[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6513-S6537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Roth, Mr. Glenn, and
Mr. Cohen):
S. 790. A bill to provide for the modification or elimination of
Federal reporting requirements; read the first time.
FEDERAL REPORTS ELIMINATION AND SUNSET ACT
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Levin and myself, I'm
pleased to introduce the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of
1995. This legislation would terminate or modify the statutory
requirement for over 200 mandatory reports to Congress, and sunset most
other mandatory reports after 4 years. This legislation would also
require the President to identify which reports he feels are
unnecessary or wasteful in his next budget submission of Congress,
which will hopefully spur Congress to swiftly dispose of those specific
reports.
This legislation is a combination of two separate bills that Senator
Levin and I have previously introduced, both of which were passed by
the Senate as amendments to S. 244, The Paperwork Reduction Act. The
intent of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act is to end the
needless expense of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year
on many Federal reports that are of minor value to the Congress and our
constituents.
Mr. President, by passing this legislation the Senate can help bring
to an end one of Congress' most unessential and burdensome practices.
Each year members of Congress add layer upon layer of onerous paperwork
requirements upon Executive Branch agencies by mandating various
reports. This problem has a very real and substantive cost to taxpayers
in terms of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to
taking up untold numbers of work-hours by federal employees, and untold
amounts of other agency resources that could be far better utilized in
more worthy endeavors.
It is astounding that in 1993 the Congress required the Office of the
President and Executive branch agencies to prepare over 5,300 reports!
This is a problem that is reaching truly epic proportions of
unnecessary and wasteful paper shuffling! This practice has been
criticized by both Vice President Gore in his ``National Performance
Review,'' and the Senate's members of the Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress. The Joint Committee stated that:
These reports should not continue in perpetuity without
some clear evidence that the report serves a useful policy
purpose. The proliferation of mandatory agency reports has
been a matter of wide concern in the Congress and in the
Executive Branch.
Furthermore, in 1992 the GAO found that:
In the 101st Congress, a single House committee received over 800
reports from Federal agencies in response to mandates from the
Congress;
Another 600 reports were sent to the same committee in the 102d
Congress;
The Office of Management and Budget had to submit 38 reports to a
single House committee just to comply with the 1990 Budget
Reconciliation Act;
Are these reports necessary? Does Congress really need to force every
Federal agency to keep a small army of bureaucrats on the payroll
solely to satisfy its insatiable appetite for reports? I think the
answer is clearly no, and I'm confident most people sincerely
interested in reducing the size and cost of Government will agree.
While I firmly believe we should sunset most annual or semi-annual
mandatory reporting requirements, I in no way wish to contend that
there are not many reports required by Congress that are vitally
important. The recurring flow of timely and accurate information from
the executive branch to the Congress is essential to our oversight
responsibilities as Members, and as a legislative body. However, I will
strongly contend that the cumulative weight and cost of the reporting
mandates we've enacted year after year has gotten totally out of hand.
[[Page S6514]] The problem of foisting massive reporting requirements
on Federal agencies is not only very real, it's extremely expensive.
The Department of Agriculture alone spent over $40 million in taxpayers
money in 1993 to produce the 280 reports it was required to submit to
the Congress. That is astounding, Mr. President--$40 million in
taxpayer dollars spent by a single department last year on reports
mandated by the Congress. The
Department of Agriculture isn't even the leader in this respect,
however, because the Department of Defense has estimated that it must
prepare 600 reports each year for Congress! At a time when our country
is struggling to alleviate the burdens of the middle class and also
address the urgent needs of our citizenry, this is an especially
egregious waste of money.
Let's consider this startling cost of reports at the USDA in another
context: the money the Congress forced the Department of Agriculture to
fritter away on reporting mandates last year could have provided
services to an additional 100,000 low-income women and children under
the USDA's WIC program. Think about that, Mr. President; an additional
100,000 women and children could have been provided vital nutritional
and health services with the funds the USDA had to spend researching
and preparing hundreds of reports! That same $40 million could have
enrolled another 10,000 disadvantaged children in Head Start, as well!
Imagine what the cost to taxpayers was to produce the more than 5,300
reports that the Congress required of Federal agencies in 1993!
Furthermore, this problem is getting worse and worse with each
passing year. The GAO stated that in 1970, the Congress mandated only
750 recurring reports from Federal agencies. Now we have spiralled well
past 5,300, and the GAO determined that ``Congress imposes about 300
new requirements on Federal agencies each year!'' Clearly, Mr.
President, the wasteful blizzard of paperwork that Vice President Gore
criticized is becoming an avalanche, and it's time for the Senate to
take decisive action to remedy it.
This legislation would terminate the statutory requirement for all
annual or recurring congressionally-mandated reports four years after
it is signed into law, with two specific exceptions. The reports to be
exempted are those required under the Inspector Generals Act of 1978
and the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. The Inspector Generals
Act requires the Congress to be advised of activities regarding
investigations into waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal agencies; and
the CFO Act requires agencies to provide financial information about
their short and long-term management of agency resources.
I believe the reports required by these two laws are very important
and merit continuation, and I also recognize that there are many other
reports that my colleagues feel have great value because of the
information they provide to Congress. Such reports can simply be
reauthorized at any time in the 4 years before this legislation would
sunset them.
I want to commend my colleague, Senator Levin, for his considerable
contribution to this legislation. Senator Levin and his staff worked
for months in developing a list of over 200 mandatory reports that
should either be promptly eliminated or modified in order to lessen the
burdens and costs that the Congress has placed on Federal agencies. The
provisions of this bill that he developed will terminate the production
of some of the most dubious examples of unnecessary paperwork shuffling
by Federal agencies, and I thank him for his valuable work in this
area. The combined impact of the legislation we are introducing today
will certainly help remove the millstone of unnecessary and costly
paperwork that Congress has hung around the neck of the Federal
Government for too long.
Mr. President, I am very pleased that the chairman and ranking member
of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Roth and Senator Glenn,
respectively, are cosponsors of this legislation. I further want to
thank both Senator Roth and Senator Glenn for clearing this bill to be
placed directly on the Senate Calendar upon introduction, so that no
further action by the committee is necessary. I hope it will be passed
by the full Senate in the near future.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce along with
Senators McCain, Roth, Glenn, and Cohen the Federal Reports Elimination
and Sunset Act of 1995, which eliminates and modifies over 200 outdated
or unnecessary congressionally mandated reporting requirements and also
places a sunset on those reports with an annual, semi-annual, or other
regular periodic reporting requirement 4 years after the bill's
enactment. The legislation is designed to improve the efficiency of
agency operations by eliminating paperwork generated and staff time
spent in producing unnecessary reports to Congress.
The legislation that we are introducing today is similar to the bill
Senator Cohen and I introduced last year, and is the product of a
thorough effort to identify those congressionally-mandated agency
reporting requirements that have outlived their usefulness and now
serve only as an unnecessary drain on agency resources--resources that
could be devoted to more important program use. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that enactment of this legislation could result
in savings of up to $5 to $10 million without even factoring in the
savings from the sunset provision.
In 1985, when a previous Reports Elimination Act was passed, there
were approximately 3,300 reporting requirements. The 1985 act affected
only 23 of these reports. Today, there are over 5,300 reporting
requirements. Some estimates of the annual cost of meeting these
reporting requirements are as high as $240 million a year, and the GAO
reports that Congress imposes close to 300 new requirements every year.
This bill is the product of an extensive process that started with
recommendations from executive and independent agencies. Senator Cohen
and I wrote to all 89 executive and independent agencies and asked that
they identify reports required by law that they believe are no longer
necessary or useful and, therefore, that could be eliminated or
modified. We stressed the importance of a clear and substantiated
justification for each recommendation made. We received responses from
about 80 percent of the agencies. For the most part, the agencies made
a serious effort to review and recommend a respectable number of
reporting requirements for elimination.
We then went to the chairman and ranking member of each of the
relevant Senate committees--for their review and comment--the
recommendations made by the agencies under their respective
jurisdictions. We also asked that the committees provide us with any
additional recommendations for eliminations or modifications that they
might have.
Many of the committees responded to the request. Those responses were
generally supportive of the subcommittee's efforts and most contained
only a few changes to the agency recommendations. Those changes were
primarily requests by committees to retain reports under their
jurisdiction because the information contained in the report is of use
to the committee or, in some cases, of use to outside organizations.
After this extensive review and comment period, Senator Cohen and I
introduced S. 2156, the Federal Reports Elimination and Modification
Act, on May 25, 1994. As introduced, the bill contained nearly 300
recommendations for eliminations or modifications. Senators Glenn,
Roth, Stevens, and McCain cosponsored that bill. Shortly after the
introduction of S. 2156, Senator Cohen and I again wrote to all the
committees and asked for comments on the bill as introduced.
S. 2156 was unanimously approved by the Governmental Affairs
Committee on August 2, 1994. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to
act on S. 2156 before the end of the 103d Congress. But I am more
hopeful that both Houses of Congress will pass this very timely piece
of legislation this year. In fact, in March 1995, the Senate agreed to
include the language of this bill in the form of two separate
amendments to the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, S. 244.
The amendments, however, were struck in conference. The chairman of
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight agreed, however,
[[Page S6515]] to support similar legislation in a free-standing bill.
Under this bill, 157 reports will be eliminated and 61 will be
modified. The legislation also includes a modified version of Senator
McCain's sunset provision which will facilitate Congress's review of
these reports. Rather than undergoing the same lengthy process of
assessing the usefulness of each and every reporting requirement on a
periodic basis, the sunset provision will eliminate those reports with
a annual, semi-annual, or regular periodic reporting requirement 4
years after the bill's enactment, while allowing Members of Congress to
re-authorize those reports it deems necessary in carrying out effective
congressional oversight. The sunset provision does not apply to any
reports required under the Inspector General Act of 1978 or the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990.
Because the Senate had already passed similar legislation earlier
this year, we will be seeking to place the bill directly on the
calendar for the Senate's immediate consideration.
The enactment of this legislation is long overdue. Congressional
staffers are being inundated with reports that are never read and are
simply dropped into file cabinets or wastebaskets, never to be seen
again. We are introducing this bipartisan legislation in the hopes that
Congress will act quickly to plug this drain on needed resources caused
by unnecessary and extraneous reporting requirements.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of
S. 790, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995,
legislation to eliminate or modify over 200 statutory reporting
requirements that have outlived their usefulness and sunset many
others.
Senators Levin, McCain, and I offered the text of this bill as two
separate amendments, which were accepted by the Senate, during the
debate on the Paperwork Reduction Act earlier this year. Because of the
concerns of House conferees that the House Committees had not had
adequate time to review the various reports targeted for elimination or
sunset, the amendments were dropped in conference. The House conferees
assured us, however, that the House would act quickly to take up
separate legislation combining the two amendments.
The issue of eliminating unnecessary government reporting
requirements is an area that Senator Levin and I have worked on for a
number of years in our capacity as chairman and ranking minority member
of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management. The text of the amendment that Senator Levin and I offered
to the Paperwork Reduction Act was based on legislation we introduced
last Congress which CBO estimated would reduce agencies' reporting
costs by $5 million to $10 million annually. The legislation was the
product of more than a year's worth of discussions with Government
agencies and congressional committees.
An example of the type of report this legislation will eliminate is
an annual Department of Energy report on naval petroleum and oil shale
reserves production. The same data in this report is included in the
Naval Petroleum Reserves Annual Report. Other provisions of the bill
will consolidate information to reduce the number of reports required.
For example, the Department of Labor's annual report will be modified
to include the Department's audited financial statements and, thereby,
eliminate the need for a separate annual report for all money received
and disbursed by the Department. Finally, the bill will also eliminate
reports that are simply no longer necessary--reports that were useful
at the time they were required but stopped serving a useful purpose and
were kept on the books because no one was looking closely enough at
them.
The bill also sunsets in 4 years reports made on a regular basis.
Under the bill, the sunset will not apply to reports triggered by
specific events such as a report to Congress required under the War
Powers Act as a result of certain actions. The sunset will also not
apply to reporting requirements required by the Inspector General Act
or the Chief Financial Officers Act. The sunset provision will force
Congress to periodically review mandated reporting requirements and
reauthorize those that are still serving a valid purpose. The sunset is
based on legislation introduced by Senator McCain and will save
additional taxpayers' dollars.
In closing, I believe this legislation is a reasonable approach to
eliminating unnecessary reporting requirements and it is consistent
with efforts by the Congress to reinvent Government and make it more
efficient. The legislation is intended to reduce the paperwork burdens
placed on Federal agencies, streamline the information that flows from
these agencies to the Congress, and save millions of taxpayers'
dollars. I hope the congress will act expeditiously to pass this
legislation.
______
By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Lott):
s. 791. A bill to provide that certain civil defense employees and
employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency may be eligible
for certain public safety officers death benefits, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
public safety officers benefits act extension
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to extend coverage under the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act to
employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] and
employees of State and local emergency management and civil defense
agencies who are killed or disabled in the line of duty.
The Public Safety Officers Benefits Act provides benefits to eligible
survivors of a public safety officer whose death is the direct result
of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. The act also
provides benefits to those officers who are permanently and totally
disabled as the direct result of a catastrophic personal injury
sustained in the line of duty.
The act now covers State and local law enforcement officers and fire
fighters, Federal law enforcement officers and fire fighters, and
Federal, State, and local rescue squads and ambulance crews. However,
an employee of a State or local emergency management, or civil defense
agency, or an employee of FEMA, who is killed or permanently disabled
performing his or her duty in responding to a disaster is not covered
under the act.
The legislation I am introducing today will remedy this situation by
extending the act to those employees. This will ensure that the
survivors and family members of an employee killed in the line of duty
will receive benefits and that an employee permanently and totally
disabled as a result of injury sustained in the line of duty will also
receive the benefits of the act.
During his confirmation hearing in the last Congress, FEMA Director
James Lee Witt said that emergency management and civil defense
employees put their lives on the line almost every time they respond to
an event. Enactment of this legislation will provide them with some
assurance that, should death or disabling injury result from the
performance of their duty, their families will receive survivor
benefits or they will receive disability benefits.
I hope my colleagues will carefully consider this legislation and
join me in support of its enactment.
______
By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Robb):
S. 792. A bill to recognize the National Education Technology Funding
Corporation as a nonprofit corporation operating under the laws of the
District of Columbia, to provide authority for Federal departments and
agencies to provide assistance to such corporation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the national education technology funding corporation act
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I introduce the National Education
Technology Funding Corporation Act, legislation designed to connect
public schools and public libraries to the information superhighway.
public education
Mr. President, if there is any objective that should command complete
American consensus, it is to ensure that every American has a chance to
succeed. That is the core concept of the American dream--the chance to
achieve as much and to go as far as
[[Page S6516]] your ability and talent will take you. Public education
has always been a part of that core concept. In this country, the
chance to be educated has always gone hand in hand with the chance to
succeed.
Yet, as I have stated time and time again, education is more than a
private benefit, it is also a public good. My experiences as a
legislator have shown me that the quality of public education affects
the entire community. Education prepares our work force to compete in
the emerging global economy. It increases our productivity and
competitive advantages in world markets. It also promotes our economy
and the standard and quality of living for our people.
technology
Nonetheless, I am convinced that it will be difficult if not
impossible for us to prepare our children to compete in the emerging
global economy unless we change the current educational system. If
American students are to compete successfully with their foreign
counterparts, systemic school reform must occur. And that means taking
into account and addressing all aspects of the educational system.
Mr. President, the increased competition created by the emerging
global economy requires teachers and students to transform their
traditional roles in many ways. It requires teachers to act as
facilitators in the classroom, guiding student learning rather than
prescribing it. It also requires students to construct their own
knowledge, based on information and data they manipulate themselves.
Technology can help teachers and students play the new roles that are
being required of them. Technology can help teachers report and chart
student progress on a more individualized basis. It can also allow them
to use resources from across the globe or across the street to create
different learning environment for their students without ever leaving
the classroom. On the other hand, technology can allow students to
access the vast array of material available electronically and to
engage in the analysis of real world problems and questions.
first gao report
A recent report released by the General Accounting Office concluded
that our Nation's education technology infrastructure is not designed
or sufficiently equipped to allow our children to take advantage of the
benefits technology offers.
Last year, I asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to conduct a
comprehensive, nationwide study of the condition of our Nation's public
schools. In responding to my request, the General Accounting Office
surveyed a random sample of our Nation's 15,000 school districts and
80,000 public schools from April to December 1994. Based on responses
from 78 percent of the schools sampled, GAO began preparing five
separate reports on the condition of our Nation's public schools.
The first GAO report, which was released on February 1, 1995,
examined the education infrastructure needs for our Nation's public
elementary and secondary schools. As expected, this report made clear
what most of us already knew; that our schools are deteriorating and we
need to fix them. More specifically, the GAO report concluded that our
Nation's public schools need $112
billion to restore their facilities to good overall condition.
SECOND GAO REPORT
The most recent GAO report, which was released on April 4, 1995,
concluded that more than half of our Nation's public schools lack six
or more of the technology elements necessary to reform the way teachers
teach and students learn including: computers, printers, modems, cable
TV, laser disc players, VCR's, and TV's.
In fact, the GAO report found that more of our Nation's schools do
not have the education technology infrastructure necessary to support
these important audio, video, and data systems. For example, their
report states that: 86.8 percent of all public schools lack fiber-optic
cable; 46.1 percent lack sufficient electrical wiring; 34.6 percent
lack sufficient electrical power for computers; 51.8 percent lack
sufficient computer networks; 60.6 percent lack sufficient conduits and
raceways; 61.2 percent lack sufficient phonelines for instructional
use; and 55.5 percent lack sufficient phonelines for modems.
local property taxes
Mr. President, these results are simply unacceptable. There is
absolutely no reason why, in 1995, all of our Nation's children should
not have access to the best education technology resources in the
world.
The most recent GAO report did find that students in some schools are
taking advantage of the benefits associated with education technology.
For example, advanced chemistry students at Centennial High School in
Champaign, IL, are developing experiments that allow them to move parts
of molecules on their computer screens in response to their own
computer commands. In one simulation, students watch the orbitals of
electrons in reaction to imposed actions. Another simulation
demonstrates the ionization of atoms--how the size of atoms changes
when ions are added or subtracted.
The bottom line, however, is that we are still failing to provide all
of our Nation's children with education technology resources like those
being provided at Centennial High School because the American system of
public education has forced local school districts to maintain our
Nation's education infrastructure primarily with local property taxes.
For a long time, local school districts were able to meet that
responsibility. Local property taxes, however, are now all too often an
inadequate source of funding for public education. What is even worse
is that this financing mechanism makes the quality of public education
all too dependent on local property value.
As a result, the second GAO report found that, on average, only 8
percent of local school bond proceeds were spent on computers and
telecommunications equipment. That is, for the average $6.5 million
bond issue, only $155,600, or 2 percent was provided for the purchase
of computers and only $381,100, or 6 percent for the purchase of
telecommunications equipment.
Yet, most States continue to force local school districts to rely
increasingly on local property taxes for public education, in general,
and for education technology, in particular. In Illinois, for example,
the local share of public education funding increased from 48 percent
during the 1980-81 school year to 58 percent during the 1992-93 school
year, while the State share fell from 43 to 34 percent during this same
period.
The Federal Government must also accept a share of the blame for
failing to provide our Nation's children with environments conducive to
learning. The Federal Government's share of public education funding
has fallen from 9.1 percent during the 1980-81 school
year to 5.6 percent during the 1993-94 school year.
goals 2000
Mr. President, Congress passed the goals 2000: Educate America Act
which President Clinton signed into law on March 31, 1994. I support
this legislation because it promises to create a coherent, national
framework for education reform founded on the national education goals.
Nonetheless, I firmly believe that it is inherently unfair to expect
our children to meet national performance standards if they do not have
an equal opportunity to learn.
education infrastructure act
That is why I introduced the Education Infrastructure Act last year.
