maleah Thorpe of Sunderland,
Massachusetts, is a two-year AmeriCorps participant. Most recently,
Maleah served as a volunteer with Massachusetts Campus Compact. The
Massachusetts Campus Compact coordinates formal and informal assistance
for students, staff, and faculty in the areas of: America Reads and
early childhood literacy initiatives, America Counts and math education
initiatives, and other Campus and community partnerships. Maleah's
service has benefited our community and our country, while at the same
time, has provided a rewarding personal experience.
Listen to what Maleah has to say about AmeriCorps:

My experiences with AmeriCorps have been life-changing,
introducing me to so many opportunities and a new
appreciation of both the diversity and strength of people in
our nation. I consider myself fortunate and am thankful that
I will have not one, but two educational awards should I need
to use them. However, I am at the same time dreading the out-
of-pocket expense that will accompany their use * * *.
Although I was anxious to use the educational award earned
during my first year of service to reduce my undergraduate
loan debt, the cost of paying taxes on the amount has
prohibited me from doing so.
When I entered AmeriCorps two years ago, I did so for the
service. I also anticipated that approximately 75 percent of
my undergraduate loan debt would be paid within three years
of graduation, something that helped justify the financial
cost of living on only the minimal stipend. Instead, I will
enter graduate school in the fall, my undergraduate loans
will continue to accrue interest and I will likely acquire
additional loans to cover some expenses because I can simply
not afford to use and pay taxes on my educational awards
while I am a student.
I know that I am not alone in this predicament. Many alumni
with whom I served are either students or completing
additional years of service, solely responsible for
educational and living expenses. Many of us do not have
additional income to pay taxes on the educational awards nor
the ability to ask friends or relatives to assist us.
I have given two years to serve my fellow citizens of the
nation and the Commonwealth and would never give up those
experiences. However, I should not now be punished for this
choice by the burden of additional taxes.

Similar situations arise with other programs. Congress has recognized
these inequities and acted to address them. For example, this summer's
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act would have specifically provided that
scholarships received through the National Health Service Corps, the
Armed Forces Health Professions program, and the National Institutes of
Health Undergraduate program are tax exempt. Let's do the same for the
thousands of volunteers who, through the AmeriCorps program, give up
two years of their lives to make a difference in communities across our
nation.
The AmeriCorps Scholarship Fairness Act clarifies that AmeriCorps
education awards should receive the same tax treatment as a traditional
college scholarship. Under the proposal, amounts received by an
individual as part of a national service education award would be
eligible for tax-free treatment as a qualified scholarship

[[Page S13405]]

under section 117 of the tax code, without regard to the fact that the
recipient of the scholarship has provided services as a condition for
receiving the scholarship. The Joint Tax Committee estimates the cost
in lost revenue would be $2 million the first year, $15 million over
five years, and $32 million over ten years.
The government should cherish, not punish, volunteerism and public
service. I hope my colleagues will join me in enacting this simple but
meaningful legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
three letters from Massachusetts constituents be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1820

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF NATIONAL SERVICE EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.

(a) In General.--Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to qualified scholarships) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Qualified National Service Educational Awards.--
``(1) In general.--Gross income for any taxable year shall
not include any qualified national service educational award.
``(2) Qualified national service educational award.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified national service
educational award' means any amount received by an individual
in a taxable year as a national service educational award
under section 148 of the National and Community Service Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12604) to the extent (except as provided
in subparagraph (C)) such amount does not exceed the
qualified tuition and related expenses (as defined in
subsection (b)(2)) of the individual for such taxable year.
``(B) Determination of expenses.--The total amount of the
qualified tuition and related expenses (as so defined) which
may be taken into account under subparagraph (A) with respect
to an individual for the taxable year shall be reduced (after
the application of the reduction provided in section
25A(g)(2)) by the amount of such expenses which were taken
into account in determining the credit allowed to the
taxpayer or any other person under section 25A with respect
to such expenses.
``(C) Exception to limitation.--The limitation under
subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any portion of a national
service educational award used by such individual to repay
any student loan described in section 148(a)(1) of such Act
or to pay any interest expense described in section 148(a)(4)
of such Act.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1999.
____

AmeriCorps,

Sunderland, MA, July 20, 1999.
Senator John Kerry,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry, My name is Maleah Thorpe. I am a two
year alumna of AmeriCorps, serving with City Year Rhode
Island (1997--98) and most recently as a VISTA with
Massachusetts Campus Compact (1998-99) working at the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
My experiences with AmeriCorps have been life-changing,
introducing me to so many opportunities and a new
appreciation of both the diversity and strength of people in
our nation. These past two years have left an immeasurable
impact on my life, changed my perspective on many things, and
even altered my future plans; in September I will begin
graduate studies at UMass Amherst.
I consider myself fortunate and am thankful that I will
have not one, but two, Educational Awards should I need to
use them. However, I am at the same time dreading the out-of-
pocket expense that will accompany their use. I had a small
preview of what is to come last December when I used my
Interest Payment option from my first year of AmeriCorps
service. For choosing to use this ``benefit'' of $543, I was
required to pay an unexpected $120 in state and (mostly)
federal taxes. While this may seem like a small sum, I assure
you that it is not to someone living on a VISTA stipend where
every penny is accounted for to cover basic living expenses.
Although I was anxious to use the Educational Award earned
during my first year of service to reduce my undergraduate
loan debt, the cost of paying taxes on the amount has
prohibited me from doing so.
When I entered AmeriCorps two years ago, I did so for the
service. I also anticipated that approximately 75% of my
undergraduate loan debt would be paid within three years of
graduation, something that helped justify the financial cost
of living on only the minimal stipend. Instead, I will enter
graduate school in the fall, my undergraduate loans will
continue to accrue interest and I will likely acquire
additional loans to cover some expenses because I can simply
not afford to use and pay taxes on my Educational Awards
while I am a student.
I know that I am not alone in this predicament. Many alumni
with whom I served are either students or completing
additional years of service, solely responsible for
educational and living expenses. Many of us do not have
additional income to pay taxes on the Educational Awards nor
the ability to ask friends or relatives to assist us.
I have given two years to serve my fellow citizens of the
nation and the Commonwealth and would never give up those
experiences. However, I should not now be punished for this
choice by the burden of additional taxes. As a citizen of the
Commonwealth and on behalf of those who have served and will
serve in the future, I ask that you work to remove this
burden of taxation of the AmeriCorps Educational Awards.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Maleah F. Thorpe.
____

Ware, MA, July 19, 1999.
To Whom it May Concern: My name is Jamie Rutherford and I
am a resident of Ware, Massachusetts. Following graduation
from the University of Hartford in 1996, I entered the
AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps. I served two
10-month terms in the program, 1996--97 in Denver, CO, and
1997-98 in Charleston, SC.
My motivation for joining AmeriCorps included my desire to
travel, to learn new skills, to lend myself to the community,
and to earn an educational award that I would be able to
apply toward my substantial student loans. I greatly enjoyed
my experience the first year in Denver, and had very little
difficulty deciding to reapply for a second year in South
Carolina. Over those two years I took part in fourteen
separate projects pertaining to the environment, education,
public safety, and unmet human needs. I traveled to nine
states and enjoyed experiences ranging from inner city
tutoring, to midwestern trailbuilding, to even Gulf Coast
erosion control.
My experiences in AmeriCorps were wonderful, and have
instilled in me a great appreciation for national service. I
did, however, face several daunting challenges during my term
of service. The most difficult challenges usually involved
personal finance. The living stipend provided to us was
minimal, and it was often quite difficult to get by on such
meager funds. We did receive additional allotments for food
and travel, however, and got by as well as possible. Upon
completion of my first year in Denver, I applied my first
award to my student loan provider here in Massachusetts. The
greatest challenge for me came with the taxation of that
award during my second term in South Carolina. When I
discovered that I owed $350 to the Internal Revenue Service
due to the taxation of the award, I was forced to go on a
monthly payment plan during that second term. This was very
difficult for me considering our minimal living stipend. I
could not then and cannot now understand why the award was
taxable as such, or why the taxed amount could not at least
be subtracted from the $4,725 award initially.
Nearly a year after completing my second term and receiving
my second award, I still maintain the $4,725 balance of that
award. My current finances greatly necessitate the
utilization of the award toward my substantial student loan
bills. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to do so due to
uncertainty for my future financial viability. I fear that I
will not be able to afford another heavy taxation. Though the
award seems to be so beneficial, it threatens to actually be
somewhat detrimental to me.
My hope and request is that this taxation be abolished. It
simply does not seem reasonable that young people devoting
themselves to the improvement of our country should be so
unjustly penalized. I greatly support AmeriCorps and all the
good that it represents. I only wish that this one matter
would be reconsidered in order to lift the gray cloud that
has fallen over my memories of two wonderful years of
national service.
Thank you.
James E. Rutherford.
____

Jamaica Plain, MA, July 20, 1999.
Dear Senator: My name is Brendan Miller and I am an alumnus
of AmeriCorps. I served two years, one with the Northwest
Service Academy in Oregon and one with City Year in South
Carolina as an AmeriCorps Leader. My AmeriCorps experience
changed my life and set me on a path of public service that I
now know is my calling.
I currently live in Boston, Massachusetts. As a supporter
of AmeriCorps you surely know a benefit of the AmeriCorps
experience is the Education Award that is granted at the end
of one's service. I used approximately $6,000 of this award
in January to pay off my loans from college. Unfortunately,
the Ed Award is considered income for tax purposes, so I will
be burdened with significantly higher taxes this year. In
fact, I chose not to use my whole Award this year in order to
split the tax burden between two years. If I had used the
entire Award this year, my financial situation would surely
have prevented me from meeting this tax without significant
hardship.
I am working for the Boston Plan for Excellence in
Education, which is a non-profit that is seeking to encourage
lasting school reform in the Boston schools. Although I
receive great satisfaction from this work, it does not pay
that well. Since my AmeriCorps experience, I have committed
myself to

[[Page S13406]]

doing work that I feel is really making a difference, but
this also means living on a tighter budget.
I know many of my friends in service have also made similar
commitments to a life of service. However, our resolve can be
tested by the need to pay our bills. As a graduate of Brown
University with a degree in Computer Science, I could be
making significantly more money in the for-profit sector, and
I am often tempted to break my commitment to a life of
service.
As a supporter of AmeriCorps and national service, I know
you want to make it easy as possible for America's citizens
to serve their country. I ask you to remove the tax on
Education Awards to take a giant step forward in this effort.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any
additional questions. I look forward to hearing of your
leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,
Brendan Miller.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 1821. A bill to authorize the United States to recover from a
third party the value of any housing, education, or medical care or
treatment furnished or paid for by the United States and provided to
any victim of lead poisoning; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

the lead poisoning expense recovery act of 1999

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with
my colleague Senator Torricelli that would give the federal government
clear authority to recover from the manufacturers of lead-based paint,
funds spent on the prevention and treatment of childhood lead
poisoning.
Our knowledge of lead poisoning dates back to 200 BC, when the Greek
physician Galen wrote ``lead makes the mind give way.'' Benjamin
Franklin knew about ``the mischievous effects of lead'' back when he
wrote those words in 1786. In the late 19th century, scientific studies
and medical reports began detailing the effects of lead on children.
And by 1904, the source of those poisonings was identified as white
lead paint used in housing. Queensland, Australia, was the first to ban
certain applications of lead-based paint in 1922. Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, France, Latvia, Poland,
Romania, Spain, and Sweden followed suit in the mid-1920's. In 1978,
more than a half of a century later, lead-based paint was banned in the
United States.
Today, nearly one million preschoolers nationwide have excessive
levels of lead in their blood; making lead poisoning the leading
environmental health disease among children. Even low levels of lead
exposure can cause serious injury to the developing brain and nervous
system of children, lost IQ points, learning and reading disabilities,
hyperactivity, and aggressive or delinquent behavior. At high levels of
exposure, lead causes mental retardation, coma, convulsions and even
death.
Lead-based paint in housing is the major remaining source of exposure
and is responsible for most cases of childhood lead poisoning. Children
contract lead poisoning when they come into contact with lead-based
paint chips, contaminated soil, or dust generated from deteriorated
paint. An estimated three million tons of lead still coats the walls
and woodwork of American homes. Approximately half of America's housing
stock, roughly 64 million units contain some lead-based paint. Twenty
million of which are considered hazardous because they contain paint
which is peeling, cracked, or chipped. My home state of Rhode Island
has the fifth oldest housing stock in the country, and, as a result,
has a lead poisoning rate that is three times the national average.
Sadly, this disease is particularly prevalent in those communities
with the fewest resources to address the problem. Poor children are
eight times more likely than kids from moderate and upper income
families to contract lead poisoning. Yet, while lead poisoning is most
prevalent in low-income communities, 20-25 percent of children who are
poisoned live in middle- or upper-income homes. They were poisoned by
exposure to lead released through renovation or repainting activities.
Taxpayers have already paid billions of dollars to deal with the
tragic consequences of childhood lead exposure, including large
expenditures for medical care, special education, and lead abatement in
housing. However, what has been spent so far is barely a drop in the
bucket. In Rhode Island alone, we are looking at a bill of $300 million
to clean up just the most dangerous housing units. There are simply not
enough grant or loan programs available. Last year, one federal lead
abatement program had to turn down nine applicants for every grant it
made.
Each year, we fight to make childhood lead poisoning a priority in
Congress, in State legislatures, in cities, and in communities, knowing
that the real solution is getting rid of the source of a child's
exposure. At the same time we are frightfully aware that it could be
decades longer, and millions of poisoned children later, until we
finally ``get the lead out.''
The Rhode Island Attorney General recently filed a 10-count lawsuit
against the manufacturers of lead paint and the industry's trade
association. The lawsuit documents nearly a century-long record of
industry culpability. The lead industry aggressively marketed its
product as safe, despite knowledge of its harmful effects that were
made apparent by continuous warnings from the medical community. To
date, an industry that has over $30 billion in assets has yet to make a
significant contribution to addressing the problems associated with its
product.

Clearly, victims of lead poisoning were never given a chance, not
even a warning. Parents were never told that the product they used to
beautify their home could prevent their children from achieving their
fullest potential. Instead, the industry fought regulations in
California, New York, and Maryland that would have banned the use of
lead-based paint or required the product to be labeled as poisonous. In
1954, the Board of Health of New York City proposed a sanitary code
provision banning the sale of paints containing more than 1 percent
lead, and requiring lead paint to be labeled as ``poisonous'' and not
for interior use. The lead industry opposed the proposal as
``unnecessary and unjustified'' and unduly burdensome. Ultimately, the
New York City Board of Health dropped the proposed ban of lead paint in
1955, and adopted a more narrow warning label requirement. This is only
one example from an extensive record of industry wrongdoing which I
believe the federal government should have the authority to address.
That is why Senator Torricelli and I are introducing legislation that
will ensure that justice is served. Our legislation provides clear
authority for the Federal government to recover the significant
resources it has expended to mitigate childhood lead poisoning. This
includes dollars spent on medical care and treatment, special
education, and funds spent to make homes lead-safe for children. As
cities and states stand up and say enough is enough, it is only
appropriate for the federal government to join them in the effort to
hold the industry responsible. The severity of childhood lead poisoning
and the considerable expense borne by taxpayers to clean up the
industry's mess demands action now. I urge my Senate colleagues to join
me in supporting this legislation so that we can move aggressively
towards our goal to end childhood lead poisoning. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

S. 1821

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 ``Lead Poisoning Expense
Recovery Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Lead poisoning is the number 1 environmental health
threat to young children, affecting an estimated 890,000
children.
(2) Most children are poisoned in their homes through
exposure to lead particles when lead-based paint deteriorates
or is disturbed during home renovation or repainting.
(3) Lead paint remains in almost \2/3\ of the housing stock
of the United States.
(4) Lead poisoning may cause serious, long-term harm to
children, including reduced intelligence and attention span,
behavior problems, learning disabilities, and impaired
growth.
(5) Research shows that children with elevated levels of
lead in their blood are 7 times more likely to drop out of
high school than children without elevated blood-lead levels.
(6) Children from low-income families are 8 times more
likely to be poisoned by lead than children from high-income
families.
(7) African-American children are 5 times more likely to be
poisoned by lead than white children.

[[Page S13407]]

SEC. 3. SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZED.

(a) In General.--In any case in which the United States is
authorized or required to furnish housing, education, or
medical care or treatment to an individual who suffers from
or is at risk of lead poisoning (or to pay for the housing,
education, or medical care or treatment of such an
individual) under circumstances creating liability upon any
third party, the United States shall have the right to
recover (independent of the rights of the injured or diseased
individual) the value of the housing (including the cost of
lead hazard evaluation and control), education, or medical
care or treatment furnished or paid for by the United States
before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Amounts Recovered.--Any amount recovered by the United
States under subsection (a) shall be available, subject to
authorization and appropriations Acts, to enhance childhood
lead poisoning prevention and treatment activities, including
lead hazard evaluation and control.
(c) Third Party Defined.--In this section, the term ``third
party'' means any manufacturer of lead or lead compound for
use in paint or any trade association that represents such a
manufacturer.
(d) Statute of Limitations.--No action may be brought under
this section more than 6 years after the later of--
(1) the date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) the date on which the United States incurs the expense.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1822. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to require that group and individual health insurance coverage
and group health plans provide coverage for treatment of a minor
child's congenital or developmental deformity or disorder due to
trauma, infection, tumor, or disease; to the Committee on Finance.

treatment of children's deformities act of 1999

<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to address the growing problem of
HMOs denying insurance coverage for reconstructive surgery for children
suffering from physical defects and deformities. This legislation would
require medical plans to cover the medical procedures to reconstruct a
child's appearance if they are born with abnormal structures of the
body, including a cleft lip or palate.

Today, approximately seven percent of American children are born with
pediatric deformities and congenital defects such as cleft lip, cleft
palate, missing limbs including ears, and other facial deformities.
Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for insurance companies to
label reconstructive procedures to correct these deformities as
cosmetic surgery and deny coverage to help these children eradicate or
reduce deformities and acquire a normal appearance.
A recent survey of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive
Surgeons indicated that over half the plastic surgeons questioned have
had a pediatric patient in the last two years who has been denied, or
experienced tremendous difficulty in obtaining, insurance coverage for
reconstructive surgery.
It is disgraceful that many insurance companies claim that medical
services to restore to a child some semblance of a normal appearance
are superfluous and merely for vanity or cosmetic purposes. My
colleagues may be wondering how such a ludicrous and cruel argument can
be made when these procedures are clearly reconstructive in nature.
Helping a child born without ears or with a cleft so severe it extends
to her hairline is not cosmetic surgery.
The medical and developmental complications arise from these
conditions are tremendous. Speech impediments, hearing difficulties and
dental problems are a few of the physical side effects resulting from a
child's physical deformity. In addition, the effect of a child's
deformities on their personal development, confidence, and self-esteem
and their future aspirations and achievements, is often very far
reaching.
A healthy self image is vitally important to develop self esteem and
confidence. How people see themselves, and how others see them, helps
determine how a person feels about himself and whether he has the
strength to cope with difficult challenges, including the taunting of
peers and disengagement from school activities. As parents, we want our
children to be armed with a healthy self esteem and confidence. The
best way to guarantee that happens is to help them develop a strong and
healthy self image.
At the same time, I recognize that we live in a society which places
a high value on physical beauty and often unfairly uses it to measure a
person's worth, ability or potential in society. It is unrealistic not
to recognize the unfair obstacles facing children born with deformities
if they are not provided access to medical services to help them attain
a more normal physical appearance.
Some of my colleagues may know that my daughter, Bridget, whom Cindy
and I adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, was born
with a severe cleft. We are fortunate to have had the means and
opportunities to provide the expert medical care necessary to help
Bridget physically and emotionally. However, we, too, encountered
numerous obstacles and denials by our insurance providers who did not
believe that Bridget's medical treatment was necessary. Fortunately,
Cindy and I were able to afford the reconstructive services Bridget
needed, despite denials by our health plan. Most hard-working American
families are not so fortunate. That is why I am introducing this
important bill to assist all American children.
This is not a new mandate that could cause health care premiums to
escalate. What I am proposing simply prohibits plans from frivolously
ruling that substantial, medically needed reconstructive surgeon for
children to obtain a relatively normal appearance is cosmetic and
refusing to pay for the procedures. This bill ensures that all children
are afforded an opportunity to lead a more normal life and realize
their full potential.
Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
The bill follows:

S. 1822

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 ``Treatment of Children's
Deformities Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF MINOR CHILD'S CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL
DEFORMITY OR DISORDER.

