[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 34 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3052-S3064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. 
        Heflin):
  S. 464. A bill to make the reporting deadlines for studies conducted 
in Federal court demonstration districts consistent with the deadlines 
for pilot districts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


           THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that 
would work a purely technical correction to extend the time period for 
a study currently being conducted in certain Federal courts.
  The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 set up two programs to study 
various innovative programs in court management. One program involves 
so-called pilot courts, and the other involves what are referred to as 
demonstration districts. Those court programs were originally 
established for a 3-year period, with the studies to be conducted over 
a 4-year period and the resulting reports transmitted to Congress by 
December 31, 1995. The Rand Corp. has been carrying out the study of 
the pilot courts, while the Federal Judicial Center is conducting the 
study of the demonstration districts.
  Last year, the pilot court programs were extended for an additional 
year, and the Rand Corp. received a 1-year extension for its study of 
those courts. That extension was included in the Judicial Amendments 
Act of 1994. 
[[Page S3053]]  Through an oversight, however, no extension was 
included for the demonstration districts.
  The legislation I am introducing would grant precisely the same 1-
year extension for the demonstration districts as was granted for the 
pilot courts. That will make the two programs and their studies 
consistent so that the final reports can be directly compared. That was 
precisely the intent behind the identical deadlines that were 
established when the two study programs were set up. This legislation 
will restore that end. Also, the extension of the deadline will improve 
the study, since more cases will be complete and included in the study. 
Improving the reliability and consistency of the resulting reports can 
only help us improve the efficiency of our courts.
  Finally, this 1-year extension will entail no additional costs since 
the demonstration districts are planning to continue the programs under 
study in any event. The extension of the deadline will not affect the 
budget or personnel of any Federal entity.
  I also note that this purely technical bill has bipartisan support: 
Senators Biden, Grassley, and Heflin are original cosponsors.
  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. 464

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY 
                   REDUCTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 104 of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (28 
     U.S.C. 471 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``4-year period'' and 
     inserting ``5-year period''; and
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``December 31, 1995,'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 1996,''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 465. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide 
congressional authorization for restrictions on receipt of out-of-State 
municipal solid waste and for State control over transportation of 
municipal solid waste, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                the interstate waste control act of 1995

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State and Local 
Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1995. This bill will give 
our cities and States the authority they need to restrict imports of 
trash coming from other States.


                          commerce in garbage

  Not many people think of garbage as a commodity like other products 
that flow in interstate commerce but it is.
  Every year, the United States produces more than 200 million tons of 
municipal waste. Seven percent of this garbage--1 ton in 14--is sent to 
a landfill or incinerator in another State.
  Nearly every State is a seller or buyer in the municipal waste 
market. Forty-seven States export some garbage, and 44 import some 
garbage.
  When you think about it, trading garbage makes sense, especially for 
border towns. In Montana, for example, two towns have made arrangements 
to share landfills with western North Dakota towns. And some trash, 
from the Wyoming areas of Yellowstone Park, is disposed of in Montana.
  These arrangements save money for the communities involved. And 
shared regional landfills can be a policy that makes sense.


                         decide our own destiny

  But it only makes sense when everyone involved agrees to it. Nobody 
should have barrels of garbage emptied over their heads. And it is a 
nasty fact that some people see big thinly populated States like 
Montana as potential trash cans.
  The people of Montana, or any other State, should not be forced to 
take trash they do not want. The citizens of Miles City, for example, 
have been fighting to stop a proposed mega-landfill from taking out-of-
State waste.
  This idea would have brought entire coal trains full of garbage to 
dump on a small prairie town. These trains average 110 cars each. One 
hundred and ten open-roofed coal cars full of trash. Like prairie 
garbage schooners. It is an outrage.
  Miles City, like all cities, should be able to decide whether it 
wants these trains. We should be able to control our own destiny. And 
we want the right to say ``no.''
  If we see landfill sharing as appropriate for our needs, fine. But we 
ought to be able to reject these arrangements when we don't like them. 
As Deborah Hanson of the Custer Resource Alliance put it a couple of 
years ago, ``we want to guarantee that Montana will not become a 
dumping ground.''
  It's that simple, Mr. President. No city or State should become a 
dumping ground simply because an exporting community does not have the 
will to take care of its own garbage.
  Today, however, we do not have that power. Neither local communities, 
nor Governor Racicot, nor the legislature can reject unwanted garbage 
imports. The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down State laws aimed 
at restricting out-of-State garbage, because these laws violate the 
Constitution's interstate commerce protections. And that must change.


                       the interstate waste bill

  Mr. President, we have been working on this issue for 6 years. We 
have explored all options in an effort to find a workable solution.
  We have held hearings and debated the issues. The Senate passed 
interstate waste bills in the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, and 
again last Congress. It is time to put this issue behind us.
  If we build on the progress we made last year, we can pass a bill 
that becomes law. I believe that this bill strikes the right compromise 
to do just that. It is largely the same bill that the Senate and the 
House came close to agreeing on last year. We came within a 
fingernail's width of agreement last year, and it is time to finish the 
job.
  The bill resolves a problem that our States cannot solve without 
congressional action.


                           striking a balance

  And it strikes a balance that will work for every community, in every 
State. It has four major points:
  First, it allows every Governor to freeze future imports of garbage 
at the amount his or her State received in 1993.
  Second, it bans any new imports of municipal waste unless the 
community receiving the garbage specifically wants it.
  Third, it requires large exporting States to reduce their future 
exports. This will encourage recycling and other efforts to cut the 
amount of garbage we produce.
  And fourth, to ensure that no State becomes a dumping ground for any 
other State, the bill authorizes a Governor to limit imports from any 
single State.
  Thus, this bill empowers States and communities. It lets them decide 
whether they want more out-of-State garbage. If the community wants new 
imports, it can enter a host community agreement subject to the 
approval of the Governor. The decision is up to the people at home.
  In summary, Mr. President, this bill will give States the power to 
restrict trash imports. It will require exporting States to reduce 
their exports. And it will do all this without disrupting beneficial 
existing arrangements or creating incentives for illegal disposal.
  Finally, and most important, it will give people in rural towns some 
say in their own lives and communities. Some control over their 
destiny.
  It will mean more decisions by ordinary middle-class people, and 
fewer decisions by big Government and big business. And that is what 
the people want.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
along with a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 465

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

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Government 
     Interstate Waste Control Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 102. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL 
                   SOLID WASTE.

       Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 
     et seq.) is amended by adding after section 4010 the 
     following new section:
     [[Page S3054]] ``SEC. 4011. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND 
                   DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

       ``(a) Restriction on Receipt of Out-Of-State Waste.--
       ``(1) In general.--(A) Except as provided in subsections 
     (c), (e), and (h), effective January 1, 1996, a landfill or 
     incinerator in a State may not receive for disposal or 
     incineration any out-of-State municipal solid waste unless 
     the owner or operator of such landfill or incinerator obtains 
     explicit authorization (as part of a host community 
     agreement) from the affected local government to receive the 
     waste.
       ``(B) An authorization granted after enactment of this 
     section pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) be granted by formal action at a meeting;
       ``(ii) be recorded in writing in the official record of the 
     meeting; and
       ``(iii) remain in effect according to its terms.
       ``(C) An authorization granted pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
     may specify terms and conditions, including an amount of out-
     of-State waste that an owner or operator may receive and the 
     duration of the authorization.
       ``(D) Promptly, but not later than 90 days after such an 
     authorization is granted, the affected local government shall 
     notify the Governor, contiguous local governments, and any 
     contiguous Indian tribes of an authorization granted under 
     this subsection.
       ``(2) Information.--Prior to seeking an authorization to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste pursuant to this 
     subsection, the owner or operator of the facility seeking 
     such authorization shall provide (and make readily available 
     to the Governor, each contiguous local government and Indian 
     tribe, and any other interested person for inspection and 
     copying) the following information:
       ``(A) A brief description of the facility, including, with 
     respect to both the facility and any planned expansion of the 
     facility, the size, ultimate waste capacity, and the 
     anticipated monthly and yearly quantities (expressed in terms 
     of volume) of waste to be handled.
       ``(B) A map of the facility site indicating location in 
     relation to the local road system and topography and 
     hydrogeological features. The map shall indicate any buffer 
     zones to be acquired by the owner or operator as well as all 
     facility units.
       ``(C) A description of the then current environmental 
     characteristics of the site, a description of ground water 
     use in the area (including identification of private wells 
     and public drinking water sources), and a discussion of 
     alterations that may be necessitated by, or occur as a result 
     of, the facility.
       ``(D) A description of environmental controls typically 
     required to be used on the site (pursuant to permit 
     requirements), including run on or run off management (or 
     both), air pollution control devices, source separation 
     procedures (if any), methane monitoring and control, landfill 
     covers, liners or leachate collection systems, and monitoring 
     programs. In addition, the description shall include a 
     description of any waste residuals generated by the facility, 
     including leachate or ash, and the planned management of the 
     residuals.
       ``(E) A description of site access controls to be employed, 
     and roadway improvements to be made, by the owner or 
     operator, and an estimate of the timing and extent of 
     increased local truck traffic.
       ``(F) A list of all required Federal, State, and local 
     permits.
       ``(G) Estimates of the personnel requirements of the 
     facility, including information regarding the probable skill 
     and education levels required for jobs at the facility. To 
     the extent practicable, the information shall distinguish 
     between employment statistics for preoperational and 
     postoperational levels.
       ``(H) Any information that is required by State or Federal 
     law to be provided with respect to any violations of 
     environmental laws (including regulations) by the owner, the 
     operator, and any subsidiary of the owner or operator, the 
     disposition of enforcement proceedings taken with respect to 
     the violations, and corrective action and rehabilitation 
     measures taken as a result of the proceedings.
       ``(I) Any information that is required by State or Federal 
     law to be provided with respect to gifts and contributions 
     made by the owner or operator.
       ``(J) Any information that is required by State or Federal 
     law to be provided with respect to compliance by the owner or 
     operator with the State solid waste management plan.
       ``(3) Notification.--Prior to taking formal action with 
     respect to granting authorization to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste pursuant to this subsection, an 
     affected local government shall--
       ``(A) notify the Governor, contiguous local governments, 
     and any contiguous Indian tribes;
       ``(B) publish notice of the action in a newspaper of 
     general circulation at least 30 days before holding a hearing 
     and again at least 15 days before holding the hearing, except 
     where State law provides for an alternate form of public 
     notification; and
       ``(C) provide an opportunity for public comment in 
     accordance with State law, including at least 1 public 
     hearing.
       ``(b) Annual State Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Within 90 days after enactment of this 
     section and on April 1 of each year thereafter the owner or 
     operator of each landfill or incinerator receiving out-of-
     State municipal solid waste shall submit to the affected 
     local government and to the Governor of the State in which 
     the landfill or incinerator is located information specifying 
     the amount and State of origin of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received for disposal during the preceding 
     calendar year. Within 120 days after enactment of this 
     section and on July 1 of each year thereafter each such State 
     shall publish and make available to the Administrator, the 
     governor of the State of origin and the public a report 
     containing information on the amount of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste received for disposal in the State 
     during the preceding calendar year.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each submission referred to in this 
     subsection shall be such as would result in criminal 
     penalties in case of false or misleading information. Such 
     submission shall include the amount of waste received, the 
     State of origin, the identity of the generator, the date of 
     shipment, and the type, of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste.
       ``(3) List.--The Administrator shall publish a list of 
     States that the Administrator has determined have exported 
     out of State in any of the following calendar years an amount 
     of municipal solid waste in excess of--
       ``(A) 3.5 million tons in 1996;
       ``(B) 3.0 million tons in 1997;
       ``(C) 3.0 million tons in 1998;
       ``(D) 2.5 million tons in 1999;
       ``(E) 2.5 million tons in 2000;
       ``(F) 1.5 million tons in 2001;
       ``(G) 1.0 million tons in 2002;
       ``(I) 1.0 million tons in 2003; and
       ``(J) 1.0 million tons in each calendar year after 2003.