This legislation addresses the needs highlighted in the first GAO
report by helping local school districts ensure the health and safety
of students through the repair, renovation, alteration, and
construction of school facilities. More specifically, this legislation
authorizes the Secretary of Education to make grants to local school
districts with at least a 15 percent child poverty rate and urgent
repair, renovation, alteration, or construction needs.
information superhighway
Mr. President, President Clinton and Vice President Gore have taken
leadership roles in addressing the needs highlighted in the most recent
GAO report. On September 15, 1993, the information infrastructure task
force created by the Vice President released its report--``National
Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action.'' This report urges the
Federal Government to support the development of the information
superhighway--the metaphor used to describe the evolving technology
infrastructure that will link homes, businesses, schools, hospitals,
and libraries
[[Page S6517]] to each other and to a vast array of electronic
information resources.
On this same day, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12864
which created the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council
to facilitate private sector input in this area.
Mr. President, a substantial portion of the information superhighway
already exists. Approximately 94 percent of American households have
telephone service, 60 percent have cable, 30 percent have computers,
and almost 100 percent have radio and television. Local and long-
distance telephone companies are currently investing heavily in fiber-
optic cables that will carry greater amounts of information; cable
companies are increasing their capacity to provide new services; and
new wireless personal communications systems are under development. One
prototype, the Internet, connects approximately 15-20 million people
worldwide.
federal support
Nonetheless, the results of the second GAO report suggest to me that
the Federal Government must do more to help build the education portion
of the national information infrastructure. Federal support for the
acquisition and use of technology in elementary and secondary schools
is currently fragmented, coming from a diverse group of programs and
departments. Although the full extent to which the Federal Government
currently supports investments in education technology at the
precollegiate level is not known, the Office of Technology Assessment
estimated in its report--``Power On!''--that the programs administered
by the Department of Education provided $208 million for education
technology in 1988.
cost of technology
There is little doubt that substantial costs will accompany efforts
to bring education technologies into public schools in any
comprehensive fashion. In his written testimony before the House
Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee on September 30, 1994,
Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, estimated that it will cost
anywhere from $3 to $8 billion annually to build the education portion
of the national information infrastructure. The Office of Technology
Assessment has also estimated that the cost of bringing the students to
computer ratio down to 3-to-1 would cost $4.2 billion a year for 6
years.
NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY FUNDING CORPORATION
Mr. President, three leaders in the areas of education and finance
came together recently to help public schools and public libraries meet
these costs. On April 4, John Danforth, former U.S. Senator from
Missouri, Jim Murray, past President of Fannie Mae, and Dr. Mary
Hatwood Futrell, past President of the National Education Association,
created the National Education Technology Funding Corporation.
As outlined in its articles of incorporation, the National Education
Technology Funding Corporation will stimulate public and private
investment in our Nation's education technology infrastructure by
providing loans, loan guarantees, grants, and other forms of assistance
to States and local school districts.
Legislation
I am introducing the National Education Technology Funding
Corporation Act today to help provide the seed money necessary to get
this exciting, new private sector initiative off the ground. Rather
than promoting our Nation's education technology infrastructure by
creating another Federal program, this legislation would simply
authorize Federal departments and agencies to make grants to the NETFC.
The National Education Technology Funding Corporation Act would not
create the NETFC or recognize it as an agency or establishment of the
U.S. Government; it would only recognize its incorporation as a
private, nonprofit organization by private citizens. However, since
NETFC would be using public funds to connect public schools and public
libraries to the information Superhighway, my legislation would require
NETFC to submit itself and its grantees to appropriate congressional
oversight procedures and annual audits.
This legislation will not infringe upon local control over public
education in any way. Rather, it will supplement, augment, and assist
local efforts to support education technology in the least intrusive
way possible by helping local school districts build their own on-ramps
to the Information Superhighway.
Senator Burns and Senator Robb has endorsed this bill, and it has
been endorsed by the National Education Association, the National
School Boards Association, the American Library Association, the
Council for Education Development and Research, and Organizations
Concerned About Rural Education [OCRE].
Conclusion
Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my
colleagues to help connect public schools and public libraries to the
Information Superhighway by quickly enacting the National Education
Technology Funding Corporation Act into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 792
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Education
Technology Funding Corporation Act of 1995''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Corporation.--There has been established in the
District of Columbia a private, nonprofit corporation known
as the National Education Technology Funding Corporation
which is not an agency or independent establishment of the
Federal Government.
(2) Board of directors.--The Corporation is governed by a
Board of Directors, as prescribed in the Corporation's
articles of incorporation, consisting of 15 members, of
which--
(A) five members are representative of public agencies
representative of schools and public libraries;
(B) five members are representative of State government,
including persons knowledgeable about State finance,
technology and education; and
(C) five members are representative of the private sector,
with expertise in network technology, finance and management.
(3) Corporate purposes.--The purposes of the Corporation,
as set forth in its articles of incorporation, are--
(A) to leverage resources and stimulate private investment
in education technology infrastructure;
(B) to designate State education technology agencies to
receive loans, grants or other forms of assistance from the
Corporation;
(C) to establish criteria for encouraging States to--
(i) create, maintain, utilize and upgrade interactive high
capacity networks capable of providing audio, visual and data
communications for elementary schools, secondary schools and
public libraries;
(ii) distribute resources to assure equitable aid to all
elementary schools and secondary schools in the State and
achieve universal access to network technology; and
(iii) upgrade the delivery and development of learning
through innovative technology-based instructional tools and
applications.
(D) to provide loans, grants and other forms of assistance
to State education technology agencies, with due regard for
providing a fair balance among types of school districts and
public libraries assisted and the disparate needs of such
districts and libraries;
(E) to leverage resources to provide maximum aid to
elementary schools, secondary schools and public libraries;
and
(F) to encourage the development of education
telecommunications and information technologies through
public-private ventures, by serving as a clearinghouse for
information on new education technologies, and by providing
technical assistance, including assistance to States, if
needed, to establish State education technology agencies.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to recognize the
Corporation as a nonprofit corporation operating under the
laws of the District of Columbia, and to provide authority
for Federal departments and agencies to provide assistance to
the Corporation.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this Act--
(1) The term ``Corporation'' means the National Education
Technology Funding Corporation described in section 2(a)(1);
(2) the terms ``elementary school'' and ``secondary
school'' have the same meanings given such terms in section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
and
(3) the term ``public library'' has the same meaning given
such term in section 3 of the Library Services and
Construction Act.
[[Page S6518]] SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
PURPOSES.
(a) Authorization of Assistance.--Each Federal department
or agency is authorized to award grants or contracts, or
provide gifts, contributions, or technical assistance, to the
Corporation to enable the Corporation to carry out the
corporate purposes described in section 2(a)(3).
(b) Agreement.--In order to receive any assistance
described in subsection (a) the Corporation shall enter into
an agreement with the Federal department or agency providing
such assistance, under which the Corporation agrees--
(1) to use such assistance to provide funding and technical
assistance only for activities which the Board of Directors
of the Corporation determines are consistent with the
corporate purposes described in section 2(a)(3);
(2) to review the activities of State education technology
agencies and other entities receiving assistance from the
Corporation to assure that the corporate purposes described
in section 2(a)(3) are carried out;
(3) that no part of the assets of the Corporation shall
accrue to the benefit of any member of the Board of Directors
of the Corporation, any officer or employee of the
Corporation, or any other individual, except as salary or
reasonable compensation for services;
(4) that the Board of Directors of the Corporation will
adopt policies and procedures to prevent conflicts of
interest;
(5) to maintain a Board of Directors of the Corporation
consistent with section 2(a)(2);
(6) that the Corporation, and any entity receiving the
assistance from the Corporation, are subject to the
appropriate oversight procedures of the Congress; and
(7) to comply with--
(A) the audit requirements described in section 5; and
(B) the reporting and testimony requirements described in
section 6.
(c) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to establish the Corporation as an agency or independent
establishment of the Federal Government, or to establish the
members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, or the
officers and employees of the Corporation, as officers or
employees of the Federal Government.
SEC. 5. AUDITS.
(a) Audits by Independent Certified Public Accountants.--
(1) In general.--The Corporation's financial statements
shall be audited annually in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards by independent certified public
accountants who are members of a nationally recognized
accounting firm and who are certified by a regulatory
authority of a State or other political subdivision of the
United States. The audits shall be conducted at the place or
places where the accounts of the Corporation are normally
kept. All books, accounts, financial records, reports, files,
and all other papers, things, or property belonging to or in
use by the Corporation and necessary to facilitate the audit
shall be made available to the person or persons conducting
the audits, and full facilities for verifying transactions
with the balances or securities held by depositories, fiscal
agents, and custodians shall be afforded to such person or
persons.
(2) Reporting requirements.--The report of each annual
audit described in paragraph (1) shall be included in the
annual report required by section 6(a).
(b) Audits by the Comptroller General of the United
States.--
(1) Audits.--The programs, activities and financial
transactions of the Corporation shall be subject to audit by
the Comptroller General of the United States under such rules
and regulations as may be prescribed by the Comptroller
General. The representatives of the Comptroller General shall
have access to such books, accounts, financial records,
reports, files and such other papers, things, or property
belonging to or in use by the Corporation and necessary to
facilitate the audit, and the representatives shall be
afforded full facilities for verifying transactions with the
balances or securities held by depositories, fiscal agents,
and custodians. The representatives of the Comptroller
General shall have access, upon request to the Corporation or
any auditor for an audit of the Corporation under this
section, to any books, financial records, reports, files or
other papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by
the Corporation and used in any such audit and to papers,
records, files, and reports of the auditor used in such an
audit.
(2) Report.--A report on each audit described in paragraph
(1) shall be made by the Comptroller General to the Congress.
The report to the Congress shall contain such comments and
information as the Comptroller General may deem necessary to
inform the Congress of the financial operations and condition
of the Corporation, together with such recommendations as the
Comptroller General may deem advisable. The report shall also
show specifically any program, expenditure, or other
financial transaction or undertaking observed or reviewed in
the course of the audit, which, in the opinion of the
Comptroller General, has been carried on or made contrary to
the requirements of this Act. A copy of each such report
shall be furnished to the President and to the Corporation at
the time such report is submitted to the Congress.
(c) Audit by Inspector General of the Department of
Commerce.--The financial transactions of the Corporation may
also be audited by the Inspector General of the Department of
Commerce under the same conditions set forth in subsection
(b) for audits by the Comptroller General of the United
States.
(d) Recordkeeping Requirements; Audit and Examination of
Books.--
(1) Recordkeeping requirements.--The Corporation shall
ensure that each recipient of assistance from the Corporation
keeps--
(A) separate accounts with respect to such assistance;
(B) such records as may be reasonably necessary to fully
disclose--
(i) the amount and the disposition by such recipient of the
proceeds of such assistance;
(ii) the total cost of the project or undertaking in
connection with which such assistance is given or used; and
(iii) the amount and nature of that portion of the cost of
the project or undertaking supplied by other sources; and
(C) such other records as will facilitate an effective
audit.
(2) Audit and examination of books.--The Corporation shall
ensure that the Corporation, or any of the Corporation's duly
authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose
of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and
records of any recipient of assistance from the Corporation
that are pertinent to such assistance. Representatives of the
Comptroller General shall also have such access for such
purpose.
SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORT; TESTIMONY TO THE CONGRESS.
(a) Annual Report.--Not later than April 30 of each year,
the Corporation shall publish an annual report for the
preceding fiscal year and submit that report to the President
and the Congress. The report shall include a comprehensive
and detailed evaluation of the Corporation's operations,
activities, financial condition, and accomplishments under
this Act and may include such recommendations as the
Corporation deems appropriate.
(b) Testimony Before Congress.--The members of the Board of
Directors, and officers, of the Corporation shall be
available to testify before appropriate committees of the
Congress with respect to the report described in subsection
(a), the report of any audit made by the Comptroller General
pursuant to this Act, or any other matter which any such
committee may determine appropriate.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation
introduced by my colleague from Illinois. I applaud her for her vision
and persistence in looking out for our Nation's most precious
resource--our children, and I am pleased to join Senator Mosely-Braun
as an original cosponsor of the National Education Technology Funding
Corporation Act.
During committee consideration of the telecommunications bill last
year, I offered related legislation to ensure that every school and
classroom in the United States has access to telecommunications and
information technologies. I proposed an educational telecommunications
and technology fund to support elementary and secondary school access
to the information superhighway. Regrettably, last year's
telecommunications bill was not taken up by the full Senate before
adjournment.
The new telecommunications bill that recently passed the Commerce
Committee has a provision, introduced by Senators Snowe, Rockefeller,
and Bob Kerrey, to make advanced telecommunications more affordable for
schools. Specifically, the provision allows elementary and secondary
schools, as well as libraries, to receive telecommunications services
at affordable monthly rates. Currently, schools all over the country,
including those in my own State of Virginia, are forced to pay business
rates for access to the information superhighway. That means that
schools are subsidizing residential customers.
Even with affordable monthly rates, many schools have limited or no
technological infrastructure. They lack modern electrical wiring, a
sufficient number of plugs, and access to wired or wireless technology
that would allow them internal networking capabilities or connections
to the Internet. The absence of this infrastructure leaves these
schools without a technological on-ramp to the information
superhighway. As a result, American children are left by the wayside.
This is where the National Education Technology Funding Corporation
can play a critical role. We need a single efficient, expert entity
that State and local authorities can approach for funding so they can
join the Internet, participate in distance learning, investigate
interactive computer learning, or explore other innovative
technologies.
A private non-profit is a logical link between the public and
commercial
[[Page S6519]] sectors. It is often difficult for schools to identify
where to go to request Federal funding for new technologies, or where
to go simply to learn more about technology applications for schools.
Also, there is much more than can be done to promote the use of
technologies in schools and to encourage private investments and
standards. I can think of no better way to meet all of these needs than
a private corporation run by a board that includes representatives from
States, from public schools and libraries, and from the private sector.
Many opponents of Federal efforts to improve educational technologies
claim that the private stock will have adequate incentives to assist
schools with educational technologies. Just leave it to the private
sector, they argue. This is a very shortsighted viewpoint.
There is no question that the private sector is doing great things
for America's schools--and libraries--in the area of educational
technologies. Computers and software are frequently donated by private
firms. Internet access is provided in some areas. Several weeks ago I
visited Arlington County Central Library, just a few miles from here,
which MCI had made a generous grant to the library to install public
Internet workstations. As a result, this library will be one of the
first public locations in northern Virginia to offer Internet access.
More recently, my staff visited Chantilly High School in Fairfax County
to witness a state-of-the-art Internet lab made possible by assistance
from the cable company, Media General. These are important private
sector initiatives that will hopefully be duplicated time and time
again across the nation.
But there are problems with a let the free market reign approach.
First, wealthier schools will receive a disproportionate benefit.
Wealthier schools can afford advanced educational technologies.
Corporations are more likely to provide equipment and internet access
to schools that have already invested in related technologies.
Corporations are more likely to offer
services in urban or suburban areas that have good telecommunications
infrastructures. Yet the rural schools gain the most from internet
access, distance-learning, and a host of other educational
technologies. It is rural schools that are in danger of rapidly losing
ground to those schools with access to the new technologies. We have to
put an end to the ever-growing bifurcation of our educational system.
As set forth in this bill, the corporation would encourage equitable
technology funding to all elementary and secondary schools.
The second problem is commonality. Although we don't want to
constrain educational technology development by mandating Government
standards, we don't want to create a smorgasbord of technologies that
can't communicate with each other and can't be shared across school
systems. The proposed corporation could play an invaluable role in
making sure school technology efforts nationwide are not wasteful,
incompatible, or duplicative.
The third problem is time. The technologies are here today. It is a
relatively straightforward process to make an internet connection or to
establish a video link or to learn the highly effective software now
available for education. We shouldn't rely solely on the timetables of
the private sector to field the technologies that exist today for
preparing our children for the next century. The Educational Technology
Corporation would play a key role in promoting the use of technologies
in education, and could significantly accelerate their introduction
into America's schools.
For those of our colleagues that have any doubts about the value of
new educational technologies, I challenge them to sit down on a
computer with internet access, and surf. They'll be visiting the
largest, most up-to-date, and fastest-growing library in the world. You
can chat with experts from across the globe. You can set up a video
link with teachers at distant schools, using a small camera costing as
little as $100. You can share data or results in a joint research
effort spanning continents. You can take an electronic tour of the
White House, or visit the so-called webb-site of a Member of Congress.
You can even see images or molecules or galaxies. The possibilities are
endless.
In discussions with school administrators, it becomes clear that
students are fascinated by the internet and other educational
technologies. Students that might otherwise be indifferent are eagerly
pursuing new subjects and sharing their new-found knowledge with the
global community of students. Simply put, the child with access will be
at a distinct advantage and better prepared for future employment. We
simply cannot afford to let our school systems slip behind those of our
leading competitors when the technology is at our fingertips--a
technology pioneered here in the United States. Mr. President, I urge
my colleagues to support the most cost-effective education we can offer
our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the National
Education Technology Funding Corporation Act.
______
By Mr. SIMPSON (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 793. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
an exemption from income tax for certain common investment funds; to
the Committee on Finance.
common fund legislation
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friends,
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Senator Jon Kyl, in introducing a
bill to permit private and community foundations to pool investment
assets into a ``common fund'' or cooperative organization. This
legislation was twice passed by the Senate in 1992 as part of the
comprehensive tax legislation ultimately vetoed by the President.
This bill would extend to foundations the same ``common fund'' model
which has proven so successful for colleges and universities. The
university common fund now manages over $10 billion--with more than 900
educational institutions participating.
Once established, a common fund for foundations would allow smaller
foundations to increase their total return on investment and
significantly reduce investment management fees by taking advantage of
economies of scale. Both results have the same bottom line: Increased
assets and income will then be available for private and community
foundation grants to charitable groups.
Studies disclose that total investment returns earned by smaller
foundations lag substantially behind those of many larger foundations.
One major reason for this difference is that many of the best
professional investment manages demand that new accounts to meet
certain minimum size requirements. Smaller foundations often do not
meet the minimum size.
Second, since management investment fees are based on percentages
that decline as the size of the account increases, smaller foundations
are less able to take advantage of economies of scale and cannot
benefit from lower fee levels.
This bill would permit foundations to ``band together'' for
investment purposes by providing tax-exempt status to common funds
handling foundation investments. This would thus give foundation common
funds the same tax treatment as educational institution common funds.
I feel this is a most appropriate response to a vexing problem. I
urge your support.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Mack, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Dole, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Helms, Mr. Bond, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr.
Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Abraham, Mrs. Murray,
Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, Mr.
Hatfield, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Specter, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Pryor,
Mr. Daschle, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Lott, and Mr.
Conrad):
S. 794. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act to facilitate the minor use of a pesticide, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
[[Page S6520]] the minor use crop protection act of 1995
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the
Minor Use Crop Protection Act of 1995 to help ensure the availability
of minor use pesticides for farmers and an abundant and varied food
supply for our Nation.
This legislation has gained broad bipartisan support as evidenced by
the 41 Senators who have joined as original cosponsors. This strong
show of support will help us move swiftly toward enactment of this
bill.
Minor use pesticides are generally used on relatively small acreage
or for regional pest or disease problems. Manufacturers incur a
significant cost to develop scientific data to register or reregister
these products and yet face a limited market potential once the
pesticide is approved for use. Therefore, Minor use pesticides are not
being supported or are being voluntarily canceled for economic, not
safety reasons.
This situation has been exacerbated by the Environmental Protection
Agency's pesticide reregistration requirements. A law enacted in 1988
required that all pesticides, and their uses, registered before
November 1984, be reregistered.
Loss of minor use pesticides could cause substantial production
problems for many fruit, vegetable, and ornamental crops. Farmers also
fear that loss of minor use pesticides will put them at a competitive
disadvantage with foreign producers who would still have access to the
pesticides.
