[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DOLE:
  S. 2016. A bill to establish a National Commission on the Future of 
Disability, and for other purposes: to the Committee on Finance.


          national commission on the future of disability act

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 25 years ago today I rose to give my maiden 
speech as the newly elected junior Senator from Kansas. It concerned a 
minority group whose existence affects every person in our society and 
the very fiber of our Nation.
  It is an exceptional group which I joined another April 14th, during 
World War II. As I said then, it is a group no one joins by personal 
choice, and neither respects nor discriminates by age, sex, wealth, 
education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party, power, or 
prestige.
  It is a group that for too long had known exclusion--maybe not 
exclusion from the front of the bus, but perhaps from even climbing 
aboard it; maybe not exclusion from pursuing advanced education, but 
perhaps from experiencing any formal education; maybe not exclusion 
from day-to-day life itself, but perhaps from an adequate opportunity 
to develop and contribute to his or her fullest capacity.
  Mr. President, it is a minority, yet a group to which at least one 
out of every five Americans belongs.


                          progress in 25 years

  Mr. President, I was speaking then about Americans with 
disabilities--today 49 million persons, 24 million of whom are severely 
disabled. As I said in 1969, and which is still true today, the 
challenge to our Nation is to help foster their independence, dignity, 
and security.
  As my fellow Senators know well, we have worked hard over the years 
to meet these goals. In fact, they are the foundation of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, a sweeping law to promote equal opportunity and 
full participation.
  Mr. President, today I will speak of the progress we have made in the 
past 25 years, and what remains to be done.


                         architectural barriers

  In 1969, I called for greater removal of architectural barriers. At 
that time, there was only a single Federal law requiring accessibility, 
and it applied only to new or newly renovated Federal buildings.

  In 1973, the Rehabilitation Act expanded this mandate to all 
federally funded programs, including State and local governments. 
People with disabilities are citizens and taxpayers, and it was 
unconscionable that they were denied the benefits of publicly supported 
services.
  Since then, we have learned that providing accessibility is often not 
difficult--where there is the will. Thus, in 1990, with ADA, we 
required reasonable accommodations by businesses and other private 
entities.
  Perhaps in no other area have we had such visible success. Last May, 
even before the effective dates of ADA, GAO reported that accessibility 
is generally good. ADA should eliminate many of the remaining barriers. 
I have been deeply impressed, in my home State of Kansas and elsewhere, 
that despite the real costs and some uncertainties about what ADA 
requires, people recognize how important accessibility is and are 
willing to do their part.


                education of children with disabilities

  Mr. President, I also spoke about the need to improve education for 
children with disabilities. Back then, the Council for Exceptional 
Children estimated that less than one-third of children needing special 
ed received it. And many thousands with severe or multiple disabilities 
had little or no education.
  In 1975, Congress passed a national law, the Education of All 
Handicapped Children Act, based on pioneering State laws, to make sure 
children with disabilities had the same opportunity as others for a 
``free and appropriate education.''
  Today, almost 5 million young people, 10 percent of all students, 
have a disability. Their education poses many challenges. As Senators 
Dodd and Jeffords recently pointed out, Congress has never kept its 
promise to pay 40 percent of the extra costs of special ed. Inclusive 
education works when supports are available, and that costs money. And 
I am also deeply concerned about the high percentage of African-
Americans and other minorities assigned to special education.
  I hope when we reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act next year we can help fix these and other problems.


                              health care

  Mr. President, then as now, health care is an important and 
understandably emotional issue for many people with disabilities. We 
have done much, if not enough, through Medicare and Medicaid, to 
provide medical insurance. In fact, coverage of people with severe 
disabilities is about the same as for the general population--85 
percent--though they more often depend on these Federal programs.
  There is perhaps no other group for whom health care reform offers 
such opportunity and such peril. For those who have stayed out of the 
job market in order to keep their Medicare or Medicaid, health care 
reform will hopefully mean they can look for work with the confidence 
they can obtain other--and perhaps better--medical insurance.
  Like all Americans, people with disabilities want security, 
simplicity, and portability. I also know they are looking for services 
which today are not covered or only partly covered by many insurance 
plans--including personal assistance, assistive technology and durable 
medical equipment, and rehabilitation services. I can make no promises, 
but I hope we can do better.
  But, Mr. President, we must also be sobered by the very real limits 
of medical care. Medical science has never been more successful at 
keeping people alive, but sometimes at the price of severe, lifelong 
disability.
  I recently received a letter from the parents of a child in a small 
town in south central Kansas, near the Oklahoma border. They wrote:

       We desperately love our [1-year-old] son and want to do 
     everything we possibly can for him. His health problems were 
     so severe that specialists in Wichita told us we probably 
     would never take him home from birth. . . . [H]e does not 
     have the part of the brain needed for intellect, reasoning, 
     etc.
       We live in a rural area where there are not many resources 
     for a family such as ours. Where do we turn for special help?

  Yes, there is help for this family, but we are still humbled by what 
medical science cannot do.


                       international human rights

  Mr. President, disability is a matter of human rights. In July I 
introduced a bill to require the Secretary of State to examine 
discrimination against people with disabilities in the annual report on 
human rights. My bill received broad bipartisan support--26 cosponsors 
across the political spectrum.
  The Secretary of State was listening. In this year's report, each of 
the 190 countries covered, from Angola to Zimbabwe, includes a short 
section on people with disabilities. Some of the accounts are 
distrubing. In our country, for example, infants born with birth 
defects are considered sorcerers, and sometimes killed at birth. But 
other reports are encouraging. Even in some low-income countries, there 
are real efforts at advocacy and opportunity.

  Mr. President, this report sends the message around the world that 
America respects the rights of all people, including those with 
disabilities.


                          dignity and respect

  We have also made important contributions in other areas--including 
housing, transportation, assistive technology, and help to families of 
people with disabilities. I have been proud to be part of many of these 
initiatives. In 1983, I created the Dole Foundation, which I am pleased 
to say has awarded over $5 million in grants.
  But perhaps the greatest success has been in how people with 
disabilities are viewed--no longer with pity, but with respect for 
their dignity and recognition that disability is a natural part of the 
human condition. Where institutional care and dependency were often 
considered inevitable, today independent living is an important goal. 
The Federal Government backs this view with dollars. In August, I cut 
the ribbon at a brand new independent living center in Dodge City, in 
the western, most rural part of my State. Kansas now has 12 independent 
living centers, bringing their services within reach of most citizens.
  Indeed, 50 years ago, we had a President, Franklin Roosevelt, who 
could not walk and believed it necessary to disguise that fact from the 
American people. Today I trust that Americans would have no problem in 
electing as President a man or woman with a disability.
  But this is not something Congress can take credit for. It is 
something people with disabilities have done for themselves.
  In 1970, I spoke on the Senate floor about a young woman, Judy 
Heumann, who I read about in the New York Times. Ms. Heumann filed a 
lawsuit because the New York City School Board had refused her a 
teaching job simply because she was unable to walk and used a 
wheelchair.
  Well, she won that lawsuit and today is the Assistant Secretary for 
Special Education and Rehabilitation Services in the U.S. Department of 
Education.
  And I, congratulate the advocacy community. When I arrived in the 
Senate, there were few organizations representing the interests of 
people with disabilities in Washington. In the early 1970's, the 
forerunner of today's Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities was 
formed. Now CCD is a vigorous association of over 130 member agencies, 
representing millions of Americans with disabilities and their 
families.


                   persistent joblessness and poverty

  Mr. President, the news is not all good, however. The poet Archibald 
Macleish once wrote, ``America is always promises.'' But America's 
biggest promise--a job--is too often an empty promise to the disabled. 
According to a Census Bureau report released several weeks ago, only 52 
percent of people with disabilities are working, and only 23 percent of 
those with a severe disability.
  Even more disturbing, other surveys have shown that over the past 15 
years, the percentage of people with disabilities not working has 
remained constant, or even increased.
  I would not be concerned if people were well off. But they are not. 
According to a 1992 GAO study, 45 percent of families headed by a 
person with a disability, and 65 percent of single parents or single 
persons with a disability, live in poverty. These numbers are 
startling, and I bet unknown to most people.
  The Federal Government certainly has tried to help. Between just two 
programs, social security disability insurance and supplemental 
security income, it spent $54 billion last year for cash incomes to 
people with disabilities.
  There is no career ladder for social security recipients. The lesson 
here is simple: for people with disabilities, as for most Americans, 
working is essential to a decent income. We need to help people get off 
the disability check and onto a paycheck.


                           disability future

  Mr. President what's wrong, and what's the remedy? In my view, there 
are two big problems. First, as I said back in September, our 
vocational rehabilitation program is outdated. Our social security 
disability programs still discourage people from going to work. True, 
we have created work incentives, but few use them.
  Second, our expectations for people with disabilities have changed. 
What was once acceptable is not any longer. Indeed, many Federal 
disability programs are in trouble. We can have little confidence that 
our priorities are right or that our money is well spent.
  There are also other nondisability programs that serve large numbers 
of people with disabilities that need attention. For example, 27 
percent of welfare mothers are either disabled or have a child with a 
disability. Both Republican and Democratic welfare proposals generally 
exempt such individuals from reforms. We mean well, I know, but I fear 
we are doing these individuals no favor.

  Mr. President, if we are in trouble today, consider the future. 
Little attention is paid to the rapidly growing number of people with 
disabilities. In my view, disability will soon become the Nation's No. 
1 health care and social welfare issue.
  Unfortunately, good ideas for change are in short supply, especially 
compared to many other areas of policymaking--such as defense and 
national security, telecommunications, education, and employment. The 
Federal Government itself funds little disability policy research. 
Worse, as one disability expert has stated bluntly, ``We in disability 
services continue to plan for yesterday * * * to overcome the problems 
of a decade ago.''
  Our Federal agencies haven't been much help, either. As Senator 
Moynihan has said at least twice in the past 6 months, the Social 
security administration ``has been brain dead in a policy sense for 15 
years.''


           a national commission on the future of disability

  Mr. President, for these reasons I introduce today a bill to 
establish a National Commission on the Future of Disability. Its 
purpose is to examine all the Nation's disability programs; evaluate 
them according to the Goals of ADA--equal opportunity, full 
participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency; 
recommend priorities; and prepare us for the 21st century. It must 
interpret this charge very broadly. And it must look to the unfulfilled 
opportunities of rehabilitation science.
  This commission is also charged with actually writing bill text. Good 
ideas are fine, but we need something to work with.


                               conclusion

  This, then, Mr President, is the sum and substance of my 25th 
anniversary speech in the Senate. I know of no more important subject 
matter, not solely because of my personal interest, but because in our 
great country, to quote the President, ``we have not a single person to 
waste.'' I think this is something we can all agree on, Republican or 
Democrat.
  No doubt about it, much work remains. But I know we are ready and 
willing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2016

       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 ``National Commission on the 
     Future of Disability Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with 
     disabilities are to ensure equality of opportunity, full 
     participation, independent living, and economic self-
     sufficiency for such individuals;
       (2) the vast changes underway in the workplace, information 
     technologies, and other aspects of society have been 
     insufficiently studied for the opportunities and hazards such 
     changes present for individuals with disabilities;
       (3) the Federal Government has created many programs to 
     serve the needs of individuals with disabilities, including 
     programs that provide financial assistance, medical care, 
     education, vocational rehabilitation, housing, 
     transportation, legal assistance, and rehabilitation research 
     and training, but many of these programs operate in a manner 
     that is inconsistent with the Nation's goals, work at cross-
     purposes with each other, are outdated, or could otherwise be 
     improved, and new programs to serve individuals with 
     disabilities may need to be established;
       (4) there are Federal programs that are not viewed as 
     disability programs, yet serve significant numbers of 
     individuals with disabilities, and the impact and value of 
     such programs for individuals with disabilities have received 
     insufficient attention;
       (5) the Nation is not well informed about the increasing 
     number of Americans with disabilities, and disability is a 
     health and social welfare issue of growing proportions, for 
     which the Nation is ill prepared; and
       (6) it is incumbent upon the Federal Government to examine 
     its programs that serve individuals with disabilities to 
     ensure they are consistent with the Nation's goals, reflect 
     the best use of the its resources, and properly anticipate 
     societal and technological change.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     National Commission on the Future of Disability (referred to 
     in this Act as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall develop and carry out 
     a comprehensive study of all matters related to the nature, 
     purpose, and adequacy of all Federal programs serving 
     individuals with disabilities, in particular, programs 
     authorized under the Social Security Act, in terms of both 
     current performance and future value.
       (b) Matters Studied.--The Commission shall prepare an 
     inventory of Federal programs serving individuals with 
     disabilities, and shall examine--
       (1) trends and projections regarding the size and 
     characteristics of the population of individuals with 
     disabilities, and the implications of such analyses for 
     program planning;
       (2) the feasibility and design of performance standards for 
     the Nation's disability programs;
       (3) the adequacy of Federal efforts in rehabilitation 
     research and training, and opportunities to improve the lives 
     of individuals with disabilities through all manners of 
     scientific and engineering research; and
       (4) the adequacy of policy research available to the 
     Federal Government, and what actions might be undertaken to 
     improve the quality and scope of such research.
       (c) Recommendations.--The Commission shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress and to the President 
     recommendations and, as appropriate, proposals for 
     legislation regarding--
       (1) which (if any) Federal disability programs should be 
     eliminated or augmented;
       (2) what new Federal disability programs (if any) should be 
     established;
       (3) the suitability of the organization and location of 
     disability programs within the Federal Government;
       (4) other actions the Federal Government should take to 
     prevent disabilities and disadvantages associated with 
     disabilities; and
       (5) such other matters as the Commission considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members, of whom--
       (A) four shall be appointed by the President, of whom not 
     more than 2 shall be of the same major political party;
       (B) two shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       (C) two shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       (D) two shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (E) two shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Representation.--The Commission members shall be chosen 
     based on their education, training, or experience. In 
     appointing individuals as members of the Commission, the 
     President and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate 
     and the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives shall seek to ensure that the membership of 
     the Commission reflects the diversity of individuals with 
     disabilities in the United States.
       (b) Comptroller General.--The Comptroller General shall 
     serve on the Commission as an ex officio member of the 
     Commission to advise and oversee the methodology and approach 
     of the study of the Commission.
       (c) Prohibition Against Officer or Employee.--Each 
     individual appointed under subsection (a) shall not be an 
     officer or employee of any government.
       (d) Deadline for Appointment; Term of Appointment.--Members 
     of the Commission shall be appointed not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act. The members shall 
     serve on the Commission for the life of the Commission.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall locate its headquarters 
     in the District of Columbia, and shall meet at the call of 
     the Chairperson, but not less than four times each year 
     during the life of the Commission.
       (f) Quorum.--Ten members of the Commission shall constitute 
     a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--Not later than 15 
     days after the members of the Commission are appointed, such 
     members shall designate a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson 
     from among the members of the Commission.
       (h) Continuation of Membership.--If a member of the 
     Commission becomes an officer or employee of any government 
     after appointment to the Commission, the individual may 
     continue as a member until a successor member is appointed.
       (i) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made not 
     later than 30 days after the Commission is given notice of 
     the vacancy.
       (j) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall receive 
     no additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their 
     service on the Commission.
       (k) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. STAFF AND SUPPORT SERVICES.