     The list for any calendar year shall be published by June 1 
     of the following calendar year.
       ``(4) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to preempt any State requirement that requires 
     more frequent reporting of information.
       ``(c) Freeze.--
       ``(1) Annual amount.--(A) Beginning January 1, 1996, except 
     as provided in paragraph (2) and unless it would result in a 
     violation of, or be inconsistent with, a host community 
     agreement or permit specifically authorizing the owner or 
     operator of a landfill or incinerator to accept out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste at such landfill or incinerator, and 
     notwithstanding the absence of a request in writing by the 
     affected local government, a Governor, in accordance with 
     paragraph (3), may limit the quantity of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste received for disposal at each landfill 
     or incinerator covered by the exceptions provided in 
     subsection (e) that is subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Governor, to an annual amount equal to the quantity of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal at such 
     landfill or incinerator during calendar year 1993.
       ``(B) At the request of an affected local government that 
     has not executed a host community agreement, the Governor may 
     limit the amount of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received annually for disposal at the landfill or incinerator 
     concerned to the amount described in subparagraph (A). No 
     such limit may conflict with provisions of a permit 
     specifically authorizing the owner or operator to accept, at 
     the facility, out-of-State municipal solid waste.
       ``(C) A limit or prohibition under this section shall be 
     treated as conflicting and inconsistent with a permit or host 
     community agreement if--
       ``(i) the permit or host community agreement establishes a 
     higher limit; or
       ``(ii) the permit or host community agreement does not 
     establish any limit.
       ``(2) Limitation on governor's authority.--A Governor may 
     not exercise the authority granted under this subsection in a 
     manner that would require any owner or operator of a landfill 
     or incinerator covered by the exceptions provided in 
     subsection (e) to reduce the amount of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received from any State for disposal at such 
     landfill or incinerator to an annual quantity less than the 
     amount received from such State for disposal at such landfill 
     or incinerator during calendar year 1993.
       ``(3) Uniformity.--Any limitation imposed by a Governor 
     under paragraph (1)(A)--
       ``(A) shall be applicable throughout the State;
       ``(B) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any particular landfill or incinerator within the State; and
       ``(C) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any shipments of out-of-State municipal solid waste on the 
     basis of place of origin.
       ``(d) Ratchet.--
       ``(1) In general.--Unless it would result in a violation 
     of, or be inconsistent with, a host community agreement or 
     permit specifically authorizing the owner or operator of a 
     landfill or incinerator to accept out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste at such landfill or incinerator, immediately upon 
     the date of publication of the list required under subsection 
     (b)(3), and notwithstanding the absence of a request in 
     writing by the affected local government, a Governor, in 
     accordance with paragraph (4), may prohibit the disposal of 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste, at any landfill or 
     incinerator covered by the exceptions in subsection (e) that 
     is subject to the jurisdiction of the Governor, generated in 
     any State that is determined by the Administrator under 
     subsection (b)(3) as having exported, to landfills or 
     incinerators not covered by host community agreements or 
     permits, in any of the following calendar years 
     [[Page S3055]]  an amount of municipal solid waste in excess 
     of the following:
       ``(A) 3.5 million tons in 1996.
       ``(B) 3.0 million tons in 1997.
       ``(C) 3.0 million tons in 1998.
       ``(D) 2.5 million tons in 1999.
       ``(E) 2.5 million tons in 2000.
       ``(F) 1.5 million tons in 2001.
       ``(G) 1.5 million tons in 2002.
       ``(H) 1.0 million tons in 2003.
       ``(I) 1.0 million tons in each calendar year after 2003.
       ``(2) Additional export limits.--
       ``(A) Prohibition.--No State may export to any one State 
     more than the following amounts of municipal solid waste in 
     any of the following calendar years:
       ``(i) 1.4 million tons, or 90 percent of the 1993 levels 
     exported to the State, whichever is greater, in 1996;
       ``(ii) 1.3 million tons, or 90 percent of the 1996 levels 
     exported to the State, whichever is greater, in 1997;
       ``(iii) 1.2 million tons, or 90 percent of the 1997 levels 
     exported to a State, whichever is greater, in 1998;
       ``(iv) 1.1 million tons, or 90 percent of the 1998 levels 
     exported to a State, whichever is greater, in 1999;
       ``(v) 1 million tons in 2000;
       ``(vi) 800,000 tons in 2001;
       ``(vii) 600,000 tons in 2002; or
       ``(ix) 600,000 tons in any year after 2002,

     to landfills or incinerators not covered by host community 
     agreements or permits authorizing receipt of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste.
       ``(B) Action by governor.--The Governor of an importing 
     State may restrict levels of imports of municipal solid waste 
     into that State to reflect the levels specified in 
     subparagraph (A) if--
       ``(i) the Governor of the importing State has notified the 
     Governor of the exporting State and the Administrator 12 
     months prior to enforcement of the importing State's 
     intention to impose the requirements of this section;
       ``(ii) the Governor of the importing State has notified the 
     Governor of the exporting State and the Administrator of the 
     violation by the exporting State of this section at least 90 
     days prior to the enforcement of this section; and
       ``(iii) the restrictions imposed by the Governor of the 
     importing State are uniform at all facilities within the 
     State receiving municipal solid waste from the exporting 
     State.
       ``(3) Duration.--The authority provided by paragraph (1) or 
     (2) or both shall apply for as long as a State exceeds the 
     levels allowable under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may 
     be.
       ``(4) Uniformity.--Any restriction imposed by a State under 
     paragraph (1) or (2)--
       ``(A) shall be applicable throughout the State;
       ``(B) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any particular landfill or incinerator within the State; and
       ``(C) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any shipments of out-of-State municipal solid waste on the 
     basis of State of origin, in the case of States in violation 
     of paragraph (1) or (2).
       ``(e) Authorization Not Required for Certain Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The prohibition on the disposal of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to landfills and incinerators that--
       ``(A) were in operation on the date of enactment of this 
     section and received during calendar year 1993 documented 
     shipments of out-of-State municipal solid waste, or
       ``(B) before the date of enactment of this section, the 
     owner or operator entered into a host community agreement or 
     received a permit specifically authorizing the owner or 
     operator to accept at the landfill or incinerator municipal 
     solid waste generated outside the State in which it is or 
     will be located.
       ``(2) Availability of documentation.--The owner or operator 
     of a landfill or incinerator that is exempt under paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection from the requirements of subsection 
     (a) shall provide to the State and affected local government, 
     and make available for inspection by the public in the 
     affected local community, a copy of the host community 
     agreement or permit referenced in paragraph (1). The owner or 
     operator may omit from such copy or other documentation any 
     proprietary information, but shall ensure that at least the 
     following information is apparent: the volume of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste received, the place of origin of the 
     waste, and the duration of any relevant contract.
       ``(3) Denied or revoked permits.--A landfill or incinerator 
     may not receive for disposal or incineration out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste in the absence of a host community 
     agreement if the operating permit or license for the landfill 
     or incinerator (or renewal thereof) was denied or revoked by 
     the appropriate State agency before the date of enactment of 
     this section unless such permit or license (or renewal) has 
     been reinstated as of such date of enactment.
       ``(4) Waste within bi-state metropolitan statistical 
     areas.--The owner or operator of a landfill or incinerator in 
     a State may receive out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     without obtaining authorization under subsection (a) from the 
     affected local government if the out-of-State waste is 
     generated within, and the landfill or incinerator is located 
     within, the same bi-State level A metropolitan statistical 
     area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and 
     as listed by the Office of Management and Budget as of the 
     date of enactment of this section) that contains two 
     contiguous major cities each of which is in a different 
     State.
       ``(f) Needs Determination.--Any comprehensive solid waste 
     management plan adopted by an affected local government 
     pursuant to Federal or State law may take into account local 
     and regional needs for solid waste disposal capacity. Any 
     implementation of such plan through the State permitting 
     process may take into account local and regional needs for 
     solid waste disposal capacity only in a manner that is not 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this section. Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to prohibit or preclude 
     any State government or solid waste management district, as 
     defined under State law, from requiring any affected local 
     government to site, construct, expand, or require the 
     installation of environmental equipment at, any solid waste 
     facility.
       ``(g) Implementation and Enforcement.--Any State may adopt 
     such laws and regulations, not inconsistent with this 
     section, as are necessary to implement and enforce this 
     section, including provisions for penalties.
       ``(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted or construed to have any effect on State law 
     relating to contracts or to authorize or result in the 
     violation or failure to perform the terms of a written, 
     legally binding contract entered into before enactment of 
     this section during the life of the contract as determined 
     under State law.
       ``(i) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Affected local government.--(A) For any landfill or 
     incinerator, the term `affected local government' means--
       ``(i) the public body authorized by State law to plan for 
     the management of municipal solid waste, a majority of the 
     members of which are elected officials, for the area in which 
     the landfill or incinerator is located or proposed to be 
     located; or
       ``(ii) if there is no such body created by State law--
       ``(I) the elected officials of the city, town, township, 
     borough, county, or parish selected by the Governor and 
     exercising primary responsibility over municipal solid waste 
     management or the use of land in the jurisdiction in which 
     the facility is located or is proposed to be located; or
       ``(II) if a Governor fails to make a selection under 
     subclause (I), and publish a notice regarding the selection, 
     within 90 days after the date of enactment of this section, 
     the elected officials of the city, town, township, borough, 
     county, parish, or other public body created pursuant to 
     State law with primary jurisdiction over the land or the use 
     of land on which the facility is located or is proposed to be 
     located.