While this is an important industry, fruits and vegetables have also
taken on a more important role in the diet of Americans. Health experts
recommend increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. A reduction
in the availability of these foods or an increased cost due to less
production would have a disproportionate impact on the health of low
income Americans, who spend a greater amount of their disposable income
on food.
The bill offers several incentives for manufacturers to maintain and
develop new safe and effective pesticides for minor uses without
compromising food safety or adversely affecting the environment.
Here are some examples where this bill would have a positive impact.
Last year fire blight posed a serious threat to apple and pear
production in Washington State. This bill would help to encourage
registration of new products to control fire blight. Exports are also
impacted by this pest. Japan restricts the entry of apples from areas
near those where fire blight occurs. Last year half of the acreage in
the State initially eligible for exports was later denied due to fire
blight.
In my home State of Indiana, alternatives are needed for Dimethenamid
used for weed control for strawberries. The manufacturer has not
reregistered this product for this use due to economic reasons.
Obviously, Indiana is not a large strawberry producing State. However,
strawberry growers there still do need products to control
Lambsquarters and Johnsongrass which can lower yields and in some cases
reduce quality.
In California, sodium orthophenolphenate [OPP] has been used for
decay control in citrus packinghouses. OPP is used in very small
amounts and the manufacturers will not be supporting this use since the
costs of reregistration outweigh the annual sales volume. This bill
could help provide funding for additional studies required for
reregistration if growers wanted to band together to continue this use
and would also help encourage the development of additional alternative
minor use products.
This is an important issue for our Nation's farmers and consumers. I
pledge timely consideration of this bill within the Senate Agriculture
Committee. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsorship and support
of this needed legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 794
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Minor Use
Crop Protection Act of 1995''.
(b) References to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.--Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal
is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.).
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF MINOR USE.
Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(hh) Minor Use.--The term `minor use' means the use of a
pesticide on an animal, on a commercial agricultural crop or
site, or for the protection of public health if--
``(1)(A) in the case of the use of the pesticide on a
commercial agricultural crop or site, the total quantity of
acreage devoted to the crop in the United States is less than
300,000 acres; or
``(B) the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary
of Agriculture, determines that, based on information
provided by an applicant for registration or a registrant--
``(i) the use does not provide a sufficient economic
incentive to support the initial registration or continuing
registration of a pesticide for the use; and
``(ii)(I) there are not a sufficient number of efficacious
alternative registered pesticides available for the use; or
``(II) any 1 of the alternatives to the pesticide pose a
greater risk to the environment or human health than the
pesticide; or
``(III) the pesticide plays, or will play, a significant
part in managing pest resistance; or
``(IV) the pesticide plays, or will play, a significant
part in an integrated pest management program; and
``(2) the Administrator does not determine that, based on
data existing on the date of the determination, the use may
cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.''.
SEC. 3. EXCLUSIVE USE OF MINOR USE PESTICIDES.
Section 3(c)(1)(F)(i) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(1)(F)(i)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(i) With respect'' and inserting ``(i)(I)
With respect'';
(2) by striking ``a period of ten years following the date
the Administrator first registers the pesticide'' and
inserting ``the exclusive data use period determined under
subclause (II)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(II) Except as provided in subclauses (III) and (IV), the
exclusive data use period under subclause (I) shall be 10
years beginning on the date the Administrator first registers
the pesticide.
``(III) Subject to subclauses (IV), (V), and (VI), the
exclusive data use period under subclause (II) shall be
extended 1 year for each 3 minor uses registered after the
date of enactment of this subclause and before the date that
is 10 years after the date the Administrator first registers
the pesticide, if the Administrator in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, determines that, based on
information provided by an applicant for registration or a
registrant--
``(aa) there are not a sufficient number of efficacious
alternative registered pesticides available for the use; or
``(bb) any 1 of the alternatives to the pesticide pose a
greater risk to the environment or human health than the
pesticide; or
``(cc) the pesticide plays, or will play, a significant
part in managing pest resistance; or
``(dd) the pesticide plays, or will play, a significant
part in an integrated pest management program.
``(IV) Notwithstanding subclause (III), the exclusive data
use period established under this clause may not exceed 13
years.
``(V) For purposes of subclause (III), the registration of
a pesticide for a minor use on a crop grouping established by
the Administrator shall be considered 1 minor use for each
representative crop for which data are provided in the crop
grouping.
``(VI) An extension under subclause (III) shall be reduced
or terminated if the applicant for registration or the
registrant voluntarily cancels the pesticide or deletes from
the registration a minor use that formed the basis for the
extension, or if the Administrator determines that the
applicant or registrant is not actually marketing the
pesticide for a minor use that formed the basis for the
extension.''.
SEC. 4. TIME EXTENSIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MINOR USE DATA.
(a) In General.--Section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g) Time Extension for Development of Minor Use Data.--
``(1) Supported use.--In the case of a minor use, the
Administrator shall, on the request of a registrant and
subject to paragraph (3), extend the time for the production
of residue chemistry data under subsection (c)(2)(B) and
subsections (d)(4), (e)(2), and (f)(2) of section 4 for data
required solely to support the minor use until the final date
under section 4 for submitting data on any other use
established not later than the date of enactment of this
subsection.
``(2) Nonsupported use.--
``(A) If a registrant does not commit to support a minor
use of a pesticide, the Administrator shall, on the request
of the registrant and subject to paragraph (3), extend the
time for taking any action under subsection (c)(2)(B) or
subsection (d)(6), (e)(3)(A), or (f)(3) of section 4
regarding the minor use until the final date under section 4
for submitting data on any other use established
[[Page S6521]] not later than the date of enactment of this
subsection.
``(B) On receipt of the request from the registrant, the
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a notice
of the receipt of the request and the effective date on which
the uses not being supported will be deleted from the
registration under section 6(f)(1).
``(3) Conditions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply only
if--
``(A) the registrant commits to support and provide data
for--
``(i) any use of the pesticide on a food; or
``(ii) any other use, if all uses of the pesticide are for
uses other than food;
``(B)(i) the registrant provides a schedule for producing
the data referred to in subparagraph (A) with the request for
an extension;
``(ii) the schedule includes interim dates for measuring
progress; and
``(iii) the Administrator determines that the registrant is
able to produce the data referred to in subparagraph (A)
before a final date established by the Administrator;
``(C) the Administrator determines that the extension would
not significantly delay issuance of a determination of
eligibility for reregistration under section 4; and
``(D) the Administrator determines that, based on data
existing on the date of the determination, the extension
would not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment.
``(4) Monitoring.--If the Administrator grants an extension
under paragraph (1) or (2), the Administrator shall--
``(A) monitor the development of any data the registrant
committed to under paragraph (3)(A); and
``(B) ensure that the registrant is meeting the schedule
provided under paragraph (3)(B) for producing the data.
``(5) Noncompliance.--If the Administrator determines that
a registrant is not meeting a schedule provided by the
registrant under paragraph (3)(B), the Administrator may--
``(A) revoke any extension to which the schedule applies;
and
``(B) proceed in accordance with subsection (c)(2)(B)(iv).
``(6) Modification or revocation.--The Administrator may
modify or revoke an extension under this subsection if the
Administrator determines that the extension could cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. If the
Administrator modifies or revokes an extension under this
paragraph, the Administrator shall provide written notice to
the registrant of the modification or revocation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(B)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(vi) Subsection (g) shall apply to this subparagraph.''.
(2) Subsections (d)(4), (e)(2), and (f)(2) of section 4 (7
U.S.C. 136a-1) are each amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Section 3(g) shall apply to this paragraph.''.
(3) Subsections (d)(6) and (f)(3) of section 4 (7 U.S.C.
136a-1) are each amended by striking ``The Administrator
shall'' and inserting ``Subject to section 3(g), the
Administrator shall''.
(4) Section 4(e)(3)(A) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(e)(3)(A)) is
amended by striking ``If the registrant'' and inserting
``Subject to section 3(g), if the registrant''.
SEC. 5. MINOR USE WAIVER.
Section 3(c)(2) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(E) In the case of the registration of a pesticide for a
minor use, the Administrator may waive otherwise applicable
data requirements if the Administrator determines that the
absence of the data will not prevent the Administrator from
determining--
``(i) the incremental risk presented by the minor use of
the pesticide; and
``(ii) whether the minor use of the pesticide would have
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.''.
SEC. 6. EXPEDITING MINOR USE REGISTRATIONS.
Section 3(c)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(3)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(C)(i) As expeditiously as practicable after receipt, the
Administrator shall review and act on a complete application
that--
``(I) proposes the initial registration of a new pesticide
active ingredient, if the active ingredient is proposed to be
registered solely for a minor use, or proposes a registration
amendment to an existing registration solely for a minor use;
or
``(II) for a registration or a registration amendment,
proposes a significant minor use.
``(ii) As used in clause (i):
``(I) The term `as expeditiously as practicable' means the
Administrator shall, to the greatest extent practicable,
complete a review and evaluation of all data submitted with
the application not later than 1 year after submission of the
application.
``(II) The term `significant minor use' means--
``(aa) 3 or more proposed minor uses for each proposed use
that is not minor;
``(bb) a minor use that the Administrator determines could
replace a use that was canceled not earlier than 5 years
preceding the receipt of the application; or
``(cc) a minor use that the Administrator determines would
avoid the reissuance of an emergency exemption under section
18 for the minor use.
``(iii) Review and action on an application under clause
(i) shall not be subject to judicial review.
``(D) On receipt by the registrant of a denial of a request
to waive a data requirement under paragraph (2)(E), the
registrant shall have the full time period originally
established by the Administrator for submission of the data,
beginning on the date of receipt by the registrant of the
denial.''.
SEC. 7. UTILIZATION OF DATA FOR VOLUNTARILY CANCELED
CHEMICALS.
Section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d) is amended by adding the
following:
``(4) Utilization of data for voluntarily canceled
chemicals.--The Administrator shall process, review, and
evaluate the application for a voluntarily canceled pesticide
as if the registrant had not canceled the registration, if--
``(A) another application is pending on the effective date
of the voluntary cancellation for the registration of a
pesticide that is--
``(i) for a minor use;
``(ii) identical or substantially similar to the canceled
pesticide; and
``(iii) for an identical or substantially similar use as
the canceled pesticide;
``(B) the Administrator determines that the minor use will
not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment;
and
``(C) the applicant certifies that the applicant will
satisfy any outstanding data requirement necessary to support
the reregistration of the pesticide, in accordance with any
data submission schedule established by the Administrator.''.
SEC. 8. MINOR USE PROGRAMS.
The Act is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 30 and 31 (7 U.S.C. 136x and
136y) as sections 33 and 34, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 29 (7 U.S.C. 136w-4) the
following:
``SEC. 30. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MINOR USE PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish a
minor use program in the Office of Pesticide Programs.
``(b) Responsibilities.--In carrying out the program
established under subsection (a), the Administrator shall--
``(1) coordinate the development of minor use programs and
policies; and
``(2) consult with growers regarding a minor use issue,
registration, or amendment that is submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
``SEC. 31. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINOR USE PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish a minor use program.
``(b) Responsibilities.--In carrying out the program
established under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
coordinate the responsibilities of the Department of
Agriculture related to the minor use of a pesticide,
including--
``(1) carrying out the Inter-Regional Research Project
Number 4 established under section 2(e) of Public Law 89-106
(7 U.S.C. 450i(e));
``(2) carrying out the national pesticide resistance
monitoring program established under section 1651(d) of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 5882(d));
``(3) supporting integrated pest management research;
``(4) consulting with growers to develop data for minor
uses; and
``(5) providing assistance for minor use registrations,
tolerances, and reregistrations with the Environmental
Protection Agency.
``SEC. 32. MINOR USE MATCHING FUND PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Administrator, shall establish and
administer a minor use matching fund program.
``(b) Responsibilities.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) ensure the continued availability of minor use
pesticides; and
``(2) develop data to support minor use pesticide
registrations and reregistrations.
``(c) Eligibility.--Any person that desires to develop data
to support a minor use registration shall be eligible to
participate in the program.
``(d) Priority.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary
shall provide a priority for funding to a person that does
not directly receive funds from the sale of a product
registered for a minor use.
``(e) Matching Funds.--To be eligible for funds under the
program, a person shall match the amount of funds provided
under the program with an equal amount of non-Federal funds.
``(f) Ownership of Data.--Any data developed through the
program shall be jointly owned by the Department of
Agriculture and the person that receives funds under this
section.
``(g) Statement.--Any data developed under this subsection
shall be submitted in a statement that complies with section
3(c)(1)(F).
``(h) Compensation.--Any compensation received by the
Department of Agriculture for the use of data developed under
this section shall be placed in a revolving fund. The fund
shall be used, subject to appropriations, to carry out the
program.
``(i) Authorization for Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$10,000,000 for each fiscal year.''.
[[Page S6522]]
SEC. 9. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO FIFRA TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents in section 1(b) (7 U.S.C. prec. 121)
is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of the items relating to section 2
the following new item:
``(hh) Minor use.'';
(2) by adding at the end of the items relating to section 3
the following new items:
``(g) Time extension for development of minor use data.
``(1) Supported data.
``(2) Nonsupported data.
``(3) Conditions.
``(4) Monitoring.
``(5) Noncompliance.
``(6) Modification or revocation.'';
(3) by adding at the end of the items relating to section
6(f) the following new item:
``(4) Utilization of data for voluntarily canceled chemicals.'';
and
(4) by striking the items relating to sections 30 and 31
and inserting the following new items:
``Sec. 30. Environmental Protection Agency minor use program.
``(a) Establishment.
``(b) Responsibilities.
``Sec. 31. Department of Agriculture minor use program.
``(a) Establishment.
``(b) Responsibilities.
``Sec. 32. Minor use matching fund program.
``(a) Establishment.
``(b) Responsibilities.
``(c) Eligibility.
``(d) Priority.
``(e) Matching funds.
``(f) Ownership of data.
``(g) Statement.
``(h) Compensation.
``(i) Authorization for appropriations.
``Sec. 33. Severability.
``Sec. 34. Authorization for appropriations.''.
____
Summary--Minor Use Crop Protection Act of 1995
Establishes a minor use definition. The use of a pesticide
on an animal, or on a commercial agricultural crop or site,
or for the protection of public health could qualify as a
minor use if the total acreage of the crop is less than
300,000 acres or if the use does not provide sufficient
economic incentive to the manufacturer to support its
registration and it meets one of four ``public interest''
criteria. The four public interest criteria are that there
are insufficient efficacious alternatives available for the
use, or the alternatives pose a greater risk to the
environment or human health, or the pesticide can help manage
pest resistance problems or the pesticide would be part of an
integrated pest management program.
The current 10 year exclusive use protection for
registrants of new chemicals could be extended one year for
each three minor uses which a manufacturer registers, up to a
maximum of three additional years for nine or more minor uses
registered by EPA. In order to receive the extension, new
minor uses must be approved before the end of the original
exclusive use period. One of the above four ``public
interest'' criteria must also be met. Exclusive use is
subject to review by EPA to ensure that new minor uses are
being marketed.
The time necessary for the development of residue chemistry
data for a minor use could be extended until the final study
due date for data necessary to support the other registered
uses being maintained by the registrant.
EPA may waive minor use data requirements in certain
circumstances where EPA can otherwise determine the risk
presented by the minor use and such risk is not unreasonable.
EPA is to review and act on minor use registration
applications within 1 year if the active ingredient is to be
registered solely for a minor use, or if there are three or
more minor uses proposed for every non-minor use, or if the
minor use would serve as a replacement for any use that has
been canceled within 5 years of the application or if the
approval of the minor use would avoid the reissuance of an
emergency exemption.
If a minor use waiver of data requirements is submitted to
EPA and subsequently denied, the registrant would be given
the full time period for supplying the data to EPA.
As a transition measure, the effective date of the
voluntary cancellation of minor uses by a registrant could
coincide with the due date of the final study required in the
reregistration process for those uses being supported by the
registrant.
EPA can consider data from a pesticide which has been
voluntarily canceled in support of another minor use
registration that is identical or similar and for a similar
use. The new registration must be submitted before the
voluntary cancellation occurs. Any additional data needed
would have to be supplied by the new applicant.
A minor use program within EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs would be established.
A minor use program within USDA would be established. This
would include a minor use matching fund for the development
of scientific data to support minor uses.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. Ashcroft):
S. 796. A bill to provide for the protection of wild horses within
the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and prohibit the removal
of such horses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
OZARK WILD HORSE PROTECTION ACT
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Ashcroft in
introducing the Ozark Wild Horse Protection Act. Since 1990, the
citizens in southeast Missouri have been engaged in a struggle with the
Department of the Interior's National Park Service [NPS] to prevent a
group of about 30 feral horses from being rounded up by the Government
and relocated or slaughtered. On behalf of these Missouri citizens who
have fought to protect these horses, Congressman Bill Emerson has
tirelessly led the fight to stop this action.
This legislation I introduce today is companion legislation to H.R.
238, introduced in the House by Congressman Emerson on January 4, 1995.
It prohibits the removal or assistance in the removal of, any free-
roaming horses from the Ozark National Scenic Riverways [ONSR], except
in the case of medical emergency or natural disaster.
Mr. President, unfortunately, this is yet another case where the
bureaucrats think they know best and have blatantly disregarded the
perspective, suggestions, and views of the local citizens. St. Louis,
MO, conservationist and landowner Leo Drey noted that these horses were
in the park long before the NPS and ``The horses probably spend more
time loafing on our land than they do on the riverways. There's only a
few of them and they don't congregate to the extent they do any serious
trampling or damage.''
A Missouri citizen's group called the Missouri Wild Horse League,
which is based in Eminence, MO, was created several years ago to
protect the horses from the National Park Service. This group has
roughly 3,000 members. Mr. President, that membership is more than six
times the number of citizens who live in the league's headquarters city
of Eminence, MO.
It has been the contention of the NPS that the 30 horses that roam
the 71,000-acre site should be removed because their presence is in
conflict with the management policies of the NPS and their activities
threaten plant communities. We are talking about a site almost two
times the size of the District of Columbia where the 30 horses roam. I
suggest that the NPS would be hard pressed to even find the horses on
roundup day.
In 1990, to prevent removal of a part of this area's heritage that
the National Park Service is charged to preserve, 1,000 local citizens
signed a petition to keep the wild horses in the ONSR. That same year,
the Missouri Senate unanimously passed a resolution objecting to the
removal of the horses. Still, the NPS ignored the importance of this
local treasure to the people in this area.
Subsequently, citizens in Missouri filed suit and, in June of 1990,
U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh issued an injunction. The NPS
would still not yield, appealing the ruling. They would not concede in
their fight to impose the Federal Government's will on the public,
notwithstanding the views of the local citizens, notwithstanding the
views of the Missouri Senate, notwithstanding the views of Missouri
representatives in Congress, and notwithstanding the decision of a U.S.
district court judge. The NPS prevailed in the higher courts. That is
why it is urgently needed for the Congress to intervene and prevent
this Government-managed horse rustling.
At the request of Congressman Emerson, former ONSR Superintendent
Sullivan agreed to delay any roundup until there is opportunity to
address this issue in the 104th Congress. While I appreciate this one
concession on the part of the former superintendent, I find it
inconceivable that the intransigence of former Superintendent Sullivan
has brought this issue before the Secretary of the Interior, the U.S.
Supreme Court, and now before the U.S. Congress. It is rare to find
Federal field personnel as out of touch and acting with total disregard
for local sentiment--that is typically reserved for their bosses in
Washington.
[[Page S6523]] Unfortunately, it is this form of raw arrogance that
has the Federal Government in such low standing with the American
citizens--the notion that it is the olympians on the hill who know
what's best for the peasants in the valley. At this juncture, I believe
Congress has no other alternative but to pursue this matter as
expeditiously as possible. The National Parks Subcommittee of the House
Committee on Resources is scheduled to hold a hearing on May 18 to
consider H.R. 238.