       (a) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--Upon consultation with the members of the 
     Commission, the Chairperson shall appoint a Director of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The Director shall be paid the rate of 
     basic pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.
       (b) Staff.--With the approval of the Commission, the 
     Director may appoint such personnel as the Director considers 
     appropriate.
       (c) Applicability of Civil Service Laws.--The staff of the 
     Commission shall be appointed without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and shall be paid 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates.
       (d) Experts and Consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Commission, the Director may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (e) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to 
     the Commission to assist in carrying out the duties of the 
     Commission under this Act.
       (f) Other Resources.--The Commission shall have reasonable 
     access to materials, resources, statistical data, and other 
     information from the Library of Congress and agencies and 
     elected representatives of the executive and legislative 
     branches of the Federal Government. The Chairperson of the 
     Commission shall make requests for such access in writing 
     when necessary.
       (g) Physical Facilities.--The Administrator of the General 
     Services Administration shall locate suitable office space 
     for the operation of the Commission. The facilities shall 
     serve as the headquarters of the Commission and shall include 
     all necessary equipment and incidentals required for proper 
     functioning of the Commission.

     SEC. 7. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may conduct public hearings 
     or forums at the discretion of the Commission, at any time 
     and place the Commission is able to secure facilities and 
     witnesses, for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the 
     Commission under this Act.
       (b) Delegation of Authority.--Any member or agent of the 
     Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action the Commission is authorized to take by this section.
       (c) Information.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any Federal agency information necessary to enable the 
     Commission to carry out its duties under this Act. Upon 
     request of the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the 
     Commission, the head of a Federal agency shall furnish the 
     information to the Commission to the extent permitted by law.
       (d) Gifts, Bequests, and Devises.--The Commission may 
     accept, use, and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devices of 
     services or property, both real and personal, for the purpose 
     of aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts, 
     bequests, or devises of money and proceeds from sales of 
     other property received as gifts, bequests, or devices shall 
     be deposited in the Treasury and shall be available for 
     disbursement upon order of the Commission.
       (e) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal agencies.

     SEC. 8. REPORTS.

       (a) Interim Report.--Not later than 1 year prior to the 
     date on which the Commission terminates pursuant to section 
     9, the Commission shall submit an interim report to the 
     President and to the Congress. The interim report shall 
     contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions 
     of the Commission, together with the Commission's 
     recommendations for legislative and administrative action, 
     based on the activities of the Commission.
       (b) Final Report.--Not later than the date on which the 
     Commission terminates, the Commission shall submit to the 
     Congress and to the President a final report containing--
       (1) a detailed statement of final findings, conclusions, 
     and recommendations; and
       (2) an assessment of the extent to which recommendations of 
     the Commission included in the interim report under 
     subsection (a) have been implemented.
       (c) Printing and Public Distribution.--Upon receipt of each 
     report of the Commission under this section, the President 
     shall--
       (1) order the report to be printed; and
       (2) make the report available to the public upon request.

     SEC. 9. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate on the date that is 2 years 
     after the date on which the members of the Commission have 
     met and designated a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority 
leader--or minority lead, excuse that little slip of the tongue there--
the Senator from Kansas, for his tireless leadership of the people of 
this country in the area of disabilities. Last night I went home and 
sat down on the sofa and reread Senator Dole's maiden speech given in 
this Chamber 25 years ago. I first read it during the debates on the 
ADA, and I went home last night and read it again.
  I thought, as I read it, just how prescient he was at that time, in 
1969, and how far ahead of the curve he really was in thinking, 
conceptualizing about the role of people with disabilities in our 
society.
  For 25 years he has been a tireless leader in breaking down those 
barriers, the physical barriers and the attitudinal barriers, that 
people have in this country against people with disabilities.
  He has been in the forefront of every fight that this Congress had 
had to break down those barriers and open up opportunities from the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for all Handicapped Americans 
Act of 1975; of course, the Americans with Disabilities Act could not 
have gotten through without his strong leadership. Even in the 
international arena, Senator Dole has consistently pushed for the 
rights of people with disabilities.
  Indeed, since that maiden speech of his 25 years ago, we have come a 
long way in this country, but we could not have come this far in these 
25 years without the strong leadership of Senator Dole, who understood 
these disability issues far better and far before many of us who came 
after, and who was willing to work in a bipartisan effort to see that 
our policies and our legislative activities moved us in the direction 
of independence, inclusion, and empowerment for all Americans.
  So while Senator Dole and I may have various disagreements on other 
issues, this is one in which I am proud to stand by his side and to 
back him up in every effort that he has taken since I have been 
privileged to be a Member of the Senate, again in enhancing 
opportunities and breaking down the barriers to people with 
disabilities. The speech that he gave 25 years ago was really a call to 
conscience, and it was a call for us as Americans to put aside the 
prejudices and the fears that we have had in the past of people with 
disabilities and to understand that not only was it in their best 
interests that we break down those barriers, that we gave them full 
inclusion and empowerment in society, but that it was in all of our 
interests as Americans to do so.
  So again I commend today Senator Dole for those 25 years of 
courageous leadership, to commend him for the new legislative effort he 
has undertaken, and to let him know I will do whatever I can to work 
with him in a bipartisan spirit to continue the great efforts that he 
started 25 years ago.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me extend my thanks to the Senator from 
Iowa. As we all know, he has been the real leader on disability issues. 
We have been able to work together. This is not a partisan issue, as he 
knows. He has experienced as a family member what disability is all 
about, and I think that makes us all a little bit more sensitive.
  So I wish to congratulate the Senator from Iowa for the great work he 
has done over the years, and it has been my privilege to join with him 
on many of those occasions. And again, as he said, this transcends 
partisanship. There is nothing partisan about dealing with these 
issues, never has been in this body, and I do not expect there ever 
will.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I, too, would like to congratulate Senator 
Dole. Senator Dole has always reminded me of a comment my father would 
often make to his children. He used to say, ``Never complain and never 
explain. Just go do it.''
  One of the things about Bob Dole is his character is reflected in all 
that legislation that was recited here. I have never heard the man 
complain. I never heard him explain. I have just seen him fight for the 
things he thinks important.
  I admire him and say congratulations for 25 years of making life 
better for a whole lot of people in this country.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2017. A bill to prohibit regulations that classify, enhance, or 
diminish the privileges and immunities of an Indian tribe relative to 
other federally recognized Indian tribes, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.


          the indian reorganization act of 1934 amendments act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to amend section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. I am 
pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, Senator Inouye, has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill.
  This bill is intended to stimulate discussion about the 
interpretation of section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act [IRA] by 
the Department of the Interior. It has recently been brought to my 
attention that for most of the past 60 years the Department has 
interpreted section 16 to authorize the Secretary to categorize or 
classify tribes as being either ``created'' or ``historic.'' A created 
tribe is apparently regarded as lacking retained inherent sovereign 
authority because it is viewed as being something less than a tribe. 
According to the Department, created tribes are only authorized to 
exercise such authority as the Secretary may confer on them. On the 
other hand, historic tribes are deemed to retain all inherent sovereign 
authority not otherwise limited or divested by a treaty or an act of 
Congress.
  I find absolutely no basis in law or policy for the manner in which 
section 16 has been interpreted by the Department of the Interior. One 
of the reasons stated by the Department for distinguishing between 
created and historic tribes is that the created tribes are new in the 
sense that they never existed before. At the same time, the Department 
insists that it cannot tell us which tribes are created and which are 
historic because this is determined through a case-by-case review. All 
of this ignores a few fundamental principles of Federal Indian law and 
policy. Neither the Congress nor the Secretary can create a tribe where 
none previously existed. Not only is this simple common sense, it is 
also the law as enunciated by the Federal courts.
  Section 16 of the IRA did not authorize the Secretary to create 
Indian tribes. Congress itself cannot create Indian tribes, so there is 
no authority for the Congress to delegate to the Secretary in this 
regard. The recognition of a tribe by the Federal Government is just 
that--the recognition that there is a sovereign entity with 
governmental authority which predates the U.S. Constitution and with 
which the Federal Government has established formal relations. All that 
section 16 was intended to do was to provide authority and procedures 
for the adoption, amendment, and approval of tribal constitutions for 
those tribes that choose to employ its provisions.
  I have concluded that a serious mistake has been made by the 
Department in construing the intent of Congress in enacting section 16. 
Such a mistake would be possible since this section of the IRA was 
literally written in a conference between the House and Senate by 
taking ``* * * phrases from the bill that had passed the House and 
other phrases from the bill that had passed the Senate * * *'' 
according to the great legal scholar Felix Cohen, who urged caution in 
the interpretation of section 16.
  Clearly, the interpretation which has been developed by the 
Department is inconsistent with the principal policies underlying the 
IRA, which were to stabilize tribal governments and to encourage self-
government. These policies have taken on additional vitality in the 
last 20 years as the Congress has repudiated and repealed the policy of 
termination and enacted the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act and the Tribal Self-Governance Project. The effect of 
the Department's interpretation of section 16 has been to destabilize 
tribal governments. Tribes face uncertainty about which category the 
Department would place them in and, in addition, those tribes placed in 
the created category face uncertainty about the specific governmental 
authorities the Department believes they possess.
  On its face, section 16 does not authorize or require the Secretary 
of the Interior to draw distinctions between tribes or to categorize 
them based on their powers of governance. As Mr. Cohen noted in his 
1942 Handbook on Federal Indian Law, the IRA ``* * * had little or no 
effect upon the substantive powers of tribal self-government vested in 
the various Indian tribes * * *''. The courts have consistently 
construed the IRA to have had no substantive effect on tribal sovereign 
authority.
  One example of the absurdity of the Department's interpretation of 
section 16 involves the Pascua Yaqui Tribe in Arizona. Despite explicit 
direction from the Congress in 1978, the Department has determined that 
the Pascua Yaqui Tribe is a created tribe and that it therefore lacks 
the authority to provide law enforcement services on its reservation 
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. This 
interpretation of the IRA, the Self-Determination Act, and the Pascua 
Yaqui legislation of 1978 not only flies in the face of these acts of 
Congress, it completely ignores centuries of history of the Pascua 
Yaqui people and their Toltec forebears.
  In decisions involving other tribes, the Department has determined 
that created tribes lack the authority to establish judicial systems or 
to enact laws setting forth procedures for evicting tenants from tribal 
housing. I am sure that we will never know the number and the full 
extent of the absurd and unnecessary determinations which have resulted 
from the Department's reading of section 16. We do know that the 
implementation of the basic policies implicit in the IRA and the self-
determination and self-governance laws will continue to be impeded by 
the Department's interpretation of section 16 unless we act to correct 
this situation.
  I believe that Federal Indian law and policy clearly supports the 
view that tribes that have been recognized by the Federal Government 
stand on an equal footing to each other. That is, each federally 
recognized Indian tribe has the same governmental status as other 
federally recognized tribes by virtue of their status as Indian tribes 
with a government-to-government relationship with the United States. 
Each federally recognized tribe is entitled to the same privileges and 
immunities as other federally recognized tribes and have the right to 
exercise the same inherent and delegated authorities.

  The legislation we are introducing today will prohibit the Department 
from implementing its erroneous interpretation of section 16. By 
enacting this bill we will provide the stability for tribal governments 
which the Congress thought it was providing 60 years ago when the IRA 
was enacted and we will remove a barrier to the full implementation of 
the policies of self-determination and self-governance.
  We have been advised that the Department may soon take action on its 
own to correct its interpretation of section 16. I would certainly 
welcome such action by the Department. Depending on what action is 
taken, it may well be necessary to consider revising the legislation we 
are introducing today. As I stated earlier, this bill is intended to 
promote discussion about this issue. Any actions taken by the 
Department to correctly interpret section 16 of the IRA will be a 
welcome and constructive addition to those discussions.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2017