(a) Group Health Plans.--
(1) Public health service act amendments.--
(A) In general.--Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 2707. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MINOR CHILD'S
CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DEFORMITY OR
DISORDER.

``(a) Requirements for Reconstructive Surgery.--
``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage,
that provides coverage for surgical benefits shall provide
coverage for outpatient and inpatient diagnosis and treatment
of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity,
disease, or injury. A minor child shall include any
individual up to 21 years of age.
``(2) Requirements.--Any coverage provided under paragraph
(1) shall be subject to pre-authorization or pre-
certification as required by the plan or issuer, and such
coverage shall include any surgical treatment which, in the
opinion of the treating physician, is medically necessary to
approximate a normal appearance.
``(3) Treatment defined.--
``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `treatment'
includes reconstructive surgical procedures (procedures that
are generally performed to improve function, but may also be
performed to approximate a normal appearance) that are
performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by
congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma,
infection, tumors, or disease, including--
``(i) procedures that do not materially affect the function
of the body part being treated; and
``(ii) procedures for secondary conditions and follow-up
treatment.
``(B) Exception.--Such term does not include cosmetic
surgery performed to reshape normal structures of the body to
improve appearance or self-esteem.
``(b) Notice.--A group health plan under this part shall
comply with the notice requirement under section 713(b) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with
respect to the requirements of this section as if such
section applied to such plan.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 2723(c) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-23(c)) is amended by
striking ``section 2704'' and inserting ``sections 2704 and
2707''.
(2) ERISA amendments.--
(A) In general.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title
I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C.

[[Page S13408]]

1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``SEC. 714. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MINOR CHILD'S
CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DEFORMITY OR
DISORDER.

``(a) Requirements for Reconstructive Surgery.--
``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage,
that provides coverage for surgical benefits shall provide
coverage for outpatient and inpatient diagnosis and treatment
of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity,
disease, or injury. A minor child shall include any
individual up to 21 years of age.
``(2) Requirements.--Any coverage provided under paragraph
(1) shall be subject to pre-authorization or pre-
certification as required by the plan or issuer, and such
coverage shall include any surgical treatment which, in the
opinion of the treating physician, is medically necessary to
approximate a normal appearance.
``(3) Treatment defined.--
``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `treatment'
includes reconstructive surgical procedures (procedures that
are generally performed to improve function, but may also be
performed to approximate a normal appearance) that are
performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by
congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma,
infection, tumors, or disease, including--
``(i) procedures that do not materially affect the function
of the body part being treated; and
``(ii) procedures for secondary conditions and follow-up
treatment.
``(B) Exception.--Such term does not include cosmetic
surgery performed to reshape normal structures of the body to
improve appearance or self-esteem.
``(b) Notice Under Group Health Plan.--The imposition of
the requirements of this section shall be treated as a
material modification in the terms of the plan described in
section 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring notice of such
requirements under the plan; except that the summary
description required to be provided under the last sentence
of section 104(b)(1) with respect to such modification shall
be provided by not later than 60 days after the first day of
the first plan year in which such requirements apply.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Section 731(c) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191(c)) is amended by
striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections 711 and
714''.
(ii) Section 732(a) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191a(a)) is amended by
striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections 711 and
714''.
(iii) The table of contents in section 1 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001) is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 713
the following new item:

``Sec. 714. Standards relating to benefits for minor child's congenital
or developmental deformity or disorder.''.

(3) Internal revenue code amendments.--Subchapter B of
chapter 100 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(A) in the table of sections, by inserting after the item
relating to section 9812 the following new item:

``Sec. 9813. Standards relating to benefits for minor child's
congenital or developmental deformity or disorder.''; and

(B) by inserting after section 9812 the following:

``SEC. 9813. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MINOR CHILD'S
CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DEFORMITY OR
DISORDER.

``SEC. 2753. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MINOR CHILD'S
CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DEFORMITY OR
DISORDER.

``(a) Requirements for Reconstructive Surgery.--
``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage,
that provides coverage for surgical benefits shall provide
coverage for outpatient and inpatient diagnosis and treatment
of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity,
disease, or injury. A minor child shall include any
individual up to 21 years of age.
``(2) Requirements.--Any coverage provided under paragraph
(1) shall be subject to pre-authorization or pre-
certification as required by the plan or issuer, and such
coverage shall include any surgical treatment which, in the
opinion of the treating physician, is medically necessary to
approximate a normal appearance.
``(3) Treatment defined.--
``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `treatment'
includes reconstructive surgical procedures (procedures that
are generally performed to improve function, but may also be
performed to approximate a normal appearance) that are
performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by
congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma,
infection, tumors, or disease, including--
``(i) procedures that do not materially affect the function
of the body part being treated; and
``(ii) procedures for secondary conditions and follow-up
treatment.
``(B) Exception.--Such term does not include cosmetic
surgery performed to reshape normal structures of the body to
improve appearance or self-esteem.
``(b) Notice.--A health insurance issuer under this part
shall comply with the notice requirement under section 714(b)
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with
respect to the requirements referred to in subsection (a) as
if such section applied to such issuer and such issuer were a
group health plan.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 2762(b)(2) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-62(b)(2)) is amended by
striking ``section 2751'' and inserting ``sections 2751 and
2753''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Group market.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to group health plans for plan years
beginning on or after January 1, 2000.
(2) Individual market.--The amendment made by subsection
(b) shall apply with respect to health insurance coverage
offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or operated in the
individual market on or after such date.
(d) Coordinated Regulations.--Section 104(1) of Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is
amended by striking ``this subtitle (and the amendments made
by this subtitle and section 401)'' and inserting ``the
provisions of part 7 of subtitle B of title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the provisions of
parts A and C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service
Act, and chapter 100 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986''.<bullet>
______

By Mr. DeWine (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Abraham, and Mr.
Dodd):
S. 1823. A bill to revise and extend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act of 1994; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.

THE SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITIES ACT

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is no secret that drugs and violence
destroy lives and families. They also can destroy entire neighborhoods
and communities. More and more, our young people--our children--are
being exposed to the evils of drugs and the dangers of violence. That
is why I am introducing legislation today, along with my colleagues
Senators Dodd and Murray, that would reauthorize the Safe and Drug Free
Schools program.
This program funds a wide range of drug education and prevention
activities. Our bill, which was drafted with the assistance of
community anti-drug organization representatives, would give states
greater flexibility on targeting assistance to schools in need;
increase accountability measures to ensure that assistance is targeted
to programs that work; and improve coordination of Safe and Drug Free
programs with other community-based anti-drug programs.
Mr. President, I have dedicated a great deal of time, both in the
House and the Senate, to fighting illegal drug use in this country. Way
back in 1990, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I was on the
National Commission on Drug Free Schools. From my experience on this
Commission, and through my work on drug prevention when I was
Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, I learned that school-based prevention
efforts must be coordinated

[[Page S13409]]

and consistent during a child's school years. Programs must not have
gaps that leave our children vulnerable to the lure of drugs.
Throughout my efforts, I always have emphasized the importance of a
balanced attack against drug use. We must win the fight against people
who manufacture and grow drugs, we must put a stop to those who
transport illegal drugs into, and through, this country, and we must
fight against the dealers who their trade drugs on our streets and yes,
even in our schools.
There are many fronts in the important battle against drugs. The Safe
and Drug Free Schools program is one area where I think we can improve
our efforts. I believe we should continue the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program, but increase the accountability of federally funded
programs and focus limited resources on programs that demonstrate an
actual reduction in drug use. We must provide parents, schools, and
local communities with the resources and flexibility they need to
reduce drug use among kids.
Every child deserves to live and go to school in a drug and violence-
free community. Our bill helps ensure that our children have this
opportunity. Congress first passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act--the
precursor to the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act--in
1986. This legislation was the product of an aggressive, ambitious, and
comprehensive anti-drug effort, which contributed to a 25% overall
reduction in adolescent drug use from 1988 to 1992. Unfortunately, over
the course of this decade, much of that success was lost. Youth drug
use increased dramatically, including an 80% increase in marijuana use
by high school seniors, an 80% increase in cocaine use, and a 100%
increase in heroin use. We must reverse this trend. We have an
obligation to our kids to reverse this trend.
I believe that our children's disturbing acceptance and
experimentation of life-destroying drugs is due in large part to the
Administration's national anti-drug strategy, which has been neither
balanced nor comprehensive. Reinvesting in an improved Safe and Drug
Free Schools and Communities program is a critical part of restoring
effectiveness in and purpose to our national drug policy. Our
legislation would be a major assault against drugs and violence in our
schools and communities, by coordinating school-based programs with the
broader community anti-drug effort.

Children spend more time at school than at any single place. A
quality education starts with a quality educational environment.
Congress can show its commitment to this goal by continuing--and
improving--our investment in the Safe and Drug Free Schools and
Communities Program. Specifically, our bill would increase the
accountability within the program and ensure that only effective,
researched-based programs receive federal funding. Also, it would
provide States and Governors with greater flexibility in targeting
their grants to prevent youth violence and drug use. Each state has
unique drug prevention challenges and this bill provides the states
with the flexibility to target funds to all of their schools, focus on
those schools with the greatest drug/violence problems, or a
combination of these two groups.
Our bill would increase community participation in the development
and implementation of drug and violence prevention programs. Drug abuse
and violence among young people is a community problem and requires a
community-based solution. That's why when we drafted this bill, we
worked closely with the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America.
Thanks to their input, this bill ensures that the entire community is
involved in the creation and execution of programs to fight youth drug
abuse and violence. It would maintain a viable program for all schools
willing to conduct research-based violence and drug abuse prevention
programs.
Mr. President, the threat of violence--and the reality of drug
abuse--in our schools are all too real. If we get to our kids before
the drug dealers do--if we have a policy of zero tolerance on drugs--
America's children have a chance. I believe that the Safe and Drug Free
Schools program empowers America's families and teachers with the
information, training, and resources they need to help our children
resist the temptation of drugs.
Over the coming months, we will be reauthorizing the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The Safe and Drug Free is an important part of
that legislation. I look forward to working on this bill and making
this country's schools safer and drug free for our kids.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1823

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 ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
ACT OF 1965.

Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

``TITLE IV--SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

``SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

``This title may be cited as the `Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act of 1994'.

``SEC. 4002. FINDINGS.

``Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Every student should attend a school in a drug- and
violence-free learning environment.
``(2) The widespread illegal use of alcohol and drugs among
the Nation's secondary school students, and increasingly by
students in elementary schools as well, constitutes a grave
threat to such students' physical and mental well-being, and
significantly impedes the learning process. For example, data
show that students who drink tend to receive lower grades and
are more likely to miss school because of illness than
students who do not drink.
``(3) Drug and violence prevention programs are essential
components of a comprehensive strategy to promote school
safety, youth development, positive school outcomes, and to
reduce the demand for and illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and
drugs throughout the Nation. Schools, local organizations,
parents, students, and communities throughout the Nation have
a special responsibility to work together to combat the
continuing epidemic of violence and illegal drug use and
should measure the success of their programs against clearly
defined goals and objectives.
``(4) Drug and violence prevention programs are most
effective when implemented within a research-based, drug and
violence prevention framework of proven effectiveness.
``(5) Research clearly shows that community contexts
contribute to substance abuse and violence.
``(6) Substance abuse and violence are intricately related
and must be dealt with in a holistic manner.
``(7) Research has documented that parental behavior and
environment directly influence a child's inclination to use
alcohol, tobacco or drugs.

``SEC. 4003. PURPOSE.

``The purpose of this title is to support programs that
prevent violence in and around schools and prevent the
illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, involve parents,
and are coordinated with related Federal, State, school, and
community efforts and resources, through the provision of
Federal assistance to--
``(1) States for grants to local educational agencies and
educational service agencies and consortia of such agencies
to establish, operate, and improve local programs of school
drug and violence prevention, early intervention,
rehabilitation referral, and education in elementary and
secondary schools (including intermediate and junior high
schools);
``(2) States for grants to, and contracts with, community-
based organizations and other public and private nonprofit
agencies and organizations for programs of drug and violence
prevention including community mobilization, early
intervention, rehabilitation referral, and education;
``(3) States for grants to local educational agencies and
educational service agencies and consortia for the
development and implementation of policies that set clear and
appropriate standards regarding the illegal use of alcohol,
tobacco and drugs, and for violent behavior.
``(4) States for development, training, technical
assistance, and coordination activities;
``(5) public and private nonprofit organizations to provide
technical assistance, conduct training, demonstrations, and
evaluation, and to provide supplementary services and
community mobilization activities for the prevention of drug
use and violence among students and youth; and
``(6) institutions of higher education to establish,
operate, expand, and improve programs of school drug and
violence prevention, education, and rehabilitation referral
for students enrolled in colleges and universities.

[[Page S13410]]

``SEC. 4004. FUNDING.

``There are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) $700,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years,
for State grants under subpart 1 of part A;
``(2) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years,
for national programs under subpart 2 of part A; and
``(3) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years,
for the National Coordinator Initiative under section 4122.

``PART A--STATE GRANTS FOR DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS

``Subpart 1--State Grants for Drug and Violence Prevention Programs

``SEC. 4011. RESERVATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS.

``(a) Reservations.--From the amount made available under
section 4004(1) to carry out this subpart for each fiscal
year, the Secretary--
``(1) shall reserve 1 percent of such amount for grants
under this subpart to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin
Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, to be allotted in accordance with the Secretary's
determination of their respective needs;
``(2) shall reserve 1 percent of such amount for the
Secretary of the Interior to carry out programs under this
part for Indian youth;
``(3) may reserve not more than $1,000,000 for the national
impact evaluation required by section 4117(a); and
``(4) shall reserve 0.2 percent of such amount for programs
for Native Hawaiians under section 4118.
``(b) State Allotments.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall, for each fiscal year, allocate among the
States--
``(A) one-half of the remainder not reserved under
subsection (a) according to the ratio between the school-aged
population of each State and the school-aged population of
all the States; and
``(B) one-half of such remainder according to the ratio
between the amount each State received under part A of title
I for the preceding year and the sum of such amounts received
by all the States.
``(2) Minimum.--For any fiscal year, no State shall be
allotted under this subsection an amount that is less than
one-half of 1 percent of the total amount allotted to all the
States under this subsection.
``(3) Reallotment.--The Secretary may reallot any amount of
any allotment to a State if the Secretary determines that the
State will be unable to use such amount within 2 years of
such allotment. Such reallotments shall be made on the same
basis as allotments are made under paragraph (1).
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
``(B) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' includes educational service agencies and
consortia of such agencies.
``(c) Limitation.--Amounts appropriated under this section
for programs under this subpart shall not be used to carry
out national programs under subpart 2.

``SEC. 4112. STATE APPLICATIONS.

``(a) In General.--In order to receive an allotment under
section 4111 for any fiscal year, a State shall submit to the
Secretary, at such time as the Secretary may require, an
application that--
``(1) contains a comprehensive plan for the use of funds by
the State educational agency and the chief executive officer
to provide safe, orderly, and drug-free schools and
communities;
``(2) contains the results of the State's needs assessment
for drug and violence prevention programs, which shall be
based on the results of on-going State evaluation activities,
including data on the incidence and prevalence, age of onset,
perception of health risk, and perception of social
disapproval of drug use and violence by youth in schools and
communities and the prevalence of risk or protective factors,
buffers or assets or other research-based variables in the
school and community;
``(3) contains assurances that the sections of the
application concerning the funds provided to the chief
executive officer and the State educational agency were
developed together, with each such officer or State
representative, in consultation and coordination with
appropriate State officials and others, including the chief
State school officer, the chief executive officer, the head
of the State alcohol and drug abuse agency, the heads of the
State health and mental health agencies, the head of the
State criminal justice planning agency, the head of the State
child welfare agency, the head of the State board of
education, or their designees, and representatives of
parents, students, and community-based organizations;
``(4) contains an assurance that the State will cooperate
with, and assist, the Secretary in conducting a national
impact evaluation of programs required by section 4117(a);
``(5) contains assurances that the State education agency
and the Governor will develop their respective applications
in consultation with an advisory council that includes, to
the extent practicable, representatives from school
districts, businesses, parent organizations, youth, teachers,
administrators, pupil services personnel, private schools,
appropriate State agencies, community-based organization, the
medical profession, law enforcement, the faith community and
other groups with interest and expertise in alcohol, tobacco,
drug, and violence prevention;
``(6) contains assurances that the State education agency
and the Governor involve the representatives described in
paragraph (4), on an ongoing basis, to review program
evaluations and other relevant material and make
recommendations to the State education agency and the
Governor on how to improve their respective alcohol, tobacco,
drug, and violence prevention programs;
``(7) contains a list of the State's results-based
performance measures for drug and violence prevention, that
shall--
``(A) be focused on student behavior and attitudes and be
derived from the needs assessment;
``(B) include targets and due dates for the attainment of
such performance measures; and
``(C) include a description of the procedures that the
State will use to inform local educational agencies of such
performance measures for assessing and publicly reporting
progress toward meeting such measures or revising them as
needed; and
``(8) includes any other information the Secretary may
require.
``(b) State Educational Agency Funds.--A State's
application under this section shall also contain a
comprehensive plan for the use of funds under section 4113(a)
by the State educational agency that includes--
``(1) a plan for monitoring the implementation of, and
providing technical assistance regarding, the drug and
violence prevention programs conducted by local educational
agencies in accordance with section 4116
``(2) a description of how the State educational agency
will use funds under section 4113(b);
``(3) a description of how the State educational agency
will coordinate such agency's activities under this subpart
with the chief executive officer's drug and violence
prevention programs under this subpart and with the
prevention efforts of other State agencies; and
``(4) a description of the procedures the State educational
agency will use to review applications from and allocate
funding to local educational agencies under section 4115.
``(c) Governor's Funds.--A State's application under this
section shall also contain a comprehensive plan for the use
of funds under section 4114(a) by the chief executive officer
that includes--
``(1) a description of how the chief executive officer will
coordinate such officer's activities under this part with the
State educational agency and other State agencies and
organizations involved with drug and violence prevention
efforts;
``(2) a description of how funds reserved under section
4114(a) will be used so as not to duplicate the efforts of
the State educational agency and local educational agencies
with regard to the provision of school-based prevention
efforts and services and how those funds will be used to
serve populations not normally served by the State
educational agency, such as school dropouts and youth in
detention centers;
``(3) a description of how the chief executive officer will
award funds under section 4114(a) and a plan for monitoring
the performance of, and providing technical assistance to,
recipients of such funds;
``(4) a description of the special outreach activities that
will be carried out to maximize the participation of
community-based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness
which provide services in low-income communities; and
``(5) a description of how funds will be used to support
community-wide comprehensive drug and violence prevention
planning and community mobilization activities.
``(d) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall use a peer review
process in reviewing State applications under this section.
``(e) Interim Application.--Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this section, a State may submit for fiscal
year 2000 a 1-year interim application and plan for the use
of funds under this subpart that are consistent with the
requirements of this section and contain such information as
the Secretary may specify in regulations. The purpose of such
interim application and plan shall be to afford the State the
opportunity to fully develop and review such State's
application and comprehensive plan otherwise required by this
section. A State may not receive a grant under this subpart
for a fiscal year subsequent to fiscal year 2000 unless the
Secretary has approved such State's application and
comprehensive plan in accordance with this subpart.

``SEC. 4113. STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY PROGRAMS.