I congratulate Congressman Emerson for keeping up the heat on this
issue. Had he not, I expect the horses would already be gone. And, I
fear that if we cannot expedite action on this bill, they will be gone.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 797. A bill to provide assistance to States and local communities
to improve adult education and family literacy, to help achieve the
national education goals for all citizens, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
adult education and family literacy reform act
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing, on behalf of the
Clinton administration, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform
Act of 1995. This measure will reform and improve literacy services for
adults and families.
As the 1993 National Adult Literacy Survey showed, 20 percent of
adults perform at or below the fifth-grade level in reading and math--
far below the level needed for effective participation in the work
force. And because parents' educational level is a strong predictor of
children's academic success, the problem seriously affects children as
well as adults.
Despite the clear need for better literacy services for adults, the
current Federal program serves only a small percentage of those who
need assistance. While many adults benefit from participation in the
program, many others leave before they achieve any significant
improvement in literacy.
Current adult education and family literacy programs are too diffuse.
They divert human and financial resources from what should be the focus
of all Federal literacy efforts--the provision of high-quality,
results-oriented services.
The problem of illiteracy presents the country with a number of
serious challenges ranging from the way men and women function in the
workplace to whether parents are able to participate effectively in
their children's education. The Adult Education and Family Literacy
Reform Act uses a single stream of funding to States and localities to
create a partnership designed around five broad principles--
streamlining, flexibility, quality, targeting, and consumer choice.
The single funding stream recognizes the need to eliminate
duplication and overlap in current programs. The bill is a 10-year
authorization to encourage States to engage in long-range planning. It
consolidates 12 existing programs which now have separate line items in
the Federal budget
First, the Library Literacy Program, which provides small competitive
grants supporting literacy programs in public libraries,
Second, Workplace Literacy Partnerships, which support partnerships
of education agencies and employers that help employees develop basic
skills,
Third, the Literacy Training for Homeless Adults, which funds
projects for homeless adults in all States,
Fourth, the Literacy Program for Prisoners, a nationally competitive
grant awarded to correctional education agencies,
Fifth, Even Start, which provides literacy training to parents of
public schoolchildren,
Sixth, adult education State grants, which provide funds to State
education agencies to support programs that assist educationally
disadvantaged adults in developing basic skills,
Seventh, gateway grants, which fund at least one adult education
project in a public housing authority in each State,
Eighth, State literacy resource centers, which support Statewide
coordination and training,
Ninth, Literacy for Institutionalized Adults, which supports literacy
projects for adults in State hospitals and correctional institutions,
Tenth, the set-aside for education coordination in title II of the
Job Training Partnership Act, which serves eligible adults who have
basic education needs,
Eleventh, the National Institute for Literacy, as interagency
institute which provides Federal leadership in coordinating and
improving literacy services, and
Twelfth, evaluation and technical assistance, which provides Federal
aid for research and technical assistance.
The fiscal year 1995 appropriation for these programs is $488
million. The bill recommends a $490 million authorization for the
consolidated programs for fiscal year 1996, and such sums as may be
necessary in future years.
While consolidating many categorical programs, the proposal requires
States to ensure that the needs of at-risk populations are met. Under
the bill, States can continue to use libraries and the workplace as
sites for literacy services. It requires States to assess the adult
education and family literacy needs of hard-to-serve and most-in-need
individuals, and to describe how the program will meet those needs.
Targeting provisions of the bill also will ensure that local areas with
high concentrations of individuals in poverty or low levels of
literacy, or both, receive priority for Federal funds.
This legislation responds to the well-documented literacy problem in
this country. I look forward to working closely with other Senators to
achieve the bipartisan support we need in order to assist the large
number of adults in this country who are ready, willing, and able to
become more productive citizens and better parents. What they need now
is a helping hand, and this message will give it to them.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter of transmittal, the text of
the bill, and a section-by-section analysis of the bill may be included
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 797
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Adult Education and Family Literacy
Reform Act of 1995.''
TITLE I--AMENDMENT TO THE ADULT EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT
Section 1. The Adult Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.;
hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
``short title; table of contents
``Sec. 101. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
`Adult Education and Family Literacy Act'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
Act is as follows:
``TABLE OF CONTENTS
``Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
``Sec. 2. Findings; purpose.
``Sec. 3. Authorization of appropriations.
``TITLE I--ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY
``Sec. 101. Program Authority; Priorities.
``Sec. 102. State Grants for Adult Education and Family Literacy.
``Sec. 103. State Leadership Activities.
``Sec. 104. Even Start Family Literacy Program.
``Sec. 105. State Administration.
``Sec. 106. State Plan.
``Sec. 107. Subgrants to Eligible Applicants.
``Sec. 108. Applications From Eligible Applicants.
``Sec. 109. State Performance Goals and Indicators.
``Sec. 110. Evaluation, Improvement, and Accountability.
``Sec. 111. Allotments; Reallotment.
``TITLE II--NATIONAL LEADERSHIP
``Sec. 201. National Leadership Activities.
``Sec. 202. Awards for National Excellence.
``Sec. 203. National Institute for Literacy.
``TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
``Sec. 301. Waivers.
``Sec. 302. Definitions.
``findings; purpose
``Sec. 2. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
``(1) Our Nation's well-being is dependent on the
knowledge, skills, and abilities of all of its citizens.
``(2) Advances in technology and changes in the workplace
are rapidly increasing the knowledge and skill requirements
for workers.
``(3) Our social cohesion and success in combatting
poverty, crime, and disease also depend on the Nation's
having an educated citizenry.
``(4) The success of State and local educational reforms
supported by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and other
programs that State and local communities are implementing
requires that parents be well educated and possess the
ability to be a child's first and most continuous teacher.
[[Page S6524]] ``(5) There is a strong relationship between
educational attainment and welfare dependence. Adults with
very low levels of literacy are ten times as likely to be
poor as those with high levels of literacy.
``(6) Studies, including the National Adult Literacy
Survey, have found that more than one-fifth of American
adults demonstrate very low literacy skills that make it
difficult for them to enter high-skill, high-wage jobs, to
assist effectively in their children's education, or to carry
out their responsibilities as citizens.
``(7) National studies have also shown that existing
federally supported adult education programs have assisted
many adults in acquiring basic literacy skills, learning
English, or acquiring a high school diploma (or its
equivalent), and family literacy programs have shown great
potential for breaking the intergenerational cycle of low
literacy and having a positive effect on later school
performance and high school completion, especially for
children from low-income families.
``(8) Current adult education programs, however, are often
narrowly focused on specific populations or methods of
service delivery, have conflicting or overlapping
requirements, and are not administered in an integrated
manner, thus inhibiting the capacity of State and local
officials to implement programs that meet the needs of
individual States and localities.
``(9) The President's GI Bill for America's Workers, of
which this Act is a key component, will help strengthen the
capacity of States, educational institutions, and businesses,
working together, to upgrade the skills and literacy levels
of youth and adults.
``(10) The Federal Government can, through a performance
partnership with States and localities based on clear State-
developed goals and indicators, increased State and local
flexibility, improved accountability and incentives for
performance, and enhanced consumer choice and information,
assist States and localities with the improvement and
expansion of their adult education and family literacy
programs.
``(11) The Federal Government can also assist States and
localities by carrying out research, development,
demonstration, dissemination, evaluation, capacity-building,
data collection, professional development, and technical
assistance activities that support State and local efforts to
implement successfully services and activities that are
funded under this Act, as well as adult education and family
literacy activities supported with non-Federal resources.
``(b) Purpose.--(1) It is the purpose of this Act to create
a performance partnership with States and localities for the
provision of adult education and family literacy services so
that, as called for in the National Education Goals, all
adults who need such services will, as appropriate, be able
to--
``(A) become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills
needed to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights
and responsibilities of citizenship;
``(B) complete a high school education;
``(c) become and remain actively involved in their
children's education in order to ensure their children's
readiness for, and success in, school.
``(2) This purpose shall be pursued through--
``(A) building on State and local education reforms
supported by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and other
Federal and State legislation;
``(B) consolidating numerous Federal adult education and
literacy programs into a single, flexible grant;
``(C) tying local programs to challenging State-developed
performance goals that are consistent with the purpose of
this Act;
``(D) holding States and localities accountable for
achieving such goals;
``(E) building program quality though such measures as
encouraging greater use of new technologies in adult
education and family literacy programs and better
professional development of educators working in those
programs;
``(F) integrating adult education and family literacy
programs with States' school-to-work opportunities systems,
career preparation education services and activities, job
training programs, early childhood and elementary school
programs, and other related activities; and
``(G) supporting the improvement of State and local
activities through nationally significant efforts in
research, development, demonstration, dissemination,
evaluation, capacity-building, data collection, professional
development, and technical assistance.
``authorization of appropriations
``Sec. 3. (a) State Grants for Adult Education and Family
Literacy.--For the purpose of carrying out this Act there are
authorized to be appropriated $490,487,000 for fiscal year
1996 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 1997 through 2005.
``(b) Reservations.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), from the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
subsection (a), the Secretary may reserve--
``(A) not more than 5 percent to carry out section 202;
``(B) not more than 3 percent to carry out sections 201 and
203; and
``(C) not more than $5,000,000 for Even Start family
literacy programs for migratory families and Indian families
under section 104(c).
``(2) The Secretary may reserve funds under paragraph
(1)(A) beginning in fiscal year 1998.
``TITLE I--ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY
``program authority; priorities
``Sec. 101. (a) Program Authorized.--In order to prepare
adults for family, work, citizenship, and job training, and
adults and their children for success in future learning,
funds
under this title shall be used to support the development,
implementation, and improvement of adult education and
family literacy programs at the State and local levels.
``(b) Program Priorities.--In using funds under this title,
States and local recipients shall give priority to--
``(1) services and activities designed to ensure that all
adults have the opportunity to achieve to challenging State
performance standards for literacy proficiency, including
basic literacy, English language proficiency, and completion
of high school or its equivalent;
``(2) services and activities designed to enable parents to
prepare their children for school, enhance their children's
language and cognitive abilities, and promote their own
career advancement; and
``(3) adult education and family literacy programs that--
``(A) are built on a strong foundation of research and
effective educational practices;
``(B) effectively employ advances in technology, as well as
learning in the context of family, work, and the community;
``(C) are staffed by well-trained instructors, counselors,
and administrators;
``(D) are of sufficient intensity and duration for
participants to achieve substantial learning gains;
``(E) establish strong links with elementary and secondary
schools, postsecondary institutions, one-stop career centers,
job-training programs, and social service agencies; and
``(F) offer flexible schedules and, when necessary, support
services to enable people, including adults with disabilities
or other special needs, to attend and complete programs.
``state grants for adult education and family literacy
``Sec. 102. (a) State Grant.--From the funds available for
State grants under section 3 for each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall, in accordance with section 111, make a grant
to each State that has an approved State plan under section
106, to assist that State in developing, implementing, and
improving adult education and family literacy programs within
the State.
``(b) Reservation of Funds.--From the amount awarded to a
State for any fiscal year under subsection (a), the State--
``(1) may use up to 5 percent, or $80,000, whichever is
greater, for the cost of administering its program under this
title;
``(2) may use up to 10 percent for leadership activities
under section 103;
``(3)(A) may, beginning in fiscal year 1998, use up to 5
percent for financial incentives or awards to one or more
eligible recipients in recognition of--
``(i) exemplary quality of innovation in adult education or
family literacy services and activities; or
``(ii) exemplary services and activities for individuals
who are most in need of such services and activities, or are
hardest to serve, such as adults with disabilities or other
special needs; or
``(iii) both.
``(B) The incentives or awards made under subparagraph (A)
shall be determined by the State through a peer review
process, using the performance goals and indicators described
in section 109 and, if appropriate, other criteria; and
``(4) shall use the remainder for subgrants to eligible
applicants under section 107, except that at least 25 percent
of the remainder shall be used for Even Start family literacy
programs, under section 104, unless the State demonstrates in
its State plan under section 106, to the satisfaction of the
Secretary, that it will otherwise meet the needs of
individuals in the State for family literacy programs in a
manner that is consistent with the purpose of this Act.
``(c) Federal Share.--(1) The Federal share of expenditures
to carry out a State plan under section 106 shall be paid
from the State's grant under subsection (a).
``(2) The Federal share shall be no greater than 75 percent
of the cost of carrying out the State plan for each fiscal
year, except that with respect to Guam, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands the Federal
share may be 100 percent.
``(3) The State's share of expenditures to carry out a
State plan submitted under section 106 may be in cash or in
kind, fairly evaluated, and may include only non-Federal
funds that are used for adult education and family literacy
activities in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of
this Act.
``(d) Maintenance of Effort.--(1) A State may receive funds
under this title for any fiscal year only if the Secretary
finds that the aggregate expenditures of the State for adult
education and family literacy by such State for the preceding
fiscal year were not less than 90 percent of such aggregate
expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year.
``(2) The Secretary shall reduce the amount of the
allocation of funds under section 111 for any fiscal year in
the exact proportion to which a State fails to meet the
requirement
[[Page S6525]] of paragraph (1) by falling below 90 percent
of the aggregate expenditures for adult education and family
literacy for the second preceding fiscal year.
``(3) The Secretary may waive the requirements of this
subsection if the Secretary determines that a waiver would be
equitable due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances,
such as a natural disaster or a precipitous decline in the
financial resource of the State.
``(4) No lesser amount of State expenditures under
paragraphs (2) and (3) may be used for computing the effort
required under paragraph (1) for subsequent years.
``state leadership activities
``Sec. 103. (a) State Leadership.--Each State that receives
a grant under section 102(a) for any fiscal year shall use
funds reserved for State leadership under section 102(b)(2)
to conduct activities of Statewide significance that develop,
implement, or improve programs of adult education and family
literacy, consistent with its State plan under section 106.
``(b) Uses of Funds.--States shall use funds under
subsection (a) for one or more of the following--
``(1) professional development and training;
``(2) disseminating curricula for adult education and
family literacy programs;
``(3) monitoring and evaluating the quality of, and
improvement in, services and activities conducted with
assistance under this title, including establishing
performance goals and indicators under section 109(a), in
order to assess program quality and improvement;
``(4) establishing State content standards for adult
education and family literacy programs;
``(5) establishing challenging State performance standards
for literacy proficiency;
``(6) promoting the integration of literacy instruction and
occupational skill training, and linkages with employers;
``(7) promoting the use of and acquiring instructional and
management software and technology;
``(8) establishing or operating State or regional adult
literacy resource centers;
``(9) developing and participating in networks and
consortia of States that seek to establish and implement
adult education and family literacy programs that have
significance to the State or region, and may have national
significance; and
``(10) other activities of Statewide significance that
promote the purposes of this Act.
``even start family literacy programs
``Sec. 104. (a) Even Start Grants.--Each State that
receives a grant under section 102(a) for any fiscal year
shall use funds reserved under section 102(b)(4) to award
subgrants to partnerships described in subsection (b)(5) to
carry out Even Start family literacy programs.
``(b) Program Elements.--An Even Start family literacy
program shall--
``(1) provide opportunities (including opportunities for
home-based instructional services) for joint participation by
parents or guardians (including parents or guardians who are
within the State's compulsory school attendance age range, so
long as a local educational agency provides, or ensures the
availability of, their basic education), other family
members, and children;
``(2) provide developmentally appropriate childhood
education for children from birth through age seven;
``(3) identify and recruit families that are most in need
of family literacy services, as indicated by low levels of
income and adult literacy (including limited English
proficiency), and such other need-related indicators as may
be appropriate;
``(4) enable participants, including individuals with
disabilities or other special needs, to succeed through
services and activities designed to meet their needs, such as
support services and flexible class schedules; and
``(5) except as provided in subsection (c), be operated by
a partnership composed of--
``(A) one or more local educational agencies; and
``(B) one or more community-based organizations,
institutions of higher education, private non-profit
organizations, or public agencies (including correctional
institutions or agencies) other than local educational
agencies.
``(c) Migratory and Indian Families.--From funds reserved
under section 3(b)(1)(C) for any fiscal year, the Secretary
shall, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall
establish, support Even Start family literacy programs
through grants to, or cooperative agreements with--
``(1) eligible applicants under section 107(b) for
migratory families; and
``(2) Indian tribes and tribal organizations for Indian
families.
``state administration
``Sec. 105. (a) Designated State Agency or Agencies.--A
State desiring to receive a grant under section 102(a) shall,
consistent with State law, designate an education agency or
agencies that shall be responsible for the administration of
services and activities under this title, including--
``(1) the development, submission, and implementation of
the State plan;
``(2) consultation with other appropriate agencies, groups,
and individuals that are involved in, or interested in, the
development and implementation of programs assisted under
this title, such as business, industry, labor organizations,
and social service agencies; and
``(3) coordination with other State and Federal education,
training, employment, and social service programs, and one-
step career centers.
(b) State-Imposed Requirements.--Whenever a State imposes
any rule or policy relating to the administration and
operation of programs funded by this title (including any
rule or policy based on State interpretation of any Federal
law, regulation, or guideline), it shall identify the rule or
policy as a State-imposed requirement.
``state plan
Sec. 106. (a) Five-Year Plans.--(1) Except as provided in
subsection (f), each State desiring to receive a grant under
this title for any fiscal year shall submit to, or have on
file with, the Secretary a five-year State plan in accordance
with this section. Each State plan submitted to the Secretary
shall be approved by the designated State agency or agencies
under section 105(a).
``(2) The State may submit its State plan as part of a
comprehensive plan that includes State plan provisions under
one or more of the following statutes: section 14302 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; the Carl D.
Perkins Career Preparation Education Act of 1995; the Goals
2000: Educate America Act; the Job Training Partnership Act,
and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.
``(b) Plan Assessment.--In developing its State plan, and
any revisions to the State plan under subsection (e), the
State shall base its plan or revisions on a recent, objective
assessment of--
``(1) the needs of individuals in the State for adult
education and family literacy programs, including individuals
most in need or hardest to serve (such as educationally
disadvantaged adults and families, recent immigrants,
individuals with limited English proficiency, incarcerated
individuals, homeless individuals, recipients of public
assistance, and individuals with disabilities);
``(2) the capacity of programs and providers to meet those
needs, taking into account the priorities under section 101
and the State's performance goals under section 109(a).
``(c) Public Participation.--In developing its State plan,
and any revisions under subsection (e), the State shall
consult
widely with individuals, agencies, organizations, and
institutions in the State that have an interest in the
provision and quality of adult education and family
literacy, including--
``(1) individuals who currently participate, or who want to
participate, in adult education and family literacy programs;
``(2) practitioners and experts in adult education and
family literacy, social services, and workforce development;
and
``(3) representatives of business and labor.
``(d) Plan Contents.--The plan shall be in such form and
contain such information and assurances as the Secretary may
require, and shall include--
``(1) a summary of the methods used to conduct the
assessment under subsection (b) and the findings of that
assessment;
``(2) a description of how, in addressing the needs
identified in the State's assessment, funds under this title
will be used to establish adult education and family literacy
programs, or improve or expand current programs, that will
lead to high-quality learning outcomes, including measurable
learning gains, for individuals in such programs;
``(3) a statement of the State's performance goals and
indicators established under section 109, or, in the first
plan, a description of how the State will establish such
performance goals and indicators;
``(4) a description of the criteria the State will use to
award funds under this title or eligible applicants under
section 107, including how the State will ensure that its
selection of applicants to operate programs assisted under
this title will reflect the finds of program evaluations
carried out under section 110(a);
``(5) a description of how the State will integrate
services and activities under this Act, including planning
and coordination of programs, with those of other agencies,
institutions, and organizations involved in adult education
and family literacy, such as the public school system, early
childhood education programs, social service agencies,
business, labor unions, libraries, institutions of higher
education, public health authorities, vocational education
and special education programs, one-stop career centers, and
employment or training programs, in order to ensure effective
us of funds and to avoid duplication of services;
``(6) a description of the leadership activities the State
will carry out under section 103;
``(7) any comments the Governor may have on the State plan;
and
``(8) assurances that--
``(A) the State will comply with the requirements of this
Act and the provisions of the State plan;
``(B) the State will use such fiscal control and accounting
procedures as are necessary for the proper and efficient
administration of this title; and
``(C) programs funded under this title will be of such
size, scope, and quality as to give realistic promise of
furthering the purpose of this Act.