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 476) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(f) Privileges and Immunities of Indian Tribes; 
     Prohibition on New Regulations.--Departments or agencies of 
     the United States shall not promulgate any regulation or make 
     any decision or determination pursuant to the Act of June 18, 
     1934, as amended, or any other Act of Congress, with respect 
     to a federally recognized Indian tribe that classifies, 
     enhances, or diminishes the privileges and immunities 
     available to the Indian tribe relative to other federally 
     recognized tribes by virtue of their status as Indian tribes.
       ``(g) Privileges and Immunities of Indian Tribes; Existing 
     Regulations.--Any regulation or administrative decision or 
     determination of a department or agency of the United States 
     that is in existence or effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act and that classifies, enhances, or diminishes the 
     privileges and immunities available to a federally recognized 
     Indian tribe relative to the privileges and immunities 
     available to other federally recognized tribes by virtue of 
     their status as Indian tribes shall have no force or 
     effect.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER:
  S. 2018. A bill to reauthorize Public Law 81-815 (School 
Construction), and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


       school construction impact aid program reauthorization act

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
reauthorize Public Law 81-815, the construction portion of the Impact 
Aid Program.
  As Congress continues the reauthorization of the elementary and 
secondary education programs, I feel strongly that school facility 
funding can not be overlooked. Some young people are striving to gain 
their education in school facilities that provide a less than ideal 
learning environment.
  Out-dated equipment coupled with overall deplorable school facilities 
in some parts of this country distract rather than support the learning 
environment. Updating equipment and renovating school facilities would 
be a big step towards providing a level playing field. But this costs 
money, lots of money for construction projects.
  In the case of the Impact Aid Program, providing additional funding 
is a Federal responsibility. Public Law 81-815 authorizes funds for 
constructing and renovating schools where federally connected students 
are in attendance.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, a federally connected student is 
the term used to describe students in school districts affected by a 
Federal Government activity; for example a military base, Indian 
reservation, or a national park. These federal activities remove 
taxable land or have other revenue consequences for local funding of 
school districts. The Impact Aid Program, under both Public Law 81-874 
and Public Law 81-815, authorizes Federal funds to make up for this 
loss of local revenue.
  I have already introduced legislation to revise and reauthorize 
Public Law 81-874. S. 874, cosponsored by 15 of my colleagues, is 
awaiting further action by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 
Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize and improve 
Public Law 81-815.
  During the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, I offered an amendment to require the General Accounting 
Office [GAO] to examine Public Law 81-815 in order to determine: First, 
the gap between the eligible requests and the amount available for 
school construction funds; and second, whether the Department's 
criteria for ranking unfunded projects are equitable. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the GAO letter to me dated July 12, 1990 
(GAOHRD90-90), be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               U.S. General Accounting Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1990.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. 
         Senate.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate.
       The Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School 
     Improvement Amendments of 1988 directed us to review the 
     federal school construction program for school districts 
     affected by federal activities. This program (authorized by 
     P.L. 81-815) provides federal funds for constructing and 
     renovating schools in districts that educate ``federally 
     connected'' children, such as those whose parents live and/or 
     work on military installations and Indian reservations. These 
     funds are used to provide classrooms and classroom equipment 
     to qualifying school districts. The Department of Education 
     determines applicant eligibility, calculates the federal 
     share of construction project costs,\1\ and awards grants to 
     school districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\For example, the federal share of school construction 
     costs to certain eligible school districts is the product of 
     the number of federally connected children eligible for 
     payment and the state's average per pupil cost of school 
     construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Congress funded almost all eligible requests for school 
     construction assistance between 1950 (when the program began) 
     and 1967. However, since 1967, federal appropriations have 
     been insufficient to fund the estimated federal share of all 
     construction projects in federally impacted school districts. 
     The continuing shortfall has resulted in a substantial 
     backlog of eligible unfunded projects in districts with 
     federally connected enrollment increases,\2\ nontaxable 
     federal property, children residing on Indian land, and 
     Indian land. The Department ranks, for funding purposes, 
     these unfunded projects in priority order based, in part, on 
     the number of federally connected children eligible for 
     payment in the school district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\``Enrollment'' is referred to by the Department as 
     ``membership.'' If state law does not define membership, the 
     Department defines it as the number of children listed on a 
     school district's current enrollment records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       As agreed with your offices, we determined (1) the gap 
     between the eligible requests for school construction funds 
     and the amount of available Public Law 81-815 funds and (2) 
     whether the Department's criterion for ranking unfunded 
     projects is equitable.


                        results of our analysis

       Department records show that as of fiscal year 1988, the 
     estimated funding gap was about $200 million. This figure, 
     however, is misleading because it includes the estimated 
     federal costs of projects in school districts that may no 
     longer be eligible for the program, as well as the costs of 
     projects that are no longer needed by the districts. This 
     figure also includes project cost estimates that have not 
     been revised to reflect increased school construction costs. 
     Therefore, the actual amount of the gap is unknown because 
     the Department does not regularly reconfirm applicants' 
     eligibility nor revise outdated funding estimates.
       The Department's criteria for (1) computing priority 
     numbers (scores) of eligible projects for funding purposes 
     and (2) ranking projects are equitable, but the Department 
     does not periodically reevaluate these scores once projects 
     are ranked on waiting lists. Priority scores reflect 
     federally connected enrollments and school construction needs 
     when districts applied for assistance; however, most project 
     requests are at least 12 years old. These project scores may 
     be outdated and invalid because for many of the projects we 
     reviewed, the school districts subsequently completed their 
     projects without federal assistance. In addition, federally 
     connected enrollments have declined in some districts. Thus, 
     since the Department does not periodically reevaluate project 
     priority scores to reflect this kind of information, it 
     cannot provide the Congress with an accurate ranking of 
     federally impacted schools with current school construction 
     needs.
       The law requires that those school districts that qualify 
     for assistance based on federally connected enrollment 
     increases receive payments based on the average state per 
     pupil construction costs near the time of application. 
     Because of increased construction costs, such school 
     districts with projects that have been waiting for federal 
     payments for many years will receive a smaller share of total 
     construction costs than they would have received had they 
     been funded promptly.


                     recommendation to the congress

       We recommend that the Congress amend Public Law 81-815 to 
     require that school construction payments to eligible school 
     districts with federally connected enrollment increases 
     (those eligible under section 5) be based on average state 
     per pupil construction costs in the year these projects are 
     funded.


              recommendation to the secretary of education

       To ensure that the Congress and the Department have 
     accurate information when they make program decisions, we 
     recommend that the Secretary require school districts to 
     apply annually for school construction assistance so that 
     project requests reflect (1) school districts' current 
     enrollments of federally connected children and school 
     construction needs and (2) the current estimate of the 
     federal share of school construction costs. (See p. 20.)


                matter for consideration by the congress

       To provide federal assistance to more eligible school 
     districts and thereby reduce the backlog of unfunded 
     projects, the Congress may want to consider authorizing the 
     Secretary of Education to distribute available appropriations 
     among a greater number of higher-priority projects. This 
     could be accomplished by reducing on a pro-rata basis funds 
     awarded to school districts with the greatest school 
     construction needs. (See p. 20.)


                            agency comments

       The Department of Education generally agreed with our 
     recommendation to the Congress. However, it said that our 
     recommendation to the Secretary, requiring annual school 
     construction applications, may also require a legislative 
     change to implement.
       The Department raised several concerns about the (1) 
     disposition of currently unfunded projects if an annual 
     process was instituted and (2) the administrative burden that 
     such a process may place on school districts. The National 
     Association of Federally Impacted Schools had similar 
     comments about this recommendation.
       Both the Department and the association disagreed with our 
     suggestion to distribute limited program funds on a pro-rata 
     basis. These and other comments along with our evaluation are 
     included on pages 20-25 of this report. We made changes to 
     the text where appropriate.
       We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of 
     Education, appropriate congressional committees, the National 
     Association of Federally Impacted Schools, and other 
     interested parties. Please call me on (202) 275-1793 if you 
     or your staff have any questions about this report. Other 
     major contributors are listed in appendix VIII.

                                             Franklin Frazier,

                                           Director, Education and
                                                Employment Issues.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, one of the major problems, as identified 
in this GAO letter is out-dated eligible requests. A good example of 
this would be the application from the Dupree School District in my 
home State. Their application to the Department of Education has 
remained unfunded since 1974--20 years, Mr. President. Other school 
districts have had the same problem--growing enrollments causing 
overcrowded school facilities, but no construction funding available.
  The bill I am introducing today limits the eligibility of a 
construction funding request to three years. If the eligible request 
has not received funding, a new request may be submitted to the 
Secretary of Education, thereby keeping school district applications 
current to reflect accurate funding needs under this law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2018

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

     SECTION 1. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION.

       The Act entitled ``An Act relating to the construction of 
     school facilities in areas affected by Federal activities, 
     and for other purposes'' approved September 23, 1950 (20 
     U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Statement of Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act 
     to provide financial assistance to federally impacted school 
     districts which are urgently in need of--
       ``(1) school facilities in school districts--
       ``(A) that have substantial increases in school membership 
     as a result of new or increased Federal activities; and
       ``(B) the membership of which includes children in need of 
     minimum school facilities; and
       ``(2) facility improvements or structural modifications due 
     to the need to meet life safety codes, average daily 
     attendance requirements, Federal laws, rules or regulations, 
     or curriculum improvements.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $29,000,000 for fiscal year 1995, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 1999, to 
     carry out sections 5, 9, 10, and 13.
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 1995 through 1999 for the administrative 
     expenses of the Department of Education.
       ``(3) Availability.--Funds appropriated pursuant to the 
     authority of paragraph (1) shall remain available until 
     expended.

     ``SEC. 2. PORTION OF APPROPRIATIONS AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--For each fiscal year the Secretary shall 
     determine the portion of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
     the authority of section 1 which shall be available for 
     carrying out the provisions of sections 9 and 10. The 
     remainder of such funds shall be available for paying to 
     local educational agencies the Federal share of the cost of 
     projects for the construction of school facilities for which 
     applications have been approved under section 6.
       ``(b) Allocation Between Sections 5 and 13.--In any fiscal 
     year the remainder of funds described in the second sentence 
     of subsection (a) shall be used so that--
       ``(1) 50 percent of such funds are used for payments under 
     section 5 for such year; and
       ``(2) 50 percent of such funds are used for payments under 
     section 13 for such year.
       ``(c) Allocation Within Section 5.--In any fiscal year, the 
     amount of funds available for payments under section 5 for 
     such year shall be used so that--
       ``(1) 50 percent of such funds are available for activities 
     described in section 1(a)(1)(A); and
       ``(2) 50 percent of such funds are available for activities 
     described in section 1(a)(1)(B).

     ``SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--In the event that funds appropriated 
     pursuant to the authority of section 1 and remaining 
     available for payment to local educational agencies under 
     this Act are less than the Federal share of the cost of the 
     projects with respect to which applications have been filed 
     prior to such date (and for which funds under section 1 have 
     not already been obligated), the Secretary shall make 
     payments under section 5--
       ``(1) in the case of activities described in section 
     1(a)(1)(A), on the basis of the highest percentage of 
     children in need of minimum school facilities; and
       ``(2) in the case of activities described in section 
     1(a)(1)(B), on the basis of the highest percentage of 
     federally connected students eligible for payment.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--Only applications meeting the 
     conditions for approval under this Act (other than section 
     6(b)(2)(C)) shall be considered applications for purposes of 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Increases.--
       ``(1) In general.--The priorities described in this section 
     shall be applied so that applications for payments based upon 
     increases in the number of children residing on, or residing 
     with a parent employed on, property which is part of a low-
     rent housing project assisted under the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 shall not be approved for any fiscal year until 
     all other applications for payments under paragraph (1) of 
     section 5(a) for payments relating to military connected 
     children, and under subsections (a) and (b) of section 13 for 
     payments relating to Indian children, have been approved for 
     that fiscal year.
       ``(2) Military connected children.--For the purpose of 
     paragraph (1), the term `military connected children' means 
     children described in--
       ``(A) section 3(a) of Public Law 81-874 who reside on a 
     military installation;
       ``(B) section 3(b)(1) of such Public Law who reside on a 
     military installation;
       ``(C) section 3(b)(2) of such Public Law who have a parent 
     employed on a military installation; and
       ``(D) section 3(b)(3) of such Public Law.

     ``SEC. 4. FEDERAL SHARE FOR ANY PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to section 5 (which imposes 
     limitations on the total of the payments which may be made to 
     any local educational agency), the Federal share of the cost 
     of a project under this Act shall be equal to such cost, but 
     in no case to exceed the cost, in the school district of the 
     applicant, of constructing minimum school facilities, and in 
     no case to exceed the cost in such district of constructing 
     minimum school facilities for the estimated number of 
     children who will be in the membership of the schools of such 
     agency at the close of the second year following the increase 
     period and who will otherwise be without such facilities at 
     such time.
       ``(b) Determination.--For the purposes of subsection (a), 
     the number of such children who will otherwise be without 
     such facilities at such time shall be determined by reference 
     to those facilities which as of the date the application for 
     such project is approved, are included in a project the 
     application for which has been approved under this Act.

     ``SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON TOTAL PAYMENTS TO ANY LOCAL 
                   EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.

       ``(a) Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the limitations in subsection 
     (c), the total of the payments to a local educational agency 
     under this Act may not exceed the sum of the following:
       ``(A) The estimated increase, since the base year, in the 
     number of children determined with respect to such agency who 
     live on Federal property and have a parent who works on 
     Federal property multiplied by 100 percent of the average per 
     pupil cost of constructing minimum school facilities in the 
     State in which the school district of such agency is 
     situated.
       ``(B) The estimated increase, since the base year, in the 
     number of children determined with respect to such agency who 
     have a parent who lives on or works on Federal property 
     multiplied by 50 percent of such cost.
       ``(2) Computation rule.--In computing for any local 
     educational agency the number of children in an increase 
     under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), the estimated 
     number of children described in such subparagraphs who will 
     be in the membership of the schools of such agency at the 
     close of the increase period shall be compared with the 
     estimated number of such children in average daily membership 
     of the schools of such agency during the base year, except 
     that the base year average daily membership shall be adjusted 
     to exclude the number of children that formed the basis for 
     previous payments on applications approved 30 or more years 
     prior to the close of the increased period for the 
     application for which the determination is made.
       ``(b) Election.--If both subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     subsection (a)(1) apply to a child, the local educational 
     agency shall elect which of such subparagraphs shall apply to 
     such child, except that, notwithstanding the election of a 
     local educational agency to have such subparagraph (B) apply 
     to a child instead of such subparagraph (A), the 
     determination of the maximum amount for such agency under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall be made without regard to such 
     election.
       ``(c) Minimum Increase Requirement.--A local educational 
     agency shall not be eligible to have any amount included in 
     its maximum by reason of subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     subsection (a)(1) unless the increase in children referred to 
     in such subparagraphs is--
       ``(1) at least 20; and
       ``(2)(A) equal to at least 6 percent of the number of 
     federally connected children who were in the average daily 
     membership of the schools of such agency during the base 
     year; or
       ``(B) at least 750,

     whichever is the lesser.
       ``(d) Exceptional Circumstances.--Notwithstanding the 
     provisions of subsection (c) of this section, whenever and to 
     the extent that, in the Secretary's judgment, exceptional 
     circumstances exist which make such action necessary to avoid 
     inequity and avoid defeating the purposes of the Act, the 
     Secretary may waive or reduce the minimum number requirement 
     or any percentage requirement described in subsection (c).
       ``(e) Count Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--In determining under this section the 
     total of the payments which may be made to a local 
     educational agency on the basis of any application, the total 
     number of children counted for purposes of subparagraph (A) 
     or (B) of subsection (a)(1) may not exceed--
       ``(A) the number of children whose membership at the close 
     of the increase period for the application is compared with 
     average daily membership in the base period for purposes of 
     that paragraph (except that the base year average daily 
     membership shall not include any children counted for 
     purposes of a payment pursuant to an application approved 30 
     or more years ago), minus
       ``(B) the number of such children whose membership at the 
     close of the increase period was compared with membership in 
     the base year for purposes of such subparagraph under the 
     last previous application, if any, of the agency on the basis 
     of which any payment has been or may be made to that agency.
       ``(2) Last previous application.--For the purpose of 
     paragraph (1)(B) the term `last previous application' means 
     the last application for assistance under this Act that was 
     funded within 4 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for 
     which the determination is made.