     The Governor shall publish a notice regarding the selection 
     described in clause (ii).
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for purposes of 
     host community agreements entered into before the date of 
     enactment of this section (or before the date of publication 
     of notice, in the case of subparagraph (A)(ii)), the term 
     shall mean either the public body described in clause (i) or 
     the elected officials of the city, town, township, borough, 
     county, or parish exercising primary responsibility for 
     municipal solid waste management or the use of land on which 
     the facility is located or proposed to be located.
       ``(C) Two or more Governors of adjoining States may use the 
     authority provided in section 1005(b) to enter into an 
     agreement under which contiguous units of local government 
     located in each of the adjoining States may act jointly as 
     the affected local government for purposes of providing 
     authorization under subsection (a) for municipal solid waste 
     generated in one of the jurisdictions described in 
     subparagraph (A) and received for disposal or incineration in 
     another.
       ``(2) Host community agreement.--The term `host community 
     agreement' means a written, legally binding document or 
     documents executed by duly authorized officials of the 
     affected local government that specifically authorizes a 
     landfill or incinerator to receive municipal solid waste 
     generated out-of-State, but does not include any agreement to 
     pay host community fees for receipt of waste unless 
     additional express authorization to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste is also included.
       ``(3) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal solid 
     waste' means refuse (and refuse-derived fuel) generated by 
     the general public, from a residential source, or from a 
     commercial, institutional, or industrial source (or any 
     combination thereof) to the extent such waste is essentially 
     the same as waste normally generated by households or was 
     collected and disposed of with other municipal solid waste as 
     part of normal municipal solid waste collection services, and 
     regardless of when generated, would be considered 
     conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste under 
     section 3001(d), such as paper, food, wood, yard wastes, 
     plastics, leather, rubber, appliances, or other combustible 
     or noncombustible materials such as metal or glass (or any 
     combination thereof). The term `municipal solid waste' does 
     not include any of the following:
       ``(A) Any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous 
     waste under section 3001.
       ``(B) Any solid waste, including contaminated soil and 
     debris, resulting from a response action taken under section 
     104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604 or 
     9606) or a corrective action taken under this Act.
     [[Page S3056]]   ``(C) Recyclable materials that have been 
     separated, at the source of the waste, from waste otherwise 
     destined for disposal or that have been managed separately 
     from waste destined for disposal.
       ``(D) Any solid waste that is--
       ``(i) generated by an industrial facility; and
       ``(ii) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage, 
     or disposal to a facility that is owned or operated by the 
     generator of the waste, or is located on property owned by 
     the generator of the waste, or is located on property owned 
     by a company with which the generator is affiliated.
       ``(E) Any solid waste generated incident to the provision 
     of service in interstate, intrastate, foreign, or overseas 
     air transportation.
       ``(F) Sewage sludge and residuals from any sewage treatment 
     plant, including any sewage treatment plant required to be 
     constructed in the State of Massachusetts pursuant to any 
     court order issued against the Massachusetts Water Resources 
     Authority.
       ``(G) Combustion ash generated by resource recovery 
     facilities or municipal incinerators, or waste from 
     manufacturing or processing (including pollution control) 
     operations not essentially the same as waste normally 
     generated by households.
       ``(H) Any medical waste that is segregated from or not 
     mixed with municipal solid waste (as otherwise defined in 
     this paragraph).
       ``(I) Any material or product returned from a dispenser or 
     distributor to the manufacturer for credit, evaluation, or 
     possible reuse.
       ``(4)  Out-of-state municipal solid waste.--The term `out-
     of-State municipal solid waste' means, with respect to any 
     State, municipal solid waste generated outside of the State. 
     Unless the President determines it is not consistent with the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement 
     on Tariffs and Trade, the term shall include municipal solid 
     waste generated outside of the United States.
       ``(5) Specifically authorized; specifically authorizes.--
     The terms `specifically authorized' and `specifically 
     authorizes' refer to an explicit authorization, contained in 
     a host community agreement or permit, to import waste from 
     outside the State. Such authorization may include a reference 
     to a fixed radius surrounding the landfill or incinerator 
     that includes an area outside the State or a reference to 
     `any place of origin', reference to specific places outside 
     the State, or use of such phrases as `regardless of origin' 
     or `outside the State'. The language for such authorization 
     may vary as long as it clearly and affirmatively states the 
     approval or consent of the affected local government or State 
     for receipt of municipal solid waste from sources or 
     locations outside the State.''.

     SEC. 103. TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.

       The table of contents in section 1001 of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by adding 
     after the item relating to section 4010 the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 4011. Interstate transportation and disposal of municipal solid 
              waste.''.
              
                                                                    ____
 Summary of State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 
                                  1995

       The State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act 
     of 1995 provides the following new legal authority to every 
     State to restrict out-of-State municipal solid waste.
       Restriction on receipt of Out-of-State MSW. Municipal solid 
     waste imports are banned unless the affected local community, 
     as defined by the Governor or State law, agrees to accept the 
     waste.
       MSW Import Freeze. A governor may unilaterally freeze out-
     of-State MSW at 1993 levels.
       MSW Export State Rachet. A governor may unilaterally ban 
     out-of-State MSW from any State exporting more than 3.5 
     million tons of MSW in 1996, 3.0 million tons in 1997 and 
     1998, 2.5 million tons of MSW in 1999 and 2000, 1.5 million 
     tons in 2001 and 2002, and 1 million tons of MSW in 2003 and 
     every year thereafter.
       MSW Import State Rachet. A Governor may unilaterally 
     restrict out-of-State MSW, imported from any one State in 
     excess of the following levels: In 1996, more than 1.4 
     million tons or 90 percent of the 1993 levels of such waste 
     exported to such State, whichever is greater; in 1997, 1.3 
     million tons or 90% of the 1996 levels of such waste exported 
     to such State, whichever is greater; in 1998, 1.2 million 
     tons of 90 percent of the 1997 levels of such waste exported 
     to such State, whichever is greater; in 1999, 1.1 million 
     tons, or 90% of the 1998 levels of such waste exported to 
     such State, whichever is greater; in 2000, 1 million tons; in 
     2001, 800,000 tons; and in 2002 and each year thereafter, 
     600,000 tons.
       International Imports. The bill also allows any Governor to 
     exercise these authorities to ban or limit MSW imported from 
     Canada (and other countries) if not inconsistent with GATT 
     and NAFTA.
       Protection of Host Community Agreements. The bill 
     explicitly prohibits a Governor from limiting or prohibiting 
     MSW imports to landfills or incinerators (including waste-to-
     energy facilities) that have a host community agreement (as 
     defined in the bill). Such agreements must expressly 
     authorize the receipt of out-of-State MSW.
       Needs Determination. The bill allows a State plan to take 
     into account local and regional needs for solid waste 
     disposal capacity through State permitting provided that it 
     is implemented in a manner that is not inconsistent with the 
     provisions of the bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 466. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal 
the rule providing for termination of disabled adult child's benefits 
upon marriage; to the Committee on Finance.