``(e) Plan Revisions.--When changes in conditions or other
factors require substantial modifications to an approved
State plan, the designated State agency or agencies shall
submit a revision to the plan to the Secretary. Such a
revision shall be approved by the designated State agency or
agencies.
[[Page S6526]] ``(C) programs funded under this title will
be of such size, scope, and quality as to give realistic
promise of furthering the purpose of this Act.
``(e) Plan Revisions.--When changes in conditions or other
facets require substantial modifications to an approved State
plan, the designated State agency or agencies shall submit a
revision to the plan to the Secretary. Such a revision shall
be approved by the designated State agency or agencies.
``(f) Planning Year.--(1) For fiscal year 1996 only, a
State may submit a one year State plan to the Secretary that
either satisfies the specific requirements of this section or
describes how the State will complete the development of its
State plan with respect to those specific requirements within
the following year. A State may use funds reserved under
section 102(b)(2) to complete the development of its State
plan.
``(2) A one year plan under this subsection shall--
``(A) be developed in accordance with subsection (c); and
``(B) contain the assurances described in subsection
(d)(8).
``(3) In order to receive a grant under section 102(a) of
fiscal year 1997, a State that submits a one year State plan
under this subsection shall submit a four year State plan
that covers fiscal year 1997 and the three succeeding fiscal
years.
``(g) Consultation.--The designated State agency or
agencies shall--
``(1) submit the State plan, and any revision to the State
plan, to the Governor for review and comment; and
``(2) ensure that any comments the Governor may have are
included with the State plan, or revision, when the State
plan, or revision, is submitted to the Secretary.
``(h) Plan Approval.--(1) The Secretary shall approve a
State plan, or a revision to an approved State plan, if it
meets the requirements of this section and is of sufficient
quality to meet the purpose of this Act, and shall not
finally disapprove a State plan, or a revision to an approved
State plan, except after giving the State reasonable notice
and an opportunity for a hearing.
``(2) The Secretary shall establish a peer review process
to make recommendations regarding approval of State plans and
revisions to the State plans.
``subgrants to eligible applicants
``Sec. 107. (a). Authority.--(1) From funds available under
section 102(b)(4), States shall make subgrants to eligible
applicants under subsection (b) to develop, implement, and
improve adult education and family literacy programs within
the State.
``(2) To the extent practicable, States shall make multi-
year subgrants under this section.
``(b) Eligibility.--(1) Except as provided for subgrants
for Even Start family literacy programs under section 104,
the following entities shall be eligible to apply to the
State for a subgrant under this section:
``(A) local education agencies
``(B) community-based organizations;
``(C) institutions of higher education;
``(D) public and private nonprofit agencies (including
State and local welfare agencies, corrections agencies,
public libraries, and public housing authorities); and
``(E) consortia of such agencies, organizations,
institutions, or partnerships, including consortia that
include one or more for-profit agencies, organizations, or
institutions, if such agencies, organizations, or
institutions can make a significant contribution to attaining
the objectives of this Act.
``(2) Each State receiving funds under this title shall
ensure that all eligible applicants described under
subsection (b)(1) receive equitable consideration for
subgrants under this section.
``applications from eligible applicants
``Sec. 108. (a) Application.--Any eligible applicant under
sections 104(a) or 107(b)(1) that desires a subgrant under
this title shall submit an application to the State
containing such information and assurances as the State may
reasonably require, including--
``(1) a description of the applicant's current adult
education and family literacy programs, if any;
``(2) a description of how funds awarded under this title
will be spent;
``(3) a description of how the applicant's program will
help the State address the needs identified in the State's
assessment under section 106(b)(1);
``(4) the projected goals of the applicant with respect to
participant recruitment, retention, and educational
achievement, and how the applicant will measure and report to
the State regarding the information required in section
110(a); and
``(5) any cooperative arrangements the applicant has with
others (including arrangements with social service agencies,
one-stop career centers, business, industry, and volunteer
literacy organizations) that have been made to deliver adult
education and family literacy programs.
``(b) Funding.--In determining which applicants receive
funds under this title, the State shall--
``(1) give preference to those applicants that serve local
areas with high concentrations of individuals in poverty or
with low levels of literacy (including English language
proficiency), or both;
``(2) consider--
``(A) the results of the evaluations required under section
110(a), if any; and
``(B) the degree to which the applicant will coordinate
with and utilize other literacy and social services available
on the community.
``state performance goals and indicators
``Sec. 109. (a) State-Established Performance Goals and
Indicators.--Any State desiring to receive a grant under
section 102(a), in consultation with individuals, agencies,
organizations, and institutions described in section 106(c),
shall--
``(1) identify performance goals that define the level of
student achievement to be attained by adult education and
family literacy programs, and express such goals in an
objective, quantifiable, and measurable form;
``(2) identify performance indicators that State and local
recipients will use in measuring or assessing progress toward
achieving such goals; and
``(3) by July 1, 1997, ensure that the State performances
indicators include, at least--
``(i) achievement in linguistic skills, including English
language skills;
``(ii) receipt of a high school diploma or its equivalent;
(iii) entry into a postsecondary school, job training
program, employment, or career advancement; and
``(iv) successful transition of children to school.
``(b) Transition.--Except as provided in subsection (a)(3),
each State receiving funds under this title may continue to
use the indicators of program quality it developed under
section 331(a)(2) of the Adult Education Act as in effect
before the date of enactment of the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Reform Act of 1995, to the extent that they
are consistent with the State's performance goals.
``(c) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance to States regarding the development of
the State's performance goals and indicators under subsection
(a). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary may use funds reserved under section 3(b)(1)(B) to
provide technical assistance under this section.
``evaluation, improvement, and accountability
``Sec. 110. (a) Local Evaluation.--Each recipient of a
subgrant under this title shall biennially evaluate, using
the performance goals and indicators established under
section 109, the programs supported under this title and
report to the State regarding the effectiveness of its
programs in addressing the priorities under section 101 and
the needs identified in the State assessment under section
106(b)(1).
``(b) Improvement Activities.--If a State determines, based
on the applicable performance goals and indicators
established under section 109 and the evaluations under
subsection (a), that a subgrant recipient is not making
substantial progress in achieving the purpose of this Act,
the State may work jointly with the local recipient to
develop an improvement plan. If, after not more than two
years of implementation of the improvement plan, the State
determines that the recipient is not making substantial
progress, the State shall take whatever corrective action it
deems necessary, which may include termination of funding or
the implementation of alternative service arrangements,
consistent with State law. The State shall take corrective
action under the preceding sentence only after it has
provided technical assistance to the recipient and shall
ensure that any corrective action it takes allows for
continued services and activities to the recipient's
students.
``(c) State Report.--The State shall biennially report to
the Secretary on the quality and effectiveness of the adult
education and family literacy programs funded through its
subgrants under this title, based on the performance goals
and indicators under section 109(a) and the needs identified
in the State assessment under section 106(b)(1).
``(d) Technical Assistance.--If the Secretary determines
that the State is not properly implementing its
responsibilities under subsection (b), or is not making
substantial progress in meeting the purpose of this Act,
based on its performance goals and indicators under section
109(a), the Secretary shall work with the State to implement
improvement activities.
``(e) Withholding of Federal Funds.--If, after a reasonable
time, but not earlier than one year after implementing
activities described in subsection (d), the Secretary
determines that the
State is not making sufficient progress, based on its
performance goals and indicators under section 109(a), the
Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for a
hearing, withhold from the State all, or a portion, of the
State's allotment under this title. The Secretary may use
funds withheld under the preceding sentence to provide,
through alternative arrangements, services and activities
within the State that meet the purposes of this Act.
``allotments; reallotment
``Sec. 111. (a) Allotment to States.--(1) Subject to
subsection (b), from the funds available under section 102(a)
for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each
State--
``(A) a sum that bears the same ratio to one-half that
amount as the number of individuals in the State who are 16
years of age or older and not enrolled, or required to be
enrolled, in secondary school and who do not possess a high
school diploma or its equivalent, bears to the number of such
individuals in all the States; and
[[Page S6527]] ``(B) a sum that bears the same ratio to
one-half that amount as the number of individuals in the
State who are 18 years of age or older and who are living at
or below poverty bears to the number of such individuals in
all the States.
``(2)(A) The Secretary shall allot to the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico an amount equal to 2.95 percent of the funds
available under section 102(a) for each fiscal year.
``(B) For the purpose of the subsection, the term `State'
shall be deemed to exclude the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(3) The numbers of individuals specified in paragraph (1)
shall be determined by the Secretary on the basis of the
latest estimates available to the Department that are
satisfactory to the Secretary.
``(b) Hold-Harmless.--(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to paragraph (2)--
``(A) for fiscal year 1996, no State shall receive under
title I of this Act less than 90 percent of the sum of the
payments made to the State for the fiscal year 1995 for
programs authorized by section 313 of the Adult Education
Act, section 1202 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, and sections 202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) of
the Job Training Partnership Act, as they were in effect
prior to the enactment of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Reform Act of 1995; and
``(B) for fiscal year 1997, no State shall receive under
title I of this Act less than 90 percent of the amount it
received under title I for fiscal year 1996.
``(2) If for any fiscal year the amount available for
allotment under this section is insufficient to satisfy the
provisions of paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ratably
reduce the payments to all States for such services and
activities as necessary.
``(c) Reallotment.--If the Secretary determines that any
amount of a State's allotment under this section for any
fiscal year will not be required for carrying out the program
for which such amounts has been allotted, the Secretary shall
make such amount available for reallotment to one or more
other States on a basis that the Secretary determines would
best serve the purposes of this Act. Any amount reallotted to
a State under this subsection shall be deemed to be part of
its allotment for the fiscal year in which it is obligated.
``(d) Report.--The Secretary shall, by September 30, 2000--
``(1) conduct a study to determine the availability and
reliability of statistical data on the number of immigrants
and limited English proficient individuals in each State; and
``(2) report to the Congress on the feasibility and
advisability of including such populations as factors in the
formula under subsection (a)(1).
``TITLE II--NATIONAL LEADERSHIP
``national leadership activities
``Sec. 201. (a) Authority.--From the amount reserved under
section 3(b)(1)(B) for any fiscal year, the Secretary is
authorized to establish a program of national leadership and
evaluation activities to enhance the quality of adult
education and family literacy nationwide.
``(b) Method of Funding. The Secretary may carry out
national leadership and evaluation activities directly or
through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.
``(c) Uses of Funds.--Funds used under this section may be
used for--
``(1) research and development;
``(2) demonstration of model and innovative programs;
``(3) dissemination;
``(4) evaluations and assessments, including independent
assessments of services and activities assisted under this
Act and of the condition and progress of literacy in the
United States;
``(5) capacity building at the State and local levels;
``(6) data collection;
``(7) professional development;
``(8) technical assistance; and
``(9) other activities designed to enhance the quality of
adult education and family literacy nationwide.
``awards for national excellence
``Sec. 202. The Secretary may, from the amount reserved
under section 3(b)(1)(A) for any fiscal year after fiscal
year 1997, and through a peer review process, make
performance awards to one or more States that have--
``(1) exceeded in an outstanding manner their performance
goals under section 109(a);
``(2) made exemplary progress in developing, implementing,
or improving their adult education and family literacy
programs in accordance with the priorities described in
section 101; or
``(3) provided exemplary services and activities for those
individuals within the State who are most in need of adult
education and family literacy services, or are hardest to
serve.
``national institute for literacy
``Sec. 203. (a) Purpose.--The National Institute for
Literacy shall--
``(1) provide national leadership;
``(2) coordinate literacy services; and
``(3) be a national resource for adult education and family
literacy, by providing the best and most current information
available and supporting the creation of new ways to offer
improved services.
``(b) Establishment.--(1) There shall be a National
Institute for Literacy (in this section referred to as the
``Institute''). The Institute shall be administered under the
terms of an interagency agreement entered into by the
Secretary with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the
``Interagency Group''). The Secretary may include in the
Institute any research and development center, institute, or
clearinghouse established within the Department of Education
whose purpose is determined by the Secretary to be related to
the purpose of the Institute.
``(2) The Interagency Group shall consider the
recommendations of the National Institute for Literacy
Advisory Board (the `Board') under subsection (e) in planning
the goals of the Institute and in the implementation of any
programs to achieve such goals. The daily operations of the
Institute shall be carried out by the Director.
``(c) Duties.--(1) In order to provide leadership for the
improvement and expansion of the system for delivery of
literacy services, the Institute is authorized, to--
``(A) establish a national electronic data base of
information that disseminates information to the broadest
possible audience within the literacy and basic skills field,
and that includes--
``(i) effective practices in the provision of literacy and
basic skills instruction, including the integration of such
instruction with occupational skills training;
``(ii) public and private literacy and basic skills
programs and Federal, State,and local policies affecting the
provision of literacy services at the national, State, and
local levels;
``(iii) opportunities for technical assistance, meetings,
conferences, and other opportunities that lead to the
improvement of literacy and basic skills services; and
``(iv) a communication network for literacy programs,
providers, social service agencies, and students;
``(B) coordinate support for the provision of literacy and
basic skills services across Federal agencies and at the
State and local levels;
``(C) coordinate the support of research and development on
literacy and basic skills in families and adults across
Federal agencies, especially with the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, and carry out basic and applied
research and development on topics that are not being
investigated by other organizations or agencies;
``(D) collect and disseminate information on methods of
advancing literacy that show great promise;
``(E) work with the National Education Goals Panel, assist
local, State, and national organizations and agencies in
making and measuring progress towards the National Education
Goals, as established by P.L. 103-227;
``(F) coordinate and share information with national
organizations and associations that are interested in
literacy and workforce development; and
``(G) inform the development of policy with respect to
literacy and basic skills.
``(2) The Institute may enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements with, or make grants to, individuals, public or
private institutions, agencies, organizations, or consortia
of such institution, agencies, or organizations to carry out
the activities of the Institute. Such grants, contracts, or
agreements shall be subject to the laws and regulations that
generally apply to grants, contracts, or agreements entered
into by Federal agencies.
``(d) Literacy Leadership.--(1) The Institute may, in
consultation with the Board, award fellowships, with such
stipends and allowances that the Director considers
necessary, to outstanding individuals pursuing careers in
adult education or literacy in the areas of instruction,
management, research, or innovation.
``(2) Fellowships awarded under this subsection shall be
used, under the auspices of the Institute, to engage in
research, education, training, technical assistance, or other
activities to advance the field of adult education or
literacy, including the training of volunteer literacy
providers at the national, State, or local level.
``(3) The Institute, in consultation with the Board, is
authorized to award paid and unpaid internships to
individuals seeking to assist in carrying out the Institute's
mission and to accept assistance from volunteers.
``(e) National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board.--
(1)(A) There shall be a National Institute for Literacy
Advisory Board (the `Board'), which shall consist of 10
individuals appointed by the President.
``(B) The Board shall comprise individuals who are not
otherwise officers or employees of the Federal Government and
who are representative of such entities as--
``(i) literacy organizations and providers of literacy
services, including nonprofit providers, providers of English
as a second language programs and services, social service
organizations, and providers receiving assistance under this
Act;
``(ii) businesses that have demonstrated interest in
literacy programs;
``(iii) literacy students, including those with
disabilities;
``(iv) experts in the area of literacy research;
``(v) State and local governments; and
``(vi) organized labor.
``(2) The Board shall--
[[Page S6528]] ``(A) make recommendations concerning the
appointment of the Director and staff of the Institute; and
``(B) provide independent advice on the operation of the
Institute.
``(3)(A) Appointments to the Board made after the date of
enactment of the `Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform
Act of 1995' shall be for three-year terms, except that the
initial terms for members may be established at one, two, or
three years in order to establish a rotation in which one-
third of the members are selected each year.
``(B) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
before the expiration of the term for which the member's
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the
remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that members' term until a successor has taken
office.
``(4) The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Board
shall be elected by the members.
``(5) The Board shall meet at the call of the Chairperson
or a majority of its members.
``(f) Gifts, Bequests, and Devises.--(1) The Institute may
accept, administer, and use gifts or donations of services,
money, or property, whether real or personal, tangible or
intangible.
``(2) The responsible official shall establish written
rules setting forth the criteria to be used by the Institute
in determining whether the acceptance of contributions of
services, money, or property whether real or personal,
tangible or intangible services would reflect unfavorably
upon the ability of the Institute or any employee to carry
out its responsibilities or official duties in a fair and
objective manner, or would compromise the integrity or the
appearance of the integrity of its programs or any official
involved in those programs.
``(g) Mails.--The Board and the Institute may use the
United States mails in the same manner and under the same
conditions as other departments and agencies of the United
States.
``(h) Staff.--The Interagency Group, after considering
recommendations made by the Board, shall appoint and fix the
pay of a Director.
``(i) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The
Director and staff of the Institute may be appointed without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service, and may be
paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an
individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the
annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the
Executive Schedule.
``(j) Experts and Consultants.--The Institute may procure
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code.
``(k) Report.--The Institute shall submit a biennial report
to the Interagency Group and the Congress.
``(1) Funding.--Any amounts appropriated to the Secretary,
the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, or any other department that participates in the
Institute for purposes that the Institute is authorized to
perform under this section may be provided to the Institute
for such purposes.
``TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
``waivers
``SEC. 301. (a)(1) Request for Waiver.--Any State may
request, on its own behalf or on behalf of a local recipient,
a waiver by the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of the
Interior, or the Secretary of Labor, as appropriate, of one
or more statutory or regulatory provisions described in
subsection (c) in order to carry out adult education and
family literacy programs under title I more effectively.
``(2) An Indian tribe or tribal organization may request a
waiver by a Secretary described in subsection (a)(1), as
appropriate, of one or more statutory or regulatory
provisions described in subsection (c) in order to carry out
an Even Start family literacy program under section 104(c)
more effectively.
``(b) General Authority.--(1) Except as provided in
subsection (d), a Secretary described in subsection (a)(1)
may waive any requirement of a statute listed in subsection
(c), or of the regulations issued under that statute, for a
State that requests such a waiver--
``(A) if, and only to the extent that, the Secretary
determines that such requirement impedes the ability of the
State or a subgrant recipient under title I to carry out
adult education and family literacy programs or activities in
an effective manner;
``(B) if the State waives, or agrees to waive, any similar
requirements of State law;
``(C) if, in the case of a statewide waiver, the State--
``(i) has provided all subgrant recipients of assistance
under this title I in the State with notice of, and an
opportunity to comment on, the State's proposal to request a
waiver; and
``(ii) has submitted the comments of such recipients to the
Secretary; and
``(D) if the State provides such information as the
Secretary reasonably requires in order to make such
determinations.
``(2) A Secretary shall act promptly on any request
submitted under paragraph (1).
``(3) Each waiver approved under this subsection shall be
for a period not to exceed five years, except that a
Secretary may extend such period if the Secretary determines
that the waiver has been effective in enabling the State to
carry out the purpose of this Act.
``(c) Education Programs.--(1) The statutes subject to the
waiver authority of the Secretary of Education under this
section are--
``(A) this Act;
``(B) part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (authorizing programs and activities to
help disadvantaged children meet high standards);
``(C) part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional
Development Program);
``(D) title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (Innovative Education Program Strategies);
``(E) part C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (Emergency Immigrant Education
Program);
``(F) the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, but
only with the concurrence of the Secretary of Labor; and
``(G) the Carl D. Perkins Career Preparation Education Act
of 1995.
``(2) The Secretary of Interior may waive under this
section the provisions of part B of the Education Amendments
of 1978.