``(a) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
amount equal to 80 percent of the total amount allocated to a
State under section 4111 for each fiscal year shall be used
by the State educational agency and its local educational
agencies for drug and violence prevention activities in
accordance with this section.
``(2) Exception.--
``(A) In general.--If a State has, on or before January 1,
1994, established an independent State agency for the purpose
of administering all of the funds described in section 5121
of this Act (as such section was in effect on the day
preceding the date of the

[[Page S13411]]

enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994),
then--
``(i) an amount equal to 80 percent of the total amount
allocated to such State under section 4111 for each fiscal
year shall be used by the State educational agency and its
local educational agencies for drug and violence prevention
activities in accordance with this section; and
``(ii) an amount equal to 20 percent of such total amount
shall be used by such independent State agency for drug and
violence prevention activities in accordance with this
section.
``(B) Administrative costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A)(ii) may be used for
administrative costs of the independent State agency incurred
in carrying out the activities described in such
subparagraph.
``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`independent State agency' means an independent agency with a
board of directors or a cabinet level agency whose chief
executive officer is appointed by the chief executive officer
of the State and confirmed with the advice and consent of the
senate of such State.
``(b) State Level Programs.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall use not
more than 5 percent of the amount available under subsection
(a) for activities such as--
``(A) training and technical assistance concerning drug and
violence prevention for local educational agencies and
educational service agencies, including teachers,
administrators, coaches and athletic directors, other staff,
parents, students, community leaders, health service
providers, local law enforcement officials, and judicial
officials;
``(B) the development, identification, dissemination, and
evaluation of the most readily available, accurate, and up-
to-date curriculum materials (including videotapes, software,
and other technology-based learning resources), for
consideration by local educational agencies;
``(C) making available to local educational agencies cost
effective programs for youth violence and drug abuse
prevention;
``(D) demonstration projects in drug and violence
prevention;
``(E) training, technical assistance, and demonstration
projects to address violence associated with prejudice and
intolerance;
``(F) financial assistance to enhance resources available
for drug and violence prevention in areas serving large
numbers of economically disadvantaged children or sparsely
populated areas, or to meet other special needs consistent
with the purposes of this subpart; and
``(G) the evaluation of activities carried out within the
State under this part.
``(2) Special rule.--A State educational agency may carry
out activities under this subsection directly, or through
grants or contracts.
``(c) State Administration.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency may use not
more than 4 percent of the amount reserved under subsection
(a) for the administrative costs of carrying out its
responsibilities under this part.
``(2) Uniform management information and reporting
system.--In carrying out its responsibilities under this
part, a State shall implement a uniform management
information and reporting system that includes information on
the types of curricula, programs and services provided by the
State, Governor, local education agencies, and other
recipients of funds under this title.
``(d) Local Educational Agency Programs.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall
distribute not less than 91 percent of the amount made
available under subsection (a) for each fiscal year to local
educational agencies in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Distribution.--A State educational agency shall
distribute amounts under paragraph (1) in accordance with any
one of the following subparagraphs:
``(A) Enrollment and baseline approach.--Of the amount
distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency
shall distribute--
``(i) at least 70 percent of such amount to local
educational agencies, based on the relative enrollments in
public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools
within the boundaries of such agencies; and
``(ii) not to exceed 30 percent of any amounts remaining
after amounts are distributed under clause (i) to each local
educational agency in an amount determined appropriate by the
State education agency.
``(B) Enrollment and need approach.--Of the amount
distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency
shall distribute--
``(i) at least 70 percent of such amount in accordance with
subparagraph (A)(i); and
``(ii) not to exceed 30 percent of any amounts remaining
after amounts are distributed under clause (i) to local
educational agencies that the State education agency
determines have the greatest need for additional funds to
carry out drug and violence prevention programs authorized by
this subpart.
``(C) Enrollment and combination approach.--Of the amount
distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency
shall distribute
``(i) at least 70 percent of such amount to local
educational agencies, based on the relative enrollments in
public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools
within the boundaries of such agencies; and
``(ii) not to exceed 30 percent of any amounts remaining
after amounts are distributed under clause (i)--

``(I) to each local educational agency in an amount
determined appropriate by the State education agency; or
``(II) to local educational agencies that the State
education agency determines have the greatest need for
additional funds to carry out drug and violence prevention
programs authorized by this subpart.

``(D) Competitive and need approach.--Of the amount
distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency
shall distribute
``(i) not to exceed 70 percent of such amount to local
educational agencies that the State agency determines,
through a competitive process, have the greatest need for
funds to carry out drug and violence prevention programs
based on criteria established by the State agency and
authorized under this subpart; and
``(ii) at least 30 percent of any amounts remaining after
amounts are distributed under clause (i) to local education
agencies that the State agency determines have a need for
additional funds to carry out the program authorized under
this subpart.
``(3) Consideration of objective data.--For purposes of
paragraph (2), in determining which local educational
agencies have the greatest need for funds, the State
educational agency shall consider objective data which may
include--
``(A) high rates of alcohol or drug use among youth;
``(B) high rates of victimization of youth by violence and
crime;
``(C) high rates of arrests and convictions of youth for
violent or drug- or alcohol-related crime;
``(D) the extent of illegal gang activity;
``(E) high incidence of violence associated with prejudice
and intolerance;
``(F) high rates of referrals of youths to drug and alcohol
abuse treatment and rehabilitation programs;
``(G) high rates of referrals of youths to juvenile court;
``(H) high rates of expulsions and suspensions of students
from schools;
``(I) high rates of reported cases of child abuse and
domestic violence;
``(J) high rates of drug related emergencies or deaths; and
``(K) local fiscal capacity to fund drug use and violence
prevention programs without Federal assistance.
``(e) Reallocation of Funds.--If a local educational agency
chooses not to apply to receive the amount allocated to such
agency under subsection (d), or if such agency's application
under section 4115 is disapproved by the State educational
agency, the State educational agency shall reallocate such
amount to one or more of the local educational agencies.
``(f) Return of Funds to State Educational Agency;
Reallocation.--
``(1) Return.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), upon
the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date
that a local educational agency or educational service agency
under this title receives its allocation under this title--
``(A) such agency shall return to the State educational
agency any funds from such allocation that remain
unobligated; and
``(B) the State educational agency shall reallocate any
such amount to local educational agencies or educational
service agencies that have plans for using such amount for
programs or activities on a timely basis.
``(2) Reallocation.--In any fiscal year, a local
educational agency, may retain for obligation in the
succeeding fiscal year--
``(A) an amount equal to not more than 25 percent of the
allocation it receives under this title for such fiscal year;
or
``(B) upon a demonstration of good cause by such agency or
consortium, a greater amount approved by the State
educational agency.

``SEC. 4114. GOVERNOR'S PROGRAMS.

``(a) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--An amount equal to 20 percent of the
total amount allocated to a State under section 4111(1) for
each fiscal year shall be used by the chief executive officer
of such State for drug and violence prevention programs and
activities in accordance with this section.
``(2) Administrative costs.--A chief executive officer may
use not more than 5 percent of the 20 percent of the total
amount described in paragraph (1) for the administrative
costs incurred in carrying out the duties of such officer
under this section. The chief executive officer of a State
may use amounts under this paragraph to award grants to
State, county, or local law enforcement agencies, including
district attorneys, in consultation with local education
agencies or community-based agencies, for the purposes of
carrying out drug abuse and violence prevention activities.
``(b) Programs Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--A chief executive officer shall use
funds made available under subsection (a)(1) for grants to or
contracts with parent groups, schools, community action and
job training agencies, community-based organizations,
community anti-drug coalitions, law enforcement education
partnerships, and other public entities and private nonprofit
organizations and consortia thereof. In making such grants
and contracts, a chief executive officer shall give priority
to programs and activities described in subsection (c) for--

[[Page S13412]]

``(A) children and youth who are not normally served by
State or local educational agencies; or
``(B) populations that need special services or additional
resources (such as preschoolers, youth in juvenile detention
facilities, runaway or homeless children and youth, pregnant
and parenting teenagers, and school dropouts).
``(2) Peer review.--Grants or contracts awarded under this
subsection shall be subject to a peer review process.
``(c) Authorized Activities.--Grants and contracts under
subsection (b) shall be used to carry out the comprehensive
State plan as required under section 4112(a)(1) through
programs and activities such as--
``(1) disseminating information about drug and violence
prevention;
``(2) training parents, law enforcement officials, judicial
officials, social service providers, health service providers
and community leaders about drug and violence prevention,
comprehensive health education, early intervention, pupil
services, or rehabilitation referral;
``(3) developing and implementing comprehensive, community-
based drug and violence prevention programs that link
community resources with schools and integrate services
involving education, vocational and job skills training and
placement, law enforcement, health, mental health, community
service, mentoring, and other appropriate services;
``(4) planning and implementing drug and violence
prevention activities that coordinate the efforts of State
agencies with efforts of the State educational agency and its
local educational agencies;
``(5) activities to protect students traveling to and from
school;
``(6) before-and-after school recreational, instructional,
cultural, and artistic programs that encourage drug- and
violence-free lifestyles;
``(7) activities that promote the awareness of and
sensitivity to alternatives to violence through courses of
study that include related issues of intolerance and hatred
in history;
``(8) developing and implementing activities to prevent and
reduce violence associated with prejudice and intolerance;
``(9) developing and implementing strategies to prevent
illegal gang activity;
``(10) coordinating and conducting school and community-
wide violence and safety assessments and surveys;
``(11) service-learning projects that encourage drug- and
violence-free lifestyles;
``(12) evaluating programs and activities assisted under
this section;
``(13) developing and implementing community mobilization
activities to undertake environmental change strategies
related to substance abuse and violence; and
``(14) partnerships between local law enforcement agencies,
including district attorneys, and local education agencies or
community-based agencies.

``SEC. 4115. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.

``(a) Application Required.--
``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a
distribution under section 4113(d) for any fiscal year, a
local educational agency shall submit, at such time as the
State educational agency requires, an application to the
State educational agency for approval. Such an application
shall be amended, as necessary, to reflect changes in the
local educational agency's program.
``(2) Development.--
``(A) Consultation.--A local educational agency shall
develop its application under subsection (a)(1) in
consultation with a local or substate regional advisory
council that includes, to the extent possible,
representatives of local government, business, parents,
students, teachers, pupil services personnel, appropriate
State agencies, private schools, the medical profession, law
enforcement, community-based organizations, and other groups
with interest and expertise in drug and violence prevention.
``(B) Duties of advisory council.--In addition to assisting
the local educational agency to develop an application under
this section, the advisory council established or designated
under subparagraph (A) shall, on an ongoing basis--
``(i) disseminate information about drug and violence
prevention programs, projects, and activities conducted
within the boundaries of the local educational agency;
``(ii) advise the local educational agency regarding--

``(I) how best to coordinate such agency's activities under
this subpart with other related programs, projects, and
activities; and
``(II) the agencies that administer such programs,
projects, and activities; and

``(iii) review program evaluations and other relevant
material and make recommendations on an active and ongoing
basis to the local educational agency on how to improve such
agency's drug and violence prevention programs.
``(b) Contents of Applications.--An application under this
section shall contain--
``(1) an objective analysis of the current use (and
consequences of such use) of alcohol, tobacco, and
controlled, illegal, addictive or harmful substances as well
as the violence, safety, and discipline problems among
students who attend the schools of the applicant (including
private school students who participate in the applicant's
drug and violence prevention program) that is based on
ongoing local assessment or evaluation activities;
``(2) an analysis, based on data reasonably available at
the time, of the prevalence of risk or protective factors,
buffers or assets or other research-based variables in the
school and community;
``(3) a description of the research-based strategies and
programs, which shall be used to prevent or reduce drug use,
violence, or disruptive behavior, which shall include--
``(A) a specification of the objectively measurable goals,
objectives, and activities for the program, which may
include--
``(i) reductions in the use of alcohol, tobacco, and
illicit drugs and violence by youth;
``(ii) specific reductions in the prevalence of identified
risk factors; or
``(iii) specific increases in the prevalence of protective
factors, buffers, or assets if any have been identified;
``(B) a specification for how risk factors, if any, which
have been identified will be targeted through research-based
programs; and
``(C) a specification for how protective factors, buffers,
or assets, if any, will be targeted through research-based
programs;
``(4) a specification for the method or methods by which
measurements of program goals will be achieved;
``(5) a specification for how the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the prevention program will be assessed and
how the results will be used to refine, improve, and
strengthen the program;
``(6) an assurance that the applicant has, or the schools
to be served have, a comprehensive safe and drug-free schools
plan that includes--
``(A) appropriate and effective discipline policies that
prohibit disorderly conduct, the possession of firearms and
other weapons, and the illegal use, possession, distribution,
and sale of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs by students;
``(B) security procedures at school and while students are
on the way to and from school;
``(C) prevention activities that are designed to create and
maintain safe, disciplined, and drug-free environments; and
``(D) a crisis management plan for responding to violent or
traumatic incidents on school grounds; and
``(7) such other information and assurances as the State
educational agency may reasonably require.
``(c) Review of Application.--
``(1) In general.--In reviewing local applications under
this section, a State educational agency shall use a peer
review process or other methods of assuring the quality of
such applications.
``(2) Considerations.--
``(A) In general.--In determining whether to approve the
application of a local educational agency under this section,
a State educational agency shall consider the quality of the
local educational agency's comprehensive plan under
subsection (b)(6) and the extent to which the proposed plan
provides a thorough assessment of the substance abuse and
violence problem, uses objective data and the knowledge of a
wide range of community members, develops measurable goals
and objectives, and implements research-based programs that
have been shown to be effective and meet identified needs.
``(B) Disapproval.--A State educational agency may
disapprove a local educational agency application under this
section in whole or in part and may withhold, limit, or place
restrictions on the use of funds allotted to such a local
educational agency in a manner the State educational agency
determines will best promote the purposes of this part,
except that a local educational agency shall be afforded an
opportunity to appeal any such disapproval.

``SEC. 4116. LOCAL DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

``(a) Program Requirements.--A local educational agency
shall use funds received under this subpart to adopt and
carry out a comprehensive drug and violence prevention
program which shall--
``(1) be designed, for all students and employees, to--
``(A) prevent the use, possession, and distribution of
tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs by students and to
prevent the illegal use, possession, and distribution of such
substances by employees;
``(B) prevent violence and promote school safety; and
``(C) create a disciplined environment conducive to
learning;
``(2) include activities to promote the involvement of
parents and coordination with community groups and agencies,
including the distribution of information about the local
educational agency's needs, goals, and programs under this
subpart;
``(3) implement activities which include--
``(A) a thorough assessment of the substance abuse violence
problem, using objective data and the knowledge of a wide
range of community members;
``(B) the development of measurable goals and objectives;
and
``(C) the implementation of research-based programs that
have been shown to be effective and meet identified goals;
``(4) implement prevention programming activities within
the context of a research-based prevention framework; and
``(5) include a description of the applicant's tobacco,
alcohol, and other drug policies.
``(b) Authorized Activities.--A comprehensive drug and
violence prevention program carried out under this subpart
may include--

[[Page S13413]]

``(1) age-appropriate, developmentally based drug
prevention and education programs for all students, from the
preschool level through grade 12, that address the legal,
social, personal and health consequences of the use of
illegal drugs, promote a sense of individual responsibility,
and provide information about effective techniques for
resisting peer pressure to use illegal drugs;
``(2) programs of drug prevention, comprehensive health
education, early intervention, pupil services, mentoring, or
rehabilitation referral, which emphasize students' sense of
individual responsibility and which may include--
``(A) the dissemination of information about drug
prevention;
``(B) the professional development of school personnel,
parents, students, law enforcement officials, judicial
officials, health service providers and community leaders in
prevention, education, early intervention, pupil services or
rehabilitation referral; and
``(C) the implementation of strategies, including
strategies to integrate the delivery of services from a
variety of providers, to combat illegal alcohol, tobacco and
drug use, such as--
``(i) family counseling;
``(ii) early intervention activities that prevent family
dysfunction, enhance school performance, and boost attachment
to school and family; and
``(iii) activities, such as community service and service-
learning projects, that are designed to increase students'
sense of community;
``(3) age-appropriate, developmentally based violence
prevention and education programs for all students, from the
preschool level through grade 12, that address the legal,
health, personal, and social consequences of violent and
disruptive behavior, including sexual harassment and abuse,
and victimization associated with prejudice and intolerance,
and that include activities designed to help students develop
a sense of individual responsibility and respect for the
rights of others, and to resolve conflicts without violence,
or otherwise decrease the prevalence of risk factors or
increase the prevalence of protective factors, buffers, or
assets in the community;
``(4) violence prevention programs for school-aged youth,
which emphasize students' sense of individual responsibility
and may include--
``(A) the dissemination of information about school safety
and discipline;
``(B) the professional development of school personnel,
parents, students, law enforcement officials, judicial
officials, and community leaders in designing and
implementing strategies to prevent school violence;
``(C) the implementation of strategies, such as conflict
resolution and peer mediation, student outreach efforts
against violence, anti-crime youth councils (which work with
school and community-based organizations to discuss and
develop crime prevention strategies), and the use of
mentoring programs, to combat school violence and other forms
of disruptive behavior, such as sexual harassment and abuse;
and
``(D) the development and implementation of character
education programs, as a component of a comprehensive drug or
violence prevention program, that are tailored by
communities, parents and schools; and
``(E) comprehensive, community-wide strategies to prevent
or reduce illegal gang activities and drug use;
``(5) supporting `safe zones of passage' for students
between home and school through such measures as Drug- and
Weapon-Free School Zones, enhanced law enforcement, and
neighborhood patrols;
``(6) acquiring and installing metal detectors and hiring
security personnel;
``(7) professional development for teachers and other staff
and curricula that promote the awareness of and sensitivity
to alternatives to violence through courses of study that
include related issues of intolerance and hatred in history;
``(8) the promotion of before-and-after school
recreational, instructional, cultural, and artistic programs
in supervised community settings;
``(9) other research-based prevention programming that is--
``(A) effective in reducing the prevalence of alcohol,
tobacco or drug use, and violence in youth;
``(B) effective in reducing the prevalence of risk factors
predictive of increased alcohol, tobacco or drug use, and
violence; or
``(C) effective in increasing the prevalence of protective
factors, buffers, and assets predictive of decreased alcohol,
tobacco or drug use and violence among youth;
``(10) the collection of objective data used to assess
program needs, program implementation, or program success in
achieving program goals and objectives;
``(11) community involvement activities including community
rehabilitation;
``(12) parental involvement and training; and
``(13) the evaluation of any of the activities authorized
under this subsection.
``(c) Limitations.--
``(1) In general.--Not more than 20 percent of the funds
made available to a local educational agency under this
subpart may be used to carry out the activities described in
paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b).
``(2) Special rule.--A local educational agency shall only
be able to use funds received under this subpart for
activities described in paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection
(b) if funding for such activities is not received from other
Federal agencies.
``(d) Administrative Provisions.--Notwithstanding any other
provisions of law, any funds expended prior to July 1, 1995,
under part B of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of
1986 (as in effect prior to enactment of the Improving
America's Schools Act) for the support of a comprehensive
school health program shall be deemed to have been authorized
by part B of such Act.

``SEC. 4117. EVALUATION AND REPORTING.