             the social security act amendment act of 1995

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I reintroduce legislation that 
would resolve a long-standing inequity in the rules that govern 
eligibility under the Social Security Act's coverage of disabled 
individuals.
  The so-called disabled adult child benefit under title II of the 
Social Security Act provides benefits to the disabled children of 
individuals who receive old age or disability insurance benefits. 
Eligible individuals receive a cash benefit and Medicare coverage. Very 
often the Medicare coverage that individuals receive is more important 
than the cash benefit, because the severely disabled recipients have 
nowhere else to go to get insurance that would cover their preexisting, 
often severe disabilities.
  Under current law, individuals who receive the disabled adult child 
benefit automatically lose their benefits if they get married, 
regardless of their income. This penalty is archaic and should be 
removed from the law. When these provisions were originally enacted 
society had a different view of the disabled than it does today. The 
notion was that, upon marriage, disabled individuals would leave their 
dependence relationship with the Social Security program only to enter 
into a dependence relationship on a spouse. Today, we have come to 
realize that disabled people can be productive members of society in 
their own right. They can and should be free to marry, and raise 
families and engage in the pursuit of happiness like everyone else in 
this country. This automatic loss of benefits, especially of the all-
important Medicare coverage--is a huge obstacle for disabled adult 
child recipients who want to do so.
  Mr. President, the bill I am reintroducing today would repeal the 
provision which requires that these individuals lose their benefits 
when they marry.
  Several years ago, a constituent of mine named Jimmy Rick drove his 
wheelchair all the way to Washington, DC, and Capitol Hill from his 
home in Amide, LA, in order to bring this matter to my attention. Mr. 
Rica has been paralyzed from the neck down since he was 3 years old and 
has had a series of incredibly painful and debilitating operations over 
the course of his 46 years. Every night of his life he must sleep in an 
iron lung. Somehow, he still managed to pilot his wheel chair the 1,100 
miles from Aide, LA, to Capitol Hill to explain the effect that the 
marriage provision has had on his life.
  Mr. Rick and his wife, Dona, had to wait 7 years before they could 
get married and adopt children. He was completely dependent on the 
Medicare coverage he had as a beneficiary and could not have gotten 
insurance anywhere else. Jimmy and Dona could not get married until she 
found a job with the U.S. Postal Service that carried the kind of 
health insurance coverage that Jimmy absolutely needed in order to 
survive. Since their marriage in May 1990 the Ricks have adopted two 
children, and they would like to adopt more. They are a happy, 
productive and stable family. The archaic marriage penalty in the 
Social Security law only served to delay this happy circumstance for 7 
unnecessary years.
  This Congress will be the third Congress in which I have introduced 
this legislation. In June 1992, the Senate Finance Committee approved a 
provision based on this legislation as part of a larger measure that 
would have liberalized the Social Security earnings limit. 
Unfortunately, the provision was stripped before the legislation passed 
due to conflict with the Budget Committee's interpretation of rules 
related to on-budget versus off-budget financing. Try to explain that 
to constituents whose day to day lives were drastically affected by an 
unreasonable provision of the law.
  Mr. President, I hope that this legislation, which will strengthen 
the concept of the family and allow thousands of disabled persons to 
marry who cannot now do so, receives the favorable 
[[Page S3057]]  attention of my colleagues and can finally be passed 
into law.
  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. 466

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RULE PROVIDING FOR TERMINATION OF 
                   DISABLED ADULT CHILD'S BENEFITS UPON MARRIAGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 202(d) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 402(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(D), by striking ``or marries,'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (5); and
       (3) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than by reason of death)'' after 
     ``terminated'',
       (B) by striking ``(provided no event specified in paragraph 
     (1)(D) has occurred)'', and
       (C) by striking ``the first month in which an event 
     specified in paragraph (1)(D) occurs'' in subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``the month in which the child's death 
     occurs''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 202(d) of such Act (as amended by subsection 
     (a)) is further amended by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), 
     (8), and (9) as paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8), 
     respectively.
       (2) Section 202(s)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(s)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``So much of subsections (b)(3), (c)(4), 
     (d)(5), (g)(3), and (h)(4) of this section as precedes the 
     semicolon,'' and inserting ``Subsections (b)(3), (c)(4), 
     (g)(3), and (h)(4) of this section''.
       (3) Section 223(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(e)) is 
     amended by striking ``(d)(6)(A)(ii), (d)(6)(B),'' and 
     inserting ``(d)(5)(A)(ii), (d)(5)(B)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to marriages occurring on or after 
     May 1, 1995.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 467. A bill for the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the benchmark rail group relief act of 1995

 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, at the end of last session this body 
passed legislation to provide relief to the Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., 
a company in St. Louis, MO, that performed emergency work, at the 
request of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, following 
the Northridge earthquake in California. Unfortunately, the House did 
not act on this legislation.
  It was not until after several weeks into the emergency repair work 
on rail lines in the Los Angeles area that Benchmark learned of a 
provision in California State law that requires State agencies to only 
hire contractors licensed to do work in the State of California. This 
provision disqualified Benchmark from receiving payment owed--
approximately $500,000.
  FEMA, following the direction provided under section 406(a) of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 
contributed 90 percent to the net eligible cost of repair, restoration, 
reconstruction, and replacement of public facilities as a result of the 
earthquake. On August 23, 1994, funds were obligated by FEMA for 
various projects undertaken by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, 
including Southern California Regional Rail Authority and the work 
performed by the Benchmark Rail Group. Because of the provision of 
California State law, unfortunately the funds obligated cannot be 
awarded to Benchmark by the State of California or the Southern 
California Regional Rail Authority.
  In a letter to Governor Wilson, FEMA stated that:

       Benchmark Rail Group of St. Louis, MO, travelled halfway 
     across the country at the invitation of the Southern 
     California
      Regional Rail Authority to help people in dire need of 
     assistance. this action was clearly an example of the 
     concept of people-helping-people at work

  According to the letter:

       FEMA is precluded from directly paying Benchmark or 
     otherwise effectuating or facilitating payment to Benchmark 
     because of limitations imposed by both State and Federal law.

  FEMA cannot pay Benchmark for two reasons. First, ``the Federal 
Government, in the performance of its duties and responsibilities, 
cannot ignore or abrogate State law. Since the failure to have a 
particular California license is the obstacle to payment by the State, 
FEMA is not legally in a position to do what the State of California, 
the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Southern California Regional 
Rail Authority cannot do.'' Second, the Stafford Act prohibits FEMA 
from providing funds directly to Benchmark, since the company is not an 
eligible grantee. Section 406(a) of the Stafford Act and the applicable 
regulations authorizes reimbursement by FEMA only to the grantee of the 
Federal share of disaster assistance funds which must be a State or 
local government.
  The State of California, like FEMA, recognized the problem and tried 
to resolve it last summer. Governor Wilson worked with the California 
State Legislature to amend California law to authorize payment to 
Benchmark. The effort got underway late in the legislative session and 
failed. Governor Wilson wrote to FEMA and stated:

       We are hopeful that this problem can be resolved if FEMA 
     obtains the administrative flexibility to make the Stafford 
     Act payment directly to Benchmark.

  The legislation that was introduced by the former senior Senator of 
Missouri, Senator Danforth, and passed this body last year, and which I 
am reintroducing today, would do just that. This legislation directs 
FEMA to reimburse Benchmark for all work which is eligible for 
reimbursement under the Stafford Act, including the 90-percent share 
that FEMA would ordinarily pay and the 10-percent share that the non-
Federal entity would pay.
  It is unfortunate that Benchmark Rail Group has gotten caught in the 
middle of State and Federal bureaucracy. Benchmark, who rushed to help 
others suffering from a natural disaster, now is suffering and cannot 
get help because of the inflexibility in both Federal and State law. I 
believe we have a responsibility to make certain that Benchmark is 
compensated for the work performed. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GLENN (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 468. A bill to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act 
applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


              the federal power act amendment act of 1995

 Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today with my colleague, Mr. DeWine, 
I am introducing a bill to extend the time limitation on an already 
issued Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] license for the 
Summit pumped energy storage project in Norton, OH. Legislation 
authorizing the FERC to grant this extension has been introduced in the 
House by Congressman Sawyer.
  Upon completion of environmental, engineering and other project 
review, the FERC issued a license to Summit Energy Storage, Inc., for 
the Summit pumped storage hydropower project. The 1,500 megawatt Summit 
project, to be located in Summit and Medina Counties, OH, will generate 
an estimated maximum 3,900 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year.
  Section 13 of the Federal Power Act prescribes the time limits for 
commencement of construction of a hydropower project once FERC has 
issued a license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2 
years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends the 
initial 2-year deadline. FERC has extended the Summit project's 
construction commencement deadline for the one permissible 2-year 
period, setting the current deadline of April 11, 1995. The bills we 
introduce would grant FERC authority to extend the commencement of 
construction deadline for up to 6 additional years.
  Mr. President, I urge the enactment of this legislation. 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. 468

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

       (A) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified 
     in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that 
     would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission project numbered 9423, the Commission may, at the 
     request of the licensee for the project, in accordance with 
     the good faith, due diligence, and public interest 
     requirements of that section and the Commission's procedures 
     under that section, 
     [[Page S3058]]  extend the time period during which the 
     licensee is required to commence the construction of the 
     project, under the extension described in subsection (b), for 
     not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of the expiration of the extension of the period 
     required for commencement of construction of the project 
     described in subsection (a) that the Commission issued, prior 
     to the date of enactment of this Act, under section 13 of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).
                                 ______

      By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Coats):
  S. 469. A bill to eliminate the National Education Standards and 
Improvement Council and opportunity-to-learn standards; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                         education legislation

 Mr. GREGG. Mr. President: I introduce legislation that begins 
to undo the damage caused by the passage of Goals 2000: Educate America 
Act during the last Congress. My legislation will not only eliminate 
the National Education Standards and Improvement Council but will also 
repeal opportunity to learn standards. Both of these, created under 
Goals 2000, specifically shift a significant amount of the control of 
curriculum and management of elementary and secondary schools from 
local communities and States to the Federal Government.
  By repealing these two pieces of Goals 2000, we rid States and 
localities of the most offensive provisions of this legislation and 
move to restore local control of education. The first step is 
eliminating the National Education Standard and Improvement Council 
[NESIC], also referred to as the National School Board. This body is 
charged with certifying national content and performance standards and 
opportunity to learn standards. These standards basically address all 
areas affecting the way elementary and secondary schools are operated. 
We have already seen the failure of national standards with the 
creation of U.S. history standards. Let's stop this disaster before it 
goes any further.
  The second step in the process of restoring local control is to 
eliminate opportunity to learn standards. Basically, these standards 
are a Federal methodology of how people teach, what they are taught and 
the atmosphere in which they are taught. Opportunity to learn standards 
deal with input; they address curriculum, instructional materials, 
teacher capabilities, and school facilities. Since when is the Federal 
Government involved in deciding how many pencils each classroom should 
have?
  Proponents of opportunity to learn standards insist that the 
implementation of these standards is voluntary. However, if a State 
wants their fair share of the available funds, they must develop these 
standards, even if they have no intention of using them; this does not 
appear to be voluntary to me.
  We must make it clear that energizing local communities, the parents, 
the teachers, the principals, and the school boards is the key to 
improving education. My legislation does just that.
  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. 469

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

     SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION STANDARDS 
                   AND IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL AND OPPORTUNITY-TO-
                   LEARN STANDARDS.