``(3) The statutes subject to the waiver authority of the
Secretary of Labor under this section are--
``(A) the Job Training Partnership Act; and
``(B) the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, but
only with the concurrence of the Secretary of Education.
``(d) Waivers not Authorized.--A Secretary may not waive
any statutory or regulatory requirement of the programs
listed in subsection (c) relating to--
``(1) the basic purposes or goals of the affected programs;
``(2) maintenance of effort;
``(3) comparability of services;
``(4) the equitable participation of students attending
private schools;
``(5) parental participation and involvement;
``(6) the distribution of funds to States or to local
recipients;
``(7) the eligibility of an individual for participation in
the affected programs;
``(8) public health or safety, labor standards, civil
rights, occupational safety and health, or environmental
protection; or
``(9) prohibitions or restrictions relating to the
construction of buildings or facilities.
``(e) Termination of Waivers.--A Secretary shall
periodically review the performance of any State or local
recipient for which the Secretary has granted a waiver under
this section and shall terminate such waiver if the Secretary
determines that the performance of the State affected by the
waiver has been inadequate to justify a continuation of the
waiver, or the State fails to waive similar requirements of
State law in accordance with subsection (b)(1)(B).
``definitions
``Sec. 302. For the purpose of this Act:
``(1) the term `adult' means an individual who is 16 years
of age, or beyond the age of compulsory school attendance
under State law, and who is not enrolled, or required to be
enrolled, in secondary school;
``(2) the term `adult education' means services or
instruction below the college level for adults who--
``(A) lack sufficient education or literacy skills to
enable them to function effectively in society; or
``(B) do not have a certificate of graduation from a school
providing secondary education and who have not achieved an
equivalent level of education;
``(3) the term `community-based organization' means a
private nonprofit organization that is representative of a
community or significant segments of a community and that
provides education, vocational rehabilitation, job training,
or internship services and programs;
``(4) the term `family literacy program' means a program
that integrates adult education, parenting education, and
early childhood education into a unified set of services and
activities for low-income families that are most in need of
such services and activities, and that is designed to help
break the cycle of intergenerational poverty and
undereducation;
``(5) the terms `Indian tribes' and `tribal organizations'
have the meaning given such terms in section 3 of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act;
``(6) the term `individual of limited English proficiency'
means an adult or out-of-school youth who has limited ability
in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English
language and--
``(A) whose native language is a language other than
English; or
``(B) who lives in a family or community environment where
a language other than English is the dominant language;
``(7) the term `institution of higher education' means any
such institution as defined by section 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965;
``(8) the term `literacy' means an individual's ability to
read, write, and speak in English, and compute and solve
problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on
the job and in society, to achieve one's goals, and develop
one's knowledge and potential;
``(9) the term `local educational agency' means a public
board of education or other
[[Page S6529]] public authority legally constituted within a
State for either administrative control or direction of, or
to perform a service function for, public elementary or
secondary schools in a city, county, township, school
district, or other political subdivision of a State, or such
combination of school districts or counties as are recognized
in a State as an administrative agency for its public
elementary or secondary schools, except that, if there is a
separate board or other legally constituted local authority
having administrative control and direction of adult
education in public schools therein, such term means such
other board or authority;
``(10) the term `migratory family' means a family with a
migratory child as defined in section 1309(2) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
``(11) the term `public housing authority' means a public
housing agency, as defined in 42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6), that
participates in public housing, as defined in 42 U.S.C.
1437a(b)(1).
``(12) except under section 301, the term `Secretary' means
the Secretary of Education; and
``(13) except as provided in section 111(a)(2)(B), the term
`State' means each of the 50 States and the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin
Islands.''.
TITLE II--EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION
effective date
Sec. 201. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 1996.
transition
Sec. 202. Nothwithstanding any other provisions of law--
(1) upon enactment of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Reform Act of 1995, a State or local recipient of
funds under the Adult Education Act, the Even Start Family
Literacy Programs of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, and sections 202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) of
the Job Training Partnership Act, as they were in effect
prior to the enactment of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Reform Act of 1995, may use any such unexpended
funds to carry out services and activities that are
authorized by those statutes or the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act; and
(2) a State or local recipient of funds under the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act for the fiscal year 1996
may use such funds to carry out services and activities that
are authorized by either such Act or were authorized by the
Adult Education Act, the Even Start Family Literacy Programs
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and
sections 202(c)(1)(A) and 262(c)(1)(C) of the Job Training
Partnership Act, as they were in effect prior to the
enactment of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform
Act of 1995.
TITLE III--REPEALS OF OTHER ACTS
repeals
Sec. 301 (a) Even Start.--Part B of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6361 et seq.) is repealed.
(b) National Literacy Act.--The National Literacy Act of
1991 (20 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) is repealed.
(c) Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition
Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders.--Part E of title X
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1135g) is
repealed.
____
Department of Education,
Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Enclosed for consideration of the
Congress is the ``Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform
Act of 1995,'' the Administration's plan to create a
comprehensive strategy for meeting our Nation's adult
education and family literacy needs. Also enclosed is a
section-by-section analysis summarizing the contents of the
bill. I am sending an identical letter to the Speaker of the
House.
As part of the G.I. Bill for America's Workers, the
Administration is consolidating and restructuring nearly 70
separate programs into a streamlined system to empower youth
and adults to acquire the education and skills they need for
new and better jobs. The Adult Education and Family Literacy
Reform Act is central to this goal.
Results from the 1993 National Adult Literacy Survey reveal
a literacy crisis in this country. More than 20 percent of
adults performed at or below a 5th-grade level in reading and
math--far below the level needed for effective participation
in the workforce. And because parents' educational level is a
strong predictor of children's academic success, the effects
of this crisis extend beyond adults to their children.
Despite the obvious need for literacy services among our
Nation's adults, the recent National Evaluation of Adult
Education Programs found that the current Adult Education
program serves only small percentage of adults in need of
services and that, while many adults benefit from
participation in the program, many leave before they achieve
any literacy gains. Overall, the current configuration of
adult education and family literacy programs is too diffuse
and diverts human and financial resources from what should be
the focus of all Federal literacy efforts: the provision of
high-quality, results-oriented services.
The Administration recognizes that adults who need to
improve their educational skills will be hindered in the
workplace, and in promoting their children's progress in
school, if they do not have access to adult education and
family literacy programs that meet their needs. In response,
the enclosed bill creates a performance partnership designed
around give broad principles--streamlining, flexibility,
quality, targeting, and consumer choice--described in detail
below.
First, our strategy would streamline a dozen existing adult
education and family literacy programs into a single State
grant that has a clear purpose and is aimed at high
standards. In addition, the enclosed bill would cut in half
the number of State planning requirements. These changes
would save States time and money and allow them to focus more
attention on improving the quality of their programs.
Our second principle is flexibility. To place decision-
making in the hands of the States, the bill would eliminate
several restrictions on the use of funds, such as the current
mandatory set-aside for services to institutionalized
individuals, the requirement that States make ``Gateway
Grants'' to public housing authorities, and the cap on State
expenditures for adult secondary education. States could use
Federal funds to support a range of services in the mix that
they--not the Federal Government--determine would best meet
the needs of adults in their States. These services would
include parenting education, basic skills education, high
school equivalency instruction, early childhood education,
and English classes for adults who speak other languages.
Because the Even Start Family Literacy Program has shown
exceptional promise as a family literacy model, the bill
would set aside 25 percent of the funds available for
subgrants for Even Start Family Literacy Programs. However,
if a State is already meeting the family literacy needs of
its residents through a program of comparable quality, the
Secretary could modify or waive this requirement.
We have also built in other flexibility provisions. For
example, a new waiver authority would permit States to
request, for themselves or for the local service providers,
waivers of statutory or regulatory provisions of related
Federal programs, such as Part A of Title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act of 1994, the Job Training Partnership Act,
and the proposed Carl D. Perkins Career Preparation Education
Act, in order to facilitate more effective implementation of
adult education and family literacy programs.
Third, the Administration believes that strong
accountability provisions must go hand-in-hand with increased
flexibility and that, combined, these elements improve the
overall quality of education programs. To this end, the bill
would build on current accountability provisions in Adult
Education and Even Start by requiring States to develop or
modify their own performances goals and indicators and
describe them in their State plans. States would use these
goals and indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of local
programs. The Department would assist States in developing
their performance goals and indicators by providing technical
assistance. If, after a reasonable period of time, and the
opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary determines
that a State is not making sufficient progress toward its
performance goals, the bill would authorize the Secretary
to withhold Federal funds.
Solid evaluation requirements are also key to building
better programs. While the Adult Education Act requires
States to evaluate annually 20 percent of their grant
recipients, it neither requires nor encourages subgrantees to
evaluate themselves. Our bill would require a biennial local
evaluation, whose results local providers would describe in
their applications for subgrants. States would then consider
those results in awarding funds to applicants seeking to
provide services in various localities.
The bill also includes incentives for exceptional State and
local performance. The new Act would authorize the Secretary
to use up to five percent of the appropriation to make
National Excellence Awards to States with exemplary adult
education and family literacy programs. States could also
reward exemplary local programs by using up to five percent
of their allotments for financial incentive awards.
The bill includes additional quality-enhancing provisions.
A reservation of up to ten percent of State funds for
leadership activities, including professional development and
training, and the development, acquisition, and promotion of
advanced technologies, would encourage program improvement.
Research and development, evaluation, and demonstration of
model and innovative programs would take place at the Federal
level through the National Leadership authority. Such
activities would expand our understanding of what works in
adult education programs, thereby helping States to improve
the effectiveness of their programs. The bill would also
authorize the National Institute for Literacy to continue in
its current role as a national resource on literacy issues.
Fourth, our bill would target funds to States and local
areas with the greatest need
[[Page S6530]] for adult education and family literacy
services. A new funding formula would distribute 50 percent
of the funds based on the adult education population
(excluding in-school students) and 50 percent based on adults
living in poverty. In making determinations regarding local
applications, States would be required to give preference for
funding to those applicants that serve local areas with the
highest concentrations of individuals in poverty or with low
levels of literacy, or both.
Our final principle is consumer choice. In addition to
allowing States flexibility to choose the services they
offer, the enclosed bill would also expand adult learners'
choices. By encouraging States to establish strong links with
one-stop career centers, job-training programs, and social
service agencies, the Administration's bill would facilitate
the dissemination of information about the availability,
services, and student outcomes of adult education and
literacy programs. As learners make more informed choices
about the programs they enter, the likelihood of their
success in adult education and family literacy programs
should improve.
I encourage Congress to act swiftly on our bill. By
creating a single funding stream to States, the bill responds
to concerns regarding the potential duplication of adult
education and literacy programs. In doing so, the bill
consolidates separate discretionary programs for library
literacy, workplace literacy, and literacy programs for
prisoners and the homeless. Although the Administration's
bill would eliminate many narrow, categorical programs, we
have taken steps to ensure that needy populations and
promising practices are emphasized in our proposal. The bill
permits States to continue to use libraries and the workplace
as sites for the provision of services. It also requires
States to assess the adult education and family literacy
needs of hard-to-serve and most-in-need individuals, such as
the homeless and the incarcerated, and describe programs'
capacity to meet those needs. Targeting provisions of the
bill also would ensure that local areas with high
concentrations of individuals in poverty or low levels of
literacy, or both, receive priority for Federal funds.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the submission of this proposal to Congress
and that its adoption would be in accord with the program of
the President.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley,
The Secretary.
____
Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act of 1995--Section-by-
Section Analysis
title i of the bill--amendments to the adult education act
Section 101. Amendment. Section 101 of the bill would amend
the Adult Education Act (``current law'') in its entirety, as
described below.
In general, this amendment would consolidate the current
Adult Education programs, eliminating the many separate and
prescriptive categorical programs, and the Even Start program
under Title I, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 into a simplified, flexible,
comprehensive, performance partnership between Federal and
State and local providers of adult education and family
literacy services. States would build on their
accomplishments under current law and establish their own
performance goals and indicators. The Federal Government
would support State and local efforts with national
leadership and evaluation activities, national performance
awards to States, and waivers from specific statutory and
regulatory rules.
Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (the ``Act'')
Section 1. Short title; table of contents. Section 1 of the
Act would propose that the amended Adult Education Act be
cited as the ``Adult Education and Family Literacy Act''
(``the Act''). This section would also set forth a table of
contents for the Act.
Section 2. Declaration of policy, findings, and purpose.
Section 2 of the Act would set forth the findings and purpose
of the Act.
Subsection (a) would set forth congressional findings.
Subsection (b) would state that the purpose of the Act is
to create a performance partnership with States and
localities for the provision of adult education and family
literacy services so that, as called for in the National
Education Goals, all adults who need such services will, as
appropriate, be able to: (1) become literate and obtain the
knowledge and skills needed to compete in a global economy
and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship;
(2) complete a high school education; (3) become and remain
actively involved in their children's education in order to
ensure their children's readiness for, and success in,
school. This purpose would be pursued through: (1) building
on State and and local education reforms supported by Goals
2000: Educate America Act and other Federal and State
legislation; (2) consolidating numerous Federal adult
education and literacy programs into a single, flexible
grant; (3) tying local programs to challenging State-
developed performance goals that are consistent with the
purpose of this Act; (4) holding States and localities
accountable for achieving such goals; (5) building program
quality though such measures as encouraging greater use of
technologies in adult education and family literacy programs
and better professional development of educators working in
those programs; (6) integrating adult education and family
literacy programs with States' school-to-work opportunities
systems, career preparation education services and
activities, job training programs, early childhood and
elementary school programs, and other related activities; and
(7) supporting the improvement of State and local activities
through nationally significant efforts in research,
development, demonstration, dissemination, evaluation,
capacity-building, data collection, professional development,
and technical assistance.
Section 3. Authorization of appropriations. Section 3 of
the Act would establish a ten-year authorization of
appropriations for State and national programs. A ten-year
authorization would facilitate stable growth and reform of
the program.
Subsection (a) would authorize $490,487,000 for fiscal year
1996 and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 1997 through 20005 to carry out the Act. Subsection (b)
would, from the amount appropriated in any fiscal year,
authorize the Secretary to reserve not more than 3 percent to
carry out sections 201 (national leadership activities) and
203 (National Institute for Literacy) of the Act, and not
more than $5,000,000 for Even Start family literacy programs
for migratory and Indian families under section 104(c) of the
Act. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, the Secretary would also
be authorized to reserve not more than 5 percent of section
202 (national performance awards).
Title i of the Act--Adult Education and Family Literacy
Section 101. Priorities. Section 101 of the Act would
require that, in order to prepare adults for family, work,
citizenship, and job training, and adults and their children
for success in future learning, funds under this title must
be used to support the development, implementation, and
improvement of adult education and family literacy programs
at the State and local levels.
In using funds under the title, States and local recipients
would be required to give priority to: (1) services and
activities designed to ensure that all adults have the
opportunity to achieve to challenging State performance
standards for literacy proficiency, including basic literacy,
English language proficiency, and completion of high school
or its equivalent; (2) services and activities designed to
enable parents to prepare their children for school, enhance
their children's language and cognitive abilities, and
promote their own career advancement;
and (3) adult education and family literacy programs that
are built on a strong foundation of research and effective
educational practices; effectively employ advances in
technology, as well as learning in the context of family,
work, and the community; are staffed by well-trained
instructors, counselors and administrators; are of
sufficient intensity and duration for participants to
achieve substantial learning gains; establish strong links
with elementary and secondary schools, postsecondary
institutions, one-stop career centers, job-training
programs, and social service agencies; and offer flexible
schedules and, when necessary, support services to enable
people to attend and complete programs.
Section 102. State grants for adult education and family
literacy. Section 102(a) of the Act would require the
Secretary, from funds available for State grants under
section 3 for each fiscal year and in accordance with section
111 of the Act, to make a grant to each State that has an
approved State plan under section 106 of the Act, to assist
that State in developing, implementing, and improving adult
education and family literacy programs within the State.
Section 102(b) of the Act would authorize a State, from the
amount awarded to it for any fiscal year under subsection
(a), to use: (1) up to 5 percent, or $80,000, whichever is
greater, for the cost of administering its program under this
title; (2) up to 10 percent for leadership activities under
section 103 of the Act; and (3) beginning in fiscal year
1998, 5 percent for financial incentives or awards to one or
more eligible recipients in recognition of exemplary quality
or innovation in adult education or family literacy services
and activities, or exemplary services and activities for
individuals who are most in need of such services and
activities, or are hardest to serve, or both. Such incentives
or awards would be determined by the State through a peer
review process, using the performance goals and indicators
described in section 108 and, if appropriate, other criteria.
Section 102(b) would also require that the remainder of the
State's funds be used for subgrants to eligible applicants
under section 107, except that at least 25 percent of such
remainder would be required to be used for Even Start family
literacy programs under section 104 of the Act, unless the
State demonstrates in its State plan under section 106 of the
Act, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that it will
otherwise meet the needs of individuals in the State for
family literacy programs in a manner that is consistent with
the purpose of this Act.
Section 102(c) of the Act would require that the Federal
share of expenditures to carry out a State plan under section
106 of the Act be paid from the State's grant under
subsection (a). However, such Federal share could be no
greater than 75 percent of the cost of carrying out the State
plan for each fiscal year, except that with respect to
[[Page S6531]] Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and
the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federal share could be 100
percent. Section 102(c) of the Act would permit the State's
share of expenditures in carrying out its State plan to be in
cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including only non-Federal
funds that are used for adult education and family literacy
activities in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of
this Act.
Section 102(d) of the Act would require State-level
maintenance of effort. Under subsection (d)(1), a State would
be permitted to receive funds under the title for any fiscal
year only if the Secretary finds that the aggregate
expenditures of the State for adult education and family
literacy by such State for the preceding fiscal year were not
less than 90 percent of such aggregate expenditures for the
second preceding fiscal year. The Secretary would be required
to reduce the amount of the allocation of funds to a State,
under section 102(a), for any fiscal year in the exact
proportion to which a State falls below 90 percent of the
aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year.
Subsection (d)(3) would permit the Secretary to waive the
maintenance-of-effort requirements if the Secretary
determines that such a waiver would be equitable due to
exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a
natural disaster or a precipitous decline in the financial
resource of the State. Subsection (d)(4) would state that no
lesser amount of State expenditures under paragraphs (2) and
(3) could be used for computing the effort required under
subsection (d)(1) for subsequent years.
Section 103. State leaderships activities. Section 103 of
the Act would require States to use their State leadership
funds to conduct activities of Statewide significance that
develop, implement, or improve programs of adult education
and family literacy, consistent with the State plan under
section 106. Such activities would include one or more of the
following: (1) professional development and training; (2)
disseminating curricula for adult education and family
literacy programs; (3) monitoring and evaluating the quality
of, and improvement in, services and activities conducted
with assistance under this title, including establishing
performance goals and indicators under section 109(a) of the
Act, in order to assess program quality and improvement; (4)
establishing State content standards for adult education and
family literacy programs; (5) establishing challenging State
performance standards for literacy proficiency; (6) promoting
the integration of literacy instruction and occupational
skill training, and linkages with employers; (7) promoting
the use of and acquiring instructional and management
software and technology; (8) establishing or operating State
or regional adult literacy resource centers; (9) developing
and
participating in networks and consortia of States that seek
to establish and implement adult education and family
literacy programs that have significance to the State or
region, and may have national significance; and (10) other
activities of Statewide significance that promote the
purposes of the Act.