``(a) National Impact Evaluation.--
``(1) Biennial evaluation.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the National Advisory Committee, shall conduct an
independent biennial evaluation of the national impact of
programs assisted under this subpart and of other recent and
new initiatives to combat violence in schools. The evaluation
shall report on--
``(A) whether funded community and local education agency
programs--
``(i) provided a thorough assessment of the substance abuse
and violence problem;
``(ii) used objective data and the knowledge of a wide
range of community members;
``(iii) developed measurable goals and objectives; and
``(iv) implemented a research-based program that has been
show to be effective and meet identified needs;
``(B) whether funded community and local education agency
programs have been designed and implemented in a manner that
specifically targets, if relevant to the program--
``(i) research-based variables that are predictive of drug
use or violence;
``(ii) risk factors that are predictive of an increased
likelihood that young people will use drugs, alcohol or
tobacco or engage in violence or drop out of school; or
``(iii) protective factors, buffers, or assets that are
known to protect children and youth from exposure to risk,
either by reducing the exposure to risk factors or by
changing the way the young person responds to risk, and to
increase the likelihood of positive youth development; and
``(C) whether funded community and local education agency
programs have appreciably reduced the level of drug, alcohol
and tobacco use and school violence and the presence of
firearms at schools.
``(2) Data collection.--The National Center for Education
Statistics shall collect data to determine the frequency,
seriousness, incidence and prevalence, age of onset,
perception of health risk, and perception of social
disapproval of drug use and violence in elementary and
secondary schools in the States. The Secretary shall collect
the data using, wherever appropriate, data submitted by the
States pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B).
``(3) Biennial Report.--Not later than January 1, 2002, and
every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the
President and Congress a report on the findings of the
evaluation conducted under paragraph (1) together with the
data collected under paragraph (2).
``(b) State Report.--
``(1) In general.--By October 1, 2001, and every 2 years
thereafter, the chief executive officer of the State, in
cooperation with the State educational agency, shall submit
to the Secretary a report--
``(A) on the implementation and outcomes of State programs
under section 4114 and section 4113(b) and local educational
agency programs under section 4113(d), as well as an
assessment of their effectiveness; and
``(B) on the State's progress toward attaining its goals
for drug and violence prevention under subsections (b)(1) and
(c)(1) of section 4112.
``(2) Special rule.--The report required by this subsection
shall be--
``(A) in the form specified by the Secretary;
``(B) based on the State's ongoing evaluation activities,
and shall include data on the incidence and prevalence, age
of onset, perception of health risk, and perception of social
disapproval of drug use and violence by youth in schools and
communities; and
``(C) made readily available to the public.
``(c) Local Educational Agency Report.--
``(1) In general.--Each local educational agency receiving
funds under this subpart shall submit to the State
educational agency such information that the State requires
to complete the State report required by subsection (b).
``(2) Availability.--Information under paragraph (1) shall
be made readily available to the public.
``(3) Provision of documentation.--Not later than January 1
of each year that a State is required to report under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide to the State
education agency all of the necessary documentation required
for compliance with this section.

``SEC. 4118. PROGRAMS FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS.

``(a) General Authority.--From the funds made available
pursuant to section 4111(a)(4) to carry out this section, the
Secretary shall make grants to or enter into cooperative
agreements or contracts with organizations primarily serving
and representing Native Hawaiians which are recognized by the
Governor of the State of Hawaii to plan, conduct, and
administer programs, or portions thereof, which are
authorized by and consistent with the provisions of this
title for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.

[[Page S13414]]

``(b) Definition of Native Hawaiian.--For the purposes of
this section, the term `Native Hawaiian' means any individual
any of whose ancestors were natives, prior to 1778, of the
area which now comprises the State of Hawaii.

``Subpart 2--National Programs

``SEC. 4121. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Program Authorized.--From funds made available to
carry out this subpart under section 4004(2), the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, and the Attorney General, shall carry out programs to
prevent the illegal use of drugs and violence among, and
promote safety and discipline for, students at all
educational levels from preschool through the postsecondary
level. The Secretary shall carry out such programs directly,
or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with
public and private nonprofit organizations and individuals,
or through agreements with other Federal agencies, and shall
coordinate such programs with other appropriate Federal
activities. Such programs may include--
``(1) the development and demonstration of innovative
strategies for training school personnel, parents, and
members of the community, including the demonstration of
model preservice training programs for prospective school
personnel;
``(2) demonstrations and rigorous evaluations of innovative
approaches to drug and violence prevention;
``(3) the provision of information on drug abuse education
and prevention to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
for dissemination by the clearinghouse for alcohol and drug
abuse information established under section 501(d)(16) of the
Public Health Service Act;
``(4) the development of curricula related to child abuse
prevention and education and the training of personnel to
teach child abuse education and prevention to elementary and
secondary schoolchildren;
``(5) program evaluations in accordance with section 14701
that address issues not addressed under section 4117(a);
``(6) direct services to schools and school systems
afflicted with especially severe drug and violence problems
or to support crisis situations and appropriate response
efforts;
``(7) activities in communities designated as empowerment
zones or enterprise communities that will connect schools to
community-wide efforts to reduce drug and violence problems;
``(8) developing and disseminating drug and violence
prevention materials, including video-based projects and
model curricula;
``(9) developing and implementing a comprehensive violence
prevention strategy for schools and communities, that may
include conflict resolution, peer mediation, the teaching of
law and legal concepts, and other activities designed to stop
violence;
``(10) the implementation of innovative activities, such as
community service projects, designed to rebuild safe and
healthy neighborhoods and increase students' sense of
individual responsibility;
``(11) grants to noncommercial telecommunications entities
for the production and distribution of national video-based
projects that provide young people with models for conflict
resolution and responsible decisionmaking;
``(12) the development of education and training programs,
curricula, instructional materials, and professional training
and development for preventing and reducing the incidence of
crimes and conflicts motivated by hate in localities most
directly affected by hate crimes; and
``(13) other activities that meet unmet national needs
related to the purposes of this title.
``(b) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall use a peer review
process in reviewing applications for funds under this
section.

``SEC. 4122. NATIONAL COORDINATOR PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide for the
establishment of a National Coordinator Program under which
the Secretary shall award grants to local education agencies
for the hiring of drug prevention and school safety program
coordinators.
``(b) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under
subsection (a) shall be used by local education agencies to
recruit, hire, and train individuals to serve as drug
prevention and school safety program coordinators in schools
with significant drug and school safety problems. Such
coordinators shall be responsible for developing, conducting,
and analyzing assessments of drug and crime problems at their
schools, and administering the safe and drug free grant
program at such schools.

``SEC. 4123. SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is hereby established an advisory
committee to be known as the `Safe and Drug Free Schools and
Communities Advisory Committee' (referred to in this section
as the `Advisory Committee') to--
``(A) consult with the Secretary under subsection (b);
``(B) coordinate Federal school- and community-based
substance abuse and violence prevention programs and reduce
duplicative research or services;
``(C) develop core data sets and evaluation protocols for
safe and drug free school- and community-based programs;
``(D) provide technical assistance and training for safe
and drug free school- and community-based programs;
``(E) provide for the diffusion of research-based safe and
drug free school- and community-based programs; and
``(F) review other regulations and standards developed
under this title.
``(2) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be
composed of representatives from--
``(A) the Department of Education,
``(B) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
``(C) the National Institute on Drug Abuse;
``(D) the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol
Abuse;
``(E) the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention;
``(F) the Center for Mental Health Services;
``(G) the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention;
``(H) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; and
``(I) State and local governments, including education
agencies.
``(3) Consultation.--In carrying out its duties under this
section, the Advisory Committee shall annually consult with
interested State and local coordinators of school- and
community-based substance abuse and violence prevention
programs and other interested groups.
``(b) Programs.--
``(1) In general.--From funds made available to carry out
this subpart, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Committee, shall carry out research-based programs
to strengthen the accountability and effectiveness of the
State, Governor's, and national programs under this title.
``(2) Grants, contracts or cooperative agreements.--The
Secretary shall carry out paragraph (1) directly or through
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with public and
nonprofit private organizations and individuals or through
agreements with other Federal agencies.
``(3) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate
programs under this section with other appropriate Federal
activities.
``(4) Activities.--Activities that may be carried out under
programs funded under this section may include--
``(A) the provision of technical assistance and training,
in collaboration with other Federal agencies utilizing their
expertise and national and regional training systems, for
Governors, State education agencies and local education
agencies to support high quality, effective programs that--
``(i) provide a thorough assessment of the substance abuse
and violence problem;
``(ii) utilize objective data and the knowledge of a wide
range of community members;
``(iii) develop measurable goals and objectives; and
``(iv) implement research-based activities that have been
shown to be effective and that meet identified needs;
``(B) the provision of technical assistance and training to
foster program accountability;
``(C) the diffusion and dissemination of best practices and
programs;
``(D) the development of core data sets and evaluation
tools;
``(E) program evaluations;
``(F) the provision of information on drug abuse education
and prevention to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
for dissemination by the Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Information established under section 501(d)(16) of the
Public Health Service Act; and
``(G) other activities that meet unmet needs related to the
purposes of this title and that are undertaken in
consultation with the Advisory Committee.

``SEC. 4124. HATE CRIME PREVENTION.

``(a) Grant Authorization.--From funds made available to
carry out this subpart under section 4004(1) the Secretary
may make grants to local educational agencies and community-
based organizations for the purpose of providing assistance
to localities most directly affected by hate crimes.
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Program development.--Grants under this section may
be used to improve elementary and secondary educational
efforts, including--
``(A) development of education and training programs
designed to prevent and to reduce the incidence of crimes and
conflicts motivated by hate;
``(B) development of curricula for the purpose of improving
conflict or dispute resolution skills of students, teachers,
and administrators;
``(C) development and acquisition of equipment and
instructional materials to meet the needs of, or otherwise be
part of, hate crime or conflict programs; and
``(D) professional training and development for teachers
and administrators on the causes, effects, and resolutions of
hate crimes or hate-based conflicts.
``(2) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this section for any fiscal year, a local
educational agency, or a local educational agency in
conjunction with a community-based organization, shall submit
an application to the Secretary in such form and containing
such information as the office may reasonably require.
``(3) Requirements.--Each application under paragraph (2)
shall include--
``(A) a request for funds for the purposes described in
this section;

[[Page S13415]]

``(B) a description of the schools and communities to be
served by the grants; and
``(C) assurances that Federal funds received under this
section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
Federal funds.
``(4) Comprehensive plan.--Each application shall include a
comprehensive plan that contains--
``(A) a description of the hate crime or conflict problems
within the schools or the community targeted for assistance;
``(B) a description of the program to be developed or
augmented by such Federal and matching funds;
``(C) assurances that such program or activity shall be
administered by or under the supervision of the applicant;
``(D) proper and efficient administration of such program;
and
``(E) fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may
be necessary to ensure prudent use, proper disbursement, and
accurate accounting of funds received under this section.
``(c) Award of Grants.--
``(1) Selection of recipients.--The Secretary shall
consider the incidence of crimes and conflicts motivated by
bias in the targeted schools and communities in awarding
grants under this section.
``(2) Geographic distribution.--The Secretary shall
attempt, to the extent practicable, to achieve an equitable
geographic distribution of grant awards.
``(3) Dissemination of information.--The Secretary shall
attempt, to the extent practicable, to make available
information regarding successful hate crime prevention
programs, including programs established or expanded with
grants under this section.
``(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress
a report every two years which shall contain a detailed
statement regarding grants and awards, activities of grant
recipients, and an evaluation of programs established under
this section.

``Subpart 3--General Provisions

``SEC. 4131. DEFINITIONS.

``In this part:
``(1) Community-based organization.--The term `community-
based organization' means a private nonprofit organization
which is representative of a community or significant
segments of a community and which provides educational or
related services to individuals in the community.
``(2) Drug and violence prevention.--The term `drug and
violence prevention' means--
``(A) with respect to drugs, prevention, early
intervention, rehabilitation referral, or education related
to the illegal use of alcohol and the use of controlled,
illegal, addictive, or harmful substances, including
inhalants and anabolic steroids;
``(B) prevention, early intervention, smoking cessation
activities, or education, related to the use of tobacco by
children and youth eligible for services under this title;
and
``(C) with respect to violence, the promotion of school
safety, such that students and school personnel are free from
violent and disruptive acts, including sexual harassment and
abuse, and victimization associated with prejudice and
intolerance, on school premises, going to and from school,
and at school-sponsored activities, through the creation and
maintenance of a school environment that is free of weapons
and fosters individual responsibility and respect for the
rights of others.
``(3) Hate crime.--The term `hate crime' means a crime as
described in section 1(b) of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of
1990.
``(4) Nonprofit.--The term `nonprofit', as applied to a
school, agency, organization, or institution means a school,
agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by
one or more nonprofit corporations or associations, no part
of the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure,
to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
``(5) Objectively measurable goals.--The term `objectively
measurable goals' means prevention programming goals defined
through use of quantitative epidemiological data measuring
the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use,
violence, and the prevalence of risk and protective factors
predictive of these behaviors, collected through a variety of
methods and sources known to provide high quality data.
``(6) Protective factor, buffer, or asset.--The terms
`protective factor', `buffer', and `asset' mean any one of a
number of the community, school, family, or peer-individual
domains that are known, through prospective, longitudinal
research efforts, or which are grounded in a well-established
theoretical model of prevention, and have been shown to
prevent alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drug use, as well as
violent behavior, by youth in the community, and which
promote positive youth development.
``(7) Risk factor.--The term `risk factor' means any one of
a number of characteristics of the community, school, family,
or peer-individual domains that are known, through
prospective, longitudinal research efforts, to be predictive
of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, as well as violent
behavior, by youth in the school and community.
``(8) School-aged population.--The term `school-aged
population' means the population aged five through 17, as
determined by the Secretary on the basis of the most recent
satisfactory data available from the Department of Commerce.
``(9) School personnel.--The term `school personnel'
includes teachers, administrators, guidance counselors,
social workers, psychologists, nurses, librarians, and other
support staff who are employed by a school or who perform
services for the school on a contractual basis.

``SEC. 4132. MATERIALS.

``(a) `Illegal and Harmful' Message.--Drug prevention
programs supported under this part shall convey a clear and
consistent message that the illegal use of alcohol and other
drugs is illegal and harmful.
``(b) Curriculum.--The Secretary shall not prescribe the
use of specific curricula for programs supported under this
part, but may evaluate the effectiveness of such curricula
and other strategies in drug and violence prevention.

``SEC. 4133. PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.

``No funds under this part may be used for--
``(1) construction (except for minor remodeling needed to
accomplish the purposes of this part); and
``(2) medical services, drug treatment or rehabilitation,
except for pupil services or referral to treatment for
students who are victims of or witnesses to crime or who use
alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.

``SEC. 4134. QUALITY RATING.

``(a) In General.--The chief executive officer of each
State, or in the case of a State in which the constitution or
law of such State designates another individual, entity, or
agency in the State to be responsible for education
activities, such individual, entity, or agency, is authorized
and encouraged--
``(1) to establish a standard of quality for drug, alcohol,
and tobacco prevention programs implemented in public
elementary schools and secondary schools in the State in
accordance with subsection (b); and
``(2) to identify and designate, upon application by a
public elementary school or secondary school, any such school
that achieves such standard as a quality program school.
``(b) Criteria.--The standard referred to in subsection (a)
shall address, at a minimum--
``(1) a comparison of the rate of illegal use of drugs,
alcohol, and tobacco by students enrolled in the school for a
period of time to be determined by the chief executive
officer of the State;
``(2) the rate of suspensions or expulsions of students
enrolled in the school for drug, alcohol, or tobacco-related
offenses;
``(3) the effectiveness of the drug, alcohol, or tobacco
prevention program as proven by research;
``(4) the involvement of parents and community members in
the design of the drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention
program; and
``(5) the extent of review of existing community drug,
alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs before
implementation of the public school program.
``(c) Request for Quality Program School Designation.--A
school that wishes to receive a quality program school
designation shall submit a request and documentation of
compliance with this section to the chief executive officer
of the State or the individual, entity, or agency described
in subsection (a), as the case may be.
``(d) Public Notification.--Not less than once a year, the
chief executive officer of each State or the individual,
entity, or agency described in subsection (a), as the case
may be, shall make available to the public a list of the
names of each public school in the State that has received a
quality program school designation in accordance with this
section.''.

+Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I join with Senators DeWine, Dodd,
and Abraham to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act. This bill sends a strong signal to
American schools and communities about the importance of creating a
safe learning environment in the wake of recent tragedies in Littleton,
Colorado; Springfield, Oregon; Paducah, Kentucky; and Moses Lake,
Washington. It serves as a reminder that we haven't forgotten these and
many other tragedies, and that the Senate recognizes all communities
need funding and tools to effectively reduce violence and drug use.
The hallmark of the bill is a new emphasis on accountability for
results in creating safer schools and using research-proven prevention
strategies. The bill reauthorizes the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act, and authorizes funding of $875 million to local school
districts that they can use flexibly to address local needs for the
prevention of violence and drug use.
In exchange, schools must invest in strategies that are shown to be
effective in reducing drug use, discipline problems, and school
violence.
What we've learned from recent school tragedies is that this can
happen anywhere in America. No school is immune from problems, so every
school community must take steps to prevent them.
We know that local educators know best how to prevent these problems,
whether through offering after-school programs, or working with parent
groups and law enforcement to reduce gang activity, or getting young
people

[[Page S13416]]

more involved in their community activities. This bill gives
communities the tools to make a measurable difference--and recognizes
that we won't prevent violence unless we all work together in
partnership.
Our legislation is based on more than a year of conversations with
local educators in Washington state and around the country. I have
worked closely with Senators Dodd, DeWine, Abraham and other Senators
from both sides of the aisle to assure that we find areas of agreement
early, so that we can make real progress in our discussions as we move
forward. The bill emphasizes results and accountability, but gives
communities flexibility to get there. Recognizing that no efforts can
succeed to make young people safe and drug free--inside or outside of
the classroom--without all elements of the community working together.
The bill assumes collaboration and communication at all levels and
across all barriers.
There are several areas where this bill does not yet reflect a full
vision of how we can help schools and communities prevent violence and
drug use. We need to continue working on national activities, on school
safety planning, on coordination, and on other areas. We need to
address the concerns of other Members who have not yet participated in
the debate. However, this bill is a good, bipartisan start to the
discussion, and represents Senators looking for common goals--something
that needs to be brought back into the larger debate on education and
our public schools.
I want to thank Senators Dodd, DeWine, and Abraham and Suzanne Day
from Senator Dodd's office and Paul Palagyi from Senator DeWine's
office for their great work on this so far. I look forward to making
continued progress in this discussion.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with the distinguished senior
Senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation that will help
create safe, orderly and drug-free schools for our nation's youth
through the reauthorization of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act.
Mr. President, the need for this legislation could not be more clear.
Littleton, Colorado; Paduka, Kentucky; Springfield, Oregon; Pearl,
Mississippi, and Jonesboro, Arkansas--up until a year or two ago, these
towns were likely to appear on a list of nice small towns in America.
Today, instead, they have been inscribed on our collective memory for
the horrors of what happened at each school--children shooting down
other children, families in crisis and communities and a nation
shattered by grief.
In the wake of each of these incidents, our nation has struggled to
come to terms with the tragedies at these schools. And while many
questions will never be answered, we must rededicate ourselves to
making our schools safe for learning and to reassuring parents and
students that schools are a safe haven. We clearly have a long way to
go in this effort.
Statistics suggest that there has been some improvement in many areas
in recent years, but clearly violence and drug and alcohol abuse remain
all too pervasive in our children's lives.
Nationwide, from 1992-1994, 63 students ages 5 through 19 were
murdered at school in 25 different states in communities of all sizes.
In my own state of Connecticut alone, there were 1,532 juvenile (ages
10-17) crime arrests made from 1993-1994, illustrating the large number
of youth involved in some form of crime.
With regard to substance abuse, by 12th grade, more than three-
fourths of students have used alcohol in their lifetime and more than
50% have tried an illicit drug. At any given time, 52% of 12th graders
report being current drinkers and 25% report being current illicit drug
users. In Connecticut, in 1993, 31% of eighth and tenth grade students
reported having used alcohol in the past 30 days. Not only do youth
substance abuse and violence harm our children, but they also drain our
communities' valuable resources. According to some analyses, the total
economic costs related to substance abuse added up to $377 billion in
1995, and the costs of crime directly attributed to drug abuse added up
to $59 billion.
These are all alarming statistics, and even more so when the
interplay between violence and substance abuse is considered. For
instance, there is compelling evidence that aggressive behavior is
linked to frequency of marijuana use. Both youth violence and youth
substance abuse are pressing matters in need of our attention.
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is the leading
federal program in this area. This program, funded at $566 million for
FY1999, currently reaches 97 percent of school districts and provides
flexible support for primary prevention activities like conflict
resolution, peer mediation, and after school activities, as well as
assistance in purchasing security equipment that has become so common
in our schools. This program also supports prevention activities aimed
at substance abuse among our youth. There have been some who have
raised concerns that this program has not adequately accomplished its
goals, in that youth violence and substance abuse rates remain high. I
agree that those rates are still too high. But the proper response is
to strengthen, no diminish, our commitment to assisting local schools
in their efforts.
And let me hasten to add that there has, in fact, been progress. For
instance, in the area of youth substance abuse, a 1998 national survey
of student drug use in grades 8, 10, and 12 demonstrated that alcohol
use slightly declined in grades 8 and 10, from prior years. And, after
six years of steady increases, drug use among students was found to
have declined and student opposition to drug use has increased. The
proportion of students who reported use of illicit drugs during the 12
months prior to the survey declined at all three grade levels.
With regard to violence, a 1997 study found that 90 percent of public
schools reported no incidents of serious violent crime to the police
and less than half (43 percent) reported no crime at all. Over the past
five years, school crime generally has decreased, as has the number of
students being expelled for bringing a firearm to school. Fewer kids,
in fact, brought weapons to school in 1997 than in 1993. The Centers
for Disease Control report that between 1991 and 1997, the number of
students involved in a physical fight decreased by 14 percent, and the
number of kids carrying a weapon to school decreased by 30 percent.
Thus, the SDFSCA has made gains in providing students with safe and
drug-free learning environments. The legislation we have introduced
today will build on these successes. The program will continue to offer
states and local districts significant flexibility. We have also added
strong new accountability measures. States will have the option of
targeting dollars to areas of greater need, providing them with a
higher concentration of resources. State and school districts will work
together in the development of a common plan with shared goals and
measures of progress. Funded activities will be tied to these plans and
will be required to be based on community needs assessments and to
follow strategies found to demonstrate success through rigorous study.
In addition, districts and schools participating in SDFSCA will be
guided by a school safety plan to ensure coordinated, effective
programs.
Clearly, this legislation is just the first step. Senator DeWine and
I, along with Senators Murray and Abraham, will work with the other
members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, other
colleagues, and other interested in this important effort to continue
to improve this bill as we craft the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. I am interested in particular in looking
more closely at the idea of a National School Safety Center, which I
believe could provide districts and schools with invaluable advice and
services as they struggle to confront violence in their schools. A
related idea is the one proposed by the Administration to authorize
Project SERV to assist schools when there is a sudden and serious event
at the school. In addition, I think we should work at additional ways
to strengthen interagency cooperation, including developing and funding
initiatives like the Safe Schools/Healthy Students program that is
making such a difference in my state and so many others. Finally, I am
very interested in considering ways to support prevention very early on
in