     ``SEC. 6. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--No payment may be made to any 
     local educational agency under this Act except upon 
     application therefore which is submitted through the 
     appropriate State educational agency and is filed with the 
     Secretary in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Contents.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each application by a local educational 
     agency shall set forth the project for the construction of 
     school facilities for such agency with respect to which it is 
     filed, and shall contain or be supported by--
       ``(A) a description of the project and the site therefore, 
     preliminary drawings of the school facilities to be 
     constructed thereon, and such other information relating to 
     the project as may reasonably be required by the Secretary;
       ``(B) assurance that such agency has or will have title to 
     the site, or the right to construct upon such site school 
     facilities as specified in the application and to maintain 
     such school facilities on such site for a period of not less 
     than 20 years after the completion of the construction;
       ``(C) assurance that such agency has legal authority to 
     undertake the construction of the project and to finance any 
     non-Federal share of the cost thereof as proposed, and 
     assurance that adequate funds to defray any such non-Federal 
     share will be available when needed;
       ``(D) assurance that such agency will cause work on the 
     project to be commenced within a reasonable time and 
     prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence;
       ``(E) assurance that, except for emergency relief under 
     section 7 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 81-
     874), all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or 
     subcontractors on all construction and minor remodeling 
     projects assisted under this Act shall be paid wages at rates 
     not less than those prevailing on similar construction and 
     minor remodeling in the locality as determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as 
     amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5) and the Secretary of Labor 
     shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in 
     this subparagraph, the authority and functions set forth in 
     Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 or 1950 and section 2 of the 
     Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276c), (20 U.S.C. 
     1232(b));
       ``(F) assurance that the school facilities of such agency 
     will be available to the children for whose education 
     contributions are provided in this Act on the same terms, in 
     accordance with the laws of the State in which the school 
     district of such agency is situated, as such facilities are 
     available to other children in such school district; and
       ``(G) assurance that such agency will from time to time 
     prior to the completion of the project submit such reports 
     relating to the project as the Secretary may reasonably 
     require.
       ``(2) Approval.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary shall approve any application if the Secretary 
     finds--
       ``(A) that the requirements of paragraph (1) have been met 
     and that approval of the project would not result in payments 
     in excess of those permitted by sections 4 and 5;
       ``(B) after consultation with the State and local 
     educational agencies, that the project is not inconsistent 
     with overall State plans for the construction of school 
     facilities; and
       ``(C) that there are sufficient Federal funds available to 
     pay the Federal share of the cost of such project and of all 
     other projects for which Federal funds have not already been 
     obligated and applications for which, under section 3, have a 
     higher priority.
       ``(c) Notice and Hearing.--No application under this Act 
     shall be disapproved in whole or in part until the Secretary 
     has afforded the local educational agency reasonable notice 
     and opportunity for hearing.
       ``(d) Submission.--An application for a payment under this 
     Act shall be submitted by June 30 of the fiscal year 
     preceding the fiscal year for which payment is requested. An 
     application submitted pursuant to the preceding sentence 
     shall remain active for a period of 2 fiscal years following 
     the fiscal year for which payment under this Act is 
     requested. If a local educational agency wishes to make an 
     application for payment under this Act after the expiration 
     of the 2-year period described in the preceding sentence such 
     agency shall resubmit an application in accordance with this 
     section.

     ``SEC. 7. PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Upon approving the application of any 
     local educational agency under section 6, the Secretary shall 
     pay to such agency an amount equal to 10 percent of the 
     Federal share of the cost of the project. After final 
     drawings and specifications have been approved by the 
     Secretary and the construction contract has been entered 
     into, the Secretary, in accordance with regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary and at such times and in such 
     installments as may be reasonable, shall pay to such agency 
     the remainder of the Federal share of the cost of the 
     project.
       ``(b) Repayment.--Any funds paid to a local educational 
     agency under this Act and not expended for the purposes for 
     which paid shall be repaid to the Treasury of the United 
     States.

     ``SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not to exceed 10 percent of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to the authority of section 1(b)(1) for 
     any fiscal year may be used by the Secretary, under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, to make grants to 
     local educational agencies where--
       ``(1) the application of such agencies would be approved 
     under this Act but for the agencies' inability, unless aided 
     by such grants, to finance the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the projects set forth in their applications; or
       ``(2) although the applications of such agencies have been 
     approved, the projects covered by such applications could 
     not, without such grants, be completed, because of flood, 
     fire, or similar emergency affecting either the work on the 
     projects or the agencies' ability to finance the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the projects.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--The grants described in subsection (a) 
     shall be in addition to the payments otherwise provided under 
     this Act, shall be made to those local educational agencies 
     whose need for additional aid is the most urgent and acute, 
     and insofar as practicable shall be made in the same manner 
     and upon the same terms and conditions as such other 
     payments.
       ``(c) Additional Appropriations Required.--The provisions 
     of this section shall take effect only when funds are 
     specifically appropriated to carry out this section.

     ``SEC. 9. WHERE EFFECT OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES WILL BE 
                   TEMPORARY.

       ``Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Act, 
     whenever the Secretary determines that the membership of some 
     or all of the children, who may be included in computing 
     under section 5 the maximum on the total of the payments for 
     any local educational agency, will be of temporary duration 
     only, such membership shall not be included in computing such 
     maximum. Instead, the Secretary may make available to such 
     agency such temporary school facilities as may be necessary 
     to take care of such membership; or the Secretary may, where 
     the local educational agency gives assurance that at least 
     minimum school facilities will be provided for such children, 
     pay (on such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act) to such 
     agency for use in constructing school facilities an amount 
     equal to the amount which the Secretary estimates would be 
     necessary to make available such temporary facilities. In no 
     case may the amount so paid exceed the cost, in the school 
     district of such agency of constructing minimum school 
     facilities for such children. The Secretary may transfer to 
     such agency or its successor all the right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to any temporary 
     facilities made available to such agency under this section; 
     and such transfer shall be without charge, but may be made on 
     such other terms and conditions, and at such time as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this 
     Act.

     ``SEC. 10. CHILDREN FOR WHOM LOCAL AGENCIES ARE UNABLE TO 
                   PROVIDE EDUCATION.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of children who it is 
     estimated by the Secretary in any fiscal year will reside on 
     Federal property at the end of the next fiscal year--
       ``(1) if no tax revenues of the State or any political 
     subdivision thereof may be expended for the free public 
     education of such children; or
       ``(2) if it is the judgment of the Secretary, after the 
     Secretary has consulted with the appropriate State 
     educational agency, that no local educational agency is able 
     to provide suitable free public education for such children,

     the Secretary shall make arrangements for constructing, 
     leasing, renovating, remodeling, or rehabilitating or 
     otherwise providing the minimum school facilities necessary 
     for the education of such children. In any case in which the 
     Secretary makes arrangements under this section for 
     constructing, leasing, renovating, remodeling, or 
     rehabilitating or otherwise providing minimum school 
     facilities situated on Federal property in Puerto Rico, Wake 
     Island, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     or the Virgin Islands, the Secretary may also include minimum 
     school facilities necessary for the education of children 
     residing with a parent employed by the United States though 
     not residing on Federal property, but only if the Secretary 
     determines, after consultation with the appropriate State 
     educational agency, (A) that the construction or provision of 
     such facilities is appropriate to carry out the purposes of 
     this subsection, (B) that no local educational agency is able 
     to provide suitable free public education for such children, 
     and (C) that English is not the primary language of 
     instruction in schools in the locality. Such arrangements may 
     also be made to provide, on a temporary basis, minimum school 
     facilities for children of members of the Armed Forces on 
     active duty, if the schools in which free public education is 
     usually provided for such children are made unavailable to 
     such children as a result of official action by State or 
     local governmental authority and it is the judgment of the 
     Secretary, after the Secretary has consulted with the 
     appropriate State educational agency, that no local 
     educational agency is able to provide suitable free public 
     education for such children.
       ``(b) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Comparability.--To the maximum extent practicable 
     school facilities provided under this section shall be 
     comparable to minimum school facilities provided for children 
     in comparable communities in the State.
       ``(2) Inapplicability.--This section shall not apply to--
       ``(A) children who reside on Federal property under the 
     control of the Atomic Energy Commission; and
       ``(B) Indian children attending schools supported by the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       ``(3) Special rule.--Whenever it is necessary for the 
     Secretary to provide school facilities for children residing 
     on Federal property under this section, the membership of 
     such children may not be included in computing under section 
     5 the maximum on the total of the payments for any local 
     educational agency.
       ``(c) Transfers.--When the Secretary determines it is in 
     the interest of the Federal Government to do so, the 
     Secretary may transfer, upon the written request of the local 
     educational agency, to the appropriate local educational 
     agency all the right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to any facilities provided under this Act (or 
     section 204 or 310 of Public Law 81-815 as such law was in 
     effect January 1, 1958). Prior to any transfer, the facility 
     shall meet all State and Federal building health and safety 
     codes, regulations and laws. Any such transfer shall be 
     without charge, but may be made on such other terms and 
     conditions and at such time as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.
       ``(d) Special Rule Regarding Tax Revenues.--If no tax 
     revenues of a State or of any political subdivision of the 
     State may be expended for the free public education of 
     children who reside on any Federal property within the State, 
     or if no tax revenues of a State are allocated for the free 
     public education of such children, then the property on which 
     such children reside shall not be considered Federal property 
     for the purposes of section 5 of this Act.

     ``SEC. 11. WITHHOLDING OF PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Whenever the Secretary, after providing 
     reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to a local 
     educational agency, finds that--
       ``(1) there is a substantial failure to comply with the 
     drawings and specifications for the project;
       ``(2) any funds paid to a local educational agency under 
     this Act have been diverted from the purposes for which paid; 
     or
       ``(3) any assurance given in an application is not being or 
     cannot be carried out,

     the Secretary may notify such agency that no further payment 
     will be made under this Act with respect to such agency until 
     there is no longer any failure to comply or the diversion or 
     default has been corrected or, if compliance or correction is 
     impossible, until such agency repays or arranges for the 
     repayment of Federal moneys which have been diverted or 
     improperly expended.
       ``(b) Judicial Review.--The final refusal of the Secretary 
     to approve part or all of any application under this Act, and 
     the Secretary's final action under subsection (a) of this 
     section, shall be subject to judicial review on the record, 
     in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in 
     which the local educational agency is located, in accordance 
     with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

     ``SEC. 12. USE OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES TRANSFER AND 
                   AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Administration.--In carrying out the provisions of 
     this Act, the Secretary is authorized to utilize the services 
     and facilities of any agency of the Federal Government and of 
     any other public or nonprofit agency or institution, in 
     accordance with appropriate agreements, and to pay for such 
     services either in advance or by way of reimbursement, as may 
     be agreed upon.
       ``(b) Requests for Information.--All Federal departments or 
     agencies administering Federal property on which children 
     reside, and all such departments or agencies principally 
     responsible for Federal activities which may give rise to a 
     need for the construction of school facilities, shall to the 
     maximum extent practicable, comply with requests of the 
     Secretary for information the Secretary may require in 
     carrying out the purposes of this Act.
       ``(c) Special Rule.--No appropriation to any department or 
     agency of the United States, other than an appropriation to 
     carry out this Act, shall be available for the same purposes 
     as this Act.

     ``SEC. 13. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE IN OTHER FEDERALLY 
                   AFFECTED AREAS.

       ``(a) Assistance Authorized for Certain Indian Children.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines with respect 
     to any local educational agency that--
       ``(A) such agency is providing or, upon completion of the 
     school facilities for which provision is made under this 
     subsection, will provide free public education for children 
     who reside on Indian lands, and whose membership in the 
     schools of such agency has not formed and will not form the 
     basis for payments under other provisions of this Act, and 
     that the total number of such children represents a 
     substantial percentage of the total number of children for 
     whom such agency provides free public education, or that such 
     Indian lands constitute a substantial part of the school 
     district of such local educational agency, or that the total 
     number of such children who reside on Indian lands located 
     outside the school district of such agency equals or exceeds 
     100;
       ``(B) the immunity of such Indian lands to taxation by such 
     agency has created a substantial and continuing impairment of 
     such agency's ability to finance needed school facilities;
       ``(C) such agency is making a reasonable tax effort and is 
     exercising due diligence in availing itself of State and 
     other financial assistance available for the purpose of this 
     section; and
       ``(D) such agency does not have sufficient funds available 
     to such agency from other Federal, State, and local sources 
     to provide the minimum school facilities required for free 
     public education of a substantial percentage of the children 
     in the membership of its schools,

     then the Secretary may provide the additional assistance 
     necessary to enable such agency to provide such facilities 
     upon such terms and in such amounts (subject to the 
     provisions of this section) as the Secretary may consider to 
     be in the public interest, except that such additional 
     assistance may not exceed the portion of the cost of such 
     facilities or improvements or structural modifications which 
     the Secretary estimates has not been, and is not to be, 
     recovered by the local educational agency from other sources, 
     including payments by the United States under any provision 
     of this Act or any other law.
       ``(2) Waiver.--Notwithstanding the provisions of this 
     subsection, the Secretary may waive the percentage 
     requirement described in paragraph (1)(A) whenever, in the 
     Secretary's judgment, exceptional circumstances exist which 
     make such actions necessary to avoid inequity and avoid 
     defeating the purposes of this section. Assistance may be 
     furnished under this subsection without regard to paragraph 
     (1)(B) (but subject to the other provisions of this 
     subsection and subsection (e)) to any local educational 
     agency which provides free public education for children who 
     reside on Indian lands located outside its school district.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection `Indian 
     lands' means Indian reservations or other real property 
     referred to in the second sentence of section 14(4).
       ``(b) Assistance Authorized for Other Indian Children.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines with respect 
     to any local educational agency that--
       ``(A) such agency is providing or, upon completion of the 
     school facilities for which provision is made under this 
     subsection will provide free public education for children 
     who reside on Indian lands, and whose membership in the 
     schools of such agency has not formed and will not form the 
     basis for payments under other provisions of this Act, and 
     that the total number of such children represents a 
     substantial percentage of the total number of children for 
     whom such agency provides free public education, or that such 
     local educational agency, or that the total number of such 
     children who reside on Indian lands located outside the 
     school district of such agency equals or exceeds 100; and
       ``(B) the immunity of such Indian lands to taxation by such 
     agency has created a substantial and continuing impairment of 
     such agency's ability to finance needed school facilities,