       Title II of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 
     5821 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by repealing part B (20 U.S.C. 5841 et seq.); and
       (2) by redesignating parts C and D (20 U.S.C. 5861 et seq. 
     and 5871 et seq.) as parts B and C, respectively.

     SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Goals 2000: Educate America Act.--
       (1) The table of contents for the Goals 2000: Educate 
     America Act is amended, in the items relating to title II--
       (A) by striking the items relating to part B;
       (B) by striking ``Part C'' and inserting ``Part B''; and
       (C) by striking ``Part D'' and inserting ``Part C''.
       (2) Section 2 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5801) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph 
     (C); and
       (B) in paragraph (6)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (C) through (E), respectively.
       (3) Section 3(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5802) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (7); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (14) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (13), respectively.
       (4) Section 201(3) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5821(3)) is 
     amended by striking ``, voluntary national student 
     performance'' and all that follows through ``such Council'' 
     and inserting ``and voluntary national student performance 
     standards''.
       (5) Section 202(j) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5822(j)) is 
     amended by striking ``, student performance, or opportunity-
     to-learn'' and inserting ``or student performance''.
       (6) Section 203 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5823) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3);
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (6) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively; and
       (iii) by amending paragraph (2) (as redesignated by clause 
     (ii)) to read as follows:
       ``(2) review voluntary national content standards and 
     voluntary national student performance standards;''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (iii) by striking subparagraph (C).
       (7) Section 204(a)(2) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5824(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``voluntary national opportunity-to-learn 
     standards,''; and
       (B) by striking ``described in section 213(f)''.
       (8) Section 241 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5871) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) National Education 
     Goals Panel.--''; and
       (B) by striking subsections (b) through (d).
       (9) Section 304(a)(2) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5884(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C).
       (10) Section 306 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5886) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (d); and
       (B) in subsection (o), by striking ``State opportunity-to-
     learn standards or strategies,''.
       (11) Section 308(b)(2) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5888(b)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i) of subparagraph (A), 
     by striking ``State opportunity-to-learn standards,''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``including--'' and 
     all that follows through ``title II;'' and inserting 
     ``including through consortia of States;''.
       (12) Section 312(b) (20 U.S.C. 5892(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively.
       (13) Section 314(a)(6)(A) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     5894(a)(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``certified by the 
     National Education Standards and Improvement Council and''.
       (14) Section 315 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5895) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``, including the 
     requirements for timetables for opportunity-to-learn 
     standards,'';
       (ii) by striking paragraph (2);
       (iii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively;
       (iv) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4) of 
     this subsection'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
       (v) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by clause (iii))--

       (I) by striking subparagraph (A);
       (II) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (III) in subparagraph (A) (as redesignated in subclause 
     (II)) by striking ``, voluntary natural student performance 
     standards, and voluntary natural opportunity-to-learn 
     standards developed under part B of title II of this Act'' 
     and inserting ``and voluntary national student performance 
     standards'';

       (vi) in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) (as redesignated 
     by clause (ii)), by striking ``paragraph (5),'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (4),''; and
       (vii) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by clause (ii)), by 
     striking ``paragraph (4)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
       (B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of subsection 
     (c)(2)--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (b)(4)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)(3)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and to provide a framework for the 
     implementation of opportunity-to-learn standards or 
     strategies''; and
       (C) in subsection (f), by striking ``subsection (b)(4)'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``subsection (b)(3)''.
       (15)(A) Section 316 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5896) is 
     repealed.
     [[Page S3059]]   (B) The table of contents for such Act is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 316.
       (16) Section 317 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5897) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ``promote the 
     standards and strategies described in section 306(d),''; and
       (B) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (iii) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
       (17) Section 503 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5933) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``28'' and inserting ``27'';
       (II) by striking subparagraph (D); and
       (III) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (G) as 
     subparagraphs (D) through (F), respectively;

       (ii) in paragraphs (2), (3), and (5), by striking 
     ``subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F)'';
       (iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subparagraph (G)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraph (F)'';
       (iv) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(C), and (D)'' and 
     inserting ``and (C)''; and
       (v) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of paragraph 
     (5), by striking ``subparagraph (E), (F), or (G)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (D), (E), or (F)''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``subparagraph (E)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraph (D)''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subparagraphs (E), 
     (F), and (G)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (D), (E), and 
     (F)''.
       (18) Section 504 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5934) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (f); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
       (b) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--
       (1) Section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(8)(B), by striking ``(which may 
     include opportunity-to-learn standards or strategies 
     developed under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act)'';
       (B) in subsection (f), by striking ``opportunity-to-learn 
     standards or strategies,'';
       (C) by striking subsection (g); and
       (D) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
       (2) Section 1116 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6317) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (2)(A)(i), by striking all beginning with 
     ``, which may'' through ``Act''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (5)(B)(i)--

       (I) in subclause (VI), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (II) in subclause (VII), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (III) by striking subclause (VIII); and

       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking all beginning with ``, 
     and may'' through ``Act''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (6)(B)(i)--

       (I) by striking subclause (IV); and
       (II) by redesignating subclauses (V) through (VIII) as 
     subclauses (IV) through (VII), respectively.

       (3) Section 1501(a)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     6491(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (A) by striking clause (v); and
       (B) by redesignating clauses (vi) through (x) as clauses 
     (v) through (ix), respectively.
       (4) Section 10101(b)(1)(A)(i) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     8001(b)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``and opportunity-
     to-learn standards or strategies for student learning''.
       (5) Section 14701(b)(1)(B)(v) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     8941(b)(1)(B)(v)) is amended by striking ``the National 
     Education Goals Panel,'' and all that follows through 
     ``assessments)'' and inserting ``and the National Education 
     Goals Panel''.
       (c) General Education Provisions Act.--Section 428 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1228b), as 
     amended by section 237 of the Improving America's Schools Act 
     of 1994 (Public Law 103-382) is amended by striking ``the 
     National Education Standards and Improvement Council,''.
       (d) Education Amendments of 1978.--Section 1121(b) of the 
     Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2001(b)), as amended 
     by section 381 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-382) is amended by striking ``213(a)'' and 
     inserting ``203(a)(2)''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 470. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit 
the distribution to the public of violent video programming during 
hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial 
portion of the audience; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


         the children's protection from television violence act

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing 
legislation that will protect children from the harmful effects of 
gratuitous television violence. As the President said in his State of 
the Union Address, the entertainment industry has a ``* * * 
responsibility to assess the impact of [its] work and to understand the 
damage that comes from the incessant, repetitive mindless violence that 
permeates our media all the time.'' I do not believe the industry has 
done its best to honor that special responsibility.
  My approach is the most reasonable and feasible way to deal with the 
reality that television has become the permanent babysitter and some-
time parent. The television does not simply occupy a child's time; it 
has become one of the more powerful influences in a child's life. Yet 
it continues to be nothing but a vast wasteland.
  We've heard all the commitments to reduce the level of violence on 
television. We've heard the commitments to improve the quality of 
children's programming. But what has been the result? More violence. 
The industry's primary focus continues to be the bottom line--not on 
the quality of the programming and its educational value.
  The evidence is overwhelming. Arnold Goldstein, the Director of the 
Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, has done 
extensive research in the area of violence and its impact on youth. His 
research conclusively finds a link between TV violence and real-world 
violence and adds support to congressional efforts to curb the amount 
of violence on television. The Commerce Committee's hearing record last 
Congress provides further evidence of the extent of violence in 
society. Each year, over 20,000 people are murdered in the United 
States--1 person is killed every 22 minutes. Violence is the second 
leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 15 and 24. The 
Centers for Disease Control now considers violence to be a public 
health problem.
  According to several studies, television violence increased in the 
1980's both during prime time and during children's television hours. 
Evidence shows that children spend more time watching television than 
they spend in school. For example, children between the ages of 2 and 
11 watch television an average of 28 hours per week. Furthermore, a 
University of Pennsylvania study documented that a record 32 violent 
acts per hour were shown during children's shows in 1992. The American 
Psychological Association [APA] estimates that a typical child will 
watch 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence before finishing 
elementary school.
  The Commerce Committee has been looking at the issue of television 
violence and its impact on youth. Last Congress, the Commerce Committee 
held a hearing on this issue and found that there is indeed a 
compelling governmental interest to protect children from the harmful 
effects of violence on television. To address this interest, my bill 
directs the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to adopt rules to 
require the networks and cable industry to channel violent programming 
into times of the day when children are not likely to comprise a 
substantial part of the audience. This is consistent with Supreme Court 
decisions recognizing the compelling nature of the Government's 
interest in helping parents supervise their children and in 
independently protecting the well being of its youth.
  I am sensitive to the constitutional concerns raised by this issue. 
However, I believe the safe harbor mandated by my bill is sound public 
policy and is the least restrictive means to protect children. The 
courts have found many deficiencies in past legislative efforts to curb 
indecent programming. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia ruled that the safe harbor timeframe for indecent 
broadcasts from 12 midnight to 6 a.m. was unconstitutional. The court 
said the timeframe mandated by Congress and adopted in the FCC's rules 
was overly broad and not based upon a sufficient record.
  My bill avoids the deficiencies found in prior legislative efforts. 
In Action for Children's Television versus FCC (Act IV), the court said 
the FCC's effort to implement a safe harbor for indecent programming 
failed because its regulations attempted to protect every person--
adults and children--from the 
[[Page S3060]]  harmful effects of indecent programming. The FCC failed 
to balance properly the first amendment considerations necessary to 
restrict indecent broadcasts since the FCC's rules did not exclude 
adults from the persons to be protected from indecent broadcasts.
  In his concurring opinion, Judge Edwards asserted that violent 
programming is more harmful to children than indecent broadcasts and 
that a more compelling case can be made for regulating violence--if the 
regulation is narrowly tailored. Judge Edwards stated that ``the 
strength of the Government's interest in shielding children from 
exposure to indecent programming is tied directly to the magnitude of 
the harms sought to be prevented. The apparent lack of specific 
evidence of harms from indecent programming stands in direct contrast, 
for example, to the evidence of harm caused by violent programming--a 
genre that, as yet, has gone virtually unregulated.''
  My bill does not ban programs with violence, and it does not regulate 
the content of any program. Rather, it directs the FCC to adopt rules 
to require the networks and the cable industry to channel violent 
programming into time slots when children are not likely to comprise a 
substantial part of the audience.
  The programming that children watch today is no longer produced by a 
few Hollywood studios and broadcast by three networks. We now have an 
established fourth network, several emerging networks, independent 
television stations, and cable television, all of which have multiple 
sources of programming. Therefore, we can no longer hold just the three 
networks responsible for what children watch. That is why my bill 
adopts a broad approach directed at all providers of video programming.
  I am convinced this bill is the least restrictive means by which we 
can limit children's exposure to violent programming. I urge my 
colleagues to consider it carefully.
  I ask unanimously 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. 470