[[Page S13417]]

children's life through character education and training of parents,
preschool teachers and other professionals in violence prevention.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator DeWine for his leadership,
commitment and involvement in this issue, as well as Senator Murray
with whom we have worked very closely over the past few months. I am
very pleased to co-sponsor this bill with such dedicated leaders, and I
look forward to working with them and other of our colleauges for its
enactment.
______

By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
S. 1824. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to enhance
the efficient use of spectrum by non-federal government users; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

private wireless spectrum use act

<bullet> Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator
from Washington, Mr. Gorton, in introducing the Private Wireless
Spectrum Use Act. This legislation will help the more than 300,000 U.S.
companies, both large and small, that have invested $25 billion in
internally owned and operated wireless communications systems. It will
provide these companies with critically needed spectrum and will do so
through an equitable lease fee system.
The private wireless communications community includes industrial,
land transportation, business, educational, and philanthropic
organizations that own and operate communications systems for their
internal use. The top 10 U.S. industrial companies have more than 6,000
private wireless licenses. Private wireless systems also serve
America's small businesses in the utility, contracting, taxi, and
livery industries.
These internal-use communications facilities greatly enhance the
quality of American life. They also support global competitiveness for
American firms. For example, private wireless systems support: the
efficient production of goods and services; the safe transportation of
passengers and products by land and air; the exploration, production,
and distribution of energy; agricultural enhancement and production;
the maintenance and development of America's infrastructure; and
compliance with various local, State, and Federal operational
government statutes.
Current regulatory policy inadequately recognizes the public interest
benefits which private wireless licensees provide to the American
public. Consequently, allocations of spectrum to these private wireless
users have been deficient. Private wireless entities received spectrum
in 1974 and 1986 when the FCC allocated channels in the 800 megahertz
and 900 megahertz bands. Over time, however, the FCC has significantly
reduced the number of channels available to industrial and business
entities in those allocations. Private wireless entities now have
access to only 299 channels, or 32 percent of the channels of the
original allocation.
Spectrum auctions have done a great job of speeding up the licensing
of interpersonal communications services and have generated significant
revenues for the U.S. Treasury. They have also unfortunately skewed the
spectrum allocation process toward subscriber-based services and away
from critical radio services such as private wireless which are
exempted from auctions. Nearly 200 megahertz of spectrum has been
allocated for the provision of commercial telecommunications services,
virtually all of which has been assigned by the FCC through competitive
bidding.
Competitive bidding is not the proper assignment methodology for
private wireless telecommunications users. Private wireless operations
are site-specific systems which vary in size based on a user's
particular needs, and are seldom mutually exclusive from other private
wireless applicants. Auctions, which depend on mutually exclusive
applications and use market areas based on population, simply cannot be
designed for private wireless systems.
Under this legislation, the FCC would allocate no less than 12
megahertz of new spectrum for private wireless use as a measure to
maintain our industrial and business competitiveness in the global
arena, as well as to protect the welfare of the employees in the
American workplace. Research indicates that private wireless companies
are willing to pay a reasonable fee in return for use of spectrum. They
recognize that their access to spectrum increases with their
willingness to pay fair value for the use of this national asset.
This bill grants the FCC legislative authority to charge efficiency-
based spectrum lease fees in this new spectrum allocation. These lease
fees should encourage the efficient use of spectrum by the private
wireless industry, generate recurring annual revenues as compensation
for the use of spectrum, and retain spectrum ownership by the public.
Furthermore, the fee should be easy for private frequency advisory
committees to calculate and collect.
Mr. President, there may be some who believe this bill does not
adequately address all their concerns. I assure all interested parties
that I will work with them through the legislative process to address
their concerns. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill
and ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
The bill follows:

S. 1824

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 ``Private Wireless Spectrum
Use Act.''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Competent management of the electromagnetic radio
spectrum includes continued availability of spectrum for
private wireless entities because of such entities' unique
ability to achieve substantial efficiencies in their use of
this important and finite public resource. A private wireless
system licensee or entity is able to customize communications
systems to meet the individual needs of that licensee or end
user while using engineering solutions and other cooperative
arrangements to share spectrum with other private system
licensees and entities without causing harmful interference
or other degradation of quality or reliability to such other
licensees or entities. Accordingly, spectrum allocations for
the shared use of private wireless systems achieve a high
level of spectrum use efficiency and contribute to the
economic and social welfare of the United States.
(2) Wireless communication systems dedicated to the
internal communication needs of America's industrial, land
transportation, energy (including utilities and pipelines),
and other business enterprises are critical to the
competitiveness of American industry and business in
international commerce; increase corporate productivity;
enhance the safety and welfare of employees; and improve the
delivery of products and services to consumers in the United
States and abroad.
(3) During the past decade, the Federal Communications
Commission allocation and licensing policies have led to
dramatic increases in spectrum available for commercial
mobile radio services while the spectrum available for
private mobile radio systems has decreased, even though the
Commission recognizes the spectrum use efficiencies and other
public benefits of such private systems and the substantial
increases in the use of such systems.
(4) Spectrum auctions are designed to select among
competing applications for spectrum licenses when engineering
solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service
regulations, and other cooperative means employed by the
Commission are not able to prevent mutual exclusivity among
such applications. Private wireless systems, on the other
hand, avoid mutual exclusivity through cooperative, multiple
uses generally achieved by the Commission, the users, or the
frequency advisory committees. Accordingly, the requirements
of such private wireless systems are accommodated within the
spectrum bands allocated for private uses. Since there is no
mutual exclusivity among private wireless system
applications, there is no need for the Commission to employ a
mechanism, such as auctions, to select among applications.
Auction valuation principles also do not apply to the private
wireless licensing process because the private wireless
spectrum is not used on a commercial, interconnected basis.
Rather, such private allocations are used for internal
communications applications to enhance safety, efficiency and
productivity. Nonetheless, there should be some payment
associated with the assignment of new private wireless
spectrum, and the Commission can and should develop a payment
mechanism for this purpose.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (33) through (52) as
paragraph (35) through (54); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (32) the following:

[[Page S13418]]

``(33) Private Wireless System.--The term `private wireless
system' means an infrastructure of telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment that is owned by,
and operated solely to meet the internal wireless
communication needs of, an industrial, business,
transportation, education, or energy (including utilities and
pipelines) entity, or other licensee.
``(34) Private Wireless Provider.--The term `private
wireless provider' means an entity that owns, operates, or
manages an infrastructure of telecommunications equipment and
customer premises equipment that is--
``(A) used solely for the purpose of meeting the internal
communications needs of another entity that is an industrial,
business, transportation, education, or energy (including
utilities and pipelines) entity, or similar end-user;
``(B) neither a commercial mobile service (as defined in
section 332(d)(1)) nor used to provide public safety services
(as defined in section 337(f)(1)); and
``(C) not interconnected with the public switched
network.''.

SEC. 4. ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM.

Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 301) is amended by inserting after section 337 the
following:

``SEC. 338. ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF SPECTRUM FOR PRIVATE
WIRELESS USES.

``(a) Rulemaking Required.--Within 120 days after the date
of enactment of the Private Wireless Spectrum Use Act, the
Commission shall initiate a rulemaking designed to identify
and allocate at least 12 megahertz of electromagnetic
spectrum located between 150 and 2,000 megahertz for use by
private wireless licensees on a shared-use basis. The new
spectrum proposed to be reallocated shall be available and
appropriate for use by private wireless communications
systems and shall accommodate the need for paired allocations
and for proximity to existing private wireless spectrum
allocations. In accommodating the various private wireless
system needs in this rulemaking, the Commission shall reserve
at least 50 percent of the reallocated spectrum for the use
of private wireless systems. The remaining reallocated
spectrum shall be available for use by private wireless
providers solely for the purpose described in section
3(34)(A).
``(b) Order Required.--Within 180 days after the Commission
initiates the rulemaking required by subsection (a), the
Commission, in consultation with its frequency advisory
committees, shall--
``(1) issue an order reallocating spectrum in accordance
with subsection (a); and
``(2) issue licenses for the reallocated spectrum in a
timely manner.''.

SEC. 5. REIMBURSEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM ALLOCATED FOR
PRIVATE WIRELESS SYSTEM USE.

Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
309 (j)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (14) the
following:
``(15) Spectrum efficiency for shared spectrum.--
``(A) Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the
Private Wireless Spectrum Use Act, the Commission shall
initiate a rulemaking to devise a schedule of payment to the
Treasury by private wireless systems, and by private wireless
providers for the purpose described in section 3(34)(A), in
return for a license or other ability to use a portion of the
spectrum reallocated under section 338. The schedule shall be
designed to promote the efficient use of those frequencies.
``(B) Within 180 days after the Commission initiates the
rulemaking required by subparagraph (A), the Commission,
after consultation with its frequency advisory committees and
after opportunity for comment, shall adopt a schedule of
payment in accordance with subparagraph (A) and which it
determines to be in the public interest.
``(C) In adopting the schedule of payments referred to in
subparagraph (A), the Commission--
``(i) may not base a finding of public interest,
convenience, and necessity on the expectation of Federal
revenues for the use of such schedule of payment; and
``(ii) shall take into account the private nature of the
systems, the safety and efficiencies realized by the public
as a result of these private uses, the amount of bandwidth
and coverage area and geographic location of the license, and
the degree of frequency-sharing.''.

SEC. 6. SPECTRUM SHARING

Section 309(j)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 309(j)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G);
(2) by striking ``Act.'' in subparagraph (H) and inserting
``Act; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(I) be construed to permit the Commission to take any
action to create mutual exclusivity where it does not already
exist.''

SEC. 7. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Private Mobile Service.--Section 332(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(1);
(2) by striking ``(c)(1)(B); and'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``(c)(1)(B).''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (3).
(b) Application of Spectrum-use Payment Schedule to New
Licenses.--Section 337(a)(2) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 337(a)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or
spectrum use payment schedule'' after ``competitive
bidding''.
(c) Exemption from Competitive Bidding.--Section 309(j)(2)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(2) by striking ``Act.'' in subparagraph (C) and inserting
``Act; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(D) for private wireless systems, and for private
wireless providers for the purpose described in section
3(34)(A), that--
``(i) are used to enhance the productivity or safety of
business or industry; and
``(ii) are not made commercially available to the public,
except for that purpose.''.
(d) Technical Amendment.--Section 271(c)(1)(A) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(A)) is
amended by striking ``3(47)(A),'' and inserting
``3(49)(A),''.<bullet>

<bullet> Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague
from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, in introducing a bill to rationalize
the federal management of spectrum that is used by entities for their
internal wireless communication needs. The legislation does essentially
three things. First, it recognizes that auctions are not an appropriate
means of allocating spectrum for these private users, and so exempts
from auction that spectrum that is used for private wireless
applications. Second, it directs the FCC to reallocate an additional 12
megahertz of spectrum to private wireless users, who, over the years,
and despite the efficiencies they have obtained through shared use,
have lost spectrum and currently do not have enough to meet demands in
some areas. Third, the legislation authorizes the FCC to collect lease
fees for the use of the 12 MHZ to be reallocated.
One of the biggest challenges in preparing this bill, Mr. President,
has been to define the class of beneficiaries, that is, to identify
what is a ``private wireless'' system. The definition in the measure we
are introducing today may not be perfect, and I look forward to working
with all interested parties to ensure that the definition covers the
appropriate class of users. The intent, however, and one that I believe
is captured in the current definition, is that we recognize that there
are thousands of corporations, utilities, farmers, and other entities,
that use spectrum purely for their internal communication needs, with
applications that range from reading utility meters from a distance, to
operating sprinkler or irrigation systems, to communicating over hand-
held radios in the middle of the woods, a factory floor, or a
construction site. This use of the spectrum, Mr. President, is
economically vital to our economy, as it enhances the productivity of
all of these users and, in many cases, makes their operations possible.
A distinguishing characteristic of private wireless users, and a
reason that we are proposing that they be treated differently than
other spectrum users, is that the private wireless users' application
of the spectrum is often specifically tailored to the needs of that
user, that is, it is a unique application that is not offered by
commercial wireless providers.
Currently, private wireless users are licensed on a site-by-site
basis by the FCC. Their license applications are coordinated by
spectrum managers who attempt to maximize the efficiency of the
spectrum and eliminate mutually exclusive applications by requiring
that the spectrum be shared by multiple users. In this way, hundreds of
different users can and do operate their internal wireless
communications systems within a given geographic area. When the users'
needs change, as they frequently do, as companies open new production
facilities, begin work at new construction sites, or extend their
service area, the spectrum coordinators, (spectrum allowing), will
propose a new sharing arrangement and obtain a new site-specific
license for the user.
The geographic based auction concept that the FCC is currently
proposing for some of the spectrum now being used by private wireless,
makes little sense for these private users. Unlike a commercial
wireless provider, whose service must be operational within the
entirety of a broad geographical license area, an individual private
wireless user may require use of the spectrum only at single site
within the area proposed to be auctioned. Moreover, private wireless
system users are not in the business of

[[Page S13419]]

providing communications services, and don't want to be--so it is not
in their interest to acquire, through auction, exclusive rights to the
use of spectrum in a large fixed geographic area, when they will use
only a small fraction of it, their site may change, and they lack both
the expertise or the desire to rent out what they do not need.

Recognizing that auctions are ill-suited as a means of allocating
spectrum to private wireless users, however, is not to say that the
public should receive no compensation for the use of this public
resource. Unfortunately, the desire to raise revenue from the sale of
spectrum appears to have overtaken the need to ensure that spectrum is
used efficiently and that current, economically valuable applications,
are not disrupted by a rush to sell in order to raise revenue. The
proposal in this measure to allow the Federal Communications Commission
to collect lease fees for the use of private wireless spectrum is, I
believe, a way to reintroducing some rationality into our spectrum
management policies, while ensuring a return for the taxpayer.
The legislation we are introducing today, Mr. President, is not a
final product. It stakes out, however, a very important claim, and that
is the importance of the private wireless spectrum users to the smooth
and efficient operation of our economy. I look forward to working with
all interested parties to improve, and pass swiftly, this important
measure.<bullet>
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1825. A bill to empower telephone consumers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the phone bill fairness act

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Phone
Bill Fairness Act. 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. 1825

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 ``Phone Bill Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Customer bills for telecommunications services are
unreasonably complicated, and many Americans are unable to
understand the nature of services provided to them and the
charges for which they are responsible.
(2) One of the purposes of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-104) was to unleash competitive and
market forces for telecommunications services.
(3) Unless customers can understand their
telecommunications bills they cannot take advantage of the
newly competitive market for telecommunications services.
(4) Confusing telecommunications bills allow a small
minority of providers of telecommunications services to
commit fraud more easily. The best defense against
telecommunications fraud is a well informed consumer.
Consumers cannot be well informed when their
telecommunications bills are incomprehensible.
(5) Certain providers of telecommunications services have
established new, specific charges on customer bills commonly
known as ``line-item charges''.
(6) These line-item charges have proliferated and are often
described with inaccurate and confusing names.
(7) These line-item charges have generated significant
confusion among customers regarding the nature and scope of
universal service and of the fees associated with universal
service.
(8) The National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners adopted a resolution in February 1998
supporting action by the Federal Communications Commission to
require interstate telecommunications carriers to provide
accurate customer notice regarding the implementation and
purpose of end-user charges for telecommunications services.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to require the
Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade
Commission to protect and empower consumers of
telecommunications services by assuring that
telecommunications bills, including line-item charges, issued
by telecommunications carriers nationwide are both accurate
and comprehensible.

SEC. 3. INVESTIGATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER BILLING
PRACTICES.

(a) Investigation.--
(1) Requirement.--The Federal Communications Commission and
the Federal Trade Commission shall jointly conduct an
investigation of the billing practices of telecommunications
carriers.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the investigation is to
determine whether the bills sent by telecommunications
carriers to their customers accurately assess and correctly
characterize the services received and fees charged for such
services, including any fees imposed as line-item charges.
(b) Determinations.--In carrying out the investigation
under subsection (a), the Federal Communications Commission
and the Federal Trade Commission shall determine the
following:
(1) The prevalence of incomprehensible or confusing
telecommunications bills.
(2) The most frequent causes for confusion on
telecommunications bills.
(3) Whether or not any best practices exist, which, if
utilized as an industry standard, would reduce confusion and
improve comprehension of telecommunications bills.
(4) Whether or not telecommunications bills that impose
fees through line-item charges characterize correctly the
nature and basis of such fees, including, in particular,
whether or not such fees are required by the Federal
Government or State governments.
(c) Review of Records.--
(1) Authority.--For purposes of the investigation under
subsection (a), the Federal Communications Commission and the
Federal Trade Commission may obtain from any
telecommunications carrier any record of such carrier that is
relevant to the investigation, including any record
supporting such carrier's basis for setting fee levels or
percentages.
(2) Use.--The Federal Communications Commission and the
Federal Trade Commission may use records obtained under this
subsection only for purposes of the investigation.
(d) Disciplinary Actions.--
(1) In general.--If the Federal Communications Commission
or the Federal Trade Commission determines as a result of the
investigation under subsection (a) that the bills sent by a
telecommunications carrier to its customers do not accurately
assess or correctly characterize any service or fee contained
in such bills, the Federal Communications Commission or the
Federal Trade Commission, as the case may be, may take such
action against such carrier as such Commission is authorized
to take under law.
(2) Characterization of fees.--If the Federal
Communications Commission or the Federal Trade Commission
determines as a result of the investigation under subsection
(a) that a telecommunications carrier has characterized a fee
on bills sent to its customers as mandated or otherwise
required by the Federal Government or a State and that such
characterization is incorrect, the Federal Communications
Commission or the Federal Trade Commission, as the case may
be, may require the carrier to discontinue such
characterization.
(3) Additional actions.--If the Federal Communications
Commission or the Federal Trade Commission determines that
such Commission does not have authority under law to take
actions under paragraph (1) that would be appropriate in
light of a determination described in paragraph (1), the
Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Trade
Commission, as the case may be, shall notify Congress of the
determination under this paragraph in the report under
subsection (e).
(e) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission
and the Federal Trade Commissions shall jointly submit to
Congress a report on the results of the investigation under
subsection (a). The report shall include the determination,
if any, of either Commission under subsection (d)(3) and any
recommendations for further legislative action that such
Commissions consider appropriate.

SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF MISLEADING TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILLS AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RATE PLANS.

(a) Federal Trade Commission.--The Federal Trade Commission
shall treat any telecommunications billing practice or
telecommunications rate plan that the Commission determines
to be intentionally misleading as an unfair business practice
under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et
seq.).
(b) Federal Communications Commission.--The Federal
Communications Commission shall, upon finding that any holder
of a license under the Commission has repeatedly and
intentionally engaged in a telephone billing practice, or has
repeatedly and intentionally utilized a telephone rate plan,
that is misleading, treat such holder as acting against the
public interest for purposes of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).

SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL BILLS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES.

(a) Average Per Minute Rate Calculation.--Each
telecommunications carrier shall display on the first page of
each customer bill for telecommunications services the
average per-minute charge of telecommunications services of
such customer for the billing period covered by such bill.
(b) Calling Patterns.--Each telecommunications carrier
shall display on the first page of each customer bill for
telecommunications services the percentage of the total
number of telephone calls of such customer for the billing
period covered by such bill as follows:
(1) That began on a weekday.
(2) That began on a weekend.

[[Page S13420]]

(3) That began from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m..
(4) That began from 8:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m..
(5) That were billed to a calling card.
(c) Average Per-Minute Charge Defined.--In this section,
the term ``average per-minute charge'', in the case of a bill
of a customer for a billing period, means--
(1) the sum of--
(A) the aggregate amount of monthly or other recurring
charges, if any, for telecommunications services imposed on
the customer by the bill for the billing period; and
(B) the total amount of all per-minute charges for
telecommunications services imposed on the customer by the
bill for the billing period; divided by
(2) the total number of minutes of telecommunications
services provided to the customer during the billing period
and covered by the bill.

SEC. 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS IMPOSING
CERTAIN CHARGES FOR SERVICES.

(a) Billing Requirements.--Any telecommunications carrier
shall include on the bills for telecommunications services
sent to its customers the following:
(1) An accurate name and description of any covered charge.
(2) The recipient or class of recipients of the monies
collected through each such charge.
(3) A statement whether each such charge is required by law
or collected pursuant to a requirement imposed by a
governmental entity under its discretionary authority.
(4) A specific explanation of any reduction in charges or
fees to customers, and the class of telephone customer that
such reduction, that are related to each such charge.
(b) Universal Service Contributions and Receipts.--Not
later than January 31 each year, each telecommunications
carrier required to contribute to universal service during
the previous year under section 254(d) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)) shall submit to the Federal
Communications Commission a report on following:
(1) The total contributions of the carrier to the universal
service fund during the previous year.
(2) The total receipts from customers during such year
designed to recover contributions to the fund.
(c) Action on Universal Service Contributions and Receipts
Data.--
(1) Review.--The Federal Communications Commission shall
review the reports submitted to the Commission under
subsection (b) in order to determine whether or not the
amount of the contributions of a telecommunications carrier
to the universal service fund in any year is equal to the
amount of the receipts of the telecommunications carrier from
its customers in such year for purposes of contributions to
the fund.
(2) Additional contributions.--If the Commission determines
as a result of a review under paragraph (1) that the amount
of the receipts of a telecommunications carrier from its
customers in a year for purposes of contributions to the
universal service fund exceeded the amount contributed by the
carrier in such year to the fund, the Commission shall have
the authority to require the carrier to deposit in the fund
an amount equal to the amount of such excess.
(d) Covered Charges.--For purposes of subsection (a), a
covered charge shall include any charge on a bill for
telecommunications services that is separate from a per-
minute rate charge, including a universal service charge, a
subscriber line charge, and a presubscribed interexchange
carrier charge.

SEC. 7. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER DEFINED.

In this Act, the term ``telecommunications carrier'' has
the meaning given that term in section 3(44) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153(44)).
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1826. A bill to provide grants to the State of Alaska for the
purpose of assisting that State in fulfilling its responsibilities
under sections 803, 804, and 805 of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
<bullet> Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce
legislation regarding the State of Alaska's sovereign right to manage
its fish and game resources. It is a sad day that I come to the floor
of the United States Senate to inform my colleagues that for the first
time since Alaska became a state it no longer has sole authority to
manage its fisheries on federal lands.
For everyone of my colleagues their respective states right to manage
fish and game is absolute--every state but Alaska manages all its own
fish and game. As of October 1, in Alaska, this is not the case, and
therefore, action must be taken to try and provide the opportunity for
the state to regain this authority back as swiftly as possible.
Some background is in order here.
When Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA) in 1980, Title VIII required the State of Alaska to
provide a rural subsistence hunting and fishing preference on federal
``public lands.'' If the State fails to provide the required preference
by State statute, the law provided that the federal government would
step in to manage the subsistence uses of fish and game resources on
federal lands.
The Alaska State Legislature passed such a subsistence preference law
in 1978 which was upheld by referendum in 1982. The law was slightly
revised in 1986, and remained on the books until it was struck down by
the Alaska Supreme Court in 1989 as unconstitutional because of the
Alaska Constitution's common use of fish and game clause. It is easy to
see how there would be a conflict between a federal law that requires
the state to provide a preference for rural Alaskans for fish and game
resources and a state constitution that provides for equal access. When
the state statutes were struck down, the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture, for Forest Service lands, took over
management of fish and game resources on federal public lands in
Alaska.
For the most part the early focus was on game management and little
was done to impact Alaska's fisheries. That all changed in 1995 when a
decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Katie John v. United
States extended the law far beyond its original scope to apply not just
to ``federal lands'' but to navigable waters owned by the State of
Alaska. Hence State and private lands were impacted too. The theory
espoused by the Court was that the ``public lands'' includes
navigable waters in which the United States has reserved water rights.
If implemented, the courts decision would mean all fisheries in Alaska
could effectively be managed by the federal government. In April of
1996, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture published an
``Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' which identified about half
of the state as subject to federal authority to regulate fishing
activities.

These regulations were so broad they could have affected not only
fishing activities, but virtually all activities on state and federal
lands that may have an impact on subsistence uses. There is no
precedent in any other State in the Union for this kind of overreaching
into State management prerogatives. For that reason Congress acted in
1996 to place a moratorium on the federal government from implementing
those regulations and assuming control of Alaska's fisheries. This
moratorium was provided mainly to allow the State time to make
appropriate changes to the constitution and relevant statutes in order
to comply with the federal law. The moratorium was extended three times
by Congress and just recently expired October 1, 1999.
The Governor, and the majority of the State legislators have worked
to try and resolve this issue by adopting an amendment to the State
constitution that would allow them to pass State statutes to come into
compliance with the federal law and provide a subsistence priority.
Unfortunately, the State of Alaska's Constitution is not easily amended
and these efforts have fallen short of the necessary votes needed to
place the issue before the Alaska voters. In fact, in the most recent
special session a majority of the legislators voted to do just this.
Unfortunately they were just two votes shy in the State Senate of the
2/3 majority needed to place the necessary amendment before the voters.
With the failure of the legislature to place a constitutional
amendment on the ballot prior to October 1, 1999, we now find ourselves
in a situation where the federal government has assumed control of
subsistence fisheries in Alaska. Therefore, absent a lawsuit or major
change to federal law, the only way the State can now regain management
of the subsistence fisheries is if the Secretary were to certify that
the citizens of Alaska voted on, and approved, a constitutional
amendment and the State Legislature had approved appropriate State
statutes to conform with ANILCA. Under the most optimistic
circumstances, the absolute earliest this could occur would be after
the general election in November of 2000--and more likely it would not
occur until 2001 or 2002. This just cannot be allowed to continue
without some effort to return management to Alaska as soon as possible.

[[Page S13421]]

The proposal I am introducing today would minimize the duration of
federal control if the State legislature passes a constitutional
amendment that would allow them to adopt laws to come into compliance
with the federal law. This would continue to make sure the focus of a
resolve remains on State action and not in the ill-placed hopes of some
action by Congress.
Specifically, the proposal would do the following:
Provide that the State can regain management authority as soon as the
Secretary certifies the State legislature has approved a constitutional
amendment that would allow the State to comply with ANILCA.

As soon as the Secretary certifies the amendment, any unexpended
funds that were provided to the Secretary as a result of the
legislature's failure to act by October 1, 1999 are turned over to the
State.
In order to continue to retain management the State must place the
amendment on the ballot at the earliest date possible under State law.
The Secretary could manage subsistence again if the amendment is not
adopted by the voters or if it is adopted but the State fails to adopt
the needed state statutes at the end of the first legislative session
after passage of the constitutional amendment.
At any time that the Secretary is managing subsistence fisheries in
Alaska, he must comply with section 1308 of ANILCA which requires local
hire.
Mr. President, I along with most Alaskans, believe that subsistence
uses of fish and game should have a priority over other uses in the
State. We have provided for such uses in the past, I have hunted and
fished under those regulations and I respected and supported them and
continue to do so now. I believe the State can again provide for such
uses without significant interruption to the sport or commercial
fisherman.
I also believe that Alaska's rural residents should play a greater
role in the management and enforcement of fish and game laws in Alaska.
They understand and live with the resources in rural Alaska. They see
and experience the fish and game resources day in and day out. And,
they are most directly impacted by the decisions made about use of
those resources. They should bear their share of the responsibility for
formulating fish and game laws as well as enforcing them.
It is my intention to ensure that at anytime the Secretary is
managing any of Alaska's wildlife resources that he maximize the
expertise of Alaska's Native people. I also hope the State would
provide Alaska's rural residents a greater role as it seeks to resolve
the subsistence dilemma once and for all. But until that happens, I
cannot stand by and watch the federal government move into the State
and assume control of the Alaska fish and game resources for an
extended period of time. That is why I am providing for the earliest
opportunity for the State to regain management.
I've lived under federal management during Alaska's territorial days
and it does not work. In 1959 Alaskan's caught just 25.1 million
salmon. Under State management we caught 218 million salmon in 1995.
Federal control would again be a disaster for the resource and those
that depend on it.<bullet>
______

By Mr. GRAHAM:
S. 1827. A bill to provide funds to assist high-poverty school
districts meet their teaching needs; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

transition to teaching act

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which is
entitled ``Transition to Teaching. This legislation starts from a
personal experience.
Bill Aradine is a first-year teacher. He tells me he is greatly
enjoying his experience in the classroom. He has 150 students from the
9th to the 12th grade at North Marion High School near Ocala, FL. Mr.
Aradine teaches automobile mechanics. He has sparked an interest in
students that may lead many of them to rewarding, lucrative, and
challenging careers. I know Mr. Aradine because I did one of my
workdays--in fact, my most recent workday--at North Marion High School.
It is the story I learned that day at North Marion that brings me to
the Senate floor today.
Up to this point, it may not seem that unusual of a story--a
beginning teacher facing new challenges--but Mr. Aradine brings
something else to his first year at North Marion High School. He brings
a previous career of 11 years on-the-job experience. He has years of
experience in a local Chevrolet car dealership. He is now starting a
second career as a teacher. The students look to him with a different
perspective. When he says, you will need to know this if you are going
to get the job done, they know he knows what he is talking about.
Having just come directly from the industry, he teaches at the cutting
edge.
The information he brings to his students is what he was actually
doing in the workplace not that long ago. Mr. Aradine is also a bridge.
He is a bridge between North Marion High School students and the world
of employment. He offers them advice, counsel, and real-life
connections to future jobs.
Mr. Aradine learned of the opening at the high school when one of the
automobile mechanic's teachers retired. He applied for the job. He was
allowed to obtain a temporary teaching certificate based on his prior
work experience. He will take four courses over the next 3 years to
obtain a permanent teaching certificate. North Marion High School
principal, Walter Miller, could not be more pleased with the situation.
Mr. Aradine is doing an excellent job with the students. North Marion
High School was able to fill a vacancy and ease its teacher shortage.
More and more schools will be turning to teachers who are in their
second career. The Washington Post of October 4 of this year remarks on
the trend of professionals entering teaching after years of work in a
nonacademic job.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks,
a copy of an article entitled, ``Disillusioned Find Renewal in
Classroom,'' be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Every August and September, another school year begins.
Thousands of young Americans enter the classroom. Almost every year at
this time, I hear from school districts throughout Florida about
teacher shortages. What did I hear in 1999? I heard from Miami Dade
that they had hired 1,700 new teachers for the 1999 school year but
still had 300 vacancies to fill on the first day of classes.
Hillsborough County, Tampa, hired 1,493 teachers for the start of the
school year. They were still 238 teachers short when the first school
bell rang. Orange County, Orlando, needed 1,300 teachers for the new
year and still had 50 vacancies a month after school started.
These concerns will only get worse. Forty percent of current
schoolteachers are over the age of 50. They are nearing retirement. Who
will be the future role models to the next generation of Americans? Who
will take their places in the classroom? The importance of having high
quality teachers in sufficient numbers is crucial, if we are to look at
the challenges facing education in the future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article by Dr. Robert McCabe entitled, ``A Twenty-First Century
Challenge: Underprepared Americans.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

A Twenty First Century Challenge: Underprepared Americans

(By Robert H. McCabe)

The essential mission for higher education in the new
America of the 21st Century will be creating opportunity for
new populations. Higher education will be more important than
every before, but the scope of services will be very
different and should be dramatically expanded to match the
changed environment. In short, the current emphasis on
exclusion must shift to inclusion.
In the new America, we will be older, less white, and more
diverse. Our workforce will shrink. Information technology
will impact everything and everybody. Business will function
in a global economy and unskilled jobs will be exported to
low wage developing nations. The gap between the skills and
competencies of Americans, and those required for an
Information Age workforce will continue to widen, threatening
the very well being of our nation.
As we enter the 21st Century we face three critical
challenges: remaining competitive in a global economy;
reversing the growth of a

[[Page S13422]]

seemingly permanent and disenfranchised underclass; and
developing a broad based workforce possessing Information Age
skills. Whether or not we successfully meet these challenges
will depend on the achievement of our educational system. The
public schools, however, face ever greater difficulties.
Increasing numbers of diverse children will enter the schools
with significant educational and life deficiencies. Despite
the school reforms that are sweeping the nation, it is
virtually certain that increasing numbers of individuals will
reach adulthood unprepared for 21st Century life and
employment. Failure to educate these individuals would result
in a catastrophic decline in our economy and standard of
living. The role of higher education is critical. It must
provide leadership in reshaping an educational system that is
significantly more successful at all levels. Colleges will
experience extraordinary enrollment growth from previously
undeserved and underprepared populations. They must assist
these Americans in achieving the higher order competencies
necessary to succeed in the Information Age. To reach this
goal, colleges must partner with public schools to
participate in school reform. They must also insure that
strengthened and well-supported college remedial education
programs are available, primarily in community colleges, to
rescue underprepared adults for their own benefit and to the
benefit of the nation as a whole.
The following is a review of factors that will redefine the
mission of higher education in the new America of the 21st
Century.

business/industry and work

In a global economy, business and industry will get its
work done where it is least costly. Manufacturing is already
moving from the United States to less developed nations where
wages are lower. This trend will continue. Sustaining
America's current prosperity will depend on its ability to
lead and develop knowledge industries, which are based on a
highly skilled and a more productive workforce. Brainpower
and technology can multiply individual productivity, thus,
compensating for higher wages and helping America to retain
global competitiveness.
Experts believe--judging from successful economies already
functioning in the new global environment--the countries that
remain competitive in the next century are those with the
highest overall literacy and educational levels--that is,
nations, such as Germany and Japan, that have a strong
``bottom third.'' This should be a compelling wake up call
for America because demographic trends indicate that the
future U.S. work force will be increasingly composed of
groups such as minorities and immigrants, who have
disproportionately high rates of illiteracy and educational
underachievement (Immerwahr et al. 1991 p. 15).
Beyond the basics, workers need additional skills to meet
workforce demands--even if they hold the same job. Regardless
of the product or service offered, the competitive workplace
of today is a high-skill environment designed around
technology and people who are technically competent.
A 1997 National Alliance of Business report, ``Job Cuts
Out, High Skills In,'' states: ``With the explosion of
technology in the workplace, skill level requirements are
being ratcheted up by employers. Inventory, sales, marketing,
expense analysis, communications, and correspondence are
being one faster, better and cheaper, and with greater
efficiency in the workplace'' (National Alliance of Business,
p. 1).
Through turbulent years of reorganization, companies have
raised skill requirements in order to hire employees with the
competencies they need to be more competitive. More highly
skilled workers have replaced employees with lower or
outdated skills. Job elimination and downsizing have declined
to their lowest levels in the decade, as companies are
prepared for increased productivity and profitability.
``We're seeing the payoff after a decade of pain,'' says Eric
Greenberg, director of management studies for the American
Management association. ``The same forces that were costing
jobs in the earlier years, such as restructuring, re-
engineering and automation are now creating jobs that demand
high skill levels. The people going out the door don't have
them, the people coming in do'' (National Alliance of
Business, 1997, p. 6).
At the same time that necessary skill levels are rising,
the skills of American workers are declining--a bleak picture
indeed. In 1995, The National Workforce Collabative estimated
that the incidence of low basic workplace skills among U.S.
workers ranging from 20 to 40 percent.
Business and Industry estimates that 80 percent of the 21st
Century workforce will need some post-secondary education. In
addition, they will need higher order information
competencies as a base for life long continuing education.
Today, fewer than half of Americans have achieved this level
of competence and demographic changes indicate that in the
future even fewer will be as well prepared.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES

As the millennium approaches, stores analyzing the state of
the nation and predicting its future fill the public
discourse. Demographers can accurately describe what Newsweek
magazine termed the ``face of the future'' (Morganthau 1997).
In the 21st Century, the United States will become more
ethnically diverse, more crowded and much older.
The greatest changes will occur in the Hispanic population.
Today, Hispanics make up nearly 30 million people and 11
percent of the population. With high birthrates and high
legal and illegal immigration, this share will continue to
increase. Hispanic Americans average 2.4 to 2.9 children per
couple, compared to white Americans average of just under two
children per couple (Sivy 1997). In addition, the majority of
today's immigrants are Hispanic, a trend that is expected to
continue. Within the next seven years, Hispanics will
overtake African Americans as the nation's largest minority.
By 2005, Hispanics will number more than 36 million people
compared to a projected 35.5 million African Americans.
(Holmes 1998). By 2050, they are expected to comprise nearly
one quarter of the total population, almost 96 million
people. (Morganthau 1997). This growth is remarkable
considering that in 1970 Hispanic accounted for just nine
million citizens or roughly four percent of the national
population (Population Reference Bureau 1999).
Virtually all of our growth will be from minorities,
principally Hispanics. These groups are disproportionately
poor, and thus, disproportionately educationally
underprepared. To illustrate, African Americans are 13
percent of the general population and 40 percent of welfare
recipients while Hispanics are 11 percent of the population
and 22 percent of welfare recipients.

IMMIGRATION

Changing patterns of immigration are rearranging the face
of America. Immigrants make up a significant portion of
population growth. These new Americans differ in origin from
those of earlier years. Between 1820 and 1967, 40 million of
America's 44 million immigrants came from European countries.
From 1968 to 1994, only three million of the 18 million
immigrants came from Europe--a decrease from 90 percent to 17
percent. Today's immigrants come primarily from Latin America
and Asia, and most importantly, from underdeveloped nations.
Unfortunately, the immigrant population that is a major
source of future workers also adds to our underprepared
population. In the early 20th Century, most European
immigrants were also unskilled. At that time, however, work
was predominantly unskilled, and the immigrants provided much
needed unskilled manpower. Circumstances are now quite
different. Less than 20 percent of today's jobs are
unskilled. Few new immigrants arrive on our shores with the
job skills that business and industry need, yet these ``new
workers'' represent a key source of potential employees
needed to fill the void created by retiring ``Baby Boomers''.