     then the Secretary may, upon such terms and in such amounts 
     (subject to the provisions of this section) as the Secretary 
     may consider to be in the public interest, provide the 
     additional assistance necessary to enable such agency to 
     provide the minimum school facilities required for free 
     public education of children in the membership of the schools 
     of such agency who reside on Indian lands, except that such 
     additional assistance may not exceed the portion of the cost 
     of constructing such facilities which the Secretary estimates 
     has not been, and is not to be, recovered by the local 
     educational agency from other sources, including payments by 
     the United States under any provisions of this Act or any 
     other law.
       ``(2) Waiver.--Notwithstanding the provisions of this 
     subsection, the Secretary may waive the percentage 
     requirement in paragraph (1)(A) whenever, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, exceptional circumstances exist which make such 
     action necessary to avoid inequity and avoid defeating the 
     purpose of this section. Assistance may be furnished under 
     this subsection without regard to paragraph (1)(B) (but 
     subject to the other provisions of this subsection and 
     subsection (e)) to any local educational agency which 
     provides free public education for children who reside on 
     Indian lands located outside its school district.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection `Indian 
     lands' means Indian reservations or other real property 
     referred to in the second sentence of section 14(4).
       ``(c) Assistance Authorized for Inadequately Housed 
     Children.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines with respect 
     to any local educational agency that--
       ``(A) such agency is providing or, upon completion of the 
     school facilities for which provision is made under this 
     subsection, will provide, free public education for children 
     who are inadequately housed by minimum school facilities and 
     whose membership in the schools of such agency has not formed 
     and will not form the basis for payments under other 
     provisions of this section, and the total number of such 
     children represents a substantial percentage of the total 
     number of children for whom such agency provides free public 
     education, and Federal property constitutes a substantial 
     part of the school district of such agency;
       ``(B) the immunity of such Federal property from taxation 
     by such agency has created a substantial and continuing 
     impairment of such agency's ability to finance needed school 
     facilities;
       ``(C) such agency is making a reasonable tax effort and is 
     exercising due diligence in availing itself of State and 
     other financial assistance available for the purpose of this 
     section; and
       ``(D) such agency does not have sufficient funds available 
     to such agency from other Federal, State, and local sources 
     to provide the minimum school facilities required for free 
     public education of a substantial percentage of the children 
     in the membership of its schools,

     then the Secretary may provide the assistance necessary to 
     enable such agency to provide minimum school facilities for 
     children in the membership of the schools of such agency whom 
     the Secretary finds to be inadequately housed, upon such 
     terms and conditions, and in such amounts (subject to the 
     applicable provisions of this section) as the Secretary may 
     consider to be in the public interest. Such assistance may 
     not exceed the portion of the cost of such facilities or 
     improvements or structural modifications which the Secretary 
     estimates has not been, and is not to be, recovered by the 
     local educational agency from other sources, including 
     payments by the United States under any other provisions of 
     this Act or any other law.
       ``(2) Waiver.--Notwithstanding the provisions of this 
     subsection, the Secretary may waive the percentage 
     requirement in paragraph (1)(A) whenever, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, exceptional circumstances exist which make such 
     action necessary to avoid inequity and avoid defeating the 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(d) Application.--No payment may be made to any local 
     educational agency under subsection (a) or (b) except upon 
     application therefor which is submitted through the 
     appropriate State educational agency and is filed with the 
     Secretary in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary, and which meets the requirements of section 
     6(b)(1). In determining the order in which such applications 
     shall be approved, the Secretary shall consider the relative 
     educational and financial needs of the local educational 
     agencies which have submitted approved applications and the 
     nature and extent of the Federal responsibility. No payment 
     may be made under subsections (a) or (b) unless the Secretary 
     finds, after consultation with the State and local 
     educational agencies, that the project or projects with 
     respect to which the payment is made are not inconsistent 
     with overall State plans for the construction of school 
     facilities. All determinations made by the Secretary under 
     this section shall be made only after consultation with the 
     appropriate State educational agency and the local 
     educational agency.
       ``(e) Payments.--Amounts paid by the Secretary to local 
     educational agencies under subsections (a) or (b) may be paid 
     in advance of, or by way of reimbursement for, work performed 
     or purchases made pursuant to the agreement with the 
     Secretary under this section, and may be paid in such 
     installments as the Secretary may determine. Any funds paid 
     to a local educational agency under this section and not 
     expended or otherwise used for the purposes for which paid 
     shall be repaid to the Treasury of the United States.
       ``(f) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions.--None of the 
     provisions of sections 1 through 10, other than section 
     6(2)(A) shall apply with respect to determinations made under 
     this section.

     ``SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS AND DETERMINATIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Base year.--The term `base year' means the third or 
     fourth regular school year preceding the fiscal year in which 
     an application was filed under section 6, as may be 
     designated in the application.
       ``(2) Child.--The term `child' means any child who is 
     within the age limits for which the applicable State provides 
     free public education.
       ``(3) Construct; constructing; and construction.--The terms 
     `construct', `constructing', and `construction' include the 
     preparation of drawings and specifications for school 
     facilities; erecting, building, acquiring, altering, 
     remodeling, improving, modifying, or extending school 
     facilities; and the inspection and supervision of the 
     construction of school facilities.
       ``(4) Federal property.--(A) The term `Federal property' 
     means real property which is owned by the United States or is 
     leased by the United States, and which is not subject to 
     taxation by any State or any political subdivision of a State 
     or by the District of Columbia. Except for purposes of 
     sections 5, 10, and 13(c), such term includes--
       ``(i) real property held in trust by the United States for 
     individual Indians or Indian tribes, and real property held 
     by individual Indians or Indian tribes which is subject to 
     restrictions on alienation imposed by the United States;
       ``(ii) any low-rent housing (whether or not owned by the 
     United States) which is part of a low-rent housing project 
     assisted under the United States Housing Act of 1937; and
       ``(iii) any interest in Federal property (as defined in the 
     provisions of clauses (i) and (ii)) under an easement, lease, 
     license, permit, or other arrangement, as well as any 
     improvements of any nature (other than pipelines or utility 
     lines) on such property even though such interests or 
     improvements are subject to taxation by a State or political 
     subdivision of a State or by the District of Columbia.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (A), 
     such term does not include--
       ``(i) any real property used for a labor supply center, 
     labor home, or labor camp for migratory farm workers; and
       ``(ii) any real property under the jurisdiction of the 
     United States Postal Service and used primarily for the 
     provision of postal services.
       ``(5) Free public education.--The term `free public 
     education' means education which is provided at public 
     expense, under public supervision and direction, and without 
     tuition charge, and which is provided as elementary or 
     secondary school education in the applicable State.
       ``(6) Increased period.--The term `increased period' means 
     the period of 4 consecutive regular school years immediately 
     following such base year.
       ``(7) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' means a board of education of any public 
     school or other legally constituted local public school 
     authority having administrative control and direction of free 
     public education in a county, township, independent, or other 
     school district located within a State. Such term includes 
     any State agency which directly operates and maintains 
     facilities for providing free public education or which has 
     responsibility for the provision of such facilities.
       ``(8) Parent.--The term `parent' includes a legal guardian 
     or other person standing in loco parentis.
       ``(9) School facilities.--The term `school facilities' 
     includes classroom and related facilities; and initial 
     equipment, machinery, and utilities necessary or appropriate 
     for school purposes. Such term does not include athletic 
     stadiums, or structures or facilities intended primarily for 
     athletic exhibitions, contests, or games or other events for 
     which admission is to be charged to the general public. 
     Except as used in sections 9 and 10 such term does not 
     include interests in land and offsite improvements.
       ``(10) Secretary.--The term `Secretary', unless otherwise 
     specified, means the Secretary of Education.
       ``(11) State.--The term `State' means a State, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the District of Columbia, 
     American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Virgin Islands, or Wake Island.
       ``(12) State educational agency.--The term `State 
     educational agency' means the officer or agency primarily 
     responsible for the State supervision of public elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       ``(b) Determinations.--
       ``(1) Membership of schools.--(A) The membership of schools 
     shall be determined in accordance with State law or, in the 
     absence of State law governing such a determination, in 
     accordance with regulations of the Secretary, except that, 
     notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, where 
     the local educational agency of the school district in which 
     any child resides makes or contracts to make a tuition 
     payment for the free public education of such child in a 
     school situated in another school district, for purposes of 
     this section the membership of such child, shall be held and 
     considered--
       ``(i) if the 2 local educational agencies concerned so 
     agree, and if such agreement is approved by the Secretary, as 
     membership of a school of the local educational agency 
     receiving such tuition payment; and
       ``(ii) in the absence of any such approved agreement, as 
     membership of a school of the local educational agency so 
     making or contracting to make such tuition payment.
       ``(B) In any determination of membership of schools, 
     children who are not provided free public education (as 
     defined in subsection (a)(5)) shall not be counted.
       ``(2) Average per pupil cost.--The average per pupil cost 
     of constructing minimum school facilities in the State in 
     which the school district of a local educational agency is 
     situated shall be determined by the Secretary on the basis of 
     the average State per pupil construction cost in the year 
     previous to the year of funding (including costs of minimum 
     site improvements, minimum initial equipment, and applicable 
     architectural, engineering, and legal fees). The cost of 
     constructing minimum school facilities in the school district 
     of a local educational agency shall be determined by the 
     Secretary, after consultation with the State and local 
     educational agencies, on the basis of such information as may 
     be contained in the application of such local educational 
     agency and such other information as the Secretary may 
     obtain.
       ``(3) Timing and information requirement.--Estimates of 
     membership, and all other determinations with respect to 
     eligibility and maximum amount of payment, shall be made as 
     of the time of the approval of the applications for which 
     made, and shall be made on the basis of the best information 
     available at the time of such approval.
       ``(4) Minimum school facilities.--Whether or not school 
     facilities are minimum school facilities shall be determined 
     by the Secretary, after consultation with the State and local 
     educational agencies, in accordance with regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary. Such regulations shall--
       ``(A) require the local educational agency concerned to 
     give due consideration to excellence of architecture and 
     design;
       ``(B) provide that no facility shall be disqualified as a 
     minimum school facility because of the inclusion of works of 
     art in the plans therefor if the cost of such works of art 
     does not exceed 1 percent of the cost of the project; and
       ``(C) require compliance with such standards as the 
     Secretary may prescribe or approve in order to ensure that 
     facilities constructed with the use of Federal funds under 
     this Act shall be, to the extent appropriate in view of the 
     uses to be made of the facilities, accessible to and usable 
     by individuals with disabilities.''.
                                  ____


                 Section-by-Section Analysis of S. 2018


                  Section 1--Purpose and Appropriation

       Purpose--To provide financial assistance to federally 
     impacted schools urgently in need of:
       (1) School facilities due to increased enrollment.
       (2) School facility improvements or modifications due to 
     ADA or safety codes.
       Appropriations--In FY1995, $29 million and FY1996, FY1997, 
     FY1998 and FY1999 such sums as necessary.


                      Section 2--Division of Funds

       Priority: Section 9 (temporary facilities), Section 10 
     (Department of Education Schools) and then divide remaining 
     funds equally between military districts and districts on 
     Indian lands.


                 Section 3--Establishment of Priorities

       All applicants will be reviewed and a priority list will be 
     developed by the Secretary of Education. Projects will be 
     funded starting with highest percentage of students and go on 
     down the list of applicants.


                Section 4--Federal Share of Any Project

       No project can exceed that actual cost of construction of 
     minimum school facilities.


 Section 5--Limitation on total Payments to Any Local Education Agency

       Establishes formula for payments to districts serving 
     military dependents. For a district to apply for PL815 funds, 
     the district must have a growth in student enrollment of at 
     least 6% of their enrollment or 750 students, which ever is 
     less


                        Section 6--Applications

       (1) Description of project
       (2) Assurance that LEA has title to site and right to 
     construct. LEA must be able to maintain facility for at least 
     20 years.
       (3) Assurance that LEA has legal authority to undertake 
     construction and finance any non-federal share of project.
       (4) Assurance LEA will cause work to be commenced in 
     reasonable time.
       (5) Assurance LEA will follow Davis-Bacon Act.
       (6) Assurance facilities will be available to children 
     whose education contributions are provided for in this Act.
       (7) Assurance LEA will provide reports requested by the 
     Secretary of Education.
       (8) Applications due June 30 of fiscal year.
       (9) Application not funded within three years will need to 
     be updated to remain active.


                          Section 7--Payments

       Approved applications will be given 10% of the federal 
     share upon approval. Other payments will follow as work is 
     completed. Any unused funds are returned to the U.S. 
     Treasury.


                     Section 8--Additional Payments

       Allows the Secretary to make additional payments to school 
     districts which have had their application approved, but 
     cannot finance the non-federal share of the cost of the 
     project.


  Section 9--Where the Effect of Federal Activities will be Temporary

       Establishes a procedure for an LEA to receive funds under 
     Section 5 if need is temporary. Secretary of Education has 
     authority to transfer title of temporary facilities to LEA.


   Section 10--Children for Whom LEA are Unable to Provide Education

       Outlines the criteria for eligibility for schools 
     requesting Department of Education to provide facility. These 
     facilities are built and owned by federal government, 
     however, at some point the Secretary of Education may 
     transfer facility to LEA if LEA agrees.


                    Section 11--Withholding Payments

       Allows the Secretary of Education to withhold any future 
     payments (after reasonable notice and opportunity for a 
     hearing are extended) from a LEA, if there is a reasonable 
     failure to comply with the drawings and specifications of the 
     project or if any of the funds have been diverted to other 
     purposes.


 Section 12--Use of Other Federal Agencies Transfer & Availability of 
                             Appropriations

       Requires federal agency cooperation.