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Children's Protection from 
     Violent Programming Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television influences children's perception of the 
     values and behavior that are common and acceptable in 
     society.
       (2) Television station operators, cable television system 
     operators, and video programmers should follow practices in 
     connection with video programming that take into 
     consideration that television broadcast and cable 
     programming--
       (A) has established a uniquely pervasive presence in the 
     lives of all Americans; and
       (B) is readily accessible to children.
       (3) Violent video programming influences children, as does 
     indecent programming.
       (4) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming at a young age have a higher 
     tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life 
     than those children not so exposed. Children exposed to 
     violent video programming are prone to assume that acts of 
     violence are acceptable behavior and therefore to imitate 
     such behavior.
       (5) There is a compelling governmental interest in limiting 
     the negative influences of violent video programming on 
     children.
       (6) There is a compelling governmental interest in 
     channeling programming with violent content to periods of the 
     day when children are not likely to comprise a substantial 
     portion of the television audience.
       (7) Restricting the hours when violent video programming is 
     shown is the least restrictive and most narrowly tailored 
     means to achieve that compelling governmental interest.
       (8) Warning labels about the violent content of video 
     programming will not in themselves prevent children from 
     watching violent video programming.

     SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT PROGRAMMING.

       Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 714. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT PROGRAMMING.

       ``(a) Unlawful Distribution.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     person to--
       ``(1) distribute to the public any violent video 
     programming during hours when children are reasonably likely 
     to comprise a substantial portion of the audience; or
       ``(2) knowingly produce or provide material for such 
     distribution.
       ``(b) Rulemaking Proceeding.--The Commission shall conduct 
     a rulemaking proceeding to implement the provisions of this 
     section and shall promulgate final regulations pursuant to 
     that proceeding not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Children's Protection From Violent 
     Programming Act of 1995. As part of that proceeding, the 
     Commission--
       ``(1) may exempt from the prohibition under subsection (a) 
     programming (including news programs, documentaries, 
     educational programs, and sporting events) whose distribution 
     does not conflict with the objective of protecting children 
     from the negative influences of violent video programming, as 
     that objective is reflected in the findings in section 2 of 
     the Children's Protection From Violent Programming Act of 
     1995;
       ``(2) shall exempt premium and pay-per-view cable 
     programming; and
       ``(3) shall define the term `hours when children are 
     reasonable likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
     audience' and the term `violent video programming'.
       ``(c) Repeat Violations.--If a person repeatedly violates 
     this section or any regulation promulgated under this 
     section, the Commission shall, after notice and opportunity 
     for hearing, immediately repeal any license issued to that 
     person under this Act.
       ``(d) Consideration of Violations in License Renewals.--The 
     Commission shall consider, among the elements in its review 
     of an application for renewal of a license under this Act, 
     whether the licensee has complied with this section and the 
     regulations promulgated under this section.
       ``(e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `distribute' means to send, transmit, retransmit, telecast, 
     broadcast, or cablecast, including by wire, microwave, or 
     satellite.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The prohibition contained in section 714 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (as added by section 3 of this 
     Act) and the regulations promulgated thereunder shall be 
     effective on the date that is 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Roth, 
        and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 471. A bill to provide for the payment to States of plot 
allowances for certain veterans eligible for burial in a national 
cemetery who are buried in cemeteries of such States; to the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs.


                the veterans plot allowance act of 1995

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing 
legislation I first offered last year regarding the $150 veterans plot 
allowance to states. My bill would provide a payment for all veterans--
not just some veterans--who are buried free of charge in a State 
veterans cemetery, if they are eligible for burial in a national 
veterans cemetery. I am pleased to be joined in this effort today by 
Senators D'Amato, Hollings, Roth, and Stevens.
  The imperative for enacting this legislation is even greater today 
than it was when I introduced the same bill last May. Earlier this 
week, the Associated Press reported that our national cemeteries are 
fast running out of space. Of the 114 national cemeteries, 56--one 
short of half--are already full. And, space exists for just 230,000 
more caskets and the cremated remains of just 50,000 more veterans. 
Compared that with the 27 million veterans living today who will be 
eligible for burial in a national cemetery.
  For those familiar with veterans issues, these statistics will not 
come as a great shock. In fact, the rapidly dwindling space in national 
cemeteries is one of the main reasons that over a decade ago, Congress 
established the state cemetery grant program. In doing so, we hoped to 
encourage States to build State veterans cemeteries to ease the burden 
on the national cemetery system.
  This Federal-State partnership has not only worked, it is a shining 
example of what the States and the Federal Government can do together. 
Since the creation of the program, over 25 States have built State 
veterans cemeteries--and there are now 42 such cemeteries throughout 
the United States. For States like Delaware, which do not have a 
national cemetery at all, the State cemetery program ensures that 
veterans will receive the dignified burial they deserve in a veterans-
only cemetery, while being buried closer to home than if they were 
buried in a national cemetery.
  Now, however, I fear that this partnership is at risk--precisely when 
we need it the most. The reason is because of an anomaly in the law. 
States are required to bury in a State-owned veterans cemetery those 
veterans who are eligible for burial in a national veterans cemetery--
that is, all honorably 
[[Page S3061]]  discharged veterans. To help meet the cost, the Federal 
Government promised to pay a $150 plot allowance to the State for each 
veteran who is buried free of charge. But--and here is the catch--this 
payment is not made for all honorably discharged veterans. Rather, a 
State is eligible for the plot allowance only for burying veterans who 
meet a set of more restrictive criteria. Specifically, the plot 
allowance is paid only for those veterans who: First, were receiving 
veterans disability compensation or a veterans pension; second, died in 
a VA hospital; third, were indigent, and the body was unclaimed; or 
fourth, were, or could have been, discharged from the military due to a 
disability.
  In short, State-owned veterans cemeteries exist to help relieve the 
Federal Government of its responsibility to bury all veterans in 
national cemeteries. At the
 same time, States do not receive the $150 plot allowance for burying 
all national cemetery eligible veterans. It seems to me that this 
disparate treatment is in conflict with the very purpose for which 
State veterans cemeteries were established.

  And, because of the limits on the payment of the plot allowance, I 
have heard anecdotal evidence in recent years that some States may soon 
stop burying veterans free of charge. They claim that they cannot 
afford to do so when the Federal Government does not pay the $150 plot 
allowance.
  To further complicate matters, last year, Congress extended 
eligibility for burial in a national cemetery to National Guard members 
and reservists who have served at least 20 years. By their eligibility 
for burial in a national cemetery, they are also now eligible for 
burial in State veterans cemeteries. But, of course, few, if any, will 
meet the four-point criteria I mentioned a moment ago--and the States 
will not receive a $150 plot allowance for their burial.
  So, Mr. President, as we are asking more of State veterans 
cemeteries--through expanded eligibility and through decreased space in 
national cemeteries--and as State veterans cemeteries become more vital 
to the national cemetery system, we need to ensure that States continue 
to participate in the program. To guarantee that--and to be fair to the 
States--my legislation would simply provide States the $150 plot 
allowance for burying without charge any veterans eligible for burial 
in a national veterans cemetery. No more restricted criteria. No more 
contradictory goals. Only one simple and fair rule: If a State buries a 
veteran in lieu of burial in a national cemetery, the State is paid the 
plot allowance.
  If my legislation were enacted, the Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated that it would cost the Federal Government about $1 million 
annually. While my bill does not have offsetting reductions in other 
Federal spending to cover this cost, I am committed to finding such 
reductions before the measure is passed.
  Mr. President, on this, the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo 
Jima--at a time when we are honoring the brave men who fought there and 
the almost 7,000 who died there--it is well to remember that the 
Federal Government is duty-bound to give all of our veterans a decent 
and dignified burial. The legislation I am introducing today will help 
to ensure that we live up to that solemn commitment. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 472. A bill to consolidate and expand Federal child care services 
to promote self-sufficiency and support working families, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


        the child care consolidation and investment act of 1995

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care 
Consolidation and Investment Act. I am pleased to offer this 
legislation with my colleague, Senator Kennedy.
  The bill would consolidate major child care programs, including the 
child care and development block grant to create a seamless system of 
child care for working parents; expand access to affordable child care 
in order to promote work and self-sufficiency; ensure that parents will 
not be forced to leave their children in unsafe situations to comply 
with work requirements; and build on the child care and development 
block grant to encourage parental choice, provide for quality and 
ensure basic health and safety standards.
  I attended a hearing of the Subcommittee on Children and Families 
last week which highlighted the need for this legislation. We heard 
from several witnesses about the desperate need for an increased 
investment in child care. We also heard about the unintended but 
terrible consequences of imposing work requirements or time limits for 
welfare without a corresponding investment in child care.
  In addition, witnesses discussed the importance of emphasizing 
quality child care. It is not enough to simply warehouse our children. 
We must provide them with a safe, clean, stimulating environment. They 
deserve no less. That is why our bill would preserve and build on the 
quality component of the child care and development block grant.
  The bill seeks to simplify and consolidate Federal child care 
programs in hopes of creating seamless support so that individuals have 
access to child care as they move from welfare to job training to work. 
But it recognizes that consolidation, as important as it is, is no 
substitute for devoting resources to meet the needs of our kids.
  Finally, the bill would seek to put child care at its rightful place 
in the center of the welfare reform debate. It would require any State 
that imposes work requirements on welfare recipients to offer child 
care assistance for the recipients' children.