THE AGING OF AMERICA

In 1900, the average life expectancy was 48. Today it is
76. In addition, America's fertility rate has dropped below
the 2.1 children per woman population replacement rate. In
1950, the average age of Americans was 21 while today it is
37. Demographer Samuel Preston reports that the population is
rapidly growing older and will continue to do so in the next
half century (1996). Between 1995 and 2010, the number of
people 65 and older will grow slowly from 33.5 million to
39.4 million, as people born in the 1930s and early 1940s
(when fertility was low) grow older. By contrast, between
2010 and 2030, with the ``Baby Boomers'' aging, the number
will soar from 39.4 million to 69.3 million. Meanwhile, the
population in the prime working ages of 20 to 59 will remain
stationary at about 160 million. In 1900, there were 10 times
as many children below 18 as there were adults over 65. By
2030, there will be slightly more people over 65 than under
18.
Most discussion about the aging of Americans has focused on
the viability of Social Security and Medicare. The Social
Security system uses a pay-as-you-go model whereby payments
by current workers are used to pay benefits to retirees. The
concept was that when current workers retire, new workers
would be available to pay into the system to support their
retirement. That is history. In the future, it will simply no
longer be the case. When the system began, 17 to 20 workers
paid in for each retired worker receiving benefits. By 1960,
the ratio had fallen to five workers for each retiree. Today
it is 3.4 to one and by 2020 there will only be two workers
for each retiree. While this forecasts serious problems, they
are not nearly as severe as the problem of a declining
percentage of the population in the workforce. Quite simply,
to sustain our economy, everyone in their prime work years
will need to be in the workforce. They must be highly skilled
and extremely productive to support more retirees.

POVERTY

With our high standard of living and prosperity, America
continues to have a persistent underclass with more
individuals living in poverty than other developed nations.
This is an unacceptable, deeply imbedded and seemingly
unresolvable American problem. In the 1950s and 1960s, a near
national consensus believed that the problem of poverty and
equal opportunity for all could and should be resolved.
Today, cynicism has replaced optimism. People living in
poverty feel there is no way out and that the system is
rigged against them. Those supporting the dependent
population are frustrated and angry and increasingly blame
those who live in poverty for their own poor circumstances.
Politicans applaud the apparent successes of welfare reform
efforts intended to quickly remove individuals from the
welfare rolls. A closer look, however, reveals that the
successes are more a result of a robust economy

[[Page S13423]]

than successful reform programs. Many have only progressed
from poverty to joining the working poor. Persistent
poverty appears to be impervious to every attempt at
improvement.
From kindergarten to college, poverty correlates more
closely with academic deficiency than any other factor. The
strong relationship between socio-economic status and
educational achievement and the rising skill levels required
for employment result in growing numbers from impoverished
neighborhoods being undereducated for 21st Century jobs.
These underprepared individuals add to the nation's
unemployed, are dependent on the society and expand the gap
between the haves and have nots--a destructive and dangerous
situation.

THE NEW AMERICAN FAMILY

Today, nearly half of all American children experience the
breakup of their parents' marriage. Family arrangements are
diverse, and increasingly, do not involve a full-time father.
In 1963, 77 percent of white children, 65 percent of Hispanic
children, and 36 percent of African American children lived
in two-parent families. By 1991, only half of the United
States' children and teens lived in a traditional nuclear
family. Fifth percent of white children live with a divorced
mother; while 54 percent of African American children and 33
percent of Hispanic children have mothers who have never
married (McCabe and Day 1998, p. 7). More children are born
to unmarried women, 33 percent in 1994 compared with 5
percent in 1960 (Preston 1996). Even those children from a
two-parent household spend less family time together. About
70 percent of mothers with children at home are working
(Edmondson 1997). Children are often shuttled between day
care centers, baby sitters, and extended family members.
According to Prather (1995), ``There are three problems
that impact the learning abilities of young children that are
exacerbated by the changing structures of families:
Insufficient parenting, poor prenatal care, and inadequate
health care.'' One-fourth of the pregnant women in America,
particularly those who live in poverty, receive no prenatal
care. Problems in the womb often lead to learning
disabilities and other cognitive disorders.
Recent brain development research indicate that ``wiring''
of neurons occurs after birth, and that experience during
infancy and early childhood plays a critical role in defining
an individual's capacity to learn. The child's brain and
central nervous system develop rapidly during the first three
years of life in response to parental attention and
stimulation, such as talking, seeing and playing. Absence of
these critical early child care experiences, can result in
permanent loss of learning capacity. This obviously occurs
more frequently in single parent families because there is
less time available for the children.
Children who suffer from inadequate economic resources and
parental attention are children at risk of school failure.
When these students progress into secondary schools, they are
often tucked away in a holding pattern in general studies
programs, and other programs that set lower expectations and
develop less information competency. These students are
destined to become underprepared adults.
The decline in the traditional family and the rising
percentage of children born into poverty raises the question
of whether children of the 21st Century will be sufficiently
nurtured and prepared to mature to the productive adults that
America needs.
At the heart of the United States' future will be the
changing concept of family--a kind of new social
demographics. Tomorrow's family will be less traditional and
more complex. The 1950s nuclear family with the father as the
sole breadwinner will be a distant memory. Instead, family
life will be plagued by much of the same problems it suffers
from today--divorce, single parenting, and a fractured and
harried household.
Taken together--an analysis of demographics and family
structure--we have a clear picture of the 21st Century. The
United States will be crowded, diverse, older, and Americans
will be less well prepared for employment. But what then does
all this really mean? How will these changes influence
everyday life? How well will we prepare our children for the
future? What challenges will they face? How will we care for
our elderly, infirm, and needy?

EDUCATING A MAJORITY MINORITY NATION

The demographic realities--particularly the growing
diversity--will have the greatest impact on our education
system. We know that by 2020 half of the nation's youth will
be ``minority.'' But what is most striking about this
statistic is the shifting concept of minority. Demographer
Hodgkinson explains that educating tomorrow's minority will
be more complicated because of who they are. Between 1820 and
1945, the nations that sent us the largest numbers of
immigrants were (in rank order): Germany, Italy, Ireland,
United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Canada, and Sweden. The nations
that send us the most immigrants now and through the year
2000 are (in rank order): Mexico, Philippines, Korea, China/
Taiwan, India, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Canada,
Vietnam, United Kingdom, and Iran (Hodgkinson 1993).
This shift indicates a clear transformation. The United
States has gone from a nation of Europeans with a common
European culture to a nation of the world. Students from all
over the world will be in the same classrooms--making our
schools truly international in composition (Hodgkinson 1993).
The change brings with it a set of unique instructional
problems. In the past, schools could use the European
commonality to socialize immigrant children. Today, children
come to classrooms with different diets, different religions,
different individual and group loyalties, different music,
and different languages.
Tommorrow's students will be problematic for an even more
profound reason--their lack of academic skills. Teachers will
not only struggle with their diversity but also with their
poor language skills and lack of educational attainment.
Minorities have traditionally lagged behind academically.
Educational policy makers often view them as an
afterthought--gearing their decisions to the more successful
white majority. As the demographics shift, however, educators
will face a nation dominated by struggling students, at the
same time more must complete their education with higher
order skills.
The statistics illustrate a wide educational gap between
minorities and non-minorities. In 1996, 30 percent of
Hispanics had less than a ninth grade education, compared
with 10 percent of African Americans and only about five
percent of whites. Little more than one-half (53 percent) of
Hispanics ages 25 or older had completed high school, and
less than 10 percent had at least a bachelor's degree. Nearly
85 percent of non-Hispanic adults were high school graduates,
and nearly 25 percent were college graduates (del Pinal
1997). The high school dropout rate--the percentage of
people, ages 16 to 24, who do not have a high school
diploma--reflects a similar disparity. In 1993, 27.5
percent of Hispanic students, 13.6 percent of African
American students, and 7.9 percent of white students fell
into this category (Coley 1995).
Minority children start two or three steps behind their
white counterparts. They start elementary school with fewer
social skills and lower language skills than their white
counterparts (del Pinal 1997). Their path of underachievement
then continues throughout their academic career.

summary

A series of circumstances are converging to create a 21st
Century American dilemma that threatens the nation's economic
and societal well being. The global economy is forcing
manufacturing and businesses that utilize less skilled labor
out of the country. The nation's hope for continued
prosperity is to be the leader of the world's knowledge
industries. This requires a highly skilled, highly productive
workforce. Formidable obstacles must be overcome to reach
that goal. With the aging population, the percentage of
individuals in their primary work years will decline. It is,
therefore, necessary to insure that the maximum number of
Americans are well prepared and in the workforce. They will
have to be more productive both to offset the competitive low
salaries in less developed countries and to support the
growing number of elderly. America does not have any one to
waste!
Virtually all of our population growth will be from groups
that are disproportionately underprepared--immigrants mostly
from Third World countries, and minorities, principally
Hispanic, who are disproportionately poor. Changes in the
American family will also contribute to underpreparation.
Changing family and work circumstances result in poor
parenting practices that are linked to early children sensory
deprivation and learning disabilities. Due to the hardships
of growing numbers of single parent families, children's
social, physical and educational progress is impeded.
The workforce could be both undersized and
disproportionately underskilled. It would be unable to
sustain a knowledge based economy and our quality of life.
America must depend on education to avert this pending
national crisis. Despite reforms and hoped for improvements
in the public schools, more Americans will reach adulthood
underprepared. States are now taking school reform seriously
and there is evidence of some improvement. The task, however,
is monumental. The public schools cannot be expected to solve
it alone.
The following graph dramatically demonstrates the scope of
the problem. Currently, 85 percent of young Americans
graduate from high school, 56 percent enter college and,
unfortunately, only 39 percent are prepared for college work.
This means that unless there is tremendous improvement, less
than 40 percent of young Americans will be prepared for the
80 percent of high skill jobs. Sixty percent will only be
prepared for the 20 percent of low skill jobs. It will be the
essential and daunting task of public schools and college
remedial programs to raise the 39 percent prepared to 80
percent. Substantially more students need to achieve higher
skills at the same time large numbers of children will enter
the educational system with serious life and educational
deficiencies.
The great strength of America is the belief in the value of
every individual and the commitment to equal opportunity for
all. Higher education can do nothing more important and more
difficult than helping the underprepared achieve educational
parity. Higher education leadership is essential in meeting
this challenge. Colleges must join with public schools in
unified efforts to raise the educational achievements of all
children. They must also insure the availability of quality
remedial education programs, primarily in community colleges.
This will assure that

[[Page S13424]]

the critical final bridge to full participants in our society
is available to everyone.

references

Cassidy, J. ``Who Killed the Middle Class?'' The New
Yorker, October 16, 1995.
Coley, Richard, Dreams Deferred: High School Dropouts in
the United States. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing
Service, 1995.
Del Pinal, Jorge. ``Generations of Diversity: Latinos in
the United States,'' Population Reference Bureau, October
1997.
Hodgkinson, H. Bringing Tomorrow Into Focus, Washington DC;
The Institute for Educational Leadership, 1996.
Immerwahr, John Johnson, Jean and Kerman-Schloss, Adam.
Cross Talk: The public, Experts and Competitiveness
(February). A Research Report from the Business-Higher
Education Forum and the Public Agenda Foundation.
McCabe, Robert and Day, Philip. Developmental Education: A
Twenty-First Century Social and Economic Imperative. Mission
Viejo: League for Innovation in the Community College, 1998.
Mitchell, S. ``The Diversity Generation: Demography's
Roller Coaster Brings an Echo Boom into Your Classrooms,''
The American School Board Journal, April, 1996.
National Alliance of Business. ``Job Cuts Out, High Skill
in,'' Work America, Vol. 14, November/December 1997.
National Alliance of Business. ``Enhancing Education and
Training Through Technology, Workforce Economic Trends,
December, 1997.
Prather, J.E. ``Presidential Address: What Sociologists Are
Learning About the Next Generation of Students: Are We
Prepared To Teach in the 21st Century?'' Sociological
Perspectives, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1995.
Preston, S.H. ``Children Will Pay, Demography's Crystal
Ball Shows that 21st Century America Will be Older, Wiser and
More Ethnically Diverse. But Kids Face Trouble.'' New York
Times Magazine, September 29, 1996.

Mr. GRAHAM. Dr. McCabe raises several crucial demographic and
societal changes that will affect American education in the coming
years. Let me mention two of these issues.
First, the American family structure will change in the coming
decades. Half of all children will spend some of their childhood in
single-parent homes and are more likely to live in poverty.
Of the children who grow up in a nuclear family, very often both of
their parents will work; thus, they will be less able to be involved in
the child's school and schoolwork. That is what is happening to
American families. That is what will increasingly in the family
environment from which American schoolchildren will enter the
classroom. But as they exit the classroom, societal expectations for
students upon graduation will be greater.
In the middle of this century, 50 years ago, 20 percent of American
jobs required a specific skill. At the end of this century, today, 80
percent of jobs need skilled workers. Thus, the American student will
need to graduate from school better prepared for the high-tech world
than ever before; but single-parent families and dual-income families,
in general, will face more challenges in being able to be actively
involved in the support of that child's education.
These challenges, and others, will face the American educational
system. I rise today to take one step forward in easing the nationwide
teacher shortage and offering challenging new opportunities for
America's professional working people by introducing the Transition to
Teaching Act of 1999.
Senator Kennedy is to be commended for his work in including similar
language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization
Bill. Representatives Jim Davis of Florida and Tim Roemer of Indiana
have taken the lead in the House of Representatives on this issue.
We have a very successful model on which to build the Transition to
Teaching program. Since 1994, the Troops to Teachers program has
brought more than 3,000 retired military personnel to our classrooms,
particularly as math, science, and technology teachers.
Schools in my State of Florida have benefitted by more than 270
individuals who have successfully completed the Troops to Teachers
program, and are bringing their life experience to the classroom today.
Troops to Teachers, and now Transition to Teaching, assist in
overcoming two of the main obstacles that mid-career professionals face
when they want to become a teacher. It is not impossible to do this
now, as Mr. Aradine has shown; but this legislation will assist with
and simplify the process.
The first issue that is addressed involves teaching colleges within
universities. These teaching colleges are often set up for the
traditional students in their early twenties, right out of high school,
just starting their new lives.
These programs are generally taken over a multiyear period as a full-
time college student. This legislation encourages teaching colleges to
develop curriculum suitable for an individual who already has many
years of experience. These programs are more streamlined, more flexible
in school hours, and recognize that the mid-career student brings more
life and work experience than does a traditional college student.
By developing such programs, teaching colleges can maintain high
standards, but allow a mid-career worker, making the change into
teaching to become certified in a more efficient, streamlined manner.

Teaching colleges are also asked to develop programs to maintain
contact with and support for these new teachers during at least their
first year in the classroom.
Second, Transition to Teaching will assist teachers who come to the
profession in mid-career in a very tangible way.
Grants will be awarded, up to $5,000 per participant, to offset the
costs of becoming a certified teacher. Why are these grants
appropriate? The traditional college student comes directly from a
family setting. They typically have limited personal or family
financial obligations. In contrast, people like Mr. Aradine have their
own families, spouses, children, and they have a house and car
payments. They have the kind of financial obligations that would be
typical of any mid-career adult. They would need this financial
assistance in order to give them that little degree of support and help
that will allow them to make this transition to become a certified
teacher and move into a second career in the classroom.
Thus, this legislation deals with two of the biggest obstacles to
becoming a teacher in mid-career. The certification process is
streamlined, and stipends are provided to offset the cost of this
additional education.
The success can be highlighted best with a personal story--a personal
story, not like Mr. Aradine who is in his first year, but the personal
story of a man who is already well into his second career. Ronald
Dyches grew up in a military family. His father was a noncommissioned
officer. When Mr. Dyches attended college at Sam Houston State, he
followed in his family's military footsteps and enrolled in the ROTC.
When he graduated, he became a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army.
For more than 21 years, Mr. Dyches served our Nation as an Army
intelligence officer, living throughout the United States and Europe.
He feels the highlight of his career were the three years he spent on
General Norman Schwartzkopf's staff at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa
during the Gulf war. Mr. Dyches retired from the Army in 1995. But you
can say his service to the country did not end.
With the help of the Troops to Teachers program, Mr. Dyches began a
second career teaching social studies at Bloomingdale High School in
Brandon, FL. He has been on the faculty at Bloomingdale since 1995--and
this year he is teaching three periods of Honors World History and two
periods of an elective class that he created: The History of the
Vietnam War.
Mr. Dyches' military experiences are an integral part of his
classroom teaching. In addition to developing new elective courses,
such as the one on the Vietnam war, Mr. Dyches uses the wealth of
knowledge acquired living and working twelve years in Europe with the
military to enliven his World History class. With his background, he
offers advice and counsel to students including those considering a
military career or wishing to attend one of the Nation's service
academies.
Mr. Dyches feels that this classroom experience would not have been
possible without the Troops to Teachers program. It rekindled his
interest in teaching from his college days, and it opened doors to
certification that would have been closed to him.
In some sense, Troops to Teachers helps make ``perfect marriages.''

[[Page S13425]]

Bloomingdale High School needed a social studies teacher. Ron Dyches
needed a challenging, rewarding second career. He, the school, and all
of Bloomingdale's students have benefited from this perfect marriage.

Other professionals, other workers, should be allowed to follow in
the footsteps of the retired military personnel like Mr. Dyches, who
have set such a shining example for us and the students that they
serve.
Law enforcement, attorneys, business leaders, scientists,
entrepreneurs, technically competent men and women, and others in the
private sector should be encouraged to share their wisdom with
students.
As I mentioned, under the Transition to Teaching Act, colleges and
universities would be awarded grants to design educational programs
modeled after Troops to Teachers to train mid-career professionals, and
others, to become teachers.
Individuals would be eligible for grants of up to $5,000 to pay for
the courses and training they need to become qualified teachers.
In return for the training, the new teachers would agree to teach in
low-income schools, determined by the percentage of title I students in
the school population, for three years.
This legislation is timely. We are on the cusp of retirement of
millions of baby boomers.
By encouraging recent retirees, or mid-career professionals, to
become certified through Transition To Teaching and spend a few years
in the classroom, we will bring the life skills of experienced
professionals to our youngest citizens.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
Our nation's children deserve our best efforts to provide them with a
world class education that they will need in the 21st century.