Section 13--School Construction Assistance in Other Federally Affected 
                                 Areas

       Establishes formula for payments to districts serving 
     students on Indian lands.
       Criteria for eligibility:
       Immune from taxation; substantial number of students on 
     Indian land; LEA making all efforts to seek funds from state 
     and local sources; insufficient funds from all sources to 
     provide minimum school facilities.
       Allows LEA's to construct facilities and renovate existing 
     facilities to meet ADA or safety codes.


               Section 14--Definitions and Determinations

                                 ______

      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 2020. A bill to authorize the establishment of a pilot program to 
provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interest in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


          chesapeake bay environmental restoration act of 1994

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
together with Senator Warner and Senator Mikulski to expand the 
authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist in the 
environmental restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The legislation 
specifically authorizes a $30 million pilot program for the corps to 
design and construct water-related environmental and resource 
protection projects in the Chesapeake Bay including such projects as 
making beneficial use of dredge material to restore eroding islands and 
shoreline, creating wetlands, and removing barriers to fish passage in 
the bay watershed.
  The Corps of Engineers has been an integral part of the Chesapeake 
Bay Program for many years. As the lead Federal agency in water 
resource management, the corps has completed some of the most 
comprehensive investigations of the entire Chesapeake Bay basin 
including a landmark report in 1984 which identified many of the 
serious problems facing the bay. In addition to the agency's 
responsibilities for maintaining the navigational channels in the bay, 
the corps has conducted numerous water resource planning studies and 
projects, constructed water supply and wastewater treatment systems, 
implemented regulatory activities, and has provided support to DOD and 
Army installations within the bay watershed. The corps has played a 
vital role in the development of the program's complex computer 
simulation modeling needs, improving our understanding of the 
watershed's fresh water inflow needs, and regulating valuable wetlands 
habitats. Clearly, the corps has an important civil engineering, 
planning, and technical expertise that can be ofinvaluable help in 
addressing the myriad of environmental problems facing the bay.
  The Chesapeake Bay suffers from several problems which the corps has 
perhps the unique capabilities to address--shoreline erosion and 
sedimentation, wetlands losses, and impediments to fish passage.
  Shoreline erosion continues to be a very serious problem in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. The geography and topography of the 
Chesapeake Bay region make this area particularly susceptible to the 
processes of erosion and sedimentation. At Smith and Popular Islands in 
the Maryland waters of the bay, to name only two locations, erosive 
forces are taking land at such an alarming rate that the very existence 
of these islands is threatened.
  Erosion is not only causing serious property damage, but also 
contributes nearly 5 million cubic yards of sediment annually to the 
bay, adversely impacting water quality, habitat, and navigation. During 
storms, tremendous amounts of sediments are released from these 
properties and from behind the dams on the Susquehanna, blanketing the 
bay in a plume of sediment and robbing the bay of life-sustaining 
sunlight and oxygen. Valuable wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, 
and woodlands, which are a vital part of the bay's ecological system, 
providing nesting, breeding and feeding areas for populations of 
finfish, shellfish, and migratory and resident bird species, are being 
lost to erosion. The sediments are also clogging the bay's navigational 
channels--our water highways and harbors--creating an additional 
problem of dredged material disposal.

  Over the past century, approximately 45,000 acres, or 70 square miles 
of land--an area equal in size to the District of Columbia--have been 
lost to forces of erosion. Unless the problem is addressed soon, under 
present conditions, many of the bay's lowlands will disappear in the 
next 100 years.
  There is a creative solution that can address the serious erosion 
problem and help protect and promote the recovery of the bay--making 
environmentally beneficial use of clean dredged material to stabilize 
eroding shorelines and restore lost wetlands in the bay. Past efforts 
have shown that these restoration efforts can be successful. Through 
its operation and maintenance activities for navigation, the corps has 
demonstrated successful beneficial use projects using clean dredged 
material which include: the rebuilding of eroding islands and 
enhancement of the environment at Barren Island, and wetlands creation 
and restoration on the James and Anacostia Rivers.
  Unfortunately, the corps is currently limited in the degree to which 
it can participate in environmental restoration projects in the bay. 
Beneficial use projects using dredged material are generally more 
expensive than traditional disposal alternatives, such as open water 
dumping, and Federal policies presently limit the funding and contain 
other disincentives to making this a viable long-term option. This 
legislation seeks to provide the Corps of Engineers with the authority 
and funding to undertake such projects.
  The legislation would also permit the corps to play a greater role in 
the restoration and enhancement of wetlands and aquatic habitat in the 
Chesapeake Bay. Wetlands have been a vital component of the Chesapeake 
Bay ecosystem and historically, have been abundant throughout the bay. 
Unfortunately, our Nation's estuary has experienced a dramatic decline 
in wetlands averaging over 2,800 acres annually. According to a 1991 
report by the Department of the Interior, 73 percent of the wetlands in 
Maryland that existed in the 1780's are now gone. For Virginia the 
estimate is 42 percent, and for Pennsylvania, the wetlands loss is 56 
percent. These figures together represent a cumulative loss of over 2 
million acres of wetlands in the principal three-State Chesapeake 
basin.
  These are some of the most extensive and valuable wetlands along the 
Atlantic coast, and in the Nation. In fact, the Chesapeake was one of 
the first wetland areas in the United States to qualify under the 
``Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as 
Waterfowl Habitat,'' commonly known as the Ramsar Convention. The 
wetlands serve as a source of food and habitat for waterfowl and fish, 
help filter out sediments and other pollutants, and provide dissolved 
oxygen to the watercolumn. They are, in short, absolutely essential to 
the biological integrity of the Chesapeake Bay.

  The Chesapeake Bay Program has made restoration and enhancement of 
wetlands in the bay and its tributaries a top priority for restoring 
the bay. The program has developed a wetlands policy and implementation 
plan and committed to no-net loss in the short term, and net-gain in 
the long term. The Corps of Engineers and other State and Federal 
agencies have been assigned important responsibilities under that plan, 
including wetland restoration and creation activities. This legislation 
would give the corps additional authority to carry out these 
responsibilities.
  A third problem inhibiting the recovery of the Chesapeake Bay which 
this legislation would enable the corps to address is man-made barriers 
to fish passage. Through the years, we have seen record declines in 
stocks of migratory fish including striped bass, American shad, hickory 
shad, river herring, white and yellow perch, and American eel. These 
species have historically been among the most economically and 
ecologically important species in the Chesapeake Bay, supporting 
extensive fisheries in the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 
Virginia. Over 1,000 man-made barriers to migratory fish, ranging in 
size from large hydroelectric projects to road culverts, exist on 
tributaries throughout the bay watershed. These barriers prevent 
passage of fish to spawning and nursery habitat essential to the 
viability of the breeding populations. The general ecology of the bay 
and its tributaries has been adversely affected by the absence of these 
fish species which play important roles in the ecosystem's aquatic food 
chain.
  The bay program has devoted significant resources to provide for fish 
passage at dams and to remove stream blockages wherever necessary to 
restore natural passage for migratory fish. Significant progress has 
been made to identify priority tributaries for fish passage 
initiatives. The coordinated work of the bay community has resulted in 
the provision of fish passage at four dams in the James River basin, at 
Conowingo, Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven Dams in the 
Susquehanna basin, and at many sites in Maryland. With these larger 
blockages removed, a magnitude of work remains to be done to restore 
the historic habitat above these dams. The Corps of Engineers has a 
critical role to play in the bay program's fish passage initiatives. 
This legislation will enable the corps to provide its technical 
expertise in these efforts.
  Mr. President, this legislation is a modest proposal. It recognizes 
the budget constraints and is limited in scope and funding authority. 
It does not seek to address all of the challenges facing the bay, but 
it will enable the corps to bring its expertise to bear on some key 
problems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  The legislation is strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay 
Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Maryland Department 
of Transportation. I ask unanimous consent that letters from these 
organizations endorsing the legislation be printed in the Record. I 
also ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  It is my hope that this legislation will be considered when the 
Senate takes up the Water Resources Development Act of 1994.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2020

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

     SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 
                   PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Secretary'') shall establish a pilot 
     program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       (2) Form.--The assistance shall be in the form of design 
     and construction assistance for water-related environmental 
     infrastructure and resource protection and development 
     projects affecting the Chesapeake Bay estuary, including 
     projects for sediment and erosion control, protection of 
     eroding shorelines, protection of essential public works, 
     wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and 
     related facilities, and beneficial uses of dredged material, 
     and other related projects that may enhance the living 
     resources of the estuary.
       (b) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may 
     provide assistance for a project under this section only if 
     the project is publicly owned, and will be publicly operated 
     and maintained.
       (c) Local Cooperation Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each local cooperation agreement entered 
     into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, of a 
     facilities or resource protection and development plan, 
     including appropriate engineering plans and specifications 
     and an estimate of expected resource benefits.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation and maintenance of 
     the project by the non-Federal interest.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)(B), 
     the Federal share of the total project costs of each local 
     cooperation agreement entered into under this section shall 
     be 75 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and 
     relocations.--In determining the non-Federal contribution 
     toward carrying out a local cooperation agreement entered 
     into under this section, the Secretary shall provide credit 
     to a non-Federal interest for the value of lands, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Federal 
     interest, except that the amount of credit provided for a 
     project under this paragraph may not exceed 25 percent of 
     total project costs.
       (B) Operation and maintenance costs.--The non-Federal share 
     of the costs of operation and maintenance of carrying out the 
     agreement under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (e) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws and 
     Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this section waives, limits, or 
     otherwise affects the applicability of any provision of 
     Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project 
     carried out with assistance provided under this section.
       (2) Cooperation.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall cooperate fully with the heads of appropriate 
     Federal agencies, including--
       (A) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (B) the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration;
       (C) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
       (D) the heads of such other Federal agencies and 
     departments and agencies of a State or political subdivision 
     of a State as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (f) Demonstration Project.--The Secretary shall establish 
     at least 1 project under this section in each of the States 
     of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. A project 
     established under this section shall be carried out using 
     such measures as are necessary to protect environmental, 
     historic, and cultural resources.
       (g) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the program carried out under this section, together with 
     a recommendation concerning whether or not the program should 
     be implemented on a national basis.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1995, to remain available until expended.
                                  ____



                                    Chesapeake Bay Commission,

                                    Annapolis, MD, April 11, 1994.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     309 Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: It is my understanding that you will 
     soon be introducing a bill that expands the authority of the 
     Army Corps of Engineers to put clean dredge material to 
     beneficial use. The legislation also provides for enhanced 
     Corps activities related to habitat restoration and fish 
     passage. The Chesapeake Bay Commission strongly endorses this 
     proposal.
       The Commission is a tri-state legislative authority 
     composed of members from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. 
     As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreements, the 
     Commission serves as the legislative arm of the Bay 
     restoration effort. Federal partnerships have always been 
     viewed by the Commission as pivotal to the cleanup campaign.
       We believe that enhanced Corps involvement will serve as a 
     catalyst for activity throughout the region. It will also 
     help to leverage additional dollars from state, local and 
     private sources for beneficial use of dredged material, 
     wetlands creation and the provision of fish passage.
       The Commission is a strong supporter of beneficial use of 
     dredged materials and has worked hard to provide fish passage 
     within the watershed. I have enclosed several resolutions 
     which speak to this commitment.
       We are encouraged by your shared dedication to these issues 
     and offer our assistance to you as you shepherd this 
     legislation through the Congress. Thank you for your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                               Ann Pesiri Swanson,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                    Chesapeake Bay Foundation,

                                    Annapolis, MD, April 13, 1994.
     Paul S. Sarbanes,
     309 Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to enthusiastically 
     support your proposal for a pilot program for watershed 
     restoration programs in the Bay. As you know, I have long 
     maintained that we cannot be satisfied with merely stopping 
     the decline of the Chesapeake Bay--Saving the Bay means 
     restoring its health and productivity. The expertise and 
     capability of the Army Corps of Engineers is an essential 
     component of that effort.
       There is certainly no lack of need for the types of 
     projects described here--oyster reef construction and 
     wetlands restoration are two that immediately spring to mind. 
     I am sure there will be no difficulty in identifying worthy 
     projects that far outstrip the available funding. I also 
     believe that the success of this effort will provide the kind 
     of national demonstration for which the Chesapeake Bay 
     Program has become justly famous.
       In short, this is precisely the kind of program we have 
     been advocating for some time, and we look forward to working 
     with you and the Corps to implement it. Thank you again for 
     all of your efforts on behalf of the Bay.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 William C. Baker,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                               Maryland Department


                                            of Transportation,

                                                   April 14, 1994.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     309 Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I was pleased to learn you will 
     introduce a bill authorizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
     to participate in a $30 million pilot program to design and 
     construct environmental and resource protection projects in 
     the Chesapeake Bay.
       Your legislation will not only have a positive impact on 
     the environment of the Bay, but will also be of assistance to 
     Maryland in its effort to maintain the competitive position 
     of the Port of Baltimore.
       We have seen a turnaround in the health of the Port of 
     Baltimore in the last two years. While we expect continued 
     growth in cargo and jobs, we are concerned about the ability 
     to adequately and economically maintain channels leading to 
     the port. Each year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers needs 
     to dredge approximately 3.5 million cubic yards of clean, 
     environmentally safe material from shipping channels in the 
     Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay--just to maintain 
     these channels at their authorized depths. It is becoming 
     increasingly difficult to locate sites where dredged material 
     can be placed in an environmentally sensitive manner. Clearly 
     we must do this--otherwise the competitive position of the 
     Port of Baltimore would be adversely affected.
       The State of Maryland, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
     and other parties concerned with the Chesapeake Bay are 
     working to devise a master plan for dredge disposal which 
     combined ``beneficial use projects''--those that actually 
     enhance the bay environment--with more conventional disposal 
     techniques. The bill that you plan to introduce will greatly 
     assist us in this effort.
       Increased federal participation in environmental 
     restoration projects in the Chesapeake Bay will improve both 
     the environment and the economic health of the Port of 
     Baltimore. This is one partnership that is needed in 
     Maryland. Your legislation allowing the federal government to 
     participate in this partnership is greatly welcomed. My 
     Department is ready to assist you as this legislation moves 
     through Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                              O. James Lighthizer,
                                                        Secretary.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor to 
express my strong support for the Chesapeake Bay environmental 
restoration and protection bill introduced by Senator Sarbanes.
  This bill expands the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
to assist in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. It establishes a 
pilot program for the corps to assist in the design and construction of 
water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and 
development projects.
  I have consistently fought for the future of the bay, supporting 
projects as diverse as erosion control structures at Eastern Neck 
National Wildlife Refuge, oyster reseeding programs, and funding of 
improvements to the Back River sewage treatment plant.
  This bill represents an important step in my fight for continued 
protection and restoration of the bay. This bill will allow beneficial 
uses of dredge materials, protect eroding shorelines, and restore 
wetlands habitats.
  Under this legislation, dredge materials could be used for creative 
solutions to shoreline erosion and the resulting water quality 
degradation. By using clean dredge material to rebuild and protect 
eroding islands, the sediment dumped in the bay would be significantly 
reduced. Less sediment means improved water quality and a healthier 
bay. Clean dredge material could also be used to rebuild lost wetlands. 
Wetlands are a vital link in the bay's ecosystem. They provide 
essential habitat for waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife.
  The corps is an important part of the Federal team that works to 
protect and restore the bay. It is therefore appropriate for the corps 
to be allowed to use clean dredged material to improve and restore the 
bay's environment. It is a natural extension of the corps' current 
authority.
  Unfortunately however, the corps is limited in the extent to which it 
can participate in such projects. This legislation would reduce the 
barriers and allow the corps to play a more active and positive role in 
the bay program. It would remove the disincentives that now stop the 
corps from using clean dredged materials for environmental restoration. 
The Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation both 
strongly support this bill.
  I thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, for his vision 
and leadership on this issue, and I urge all my colleagues in the 
Senate to support this important effort.
                                 ______