                   barriers between welfare and work

  I think we all share the same goal in reforming the welfare system--
to encourage self-sufficiency and reward work. To get the job done, we 
must identify the barriers between individuals on welfare and work--and 
then do our best to eliminate those barriers.
  Our bill recognizes that one of the most significant barriers to work 
is a lack of affordable, quality child care. But most of the welfare 
reform proposals coming from the other side of the aisle are woefully 
inadequate on this point.
  Most of the plans would put welfare recipients to work. I 
wholeheartedly agree that work and job training requirements are 
critical if we ever hope to break the cycle of poverty. Placing work at 
the center of our welfare policy is the right approach.
  But this raises an important question. Since two-thirds of families 
receiving aid to families with dependent children have at least one 
pre-school age child, what happens to the children while their parents 
are at work? Where do they go? Who will look out for them?
  The major Republican proposal in the House completely ignores these 
questions. Instead of putting children at the center of the welfare 
reform debate--as they should be--some Republicans are treating them as 
nuisances to be swept under the rug.
  At a time when we should be investing in child care to make work 
possible, the House bill would cut child care funding. The House bill 
would eliminate child care subsidies for 377,000 kids by the year 2000, 
and cut funding by 24 percent by that time. The House bill would also 
completely eliminate quality standards--even minimal health and safety 
requirements.
  During a subcommittee mark-up in the other body last week, 
Representative Jim Nussle had the following to say about proposals to 
ensure child care as part of welfare reform:

       Pretty soon we'll have the department of the alarm clocks 
     to wake them up in the morning and the department of bedtime 
     stories to tuck them in at night. It's not the Government's 
     responsibility.

  That kind of flip, cavalier attitude toward our Nation's children is 
completely unacceptable. I would suggest the Government does have a 
responsibility to young children. It is not kids' fault that their 
parents are on welfare, and they shouldn't be punished for the mistakes 
or bad luck of adults.
  I maintain that if we are going to put welfare parents to work, we 
have an obligation to do something for their kids. It's just that 
simple.
                      making a bad situation worse

  Demand for child care already outstrips the supply. There are now 
thousands of children on waiting lists in 37 
[[Page S3062]]  States. You don't need to be an economist to understand 
what would happen if 2 to 3 million additional children need child care 
when their parents are put to work.
  A bad situation will grow worse. Increased demand will drive up 
fees--pricing more working families out of the system. Former welfare 
recipients will find it difficult to remain in the job market if they 
have no one to care for their kids. The quality of child care will 
decline. We will find that we haven't reformed much of anything.
  We must recognize that to build a welfare system that truly rewards 
work, we must have a national child care policy that makes work 
possible.
  We have a wealth of hard evidence to prove this point:
  A study by the Illinois Department of Public Aid found that 42 
percent of AFDC recipients said that child care problems kept them from 
working full-time. Twenty percent said they had abandoned jobs and 
returned to welfare within the previous year--because of inadequate 
child care.
  Child care expenses and simple economics often conspire to make 
welfare more attractive than work. The GAO found that the median family 
income of the working poor was $159 higher per month than those of AFDC 
recipients. But working poor families pay an average of $260 per month 
on child care--more than enough to wipe out the economic advantage they 
get from working.
  If we want to replace welfare with work, it is obvious we must do 
something about child care. And if we want to do something about child 
care for the working poor, the child care development block grant is 
the place to start: 70 percent of the children served by the block 
grant have working parents and 67 percent of the children have family 
incomes at or below poverty.
  The child care development block grant provides funds to States to 
help parents pay for care. It encourages States to increase the number 
of providers and make it easier for parents to find the care they need.
  The new investments in child care have already paid off. In many 
States, the financial support available for low-income families has 
more than doubled.
                                quality

  The child care development block grant is also noteworthy because it 
provides the States with money to invest in quality, a provision that 
sets it apart from any other source of Federal child care funds.
  A major study released this month clearly illustrated how critical 
this emphasis on quality is. The multiyear, multistate study, entitled 
``Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers,'' was 
conducted by a team of researchers at four universities. It found that 
only one in seven child care centers provides good quality child care.
  For infants and toddlers, the situation is particularly bad. A 
staggering 40 percent of child care centers do not meet minimal 
standards for this group, meaning basic sanitary conditions are not 
met, there are safety problems or learning is not encouraged.
  The poor quality of child care already puts our kids at risk. The 
situation will only grow worse if we try to shove millions more kids 
into the system with no thought to the quality of that system.
  That's why our bill would build on the block grant's commitment to 
quality. The block grant's quality set-aside funds a variety of 
efforts, including renovations and repairs to help centers meet State 
licensing standards, the purchase of educational materials, support for 
low-income family home child care providers, and training and technical 
assistance for staff. These are critical efforts, and they should be 
continued.
  Child care has been a strongly bipartisan issue in the Senate, and I 
hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join us in this 
effort to put children at the center of the welfare reform debate. 
Let's not leave our kids behind.
  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. 472

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care Consolidation and 
     Investment Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) fragmentation of the Federal Government's major child 
     care assistance programs has left gaps for many parents 
     moving from welfare to work;
       (2) child care problems have prevented 34 percent of poor 
     mothers between the ages 21 and 29 from working;
       (3) \2/3\ of all families receiving assistance under the 
     Aid to Families with Dependent Children program have at least 
     one preschool age child and need child care in order to work;
       (4) there already exists an unmet need for child care 
     assistance--37 States now have waiting lists that can run as 
     high as 35,000 individuals;
       (5) child care directly affects an individual's ability to 
     stay in the work force;
       (6) welfare reform that places work at its center will 
     increase the demand for child care and require an additional 
     investment of resources;
       (7) child care consumes $260 per month or about 27 percent 
     of income for average working poor families, leaving them 
     with less income than families eligible for assistance under 
     the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program;
       (8) quality must be a central feature of the child care 
     policy of the United States;
       (9) only 1 in 7 day care centers offer good quality care;
       (10) 40 percent of day care centers serving infants and 
     toddlers do not meet basic sanitary conditions, have safety 
     problems, and do not encourage learning; and
       (11) only 9 percent of family and relative day care is 
     considered good quality care.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) eliminate program fragmentation and create a seamless 
     system of high quality child care that allows for continuity 
     of care for children as parents move from welfare to job 
     training to work;
       (2) provide for parental choice among high quality child 
     care programs; and
       (3) increase the availability of high quality affordable 
     child care in order to promote self sufficiency and support 
     working families.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 
                   ACT OF 1990.

       (a) Appropriations.--Section 658B of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 658B. APPROPRIATION.

       ``(a) In General.--For the purpose of providing child care 
     services for eligible children through the awarding of grants 
     to States under this subchapter, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall pay, from funds in Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, $2,302,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, 
     $2,790,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, $3,040,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1998, $3,460,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and 
     $4,030,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(b) Adjustments.--If the amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (a) are not sufficient to provide services to each 
     child whose parent is required to undertake education, job 
     training, job search, or employment as a condition of 
     eligibility for benefits under part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act, the Secretary shall pay, from funds in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be 
     necessary to ensure the implementation of section 
     658E(c)(3)(E) with respect to each such child.''.
       (b) Awarding of Grants.--Section 658C of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858a) is 
     amended by striking ``is authorized to'' and inserting 
     ``shall''.
       (c) Supplementation.--Section 658E(c)(2)(J) of the Child 
     Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858c(c)(2)(J)) is amended by inserting ``in fiscal year 
     1995'' before the period.
       (d) Set-Asides for Quality and Working Families, and Child 
     Care Guarantee.--Section 658E(c)(3) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858c(c)(3))--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``25 percent'' and 
     inserting ``20 percent''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(D) Assistance for low-income working families.--The 
     State shall reserve not less than 50 percent of the amount 
     provided to the State and available for providing services 
     under this subchapter, to carry out child care activities to 
     support low-income working families residing in the State.
       ``(E) Child care guarantee.--The State plan shall provide 
     assurances that the availability of child care under the 
     grant will be coordinated in an appropriate manner (as 
     determined by the Secretary) with the requirements of part A 
     of title IV of the Social Security Act. Such coordination 
     shall ensure that the parent of a dependent child is not 
     required to undertake an education, job training, job search, 
     or employment requirement unless child care assistance in an 
     appropriate child care program is made available.''.
       (e) Matching Requirement.--Section 658E(c) of the Child 
     Care and Development 
     [[Page S3063]]  Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858c(c)) 
     is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Matching requirement.--With respect to amounts made 
     available to a State in each fiscal year beginning with 
     fiscal year 1996, that exceed the aggregate amounts received 
     by the State for child care services in fiscal year 1995, the 
     State plan shall provide that, with respect to the costs to 
     be incurred by the State in carrying out the activities for 
     which a grant under this subchapter is awarded, the State 
     will make available (directly or through in-kind donations 
     from public or private entities) non-Federal contributions in 
     an amount equal to not less than $1 for every $4 of Federal 
     funds provided under the grant.''.
       (f) Improving Quality.--
       (1) Increase in required funding.--Section 658G of the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858e) is amended by striking ``not less than 20 percent'' 
     and inserting ``50 percent''.
       (2) Quality improvement incentive initiative.--Section 658G 
     of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 9858e) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A State'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--A State''; and
       (B) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Quality Improvement Incentive Initiative.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a child 
     care quality improvement incentive initiative to make funds 
     available to States that demonstrate progress in the 
     implementation of--
       ``(A) innovative teacher training programs such as the 
     Department of Defense staff development and compensation 
     program for child care personnel; or
       ``(B) enhanced child care quality standards and licensing 
     and monitoring procedures.
       ``(2) Funding.--From the amounts made available for each 
     fiscal year under subsection (a), the Secretary shall reserve 
     not to exceed $50,000,000 in each such fiscal year to carry 
     out this subsection.''.
       (g) Before- and After-School Services.--Section 658H(a) of 
     the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 9858f(a)) is amended by striking ``not less than 75 
     percent'' and inserting ``50 percent''.
       (h) Payments.--Section 658J(a) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858h) is 
     amended by striking ``Subject to the availability of 
     appropriation, a'' and inserting ``A''.
       (i) Allotments.--Section 658O(b) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858m(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Allotment.--
       ``(A) Base allotment.--Effective beginning with fiscal year 
     1996, the amount allotted to a State under this section shall 
     include the base amount that the State received under this 
     Act, and under the provisions repealed under section 5 of the 
     Child Care Consolidation and Investment Act of 1995, in 
     fiscal year 1995.
       ``(B) Additional amounts.--Effective beginning with fiscal 
     year 1996, any amounts appropriated under section 658B for a 
     fiscal year and remaining after the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A) is complied with, shall be allotted to 
     States pursuant to the formula described in paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 5. PROGRAM REPEALS.