Section 104. Even Start Family Literacy Programs. Section
104 of the Act would require each State that receives a grant
under section 102(a) of the Act for any fiscal year to use
the funds reserved under section 102(b)(4) of the Act (unless
the State demonstrates to the Secretary that it will
otherwise meet the needs of individuals in the State for
family literacy programs) to award Even Start family literacy
subgrants to partnerships composed of one or more local
educational agencies and one or more community-based
organizations, institutions of higher education, private non-
profit organizations, or public agencies (other than local
educational agencies). Such Even Start family literacy
programs must: (1) provide opportunities (including home-
based instructional services) for joint participation by
parents or guardians (including parents or guardians who are
within the State's compulsory school attendance age range, so
long as a local educational agency provides, or ensures the
availability of, their basic education), other family
members, and children; (2) provide developmentally
appropriate childhood education for children from birth
through age seven; (3) identify and recruit families that are
most in need of family literacy services, as indicated by low
levels of income and adult literacy (including limited
English proficiency), and such other need-related indicators
as may be appropriate; and (4) enable participants to succeed
through services and activities designed to meet their needs,
such as support services and flexible class schedules.
From funds reserved under section 3(b)(1)(C) of the Act for
any fiscal year, the Secretary would be required, under such
terms and conditions as he or she establishes, to support
Even Start family literacy programs through grants to, or
cooperative agreements with, eligible applicants under
section 107(b) of the Act for migratory families and with
Indian tribes and tribal organizations for Indian families.
Assistance to Indian tribes and tribal organizations for
Indian families under this Act could be integrated with other
programs under the Indian Employment Training and Related
Services Demonstration Act of 1992.
Section 105. State Administration. Section 105 of the Act
would require a State desiring to receive a grant under
section 102(a) of the Act to designate, consistent with State
law, an education agency or agencies that shall be
responsible for the administration of services and activities
under this title, including the development, submission, and
implementation of the State plan; consultation with other
appropriate agencies, groups, and individuals that are
involved in, or interested in, the development and
implementation of programs assisted under this title; and
coordination with other State and Federal education and
training programs.
Section 105(b) of the Act would require that whenever a
State imposes any rule or policy relating to the
administration and operation of programs funded by this
title, it must identify the rule or policy as a State-imposed
requirement.
Section 106. State Plan. Section 106(a) of the Act would
require, except as provided in subsection (f), each State
desiring to receive a grant under this title for any fiscal
year to submit to, or have on file with, the Secretary a
five-year State plan that is approved by the designated State
agency or agencies under section 105(a) of the Act. A State
may submit its State plan as part of a comprehensive plan
that includes State plan provisions under one or more of the
following statutes: section 14302 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965; the Carl D. Perkins Career
Preparation Education Act of 1995; the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act; the Job Training Partnership Act; and the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.
Section 106(b) of the Act would require the State, in
developing its State plan, and any revisions to the plan, to
base its plan or revisions on a recent, objective assessment
of: (1) the needs of individuals in the State for adult
education and family literacy programs, including individuals
most in need or hardest to serve; and (2) the capacity of
programs and providers to meet those needs, taking into
account the priorities under section 101 of the Act and the
State's performance goals under section 109(a) of the Act.
Section 106(c) of the Act would require the State, in
developing its State plan, and any revisions to the plan, to
consult widely with individuals, agencies, organizations, and
institutions in the State that have an interest in the
provision and quality of adult education and family literacy.
Section 106(d) of the Act would require the State plan to
be in such form and contain such information and assurances
as the Secretary may require, and include: (1) a summary of
the methods used to conduct the assessment under subsection
(b) and the findings of that assessment; (2) a description of
how, in addressing the needs identified in the State's
assessment, funds under this title will be used to establish
adult education and family literacy programs, or improve or
expand current programs, that will lead to high-quality
learning outcomes, including measurable learning gains, for
individuals in such programs; (3) a statement of the State's
performance goals and indicators established under section
109, or in the first such plan a description of how the State
will establish such performance
goals and indicators; (4) a description of the criteria the
State will use to award funds under this title to eligible
applicants under section 107, including a description of
how the State will ensure that its selection of applicants
to operate programs assisted under this title will reflect
the findings of program evaluations carried out under
section 110(a); (5) a description of how the State will
integrate services and activities under this Act,
including planning and coordination of programs, with
those of other agencies, institutions, and organizations
involved in adult education and family literacy in order
to ensure effective use of funds and to avoid duplication
of services; (6) a description of the leadership
activities the State will carry out under section 103; and
(7) any comments the Governor may have on the State plan.
Section 106(d) of the Act would also require the State
plan to provide assurances that: (1) the State will comply
with the requirements of this Act and the provisions of
the State plan; (2) the State will use such fiscal control
and accounting procedures as are necessary for the proper
and efficient administration of this title; and (3)
programs funded under this title will be of such size,
scope, and quality as to give realistic promise of
furthering the purpose of this Act.
Section 106(e) of the Act would require the designated
State agency or agencies, when changes in conditions or other
factors require substantial modifications to an approved
State plan, to submit a revision to the plan to the
Secretary. Such a revision would have to be approved by the
designated State agency or agencies.
Section 106(f) of the Act would authorize a State, for
fiscal year 1996 only, to submit a one year State plan to the
Secretary that either satisfies the specific requirements of
this section or describes how the State will complete the
development of its State plan with respect to those specific
requirements within the following year. A State may use funds
reserved under section 102(b)(2) to complete the development
of its State plan. A one year State plan under this
subsection would have to be developed in accordance with
subsection (c); and contain the assurances described in
subsection (d)(8). In order to receive a grant under section
102(a) for fiscal year 1997, a State that submits a one year
State plan under this subsection would have to submit a four
year State plan that covers fiscal year 1997 and the three
succeeding fiscal years.
[[Page S6532]] Section 106(g) of the Act would require the
designated State agency or agencies to submit the State plan,
and any revisions to the State plan, to the Governor for
review and comment; and ensure that any comments the Governor
may have are included with the State plan, or revision, when
the State plan, or revision, is submitted to the Secretary.
Section 106(h) of the Act would require the Secretary to
approve a State plan, or a revision to an approved State
plan, if it meets the requirements of this section and is of
sufficient quality to meet the purpose of this Act. The
subsection would also prohibit the Secretary from finally
disapproving a State plan, or a revision to an approved State
plan, except after giving the State reasonable notice and an
opportunity for a hearing. The Secretary would be required to
establish a peer review process to make recommendations
regarding approval of State plans and revisions to the State
plans.
Section 107. Subgrants to eligible applicants. Section
107(a) of the Act would require States, from funds available
under section 102(b)(4) of the Act, to make subgrants to
eligible applicants to develop, implement, and improve adult
education and family literacy programs within the State. To
the extent practicable, States would make multi-year
subgrants.
Under section 107(b), except for subgrants for Even Start
family literacy programs under section 104, entities eligible
to apply to the State for a subgrant would be: (1) local
educational agencies; (2) community-based organizations; (3)
institutions of higher education; (4) public and private
nonprofit agencies (including State and local welfare
agencies, corrections agencies, public libraries, and public
housing authorities); and (5) consortia of such agencies,
organizations, institutions, or partnerships, including
consortia that include one or more for-profit agencies,
organizations, or institutions, if such agencies,
organizations, or institutions can make a significant
contribution to attaining the objectives of the Act. Each
State receiving funds under title I would be required to
ensure that all the above-mentioned eligible applicants
receive equitable consideration for subgrants under this
section.
Section 108. Applications from eligible applicants. Section
108 of the Act would require any eligible applicant under
sections 104(a) (Even Start partnerships) or 107(b)(1) (other
eligible applicants) that desires a subgrant under title I to
submit an application to the State containing such
information and assurances as the State may reasonably
require. Such information must include: (1) a description of
the applicant's current adult education and family literacy
programs, if any; (2) a description of how funds awarded
under this title will be spent; (3) a description of how the
applicant's program will help the State address the needs
identified in the State's assessment under section 106(b)(1);
(4) the projected goals of the applicant with respect to
participant recruitment, retention, and educational
achievement, and how the applicant will measure and report to
the State regarding the information required in section
110(a); and (5) any cooperative arrangements the applicant
has with others (including arrangements with social service
agencies, one-stop career centers, business, industry, and
volunteer
literacy organizations) that have been made to deliver adult
education and family literacy programs.
In determining which applicants receive funds under this
title, section 108(b) of the Act would require the State to
give preference to those applicants that serve local areas
with the high concentrations of individuals in poverty, or
with low levels of literacy (including English language
proficiency), or both, and to consider the results of the
evaluations required under section 110(a), if any, and the
degree to which the applicant will coordinate with and
utilize other literacy and social services available in the
community.
Section 109. State performance goals and indicators.
Section 109(a) of the Act would require any State desiring to
receive a grant under section 102(a) of the Act, in
consultation with individuals, agencies, organizations, and
institutions described in section 106(c), to: (1) identify
performance goals that define the level of student
achievement to be attained in adult education and family
literacy programs funded under title I, and express such
goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form; and
(2) identify performance indicators that State and local
recipients will use in measuring or assessing progress toward
achieving such goals. By July 1, 1997, such performance
indicators must include, at least: (1) achievement in
linguistic skills, including English language skills; (2)
receipt of a high school diploma or its equivalent; (3) entry
into a postsecondary school, job training program,
employment, or career advancement; and (4) successful
transition of children to school.
Section 109(b) of the Act would authorize a State, except
as provided in subsection (a)(3), to continue to use the
indicators of program quality that it developed under section
331(a)(2) of current law, to the extent they are consistent
with the State's performance goals.
Section 109(c) of the Act would require the Secretary to
provide technical assistance to States regarding the
development of such performance goals and indicators and
authorize the Secretary to use funds reserved under section
3(b)(1)(B) of the Act to provide such technical assistance.
Section 110. Evaluation, improvement, and accountability.
Section 110(a) of the Act would require each recipient of a
subgrant under title I of the Act to evaluate biennially,
using the performance goals and indicators established under
section 109(a) of the Act, the programs supported under title
I and report to the State regarding the effectiveness of its
programs in addressing the priorities under section 101 and
the needs identified in the State assessment under section
106(b)(1).
Section 110(b) of the Act would provide that if a State
determines, based on the applicable performance goals and
indicators and the evaluations under subsection (a), that a
subgrant recipient is not making substantial progress in
achieving the purpose of this Act, the State may, but is not
required to, work jointly with the local recipient to develop
an improvement plan. If, after not more than two years of
implementation of the improvement plan, the State determines
that the recipient is not making substantial progress, the
State must take whatever corrective action it deems
necessary, which may include termination of funding or the
implementation of alternative service arrangements,
consistent with the State law. The State could take such
corrective action only after it provided technical assistance
to the recipient and ensured that corrective action allowed
for continued services and activities to the recipient's
students. The State would have to report biennially to the
Secretary on the quality and effectiveness of the adult
education and family literacy programs funded through its
subgrants under title I, based on the performance goals and
indicators under section 109(a) and the needs identified in
the State assessment under section 106(b)(1).
Section 110(d) of the Act would require that if the
Secretary determines that the State is not properly
implementing its responsibilities under subsection (b), or is
not making substantial progress in meeting the purpose of
this Act based on its goals and indicators under section 109,
he or she must work with the State to implement improvement
activities. If, after a reasonable time, but not earlier than
one year after the State implements such activities, the
Secretary determines that the State is not making sufficient
progress, based on its performance goals and indicators, the
Secretary would be required, after notice and opportunity for
a hearing, to withhold from the State all, or a portion, of
the State's allotment under this title. The Secretary would
be given the authority to use funds withheld to provide,
through alternative arrangements, services and activities
within the State that meet the purposes of this Act.
Section 111. Allotments; reallocation. Section 111(a) of
the Act would, subject to the hold-harmless provisions in
subsection (b), from the funds available under section 102(a)
for each fiscal year, require the Secretary to allot to each
State: (1) a sum that bears the same ratio to one-half that
amount as the number of individuals in the State who are 16
years of age or older and not enrolled, or required to be
enrolled, in secondary school and who do not possess a high
school diploma or its equivalent bears to the number of such
individuals in all the States; and (2) a sum that bears the
same ratio to one-half that amount as the number of
individuals in the State who are 18 years of age or older and
who are living at or below poverty bears to the number of
such individuals in all the States. The Secretary would be
required to allot to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico an
amount equal to 2.95 percent of the funds available under
section 102(a) for each fiscal year. For the purpose of
subsection (a), the term `State' would be deemed to exclude
the Puerto Rico. The numbers of individuals specified in
paragraph (1) would be determined by the Secretary on the
basis of the latest estimates available to the Department
that are satisfactory to the Secretary.
Section 111(b)(1) of the Act would provide that,
notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to
paragraph (2): (1) for fiscal year 1996, no State shall
receive under title I of this Act less than 90 percent of the
sum of the payments made to the State for the fiscal year
1995 for programs authorized by the section 313 of the Adult
Education Act, section 1202 (Even Start) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and sections
202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) of the Job Training Partnership
Act, as those statutes were in effect prior to the enactment
of this bill; and (2) for fiscal year 1997, no State shall
receive under Title I of this Act less than 90 percent of the
amount it received under Title I for fiscal year 1996.
Section 111(b)(2) of the Act would provide that, if for any
fiscal year the amount available for allotment under this
section is insufficient to satisfy the provisions of
subsection (b)(1), the Secretary is to ratably reduce the
payments to all States for such services and activities as
necessary.
Section 111(c) of the Act would provide for reallotment of
any unneeded portion of a State's allotment under subsection
(a) for any fiscal year.
Section 111(d) of the Act would require the Secretary, by
September 30, 2000, to conduct a study to determine the
availability and reliability of statistical data on the
number of immigrant and limited English proficient
individuals in each State, and report to the Congress on the
feasibility and advisability of including such population as
a factor in the formula under subsection (a)(1).
Title II of the Act--National Leadership
Section 201. National Leadership Activities. Section 201 of
the Act would authorize
[[Page S6533]] the Secretary, from the amount reserved under
section 3(b)(1)(B) of the Act for any fiscal year, to
establish a program of national leadership and evaluation
activities to enhance the quality of adult education and
family literacy nationwide. The Secretary would be authorized
to carry out such activities directly or through grants,
contracts, and cooperative agreements. Funds under this
section could be used for: (1) research and development; (2)
demonstration of model and innovative programs; (3)
dissemination; (4) evaluations and assessments, including
independent assessments of services and activities assisted
under this Act and of the condition and progress of literacy
of the United States; (5) capacity building at the State and
local levels; (6) data collection; (7) professional
development; (8) technical assistance; and (9) other
activities designed to enhance the quality of adult education
and family literacy nationwide.
Section 202. Awards for National Excellence, Section 202 of
the Act would authorize the Secretary, from the amount
reserved under section 3(b)(1)(A) of the Act for any fiscal
year after fiscal year 1997, and through a peer review
process, to make performance awards to one or more States
that have: (1) exceeded in an out-standing manner their
performance goals established under section 109(a) the Act;
(2) made exemplary progress in developing, implementing, or
improving their adult education and family literacy programs
in accordance with the priorities described in section 101 of
the Act; or (3) provided exemplary services and activities
for those individuals within the State who are most in need
of adult education and family literacy services, or are
hardest to serve.
Section 203. National Institute for Literacy. Section 203
of the Act would reauthorize the National Institute for
Literacy (the ``Institute'').
Subsection (a) would clarify the purpose of the Institute
by requiring it to: (1) provide national leadership; (2)
coordinate literacy services; and (3) be a national resource
for adult education and family literacy, by providing the
best and most current information available and supporting
the creation of new ways to offer improved services.
Subsection (b) would establish the Institute, to be
administered by the terms of an interagency agreement entered
into by the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and Health and
Human Services (the ``Interagency Group''). The Secretary
could include in the Institute any research and development
center, institute, or clearinghouse established within the
Department of Education whose purpose is determined by the
Secretary to be related to the purpose of the Institute.
Under subsection (b), the Interagency Group would consider
the recommendations of the National Institute for Literacy
Advisory Board in planning the goals of the Institute and in
implementing any programs to achieve such goals. The daily
operations of the Institute would be carried out by the
Director.
Subsection (c) would authorize the Institute to: (1)
establish a national electronic data base that disseminates
information to the broadest possible audience within the
literacy and basic skills field; (2) coordinate support for
the provision of literacy and basic skills services across
Federal agencies and at the State and local levels; (3)
coordinate the support of
research and development on literacy and basic skills in
families and adults across Federal agencies, especially
with the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
and carry out basic and applied research and development
on topics that are not being investigated by other
organizations investigated by other organizations or
agencies; (4) collect and disseminate information on
methods of advancing literacy that show great promise; (5)
work with the National Education Goals Panel in making and
measuring progress towards the National Education Goals,
as established by P.L. 103-227; (6) coordinate and share
information with national organizations and associations
that are interested in literacy and workforce development;
and (7) inform the development of policy with respect to
literacy and basic skills;
Subsection (c) would also authorize the Institute to enter
into contracts or cooperative agreements with, or make grants
to, individuals, public or private institutions, agencies,
organizations, or consortia of such institutions, agencies,
or organizations to carry out the activities of the
Institute. Such grants, contracts, or agreements would be
subject to the laws and regulations that generally apply to
grants, contracts, or agreements entered into by Federal
agencies.
Subsection (d) would authorize the Institute, in
consultation with the Board, to award fellowships, with such
stipends and allowances that the Director considers
necessary, to outstanding individuals pursuing careers in
adult education or literacy in the areas of instruction,
management, research, or innovation. Such fellowships would
have to be used, under the auspices of the Institute, to
engage in research, education, training, technical
assistance, or other activities to advance the field of adult
education or literacy, including the training of volunteer
literacy providers at the national, State, or local level.
Subsection (d) would also authorize the Institute, in
consultation with the Board, to award paid and unpaid
internships to individuals seeking to assist in carrying out
the Institute's mission and to accept assistance from
volunteers.
Subsection (e) would establish the National Institute for
Literacy Advisory Board (the `Board'), consisting of 10
individuals appointed by the President who are not otherwise
officers or employees of the Federal Government and who are
representative of such entities as: (1) literacy
organizations and providers of literacy services; (2)
businesses that have demonstrated interest in literacy
programs; (3) literacy students, including those with
disabilities; (4) experts in the area of literacy research;
(5) State and local governments; and (6) organized labor.
Subsection (e) would require the Board to: (1) make
recommendations concerning the appointment of the Director
and staff of the Institute; and (2) provide independent
advice on the operation of the Institute. Subsection (e)
would also provide for staggering the terms of appointment
for Board members, filling vacancies on the Board, electing a
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Board by the members,
and calling Board meetings.
Subsection (f) would authorize the Institute to accept,
administer, and use gifts or donations of services, money, or
property, whether real or personal, tangible or intangible.
Subsection (f) would also require the responsible official to
establish written rules setting forth the criteria to be used
in determining whether the acceptance of such gifts or
donations reflect unfavorably upon the ability of the
Institute or any employee to carry out its responsibilities
or official duties in a fair and objective manner, or
compromise the integrity or the appearance of the integrity
of its programs or any official involved in those programs.
Subsection (g) would authorize the Board and the Institute
to use the United States mails in the same manner and under
the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the
United States.
Subsection (h) requires the Interagency Group, after
considering recommendations made by the Board, to appoint and
fix the pay of a Director.
Subsection (i) would permit the Director and staff of the
Institute to be appointed without regard to the provisions of
title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service, and to be paid without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
that title relating to classification and General Schedule
pay rates, except that an individual so appointed may not
receive pay in excess of the annual rate of basic pay payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule.
Subsection (j) would allow the Institute to procure
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code.
Subsection (k) would require the Institute to submit a
biennial report to the Interagency Group and the Congress.
Subsection (l) would permit any amounts appropriated to the
Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, or any other department that
participates in the Institute for purposes that the Institute
is authorized to perform under this section, to be provided
to the Institute for such purposes.
Title III of the act--general provisions
Section 301. Waivers. Section 301 of the Act sets forth
waiver provisions, in order to provide the flexibility States
need to carry out adult education and family literacy
programs.
Subsection (a)(1) provides that any State may request a
waiver by the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of the
Interior, or the Secretary of Labor, as appropriate, of one
or more statutory or regulatory provisions in order to carry
out adult education and family literacy programs under title
I more effectively. Subsection (a) (2) provides that an
Indian tribe or tribal organization may request a waiver by a
Secretary described in subsection (a) (1), as appropriate, of
one or more statutory or regulatory provisions described in
subsection (c) in order to carry out an Even Start family
literacy program under section 104(c) more effectively.