      By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
        Metzenbaum) (by request):
  S. 2021. A bill to clarify the statute of limitations for actions 
brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Resolution 
Trust Corporation as conservator or receiver; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


    Bank and Thrift Statute of Limitations Clarification Act of 1994

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators D'Amato, 
Kerry, and Metzenbaum, to introduce by request of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation a bill titled the ``Bank and Thrift Statute of 
Limitations Clarification Act of 1994.'' The bill is the FDIC's 
proposal to clarify the statute of limitations for actions brought by 
the FDIC and the RTC as conservator or receiver. The FDIC estimates 
that over $500 million in claims in pending lawsuits involving FDIC and 
old FSLIC receiverships, and millions more for claims still under 
investigation, are at risk for dismissal on statute of limitations 
grounds if the provisions contained in this bill are not enacted into 
law. The FDIC further indicates that claims of the same general order 
of magnitude involving RTC receiverships are similarly at risk.
  The FDIC informs me that this legislation is necessary to correct 
certain court decisions that have interpreted the statute of 
limitations provisions contained in FIRREA in a manner contrary to the 
expressed congressional intent regarding those provisions. This 
legislation would clarify the statute of limitation provisions 
originally passed in 1989. The FDIC advises that this legislation is 
critical to allowing them and the RTC to fulfill their missions to hold 
wrongdoers accountable and to recover losses for the insurance funds 
and the taxpayers.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Acting FDIC Chairman 
Andrew Hove asking me to introduce the bill on behalf of the FDIC, a 
copy of the bill, and explanatory materials be reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2021

       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 ``Bank and Thrift Statute of 
     Limitations Clarification Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT.

       Section 11(d)(14)(B)(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(14)(B)(i)) is amended by inserting 
     after ``receiver'' the following: ``, regardless of whether 
     the claim may have been barred under any otherwise applicable 
     statute of limitation at the date of such appointment, unless 
     such claim was barred more than 5 years before the date of 
     such appointment''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

       The provisions of this Act shall apply to all actions 
     pending or brought by the Corporation as conservator or 
     receiver on or after August 9, 1989.
                                  ____

                                                   Federal Deposit


                                        Insurance Corporation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 1994.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to bring to your attention 
     concerns that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has 
     with respect to recent court decisions interpreting the 
     statute of limitations governing actions brought by the FDIC 
     and the Resolution Trust Corporation as receiver or 
     conservator of failed institutions.
       The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 
     Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) provides that the statute of 
     limitations for tort claims brought by the FDIC and the RTC 
     as conservator or receiver is the longer of three years or 
     the period applicable under state law. FIRREA also clearly 
     states that the date on which the statute of limitations 
     begins to run is the later of the date of the appointment of 
     the Corporation as conservator or receiver or the date on 
     which the cause of action accrues. Nevertheless, the courts 
     have added the further requirement that the claim must not be 
     barred under state law at the time the FDIC takes over.
       As described in the enclosed analysis of the issue, we 
     believe the courts have incorrectly applied the statute of 
     limitations that was established under FIRREA. Also enclosed 
     is legislation intended to clarify FIRREA with respect to 
     this issue. How the statute of limitations is computed is 
     critical to the FDIC's mission to hold bank and tariff 
     officials and professionals accountable and to maximize 
     recoveries from failed institutions. We estimate that over 
     $500 million in claims in pending lawsuits involving FDIC and 
     old FSLIC receiverships, and millions more for claims still 
     under investigation, are at risk for dismissal on statute of 
     limitations grounds if the proposed legislation is not 
     enacted. We understand that claims of the same general order 
     of magnitude involving RTC receiverships are similarly at 
     risk.
       I urge you to introduce the proposed legislation and to 
     promote its passage. Legislation to clarify the statute of 
     limitations is critical to allowing the FDIC and the RTC to 
     fulfill their missions to hold wrongdoers accountable and to 
     recover losses for the insurance funds and the taxpayers. 
     Without such legislation, more and more RTC and FDIC 
     professional liability cases will continue to be dismissed on 
     the ``technicality'' of the statute of limitation having run 
     before the institution failed. Such legislation is important 
     not only to maximize recoveries involving institutions that 
     failed in the past but also to ensure the orderly resolution 
     of institutions that may fail in the future.
       Please let me know if you have any questions or need 
     assistance with respect to our proposal.
           Sincerely,
                                              Andrew C. Hove, Jr.,
                                                  Acting Chairman.
                                  ____


       Explanation of Need to Clarify the Statute of Limitations

                              Recent Cases

       Courts recently have dismissed a number of FDIC 
     professional liability lawsuits as time-barred. In those 
     cases, the FDIC has sued former officers and directors and 
     professional advisors for negligence, gross negligence or 
     breach of fiduciary duty, for loans that were approved 
     several years before the bank failed and that subsequently 
     defaulted. These loans generally contained serious defects in 
     underwriting, lacking the most basic requirements to protect 
     the bank's interest, such as adequate collateral or adequate 
     financial information indicating that the borrower had the 
     means to repay the loan. In other cases, loans violated 
     specific laws or regulations, such as limits to a single 
     borrower.
       Despite the clear misconduct involved in approving such 
     loans, courts have dismissed lawsuits against the responsible 
     bank officials because the claims for the bad loans, which 
     were approved and funded several years before the bank 
     failed, were deemed to have accrued and expired under state 
     statute of limitations before the FDIC was appointed 
     receiver. Thus, although such flagrantly irresponsible loan 
     decisions may have been the major cause of the bank's 
     failure, the FDIC has been prevented from seeking recoveries 
     from those who made such damaging decisions.
       Until recently, the FDIC and the RTC have had some success 
     in invoking the doctrine of adverse domination to toll the 
     statute of limitations and proceed with lawsuits against 
     responsible officers and directors. See, e.g., FDIC v. Bryan, 
     902 F.2d 1520 (10th Cir. 1990) (copy attached). That doctrine 
     recognizes that the members of the board of directors cannot 
     be expected to sue themselves while they continue to control 
     the board, and thus the statute of limitations is tolled 
     while those members remain in control.
       In the past year, however, several courts have, for various 
     reasons, refused to apply the doctrine of adverse domination, 
     at least as established under federal law, to toll the 
     limitations period. The leading case is FDIC v. Dawson, 4 
     F.3d 1303 (5th Cir. 1993), petition for cert. filed, 62 
     U.S.L.W. ---- (U.S. March 21, 1994) (No. 93-1486), where the 
     Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court's decision finding the 
     FDIC's claims against three members of the Board of Directors 
     of the Texas Investment Bank were time-barred (copy 
     attached). In so finding, the court refused to apply federal 
     tolling principles and instead looked to Texas law on adverse 
     domination, which the court found to be more stringent in the 
     requirements that must be met to toll the statute. The court 
     stated that the adverse domination theory would be applied 
     only when the culpable directors constituted a majority of 
     the board and when ``wrong-doing or fraud'' were involved, 
     not negligence.
       Subsequently, a number of courts, particularly district 
     courts in the Fifth Circuit, have followed Dawson. RTC v. 
     Seale, 13 F.3d 850 (5th Cir., Jan. 26, 1994); FDIC v. Bel 
     Fay, Civil Action No. H-91-1273 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 1993); 
     RTC v. Action, Civil No. 3:92-CV-0624-H (N. D. Tex., Feb. 1, 
     1994); FDIC v. Allison, No. 6-93-CV-59C (N.D. Tex., Jan. 21, 
     1994); FDIC v. Benson, Civil Action No. H-93-640, (S.D. Tex., 
     March 3, 1994); FDIC v. Henderson, 6:91cv481, (E.D. Tex., 
     March 9, 1994). In the Bel Fay case, for example, the court 
     applied Dawson to dismiss claims against outside directors 
     for gross negligence, and total abdication of duty in 
     approving defective loans, including an insider loan to 
     another director. Further, just this month, the FDIC's case 
     against the defendant owner, CEO and president of the thrift 
     in Henderson was dismissed for not satisfying Dawson 
     requirements on the adverse domination doctrine even though a 
     federal jury had returned a verdict finding that the 
     defendant was grossly negligent and had breached his 
     fiduciary duty.
       The problem is not limited to Texas and the Fifth Circuit. 
     In FDIC v. Cocke, 7 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 1993), petition for 
     cert. filed, 62 U.S.L.W. ---- (U.S. March 21, 1994) (No. 93-
     1485), the Fourth Circuit refused to toll Virginia's one-year 
     statute of limitations and held that the FDIC's claims based 
     on bad loans were time-barred by the time the FDIC was 
     appointed receiver. Under such a short statute of 
     limitations, it is virtually impossible for the FDIC to hold 
     bank officials accountable because it normally takes at least 
     one year from approval of even patently defective loans 
     before the bank is forced to admit that the loans are in 
     default and have caused damage to the institution.


                          CONGRESSIONAL INTENT

       We believe the courts have been incorrectly applying the 
     statute of limitations that was established under FIRREA. As 
     codified at 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1821(d)(14), FIRREA provides that 
     the statute of limitations for tort claims brought by the 
     FDIC or RTC as conservator or receiver (the most common type 
     of professional liability claim) is the longer of three years 
     or the period applicable under state law. 12 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1821(d)(14)(A).
       As set forth at 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1821(d)(14)(B), FIRREA 
     clearly states that the date on which the statute of 
     limitations ``begins to run . . . shall be the later of--
       (i) the date of the appointment of the Corporation as 
     conservator or receiver; or
       (ii) the date on which the cause of action accrues.'' 
     (emphasis supplied)
       This provision is clear on its face that the statute does 
     not start to run, at a minimum, until the FDIC (or RTC) takes 
     over a bank. Nevertheless, the courts have added the 
     further requirement that the claim must not be barred 
     under state law at the time the FDIC takes over. In other 
     words, FIRREA, despite its plain language to the contrary, 
     has been interpreted not to revive claims that had expired 
     under the state statute of limitations. E.g., Randolph v. 
     RTC, 995 F.2d 611 (5th Cir. 1993); FDIC v. Shrader & York, 
     991 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1993), petition for cert. filed, 62 
     U.S.L.W. 3336 (Oct. 26, 1993).
       That this interpretation may be contrary to Congressional 
     intent, was acknowledged by the court in RTC v. Sealt, 13 F. 
     3d 850 (5th Cir., Jan. 26, 1994) (copy attached), even while 
     it rejected the RTC's claims as time-barred. As the Seale 
     court pointed out, there is evidence in the legislative 
     history that Congress intended FIRREA to revive claims that 
     would have been considered stale under state law. As Chairman 
     of the House-Senate Conference on FIRREA, Mr. Chairman, you 
     stated that the statute was intended ``to maximize potential 
     recoveries by the Federal Government by preserving to the 
     greatest extent permissible by law claims that otherwise 
     would have been lost due to the expiration of hitherto 
     applicable limitations periods.'' 135 Cong. Rec. s 10205 
     (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1989). Moreover, the House-Senate 
     Conference Committee rejected a provision stating that FIRREA 
     could not revive stale claims. See Seale, 13 F.3d 850, 853.


                          PROPOSED LEGISLATION

       Section 1 of the attached legislation makes clear that 
     FIRREA was intended to be interpreted as already written--
     that is, that the statute of limitations for the claim begins 
     to run on the date the receiver was appointed, regardless of 
     whether it was still viable under state law on that date.
       However, recognizing a need for some limit on the 
     revivability of claims (see RTC v. Krantz, 757 F. Supp. 915, 
     921 (N.D. Ill. 1991)), section 1 further provides that claims 
     may not be revived if they had expired more than five years 
     before the FDIC or RTC is appointed receiver. The five-year 
     revival period is designed to strike a balance. It recognizes 
     the reality that defective loans that contribute to bank 
     failure often are approved several years before the 
     institution actually fails and often before the relatively 
     short period (typically, only one, two or three years) under 
     state statute of limitations. At the same time, a revival 
     period of only five years promotes the public policy of a 
     reasonable limit to protect citizens from stale claims.
       A time-certain revival is preferable to federal legislation 
     codifying adverse domination because it is mechanical and 
     mathematical. It is thus less likely to spawn litigation on 
     the facts necessary to make or defeat a showing of adverse 
     domination.
       Section 2 provides that this legislation applies to all 
     cases filed or pending on or after August 9, 1989, the 
     effective date of FIRREA. Because this legislation is 
     intended to clarify and amplify Congressional intent when 
     originally passing FIRREA, we believe it should not be 
     criticized or dismissed as retroactive. Rather, it merely 
     effects the original intent of FIRREA. But even if it were 
     considered retroactive, this does not in any way raise a 
     constitutional concern. See Chase Securities Corp. v. 
     Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304 (1944).