Exhibit 1

Disillusioned Find Renewal in Classroom--New Teachers Coming From Other
Professions

(By Liz Seymour)

To become a teacher, Mary Ann Richardson left a $113,000-a-
year job lobbying Congress as a U.S. deputy assistant
secretary in the Labor Department.
Now she's a 46-year-old intern at Falls Church High School,
a substitute teacher in history, government and civics
without her own classroom or even her own desk. Next year,
after she receives her master's degree in education, she will
be applying for teaching jobs that pay about $80,000 a year
less than what she used to earn.
She grapples with a new identity and the loss of family
income that she worked 16 years to get and will never see
again. But, she said, ``when those kids look up to you or
they're having a crisis and you can help . . . I can tell you
right now, I have found a purpose.''
The teaching profession, shunned for decades by college
graduates in search of higher pay and prestige, is attracting
a growing number of people who started their careers in
another field. Some are downsized corporate executives who've
heard about the national teacher shortage and are enticed by
the job security. Others, like Richardson, are disenchanted
lawyers and lobbyists who found that their high salaries did
not make up for job pressures.
They are being lured, too, by an easing of teacher
licensing requirements for career-switchers in many states
and school districts, a trend that is likely to continue as
the national teacher shortage worsens.
About 55 percent of the students currently enrolled in
post-undergraduate teaching programs started their careers in
another field, according to a study to be released this week
by the National Center for Education Information, a
Washington-based think tank. The study also found that 27
percent of universities have programs solely for second-
career teachers, up from 3 percent in 1984.
Officials in several Washington area school districts said
they are seeing more people like Richardson, although they do
not keep such figures.
``People used to be driven by the financial rewards of
their career,'' said Kevin North, the director of employment
for Fairfax County schools. ``People are starting to step
back and say, `Other things are more important to me, and I
want something more fulfilling.' ''
Second-career teachers are appealing job candidates in
several respects, said Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of
education at Stanford University and director of the National
Commission on Teaching & America's Future. They are more
mature than first-career teachers and often have experience
with children through parenting. And because their decision
to teach usually requires a substantial pay cut, they tend to
have a deeper commitment to public education, she said.
Jerome ``Rick'' Peck, 55, a first-year science teacher at
Loudoun County's Seneca Ridge Middle School, said the biggest
attribute he brings to the classroom is ``the ability to say
to the kids--and to mean it and to know it--`Hey, this is
something you're going to need later in life.' ''
A certified public accountant with a master's degree in
business administration from the Wharton School, Peck was
earning a six-figure salary as chief financial officer of a
magazine publishing company until it was sold a few years
ago. He was financially secure and his decision to teach was
``really selfish,'' Peck insists, because he saw it as
something he would enjoy.
Five weeks into the school year, he still feels that way.
But the transition hasn't been easy. He is mired in more
paperwork than he expected. Many of his students fared poorly
on the first test he gave, about the metric system, and some
complained that he was lecturing too fast.
``When it comes to teaching, I'm definitely still
learning,'' Peck said.
James R. Fields, 38, a former supervisor at United Parcel
Service, is studying for his master's degree in education at
George Washington University and substitute teaching at Sligo
Middle School in Silver Spring.
Fields was earning $59,000 a year after 14 years at UPS.
But when he moved from the Miami area to Montgomery County to
get married, the company wouldn't transfer him.
He probably won't earn more than $35,000 a year when he
gets a full-time teaching job next year. Fields said he is
lucky that his wife, a gynecologist, has a salary that allows
him to pursue teaching.
Fields, who is African American, said he hopes to be a
strong influence on young black males. But right now, his
main goal is to learn the routines of running a classroom. He
said it's a challenge sometimes just to get his students to
settle down--never mind actually paying attention and
comprehending his lessons.
``It's kind of tough as a sub--[the students] think it's a
field day,'' Fields said. ``In a sense I see that as a plus;
you quickly develop some classroom management skills.
Tom Brannan, 52, quit his $83,000-a-year job as an
assistant city manager in Alexandria to enroll in the
master's degree program at George Washington. He enjoyed many
aspects of his job but not the long hours and frenetic pace.
Time with his family was often cut short, he said.
In just a few weeks as a substitute teacher at Fairfax's
George Marshall High School, Brannan already has seen
rewards. One day, he was assigned on short notice to teach a
history class, with little time to prepare a lesson. After
sweating out the period, the bell rang and the students filed
out. One stopped to ask him: ``Are you gonna be back any time
soon?''
Career-switchers typically take fewer education courses
than students who go into teaching as a first career but
often get more field work in schools.
Despite the growing calls from politicians and school
officials to streamline the certification process for second-
career teachers, they may still face challenges getting
hired, said C. Emily Feistritzer, president of the National
Center for Education Information.
Some may possess several advanced degrees, which would put
them at a higher pay scale than most beginning teachers.
Feistritzer said she has spotted another hurdle: Principals
are sometimes less inclined to put older adults on their
teaching staff because they won't be as easy to supervise as
a 22-year-old college graduate.
Amy Harris is 26, younger than many of the other teachers
who started in a different profession. She gave up a job at a
brokerage firm in Minneapolis to lead 27 fifth-graders at
Loudoun's Cool Spring Elementary School. Although she didn't
take much of a pay cut to become a teacher, she eventually
would have earned far more if she'd stayed in financial
services.
She acknowledges that she second-guesses her decision once
a month, when she writes a check to pay down $25,000 in debt
from graduate school loans. But she is energized by her
students. ``I really enjoy their wit and their cleverness,''
she said.
Richardson's journey toward teaching began last year, when
her mother was dying. She came to live with Richardson for
the last four months of her life, during which mother and
daughter had many soul-searching talks about careers, family
and, above all, happiness.
``She said, `Look, you've got about 20 years [of working]
left--you need to do what you think is important and what you
want to do.' '' Richardson recalled.
Richardson, whose husband is an archivist, has put her two
children on strict allowances to reduce household expenses
since she quit her high-paying Labor Department job.
The worst of it, she said, is being viewed as an
inexperienced newcomer at age 46.
``I worry that when I get done with this program, I have to
start over and sell myself again,'' she said. ``If I get
through this, they should want me!''
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk the legislation and ask
for its appropriate reference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately
referred.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (by request):
S. 1828. A bill to protect and provide resources for the Social
Security System, to reserve surpluses to protect, strengthen and
modernize the Medicare

[[Page S13426]]

Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

the strengthen social security and medicare act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following letter of transmittal from the White House be printed in the
Record, following the text of the bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1828

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 ``Strengthen Social Security
and Medicare Act of 1999.''

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) The Social Security system is one of the cornerstones
of American national policy and has allowed a generation of
Americans to retire with dignity. For 30 percent of all
senior citizens, Social Security benefits provide almost 90
percent of their retirement income. For 66 percent of all
senior citizens, Social Security benefits provide over half
of their retirement income. Poverty rates among the elderly
are at the lowest level since the United States began to keep
poverty statistics, due in large part to the Social Security
system. The Social Security system, together with the
additional protections afforded by the Medicare system, have
been an outstanding success for past and current retirees and
must be preserved for future retirees.
(2) The long-term solvency of the Social Security and
Medicare trust funds is not assured. There is an estimated
long-range actuarial deficit in the Social Security trust
funds. According to the 1999 report of the Board of Trustees
of the Social Security trust funds, the accumulated balances
in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and
the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are currently
projected to become unable to pay benefits in full on a
timely basis starting in 2034. The Medicare system faces more
immediate financial shortfalls, with the Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund projected to become exhausted in 2015.
(3) In addition to preserving Social Security and Medicare,
the Congress and the President have a responsibility to
future generations to reduce the Federal debt held by the
public. Significant debt reduction will contribute to the
economy and improve the Government's ability to fulfill its
responsibilities and to face future challenges, including
preserving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare.
(4) The Federal Government is now in sound financial
condition. The Federal budget is projected to generate
significant surpluses. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, there
were unified budget surpluses--the first consecutive
surpluses in more than 40 years. Over the next 15 years, the
Government projects the on-budget surplus, which excludes
Social Security, to total $2.9 trillion. The unified budget
surplus (including Social Security) is projected by the
Government to total $5.9 trillion over the next 15 years.
(5) The surplus, excluding Social Security, offers an
unparalleled opportunity to: preserve Social Security;
protect, strengthen, and modernize Medicare; and
significantly reduce the Federal debt held by the public, for
the future benefit of all Americans.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to protect the
Social Security surplus for debt reduction, to extend the
solvency of Social Security, and to set aside a reserve to be
used to protect, strengthen, and modernize Medicare.

SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS TO FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND
SURVIVORS INSURANCE TRUST FUND AND FEDERAL
DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUND.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assure that
the interest savings on the debt held by the public achieved
as a result of Social Security surpluses from 2000 to 2015
are dedicated to Social Security solvency.
(b) Additional Appropriation to Trust Funds.--Section 201
of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(n) Additional Appropriation to Trust Funds.
``(1) In addition to the amounts appropriated to the Trust
Funds under subsections (a) and (b), there is hereby
appropriated to the Trust Funds, out of any moneys in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
``(A) for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and
for each fiscal year thereafter through the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2016, an amount equal to the prescribed
amount for the fiscal year; and
``(B) for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and
for each fiscal year thereafter through the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2044, and amount equal to the prescribed
amount for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
``(2) The amount appropriated by paragraph (1) in fiscal
year shall be transferred in equal monthly installments.
``(3) The amount appropriated by paragraph (1) in each
fiscal year shall be allocated between the Trust Funds in the
same proportion as the taxes imposed by chapter 21 (other
than sections 3101(b) and 3111(b)) of Title 26 with respect
to wages (as defined in section 3121 of Title 26) reported to
the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate pursuant to
subtitle F of Title 26, and the taxes imposed by chapter 2
(other than section 1401(b)) of Title 26 with respect to
self-employment income (as defined in section 1402 of Title
26) reported to the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate
pursuant to subtitle F of Title 26, are allocated between the
Trust Funds in the calendar year that begins in the fiscal
year.
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the ``prescribed
amount'' for any fiscal year shall be determined by
multiplying:
``(a) the excess of:
``(i) the sum of:

``(I) the face amount of all obligations of the United
States held by the Trust Funds on the last day of the fiscal
year immediately preceding the fiscal year of determination
purchased with amounts appropriated or credited to the Trust
Funds other than any amount appropriated under paragraph (1);
and
``(II) the sum of the amounts appropriated under paragraph
(1) and transferred under paragraph (2) through the last day
of the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year of
determination, and an amount equal to the interest that would
have been earned thereon had those amounts been invested in
obligations of the United States issued directly to the Trust
Funds under subsections (d) and (f)

.``over--
``(ii) the face amount of all obligations of the United
Sates held by the Trust Funds on September 30, 1999,

``times--
``(B) a rate of interest determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, at the beginning of the fiscal year of
determination, as follows:
``(i) if there are any marketable interest-bearing
obligations of the United States then forming a part of the
pubic debt, a rate of interest determined by taking into
consideration the average market yield (computed on the basis
of daily closing market bid quotations or prices during the
calendar month immediately preceding the determination of the
rate of interest) on such obligations; and
``(ii) if there are no marketable interest-bearing
obligations of the United States then forming a part of the
public debt, a rate of interest determined to be the best
approximation of the rate of interest described in clause
(i), taking into consideration the average market yield
(computed on the basis of daily closing market bid quotations
or prices during the calendar month immediately preceding the
determination of the rate of interest) on investment grade
corporate obligations selected by the Secretary of the
Treasury, less an adjustment made by the Secretary of the
Treasury to take into account the difference between the
yields on corporate obligations comparable to the obligations
selected by the Secretary of the Treasury and yields on
obligations of comparable maturities issued by risk-free
government issuers selected by the Secretary of the
Treasury.''.

SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

(a) Points of Order to Protect Social Security Surpluses.--
Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Points of Order to Protect Social Security
Surpluses.--
``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not
be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to
consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or
conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would
set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
``(2) Subsequent legislation.--It shall not be in order in
the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference
report if--
``(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
``(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
``(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form
recommended in that conference report,

would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal
year.
``(3) Budget resolution baseline.--(A) For purposes of this
section, ``set forth an on-budget deficit'', with respect to
a budget resolution, means the resolution set forth an on-
budget deficit for a fiscal year and the baseline budget
project of the surplus or deficit for such fiscal year on
which such resolution is based projects an on-budget surplus,
on-budget balance, or an on-budget deficit that is less than
the deficit set forth in the resolution.
``(B) For purposes of this section, ``cause or increase an
on-budget deficit'' with respect to legislation means causes
or increases an on-budget deficit relative to the baseline
budget project.
``(C) For purposes of this section, the term ``baseline
budget projection'' means the projection described in section
257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 of current year levels of outlays, receipts, and the
surplus or deficit into the budget year and future years,
except that--
``(i) if outlays for programs subject to discretionary
appropriations are subject to discretionary statutory
spending limits, such

[[Page S13427]]

outlays shall be projected at the level of any applicable
current adjusted statutory discretionary spending limits;
``(ii) if outlays for programs subject to discretionary
appropriations are not subject to discretionary spending
limits, such outlays shall be projected as required by
section 257 beginning in the first fiscal year following the
last fiscal year in which such limits applied; and
``(iii) with respect to direct spending or receipts
legislation previously enacted during the current calendar
year and after the most recent baseline estimate pursuant to
section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1995, the net extent (if any) by which all
such legislation is more than fully paid for in one of the
applicable time periods shall count as a credit for that time
period against increases in direct spending or reductions in
net revenue.''.
(b) Content of Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph
(5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) the receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, combined,
established by title II of the Social Security Act;''.
(c) Super Majority Requirement.--
(1) Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after
``310(d)(2),''.
(2) Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after
``310(d)(2),''.

SEC. 5. PROTECTION OF MEDICARE.

(a) Points of Order To Protect Medicare.--
(1) Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Point of Order to Protect Medicare.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent
resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference
report on the resolution) that would decrease the on-budget
surplus for the total of the period of fiscal years 2000
through 2009 below the level of the Medicare surplus reserve
for those fiscal years as calculated in accordance with
section 3(11).
``(2) Inapplicability.--This subsection shall not apply to
legislation that--
``(A) appropriates a portion of the Medicare reserve for
new amounts for prescription drug benefits under the Medicare
program as part of or subsequent to legislation extending the
solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; or
``(B) appropriates new amounts from the general fund to the
Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.''.
(2) Section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Enforcement of the Medicare Surplus Reserve.--
``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
together with associated interest costs would decrease the
on-budget surplus for the total of the period of fiscal years
2000 through 2009 below the level of the Medicare surplus
reserve for those fiscal years as calculated in accordance
with section 3(11).
``(B) Inapplicability.--This paragraph shall not apply to
legislation that--
``(i) appropriates a portion of the Medicare reserve for
new amounts for prescription drug benefits under the Medicare
program as part of or subsequent to legislation extending the
solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; or
``(ii) appropriates new amounts from the general fund to
the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(11) The term `Medicare surplus reserve' means one-third
of any on-budget surplus for the total of the period of the
fiscal years 2000 through 2009, as estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office in the most recent initial report
for a fiscal year pursuant to section 202(e).''.
(c) Super Majority Requirement.--
(1) Section 904(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``301(i),''.
(2) Section 904(d)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``301(i),''.

SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) Extension of Limits.--Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended,
in the matter before paragraph (A), by deleting ``2002'', and
inserting ``2014''.
(b) Extension of Amounts.--Section 251(c) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended
by striking paragraphs (4), (5), (6) and (7), and inserting
the following:
``(4) With respect to fiscal year 2000,
``(A) for the discretionary category: $535,368,000,000 in
new budget authority and $543,257,000,000 in outlays;
``(B) for the highway category: $24,574,000,000 in outlays;
``(C) for the mass transit category: $4,117,000,000 in
outlays; and
``(D) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,564,000,000 in
outlays;
``(5) With respect to fiscal year 2001,
``(A) for the discretionary category: $573,004,000,000 in
new budget authority and $564,931,000,000 in outlays;
``(B) for the highway category: $26,234,000,000 in outlays;
and
``(C) for the mass transit category: $4,888,000,000 in
outlays;
``(6) With respect to fiscal year 2002,
``(A) for the discretionary category: $584,754,000,000 in
new budget authority and $582,516,000,000 in outlays;
``(B) for the highway category: $26,655,000,000 in outlays;
and
``(C) for the mass transit category: $5,384,000,000 in
outlays;
``(7) With respect to fiscal year 2003,
``(A) for the discretionary category: $590,800,000,000 in
new budget authority and $587,642,000,000 in outlays;
``(B) for the highway category: $27,041,000,000 in outlays;
and
``(C) for the mass transit category: $6,124,000,000 in
outlays;
``(8) With respect to fiscal year 2004, for the
discretionary category: $604,319,000,000 in new budget
authority and $634,039,000,000 in outlays;
``(9) With respect to fiscal year 2005, for the
discretionary category: $616,496,000,000 in new budget
authority and $653,530,000,000 in outlays;
``(10) With respect to fiscal year 2006, for the
discretionary category: $630,722,000,000 in new budget
authority and $671,530,000,000 in outlays;
``(11) With respect to fiscal year 2007, for the
discretionary category: $644,525,000,000 in new budget
authority and $687,532,000,000 in outlays;
``(12) With respect to fiscal year 2008, for the
discretionary category: $663,611,000,000 in new budget
authority and $704,534,000,000 in outlays; and
``(13) With respect to fiscal year 2009, for the
discretionary category: $678,019,000,000 in new budget
authority and $721,215,000,000 in outlays, ``as adjusted in
strict conformance with subsection (b).
``With respect to fiscal year 2010 and each fiscal year
thereafter, the term ``discretionary spending limit'' means,
for the discretionary category, the baseline amount
calculated pursuant to the requirements of Section 257(c), as
adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).''.

SEC. 7. EXTENSION AND CLARIFICATION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO
REQUIREMENT.

Section 252 of the Balanced Budget And Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(a) in subsection (a), by striking ``October 1, 2002'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2014'' and by adding ``or decreases
the surplus'' after ``increases the deficit'';
(b)(1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), by striking
``October 1, 2002'' and inserting ``October 1, 2014'' and by
adding ``or any net surplus decrease'' after ``any net
deficit increase'';
(2) in paragraph (2) of subsection (b),
(i) in the header by adding ``or surplus decrease'' after
``deficit increase'';
(ii) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by adding ``or
surplus'' after ``deficit''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or surplus'' after
``net deficit''; and
(3) in the header of subsection (c), by adding ``or surplus
decrease'' after ``deficit increase''.

SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT
CONTROL ACT.--

Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking ``September 30,
2002' and inserting ``September 30, 2014'' and by striking
``September 30, 2006'' and inserting ``September 30, 2018''.

SEC. 9. EXTENSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FIREWALL IN
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.--

Section 904(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2002'' and inserting
``September 30, 2014''.

SEC. 10. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY INTEREST SAVINGS
TRANSFERS.

(a) Definition of Deficit and Surplus Under Budget
Enforcement Act.--Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended in paragraph
(1) by adding `` `surplus','' before ``and `deficit' ''.
(b) Reduction or Reversal of Social Security Transfers Not
To Be Counted As Pay-As-You-Go Offset.--Any legislation that
would reduce, reverse or repeal the transfers to the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund made by Section 201(n) of the
Social Security Act, as added by Section 3 of this Act, shall
not be counted on the pay-as-you-go scorecard and shall not
be included in any pay-as-you-go estimates made by the
Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Management and
Budget under Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(c) Conforming Change.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended, in
paragraph (4) of subsection (d), by--
(1) striking ``and'' after subparagraph (A),

[[Page S13428]]

(2) striking the period after the subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``; and'', and
(3) adding the following:
``(C) provisions that reduce, reverse or repeal transfers
under Section 201(n) of the Social Security Act.''.

SEC. 11. CONFORMING CHANGES.

(a) Reports.--Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``or surplus'' after
``deficit'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``or surplus'' after
``deficit''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or surplus decrease''
after ``deficit increase'';
(2) in paragraph (4) of subsection (f), by adding ``or
surplus'' after ``deficit''; and
(3) in subparagraph A of paragraph (2) of subsection (f),
by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2009''.
(b) Orders.--Section 258A(a) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended in the first
sentence by adding ``or increase the surplus'' after
``deficit''.
(c) Process.--Section 258(C)(a) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by adding ``or surplus increase''
after ``deficit reduction'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by adding ``or increase in the
surplus'' after ``reduction in the deficit''; and
(3) in paragraph (4), by adding ``or surplus increase''
after ``deficit reduction''.
____

The White House,

Office of the Press Secretary,

October 26, 1999.
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith for your immediate consideration a legislative
proposal entitled the ``Strengthen Social Security and Medicare Act of
1999.''
The Social Security system is one of the cornerstones of American
national policy and together with the additional protections afforded
by the Medicare system, has helped provide retirement security for
millions of Americans over the last 60 years. However, the long-term
solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds is not
guaranteed. The Social Security trust fund is currently expected to
become insolvent starting in 2034 as the number of retired workers
doubles. The Medicare system also faces significant financial
shortfalls, with the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund projected to become
exhausted in 2015. We need to take additional steps to strengthen
Social Security and Medicare for future generations of Americans.
In addition to preserving Social Security and Medicare, the Congress
and the President have a responsibility to future generations to reduce
the debt held by the public. Paying down the debt will produce
substantial interest savings, and this legislation proposes to devote
these entirely to Social Security after 2010. At the same time, by
contributing to the growth of the overall economy debt reduction will
improve the Government's ability to fulfill its responsibilities and to
face future challenges, including preserving and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare.
The enclosed bill would help achieve these goals by devoting the
entire Social Security surpluses to debt reduction, extending the
solvency of Social Security to 2050, protecting Social Security and
Medicare funds in the budget process, reserving one-third of the non-
Social Security surplus to strengthen and modernize Medicare, and
paying down the debt by 2015. It is clear and straightforward
legislation that would strengthen and preserve Social Security and
Medicare for our children and grandchildren. The bill would:
Extend the life of Social Security from 2034 to 2050 by reinvesting
the interest savings from the debt reduction resulting from Social
Security surpluses.
Establish a Medicare surplus reserve equal to one-third of any on-
budget surplus for the total of the period of fiscal years 2000 through
2009 to strengthen and modernize Medicare.
Add a further protection for Social Security and Medicare by
extending the budget enforcement rules that have provided the
foundation for our fiscal discipline, including the discretionary caps
and pay-as-you-go budget rules.
I urge the prompt and favorable consideration of this proposal.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, October 26, 1999.

____________________