       (a) AFDC JOBS and Transitional Child Care.--
       (1) Repeal.--Paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of 
     section 402(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(g)) 
     are repealed.
       (2) Conforming Amendments.--Part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 402(a)(19) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(19))--
       (i) in subparagraph (B)(i)(I), by striking ``section 
     402(g)'' and inserting ``the Child Care Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.)'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C)(iii)(II), by striking ``section 
     402(g)'' and inserting ``the Child Care Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.)'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``section 402(g)'' 
     and inserting ``the Child Care Development Block Grant Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.)''; and
       (iv) in subparagraph (F)(iv), by striking ``section 
     402(g)'' and inserting ``section 402(g)(2) and the Child Care 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et 
     seq.)'';
       (B) in section 402(g)(2) (42 U.S.C. 602(g)(2)), by striking 
     ``(in addition to guaranteeing child care under paragraph 
     (1))''; and
       (C) in section 403(l)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 603(l)(1)(A)), by 
     striking ``(including expenditures for child care under 
     section 402(g)(1)(A)(i), but only in the case of a State with 
     respect to which section 1108 applies)''.
       (b) At-Risk Child Care.--Sections 402(i) and 403(n) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(i), 603(n)) are repealed.
       (c) State Dependent Care Grants.--Subchapter E of chapter 8 
     of subtitle A of title VI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9871 et seq.) is 
     repealed.
       (d) Child Development Associate Scholarship Assistance 
     Act.--The Child Development Associate Scholarship Assistance 
     Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 10901 et seq.) is repealed.
       (e) Secretarial Submission of Legislative Proposal for 
     Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall, within 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, submit to the appropriate 
     committees of the Congress, a legislative proposal providing 
     for such technical and conforming amendments in the law as 
     are required by the provisions of subsections (a) and (c).

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd in 
introducing the Child Care Consolidation and Investment Act of 1995.
  For far too many American families ``Home Alone'' is not just a 
movie, but a daily crisis. The struggle for decent child care is a fact 
of life that all working families understand--regardless of their 
income.
  Today and everyday, millions of American families face impossible 
choices--cruel choices, between the jobs they need and the children 
they love--heart-wrenching choices between putting food on the table 
and finding safe and affordable child care for their young sons and 
daughters.
  Nine million children live in single-parent working families. Twenty-
seven million more children live in two-parent families where both 
parents work. The average cost of child care is nearly $5,000 a year--
yet the take home pay from a minimum wage job is stuck at $8,500. This 
standard of living is not manageable. It is not fair and it is not 
acceptable.
  We have heard a lot about turning welfare into work, but not nearly 
enough about who will care for the 10 million children on AFDC when 
their parents are in job training or at work. If we are serious about 
promoting work, if we mean it when we talk about strengthening families 
instead of punishing then, we must deal with the essential issue of 
child care.
  We know that every day, millions of young children are left in 
unsupervised settings and in poor quality child care that jeopardize 
their health and safety--not because their parents do not care, but 
because they lack options, lack information, and lack cash.
  Today, 21 million low-income children under 12 are eligible for 
services under the Federal child care programs. Yet only 6 percent of 
these children receive this essential support. Government cannot 
replace parents, but it can and should help them in their efforts to 
make ends meet and care for the children.
  Quality child care creates opportunity and increases productivity--
not just for one generation, but for two generations. Child care is not 
about giving parents a blank check. It is about giving them a fair 
chance. Leaving children out of welfare reform will make a mockery of 
any such reform. It will pass the real life tragedy of dependency on 
from this generation to the next. Families cannot afford that--and 
neither can the Nation.
  The current child care and development block grant is a tribute to 
bipartisan cooperation and effective partnerships. For the families 
whose lives it has touched, it has made child care more affordable and 
resource and referral services more available. It has guaranteed higher 
quality. It strikes a good balance between flexibility and 
accountability.
  Unfortunately, this sound structure does not guide all Federal child 
care spending, but it should. It is the strong foundation on which 
child care reform should be constructed.
  We must create a system of support that allows families to move from 
welfare to job training to work without continually disrupting the care 
of their children. We must build a system with assistance based on 
need, not on welfare status. I support this approach to consolidation 
and our legislation moves us in that direction.
  The Child Care Consolidation and Investment Act of 1995 combines the 
major child care efforts into a single funding stream, rather than 
maintaining separate programs for families on welfare, families 
recently off welfare, and families at-risk of falling onto welfare--
each with its own rules, regulations, and eligibility standards. 
Families have enough stress in their lives without having to weave 
their way through this maze--all too often only to hear that there is 
no more help available.
  But consolidation alone will never be enough. In the end, it will 
only mean well-organized deck chairs on a ship that is sinking. 
Consolidation can streamline bureaucracy and enhance efficiency, but it 
will not produce real 
[[Page S3064]]  savings to meet the every-increasing need for quality 
child care.
  To do more than end welfare, we must remove the existing barriers
   to self-sufficiency, not raise them higher. For many, that barrier 
is lack of child care. One in three poor women not in the labor force 
say child care is their greatest barrier to participation. One in five 
part-time workers say they would work longer hours if child care is 
available and affordable.

  Two-thirds of AFDC families have at least one preschool child. They 
need child care assistance in order to enroll in job training, job 
search, or educational activities.
  There have been loud calls for cutting benefits and ending welfare. 
But there has been a deafening silence on child care. It is time to 
break that silence and put together a realistic program--based not on 
rhetoric but on results.
  The bill approved Act passed by the House Republicans will roll back 
the positive advances we have made. According to estimates from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, the proposal will cut child 
care funds by 20 percent--a $2.5 billion reduction over the next 5 
years. In the year 2000, 400,000 fewer children will receive this 
essential assistance. That does not sound like progress and it isn't 
progress. More children ``Home Alone'' is never progress.
  On top of all that, now they even want to slash nutrition aid for 
schools and for child care food programs. If taking food out of the 
mouths of hungry children is not Republican extremism, I do not know 
what is. Republicans like to boast about their new ideas, but these 
ideas are out to lunch.
  In contrast, the Child Care Consolidation and Investment Act provides 
the resources needed to promote self-sufficiency and to support working 
families. It is a realistic pro-work and pro-family proposal. The Act 
will give AFDC families a helping hand and it will give working 
families a fighting chance for a better life. It will bring a long-
needed cease-fire to the battle for limited slots between families 
trying to get off welfare and families trying to stay off welfare--a 
battle with no winners.
  We must reject any policy that pulls the rug out from under families 
just as they are getting on their feet. Such approaches are callous and 
counterproductive. In Massachusetts, of mothers who left welfare for
 work and then returned to welfare, 35 percent said child care problems 
were the reason. Additional support at that critical time could have 
made all the difference.

  Recent studies remind us of the mediocre to poor quality of child 
care that most children receive. Only one in seven child care centers 
offers quality care and only 9 percent of family day care homes are 
found to be of high quality. Children deserve more than custodial care. 
They need individual attention and a safe place to learn and grow.
  As the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
Services stated in a recent report:

       The Child Care and Development Block Grant has been the 
     principal source of Federal support to strengthen the quality 
     and enhance the supply of child care. The implementation of 
     the Act has been instrumental in raising the standards of 
     other child care programs.

  This act will take the next step by applying the requirement of 
quality standards to all Federal efforts, and by continuing to set 
aside a percentage of all child care funds to enable States to 
strengthen the quality of their programs. The innovative approaches 
that States have taken under this act have benefited all children in 
child care--not just those receiving assistance.
  Clearly, for all of us who care about working families and genuine 
welfare reform, facing up to the challenge of child care deserves much 
higher priority than it has had so far.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Ashcroft, and Ms. 
        Moseley-Braun):
  S.J. Res. 27. Joint resolution to grant the consent of the Congress 
to certain additional powers conferred upon the Bi-State Development 
Agency by the States of Missouri and Illinois; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


               the bi-state compact amendment act of 1995

 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this joint 
resolution with my friend and colleague, Senator Ashcroft; the 
distinguished senior Senator from the State of Illinois, Senator Simon; 
and my colleague and junior Senator from the State of Illinois, Senator 
Mosely-Braun.
  The Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan 
District is an interstate compact agency. The purpose of this joint 
resolution is to seek congressional approval for legislation enacted by 
the States of Missouri and Illinois which grants additional powers to 
the agency.
  Since the agency's passenger transportation systems operate through 
various local jurisdictions, the agency has had difficulty insuring 
that fare evasion and other conduct prohibited on agency facilities and 
conveyances, and the penalties therefore, are uniform. In addition, 
issues have arisen regarding the jurisdiction of various local peace 
officers to arrest for conduct occurring on the light rail system.
  The legislatures of the States of Missouri and Illinois have enacted 
legislation to confer the additional powers necessary to resolve the 
uniformity issues which the Bi-State Development Agency faces. To move 
forward, these changes approved by the elected officials of Missouri 
and Illinois now need congressional approval. I urge my colleagues to 
support this joint resolution.


                          ____________________