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Riegle, Kerry, 
and Metzenbaum in introducing, by request, legislation suggested by the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation concerning the statute of 
limitations governing actions by the FDIC and the RTC against parties 
that have caused losses to closed banks and savings and loans.
  In 1989, Congress passed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery 
and Enforcement Act [FIRREA]. In this legislation, Congress provided 
that the applicable statute of limitations for either the FDIC or RTC 
would begin on the date the Government is appointed conservator or 
receiver, or the date on which the cause of action accrues, whichever 
is later.
  According to the FDIC, some courts have dismissed a number of FDIC 
and RTC suits against parties alleged to have caused losses in 
Federally-insured institutions on the ground that the applicable State 
statute of limitations had run prior to the appointment of the FDIC or 
RTC as conservator or receiver. Due to these cases, the Federal 
Government may not be able to recover from parties who may have caused 
substantial losses to the Federal deposit insurance system, and in the 
case of failed savings institutions, to the American taxpayer. In fact, 
the FDIC estimates that over $500 million in claims in pending lawsuits 
could be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, even though suit 
was brought within the applicable time limits set out in the 1989 
FIRREA legislation.
  The legislation proposed by the FDIC provides that the statute of 
limitations shall begin to run when the Government is appointed 
receiver or conservator, regardless of whether the claim may have been 
barred under State law when the institution was taken over. This 
amendment would apply to all actions pending or brought by the FDIC or 
RTC as of August 9, 1989.
  Mr. President, this legislation would clarify the 1989 legislation, 
and prevent the continued misinterpretation of a Federal statute of 
limitations provision that could cost the American taxpayer hundreds of 
millions of dollars. However, I do have some concerns about retroactive 
features of the amendment recommended by the FDIC with respect to cases 
that have already been finally decided. The FDIC has advised that it 
does not intend to use this authority retroactively, even though as 
drafted it could be. With this understanding, I am pleased to join 
Chairman Riegle in introducing this bill at the request of the FDIC. I 
hope to work with the FDIC and my colleagues in the Senate to further 
perfect this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 2022. A bill to reduce waste of fishery resources off Alaska by 
eliminating the catch of prohibited species, requiring full retention 
of economic discards and full utilization of processing waste, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


              north pacific fisheries waste reduction act

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at the close of these remarks I wish to 
introduce and have appropriately referred the North Pacific Fisheries 
Waste Reduction Act of 1994.
  The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization recently listed 12 of the 
world's 17 major fisheries as overfished or in serious trouble. 
Luckily, none of our Alaskan fisheries were on that list. My bill will 
help make sure that Alaska fisheries never get on that list.
  The bill would require the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
to adopt conservation and management measures to address the excessive 
waste of valuable fishery resources that does occur in fisheries off 
Alaska.
  Mr. President, specifically, this bill will require the elimination, 
to the extent practicable, of the incidental harvest of prohibited 
species, the full retention of economic discards and full utilization 
of processing waste, the reduction of bycatch of nontarget species, and 
rebuilding of fish stocks that are at risk of being overfished.
  As Members of the Senate know, roughly 60 percent of the fish caught 
in the U.S. waters, the waters off our continent, are caught off 
Alaska. That is true in terms of value as well as, I think, in terms of 
number.
  Now, while this bill would apply only to fisheries off Alaska, I 
believe it would address a significant portion of the United States 
fisheries where excessive discards, bycatch and waste are occurring. In 
terms of harvesting fisheries, the problem in Alaska is not necessarily 
the gear being used but the way the gear is being used. Virtually all 
the gear in use in the fisheries of the North Pacific could be used 
more cleanly.
  In 1993, some trawl fisheries discarded over half of the target 
species for economic reasons. Those fish were either too big or too 
small to be processed by the facilities on board. Some hook and line 
fisheries discarded 30 percent of the fish they caught.

  In 1993, fishermen off Alaska discarded 693 million pounds of 
groundfish, 14 million pounds of halibut, 19 million crab, and 372,000 
salmon.
  Now, I do not want to be too critical of this. I think the Senate 
knows one of my sons is the captain of a fishing vessel. There are many 
trawl, long-line, and pot fisheries off Alaska that take only a very 
minimal amount of economic discards, bycatch, or prohibited species. It 
is almost impossible to fish without catching some fish that are not 
targeted. It is the reduction in waste that is possible in all of these 
fishing practices, I think, we are after. We want to maximize the 
number of clean fishermen that we have in the waters off Alaska.
  The bill I introduce today would define ``bycatch'' ``economic 
discards,'' ``processing waste'' and ``prohibited species'' to help 
delineate between the types of waste that do occur in the North 
Pacific. By January 1, 1996, our North Pacific Council would be 
required to include fees or other incentives to reduce economic 
discards and processing waste in each fishery management plan.
  By January 1, 1998, these incentives would be required to include an 
allocation preference for cleaner fishing practices within each gear 
group. In other words, those who eliminate waste would be given a 
preference in the allocation of fishery species in the North Pacific.
  My bill would also require the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council to submit a plan to the Secretary of Commerce by January 1, 
1996, to phase in the full retention and full utilization of all 
fisheries resources except prohibited species.
  The council would also establish a cap for those prohibited species, 
and on reaching that cap a commercial fishery would be closed for that 
season.
  I wish to make sure the Senate understands that. We would set a limit 
on the incidental harvesting of species that are not targeted species 
for that fishery. If the combined fishery catches that amount of fish, 
then all commercial fishery practices in the area where the prohibited 
species exist would close.
  I was pleased that at a recent appropriations hearing Commerce 
Secretary Brown told me the administration would consider fees to 
reduce waste and bycatch as a part of the fish fee package the 
administration intends to submit this spring. I urge the Secretary to 
do that. The fishing industry is not in good shape. It really cannot 
pay $75 million a year, as the administration proposed, particularly 
when one remembers that 60 percent of those fees would be paid by 
people fishing off Alaska's shores. But if the administration proposal 
creates disincentives for wasteful practices and a way for responsible 
fishermen to avoid those fees, I believe the fishermen and Members of 
the Senate--as a matter of fact, I believe the whole Congress--would be 
willing to support such a concept.

  Both the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the fishing 
industry have been progressive in the conservation of valuable 
fisheries resources off Alaska in the past. As I said, the findings 
show that we have the healthiest area in the world for fisheries; our 
wild fisheries are the best in the world, we believe. While we 
sometimes disagree about the means, I think all involved in the Alaska 
fisheries share the goal of conserving the resources and thereby 
preserving the fabric of the Alaska economy and the Alaska coastal 
communities.
  Mr. President, the fishing industry is the major employer in my 
State. The bill I am introducing does not attempt to address the 
intricate details needed to reduce the waste in those fisheries. It 
establishes the goals and gives the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council the mandate to achieve those goals. I believe they can do it 
with the full participation of those involved in the fisheries off our 
State.
  I anticipate a healthy reaction. Perhaps some people will disagree. 
But the bill I am introducing today I believe is one that will cause 
people to think. It is my hope that this bill will be considered as an 
amendment to the Magnuson Act, and I look forward to receiving comments 
as the Congress focuses our attention this year on the reauthorization 
of that act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 2023. A bill to provide for the transfer of certain real property 
to the General Services Administration and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                     wrangell institute act of 1994

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
authorize the return of the Wrangell Institute to the General Services 
Administration [GSA].
  The Wrangell Institute was owned and operated by the Federal 
government as a Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] boarding school and 
medical facility for Indian and Eskimo children between 1932 and 1975. 
In 1977, the Department of the Interior [DOI] requested that GSA accept 
the Wrangell Institute as surplus property. DOI did not mention any 
contamination in their reports to GSA. In fact, BIA stated there was no 
contamination and no need for cleanup of the site in the statement of 
intent to relinquish the property.
  In 1977 the GSA surplused the Wrangell Institute and the property was 
obtained by Cook Inlet Region, Inc. [CIRI] in 1978 with monetary 
credits from the CIRI Property Account at the U.S. Treasury. CIRI is an 
Alaska Native Corporation. The Property Account was established by 
Congress to compensate CIRI for relinquishing their holdings in the 
Lake Clark National Park in Alaska.
  The properties that CIRI relinquished to the government were pristine 
acreage and are now part of one of the crown jewels of the National 
Park System. Unfortunately, the property that CIRI received in return 
was contaminated.
  The contamination was left by the Government. The BIA was the sole 
tenant of the property other than for a short period during World War 
II when the Army used the Wrangell Institute as a relocation center for 
Alaska Natives who were evacuated from the Aleutian Islands after the 
Japanese attack of Dutch Harbor and the Island of Attu.
  This legislation would return the property to GSA in return for the 
original monetary credits, interest on the credits for the period after 
the contamination was discovered, and expenses incurred due to the 
contamination. CIRI would be relieved of any liability associated with 
the contamination caused by the U.S. Government. This is just a matter 
of fairness. CIRI was not aware of the contamination when GSA 
transferred the property and they should not have to bear the costs of 
contamination created by the Federal Government.
  The Congressional Budget Office reviewed the bill and found it to 
have ``no net impact on the federal budget.''
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMON (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Cochran, and 
        Mr. Thurmond):
  S.J. Res. 181. A joint resolution to designate the week of May 8, 
1994, through May 14, 1994, as ``United Negro College Fund Week;'' to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     united negro college fund week

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, next month the United Negro college 
Fund [UNCF] celebrates its 50th anniversary. All of us are familiar 
with UNCF's slogan, ``A mind is a terrible thing to waste.'' And most 
of us--especially those of us who have served in the other Chamber--
know Bill Gray, UNCF's outstanding president and chief executive 
officer.
  But few of us are familiar with the history of UNCF. The organization 
was the brainchild of Dr. Frederick D. Patterson, who wrote in January, 
1943, that the Nation's private black colleges and universities need to 
``pool their small monies and make a united appeal to the national 
conscience.'' Otherwise, he argued, these schools risked their very 
existence.
  It was on May 13, 1944, that ``Dr. Pat,'' as he was affectionately 
known, formed UNCF by bringing together college, foundation, and 
business leaders, including: the presidents of private black colleges, 
including Fisk University, Howard University, Spelman College, Dillard 
University, Morehouse College, Tuskegee Institute, Clark College, 
Gammon Theological Seminary--now Interdenominational Theological 
Seminary; key philantropic leaders representing the Rockefeller 
Foundation, the Rosenwald Fund; and key business executives such as the 
head of Lord & Taylor and a representative from John Price Jones. At 
the time, Dr. Benjamin E. Mays, president emeritus of Morehouse 
College, said, ``Of course, you have in mind our doing this for two or 
three years, and then going back to what we were doing, don't you?''
  Mr. President, I give thanks that UNCF was not just a temporary 
effort. The first UNCF campaign grossed an impressive $760,000; last 
year, UNCF's annual campaign grossed more than $58 million, and more 
than $190 million was raised for Capital Campaign 2000. These efforts 
have helped support UNCF member institutions so that today they educate 
nearly 55,000 students.
  The Nation, too, should give thanks that UCNF never altered course. 
Many of our African American leaders attended UNCF member institutions: 
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Vernon Jordan, and former Atlanta 
Mayor Maynard Jackson attended Morehouse College; Andrew Young, former 
U.N. Ambassador and Atlanta Mayor, and Ellis Marsalis, jazz musician 
and instructor, attended Dillard University; Ralph Wiley, author and 
columnist, attended Knoxville College; attorney and children's advocate 
Marian Wright Edelman attended Spelman College; Larry Little, 
Temple University basketball coach and Hall of Fame Miami Dolphins 
guard, attended Bethune Cookman College; opera diva Leontyne Price 
attended Wilberforce University; our outstanding Surgeon General, Dr. 
Joycelyn M. Elders, attended Philander Smith College; Secretary of 
Energy Hazel Rollins O'Leary attended Fisk University; and former 
Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder attended Virginia Union University.

  While UNCF member institutions are not in every state, the alumni are 
nationwide. In Illinois, they are among the most prominent attorneys, 
doctors, elected officials, teachers and school administrators. Many of 
my colleagues have had graduates of UNCF member institutions serve with 
distinction on their staffs. For almost 9 years, William A. ``Bud'' 
Blakey, who attended Knoxville College, served as my subcommittee 
counsel and staff director in the House of Representatives and here in 
the Senate. Much of what I accomplished in the areas of education and 
training was achieved through his counsel and hard work.
  Mr. President, we have come a long way in achieving equal opportunity 
in higher education. But we still have many miles to go. UNCF member 
institutions are leading the way by providing a quality higher 
education for a broad cross-section of African-American students.
  I commend UNCF's fine work, and I encourage my colleagues to join me 
and Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Thurmond, and Senator Cochran in 
supporting this resolution commemorating the fiftieth anniversary.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 181

       Whereas in 1943, Dr. Frederick D. Patterson of the Tuskegee 
     Institute convened the first meeting to consider the 
     feasibility of a united appeal on behalf of historically 
     black private colleges and universities;
       Whereas on May 13, 1944, the organizing meeting of the 
     United Negro College Fund was held at the Waldorf-Astoria 
     Hotel in New York City;
       Whereas Atlanta University, Bethune-Cookman College, Clark 
     College, Dillard University, Fisk University, Gammon 
     Theological Seminary, Morehouse College, Spelman College, and 
     the Tuskegee Institute were the founding member institutions 
     of the United Negro College Fund;
       Whereas the initial combined campaign of the United Negro 
     College Fund raised $760,000;
       Whereas through the year 1993, the 41 member institutions 
     of the United Negro College Fund now enroll more than 55,000 
     students, have shared more than $58,000,000, and have raised 
     more than $889,000,000 for the 50th Annual Campaign, and more 
     than $190,000,000 for the United Negro College Fund Capital 
     Campaign 2000; and
       Whereas the United Negro College Fund continues to provide 
     students quality academic instruction in a positive learning 
     environment and assists the mission of the Federal Government 
     to promote equal opportunity in higher education: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That--
       (1) the week of May 8, 1994, through May 14, 1994, is 
     designated ``United Negro College Fund Week'', and the 
     President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
     calling upon the people of the United States to observe that 
     week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities;
       (2) Congress salutes and acknowledges the United Negro 
     College Fund, the president of the United Negro College Fund, 
     William H. Gray, III, and the presidents, faculties, staff, 
     and trustees of the 41 member institutions of the United 
     Negro College Fund for their vigorous and persistent efforts 
     in support of equal opportunity in higher education, and 
     commends the students who benefit from the United Negro 
     College Fund for their pursuit of academic excellence; and
       (3) this joint resolution may be cited as the ``United 
     Negro College Fund 50th Anniversary Resolution''.

                          ____________________