Subsection (b) would, with some exceptions, authorize a
Secretary described in subsection (a) (1) to waive any
requirement of any statute listed in subsection (c), or of
the regulations issued under that statute. In both cases, the
Secretary would be authorized to grant a waiver to a State
that requests one: (1) if, and only to the extent that, the
Secretary determines that the requirement impedes the State's
or subgrant recipient's ability to carry out adult education
and family literacy programs or activities in an effective
manner; (2) if the State waives, or agrees to waive, any
similar requirements of State law; (3) if, in the case of a
statewide waiver, the State has provided all subgrant
recipients of assistance under title I in the State with
notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the State's
proposal to request a waiver and has submitted these comments
to the Secretary; and (4) if the State provides such
information as the Secretary reasonably requires in order to
make such determinations.
Subsection (b) would require a Secretary to act promptly on
any waiver request. This subsection would also provide that
each waiver shall be for no longer than five years. However,
a Secretary may extend the period if the Secretary determines
that the waiver has been effective in enabling the State to
carry out the purpose of the Act.
Subsection (c)(1) would list the following statutes as
subject to waiver by the Secretary of Education: (1) this
Act; (2) part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (authorizing programs
[[Page S6534]] and activities to help disadvantaged children
meet high standards); (3) part B of title II of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Dwight D.
Eisenhower Professional Development program); (4) title VI of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(Innovative Education Program Strategies); (5) part C of
title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (Emergency Immigrant Education program); (6) the School-
to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, but only with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Labor; and (7) the Carl D.
Perkins Career Preparation Education Act of 1995.
Subsection (c) (2) would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to waive the provisions of part B of the Education
Amendments of 1978.
Subsection (c) (3) would list the following statutes as
subject to waiver by the Secretary of Labor: (1) the Job
Training Partnership Act; and (2) the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act of 1994, but only with the concurrence of
the Secretary of Education.
It is not necessary to include Head Start programs in the
waiver authority section of this bill, because there already
exists sufficient authority in Head Start legislation for a
wide range of collaborative and coordination efforts with
adult education and family literacy programs.
Subsection (d) would prohibit the Secretary from waiving
any statutory or regulatory requirement of the programs
listed in subsection (c) that relate to: (1) the basic
purposes or goals of the affected programs; (2) maintenance
of effort; (3) comparability of services; (4) the equitable
participation of students attending private schools; (5)
parental participation and involvement; (6) the distribution
of funds to States or to local recipients; (7) the
eligibility of an individual for participation in the
affected programs; (8) public health or safety, labor
standards, civil rights, occupational safety and health, or
environmental protection; or (9) prohibitions or restrictions
relating to the construction of buildings or facilities.
Subsection (e) would require a Secretary to review
periodically the performance of any State or local recipient
for which the Secretary has granted a waiver and to terminate
the waiver, if the Secretary determines that the performance
of the State affected by the waiver or the State fails to
waive similar requirements of State law.
Section 302. Definitions. Section 302 would define the
terms ``adult,'' ``adult education,'' ``community-based
organization,'' ``family literacy,'' ``Indian tribes'' and
``tribal organizations,'' ``individual of limited English
proficiency,'' ``institution of higher education,''
``literacy,'' ``local educational agency,'' ``migratory
family,'' ``public housing authority,'' ``Secretary,'' and
``State'' for the purpose of the Act.
title ii of the bill--effective dates; transition
Section 201. Effective date. Section 201 of the bill would
provide that the Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform
Act of 1995 would take effect on July 1, 1996.
Section 202. Transition. Section 202 of the bill would
provide that, notwithstanding any other provisions of law,
upon enactment of this bill, a State or local recipient of
funds under the Adult Education Act, the Even Start Family
Literacy Programs of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, and sections 202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) of
the Job Training Partnership Act, as they were in effect
prior to the enactment of this bill, could use any unexpended
funds to carry out services and activities that were
authorized in by those statutes or by the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act. A State or local recipient of funds
under this Act for fiscal year 1996 could use those funds to
carry out services and activities that are authorized by
either this Act or the Adult Education Act, the Even Start
Family Literacy Programs of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, and sections 202(c)(1)(C) and
262(c)(1)(C) of the Job Training Partnership Act, as they
were in effect prior to the enactment of this bill.
title iii of the bill--repeal of other acts
Section 301. Repeals. Section 301 of the bill would repeal
Part B (Even Start) of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, the National Literacy Act of
1991, and Part E (Grants to States for Workplace and
Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth
Offenders) of title X of the Higher Education Act.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Bradley, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 798. A bill to amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to
improve the provisions of supplemental security income benefits, and
for the purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the children's ssi eligibility reform act
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's
SSI Eligibility Reform Act.
As my colleagues know, the welfare reform bill passed by the House of
Representatives attempted to address criticisms that have been leveled
against the SSI program. But the House went too far.
SSI is the program of last resort for 850,000 children with severe
disabilities who live in low income families. The cash assistance
provided to these children's families enables them to meet the added
costs the disability imposes on the family--whether those costs result
from necessary modifications to the home; day care for siblings while
the child in question receives therapy; basic necessities like food,
shelter, clothing and utilities; transportation expenses in making
frequent trips to a therapist or hospital; or the cost of foregoing one
parent's income in order to care for a child with a disability. SSI
also provides for the basic necessities of low income families, in
order to maximize the likelihood that a child with a disability can
remain at home.
But the SSI program is not without its faults. SSI as it relates to
children has been poorly defined since its inception. There is concern
that children who are not sufficiently disabled to merit assistance are
making their way onto the SSI rolls. There have been allegations that
some parents have coached their children to feign a disability in order
to obtain benefits. And there is concern that SSI does nothing to
promote the improvement of those children with disabilities who could
improve with proper assistance.
Because of these issues and my concern that the House enacted an ill-
conceived, sweeping proposal with insufficient data on its impact, I
convened a series of psychiatric and disability experts to help me
develop the Children's SSI Eligibility Reform Act. And I am extremely
pleased that Senators Chafee, Jeffords and Bradley have joined me in
this effort.
This is a bipartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike want to
do the right thing when it comes to severely disabled children. That's
why we should make every effort to repair the defects in the SSI
program, but do so in a way that protects children with severe
disabilities.
The House of Representatives, out of frustration with repeated
reports of abuse under the program, went too far. The House wiped out
the Individualized Functional Assessment that was developed to protect
children with disabilities after the Supreme Court's Zebley decision.
And as a result, the vast majority of
the 250,000 children who currently receive SSI by virtue of the
assessment would lose all benefits--both SSI cash benefits and
Medicaid.
The proposal Senator Chafee, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bradley and I
are introducing, on the other hand, takes a surgical approach to
improving SSI. It targets the problems, not the kids.
But none of us can pretend that SSI reform will not eliminate some
children from the rolls. Obviously, it will. Given that fact, our goal
should be to remove those who should not be on the program in the first
place.
In order to accomplish this, our proposal takes several approaches.
First, it clarifies the purpose of the program, which critics argue was
never sufficiently defined. It ensures that the purpose of SSI is not
only covering the additional costs of caring for children with
disabilities and maintaining them at home, but also providing basic
necessities and enhancing the opportunity for these children to develop
into independent adults.
Second, our proposal modifies SSI's medical listings and
Individualized Functional Assessment to ensure that only children with
severe disabilities are drawing SSI benefits.
This is not a modification I take lightly. Members of Congress, for
the most part, must acknowledge our ignorance in making clinical
diagnoses relating to mental illness and other disabilities. Any
modifications we make to the diagnostic tools of clinicians should
respect both what we know and do not know, so we do not harm innocent
children.
Therefore, while our proposal modifies the medical listings and
increases the level of severity required under the Individualized
Functional Assessment, it also requires an evaluation of these changes
by the Social Security Administration.
Mr. Chairman, much attention has been paid in this debate to children
with mental disorders, and the degree to which they should be eligible
for SSI.
I think we need to be very careful to avoid denying eligibility to
someone who doesn't look disabled. And as much as we must reform this
program
[[Page S6535]] to insure its integrity, we must also avoid making
decisions based only on anecdotal evidence. A child who may not
``look'' disabled to the average person may suffer from a severe
disability that is just as costly for the family as a physically
disabled child.
Let me give you an example from North Dakota. The mother of a 6-year-
old child named Garrett recently visited my office.
When Garrett was 4, he was diagnosed with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder--ADHD. A medication was prescribed for him after
he experienced a series of seizures. But the medication caused brain
damage which has deprived Garrett of the ability to control his
negative emotions.
Because Garrett has no neurological control, he is incapable of
exercising choice in his actions and requires constant supervision.
Garrett's aggressive disorders have resulted in harm to himself, the
members of his family, and their home.
SSI not only has enabled the family to make household repairs when
Garrett has damaged the house, but also to pay for day care for their
younger daughter when Garrett's mother has had to take him to therapy.
There is no day care for a youngster like Garrett.
Garrett is just one example of the kind of child who should not be
removed from SSI. I am hopeful that this Congress will see fit to take
a balanced approach to this issue to ensure that we clean up this
program in a way that is tough, honest and fair.
Mr. President, in addition to making the changes to SSI that I have
already mentioned, our proposal also:
Increases the use of standardized tests to make it virtually
impossible for anyone to feign a disability;
Expands and better targets SSI continuing disability reviews;
Expands civil penalties for those who coach children to act
inappropriately in order to receive benefits;
Graduates the level of benefits that families receive when they have
more than one child on SSI;
Changes the SSI policy regarding retroactive lump sum benefits;
Requires parents to demonstrate that they have sought appropriate
treatment to alleviate their child's disability; and several other
important provisions.
Mr. President, while a great deal of time and effort has gone into
developing this legislation, I would be the first to acknowledge that
there may be room for improvement. For example, the Slattery Commission
on Childhood Disability appears ready to recommend that Medicaid
coverage continue for children who leave SSI because their condition
improves, but need continued medical assistance to ensure their
condition does not worsen. Although this provision is not in our bill,
I believe it is one the Congress should consider.
I also want to call to my colleagues' attention a new report by the
National Academy of Social Insurance entitled ``Restructuring the SSI
Disability Program for Children and Adolescents.'' The Academy's study,
conducted by a nonpartisan group of national experts, is an extremely
thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of the approach Congress should
take to reform SSI. And it contains many parallels to the legislation
we are introducing today. The report recommends strengthening
eligibility criteria, preserving the cash benefit, graduating the
amount of benefits families receive when they have more than one child
on SSI, encouraging measures to foster independence among those
youngsters who can become independent, and several other items.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From National Academy of Social Insurance, May 8, 1995]
Expert Group Recommends Steps to Restructure Supplemental Security
Disability Program for Children, Adolescents
Washington, DC.--A nonpartisan group of national experts,
responding to a study request from the House Ways and Means
Committee in the 102nd Congress, said today that ``there is a
strong rationale for the payment of cash benefits to families
with disabled children, while suggesting specific steps to
restructure the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability
program whose future is currently being debated in the
Congress.
The Committee on Childhood Disability of the National
Academy of Social Insurance released its findings in a study
entitled ``Restructuring the SSI Disability Program for
Children and Adolescents.'' The study, one year in the
making, also considered the views of 12 additional experts in
government, academia, and the private sector who contribute
to the Academy's Disability Policy Panel.
The population of children with disabilities is small, but
significant, and varies depending on the definition of
``disability.'' The National Health Interview Survey
estimates in 1991 that children who had a ``limitation in
their major activity''--which means attending school for
children age 5-17, or playing for younger children--numbered
2.7 million or 4.2 percent of children under 18. In December
of 1994, there were 837,000 low-income children under 18
receiving SSI due to their disabilities.
Jerry Mashaw, the Panel chair and Sterling Professor of Law
at Yale University, explained that ``cash payments must be
seen in the context of needs for family support. There are
myriad special burdens placed on families of children with
severe disabilities. Cash support can ease those burdens,
even if it cannot remove them. Low-income families, already
at the margin, face particular difficulties meeting the added
costs associated with their child's disability.''
The Committee, though clearly in support of cash benefits
for disabled children, said that these benefits should be
made ``only in appropriate cases'' and that they should not
be excessive in the modest number of cases where families
have more than one disabled child. Most importantly, they
argued, ``the approach to the support of disabled children
through the SSI program should be reoriented toward an
emphasis on the medical recovery, physical and mental
development and job readiness of children with
disabilities.''
The rapid growth in SSI childhood disability awards between
1989 and 1993 has leveled off and actually declined in 1994.
According to Mashaw, the growth appears to be a ``wave''
rather than a long term trend. The ``wave'' was attributed to
four factors: updates of the listing of disabling childhood
mental impairments in late 1990; implementation of a 1990
Supreme Court decision that expanded SSI eligibility criteria
for children; legislatively mandated outreach activities by
the Social Security Administration as well as efforts by
States and private organizations to enroll eligible children
in the SSI program; and an economic recession in 1990-91 that
caused more families with disabled children to meet the
program's low-income criteria.
The report also makes clear that allegations of widespread
abuse have not been substantiated in any of the studies that
have been done. The data show that children who receive SSI
have very significant disabilities, and that those who are
suspected of ``gaming the system'' are denied benefits.
Further, the Social Security Administration has put in place
rigorous new systems to investigate all such allegations and
assure that benefits are not improperly paid.
The Academy's expert group identified five themes that
define sound disability policy for children and adolescents:
Family preservation. ``The basic purpose of cash benefits
is to support and preserve the capacity of families to care
for their disabled children in their own homes.'' This can be
done by providing for some of the additional, non-medical,
but disability-related, costs of raising a disabled child; by
compensating for some of the income lost because of the
everyday necessities of caring for a disabled child; and by
meeting the child's basic needs for food, clothing, and
shelter.
``Without these supports,'' they argue, ``disabled children
would be at a much greater risk of losing both a secure home
environment and the opportunity for integration into
community life, including the world of work.''
Strengthened eligibility criteria. The Committee urged that
``maladaptive behavior'' be eliminated as a separate
``functional domain'' for evaluating childhood mental
disorders that qualify one for SSI. Further, they called for
increased use of standardized tests to assess functioning for
children with mental disorders. And, they called for
revamping the ``individualized functional assessment''
required by the Supreme Court to make it a more accurate
barometer of both physical and mental disabilities, that is
not so closely tied to mental disorders.
The Committee said that ``new regulations should be
developed expeditiously to strengthen the childhood
eligibility criteria. At the same time, care should be taken
not to repeat the tumult of the early 1980s, when radical
retrenchment in Federal disability policy brought widespread
individual hardship and judicial challenges. States were at
first reluctant, and then refused, to implement the harsh
policies because it left them with the burden of care for
vulnerable populations whose Federal benefits were denied or
terminated.
Limiting family benefits when there is more than one
eligible child in the household. With appropriate exceptions
for children who need round-the-clock nursing care or foster
care, and for adopted special-needs children, SSI benefits
for families with more than one disabled child should be
limited to 1.5 times the individual benefit for two children
and two times the benefit for three or more children,
according to the Committee's recommendations. No disabled
child should
[[Page S6536]] lose Medicaid eligibility because of this
limit on cash benefits.
Encourage a work track for teens with disabilities. At age
14, teenagers on SSI, together with their parents and special
education advisors, should begin setting career goals and
developing transition plans out of SSI and into financial
independence whenever possible, according to the study group.
While these children are pursuing their goals for work or
further education after high school, they would have
assurance of SSI benefits until they reached age 18, even if
they began to demonstrate work skills.
Encourage energetic measures by States, localities, and the
private sector to limit the period when cash support is
needed for infants and young children with disabilities.
Children's progress should be tracked and periodically
reviewed to ensure that those who recover do not remain on
the SSI disability rolls, and that those whose disabilities
persist are linked to services appropriate to their changing
needs as they grow older.
The Disability Policy Panel will issue a report providing a
fundamental review of the Social Security Disability programs
for adults later this fall. Today's report on children and
the SSI disability program is available from the National
Academy of Social Insurance. The Academy is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization devoted to furthering knowledge and
understanding of Social Security and related public and
private social programs. The Disability Project is supported
by The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, and corporate members of the Health Insurance
Association of America that offer long-term disability
insurance.
____
May 11, 1995.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: The undersigned national organizations
are writing to express our full support for the bill you,
Senator Chafee, Senator Jeffords and Senator Bradley are
sponsoring, to make sensible reforms to the Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) program for children with disabilities.
The SSI program is a lifeline for families who have
children with disabilities. Over 900,000 children with severe
impairments living in low-income families now receive cash
benefits to meet their basic needs (which often cost more for
children with disabilities), compensate for their
extraordinary expenses, and offset loss of income because a
parent must remain unemployed or underemployed to care for
their child.
The SSI program for children has been maligned by
allegations that parents are ``coaching'' their children to
appear disabled and that SSA is qualifying children with mild
impairments. The program has been intensively examined by the
Social Security Administration, the HHS Office of Inspector
General and the General Accounting Office. While they
criticized some aspects of the program, they could not
substantiate the allegations of widespread fraud or
maladministration. Nevertheless, the House enacted
legislation, H.R. 4, which throws 170,000 children off the
program immediately, denies benefits to 400,000 others over
the next five years, and replaces cash benefits to future
eligible children with a vague set of services administered
by the states. The House bill cuts by 35% estimated SSI
spending for the children over the next five years.
Your bill represents sensible reform. It addresses the
issues raised by the program's critics without decimating the
program. It clarifies and raises the SSI eligibility
standards, expands the definition of fraud to include
``coaching'' children to pass disability tests, requires
periodic reviews to assure that children who are no longer
disabled are removed from the program and improves incentives
to encourage children to move toward independence.
We are happy to support your legislation and look forward
to working with you to assure its passage in the Senate and
ultimate enactment into law.
Sincerely,
Joseph Manes; Rhoda Schulzinger, Bazelon Center Mental
Health Law; Martha Ford, The Arc; Al Guida, National
Mental Health Association; on behalf of: American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; American
Association of Children's Residential Centers; American
Association on Mental Retardation; American Association
for Partial Hospitalization; American Association of
Pastoral Counselors; American Association of Private
Practice Psychiatrists; American Association of
Psychiatric Services for Children; American Board of
Examiners in Clinical Social Work; American Counseling
Association; American Counseling Association; American
Family Foundation; American Occupational Therapy
Association; Orthopsychiatric Association; American
Psychoanalytic Association; American Psychological
Association; American Rehabilitation Association;
Anxiety Disorders Association of America, Association
of Mental Health Administrators; Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law; Corporation for the Advancement of
Psychiatry; Cult Awareness Network; Epilepsy Foundation
of America; Family Service America; Federation of
Families for Children's Mental Health; International
Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services;
Legal Action Center; National Association of Protection
and Advisory Systems; National Association of
Psychiatric Health Systems; National Association of
Psychiatric Treatment for Children; National
Association of School Psychologists; National
Association of Social Workers; National Association of
State Directors of Development Disabilities Services,
Inc.; National Association of State Mental Health
Program Directors; National Community Mental Healthcare
Council; National Depressive and Manic Depressive
Association; National Easter Seal Society; National
Federation of Societies for Clinical Social Work;
National Head Injury Foundation; National Mental Health
Association; National Organization of State
Associations for Children; National Organization for
Rare Disorders; The Arc; United Cerebral Palsy
Association; World Association of Psychosocial
Rehabilitation.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Conrad
in introducing the Childhood SSI Eligibility Act. This legislation
makes important reforms to the children's SSI program without
completely dismantling this critical cash assistance program for low-
income families with disabled children.
It is important to point out from the outset that, contrary to the
many sensational stories we have seen in the press, 80 percent of
children receiving SSI payments are severely disabled. They suffer from
severe physical disabilities such as cystic fibrosis and cerebral
palsy, or from significant developmental retardation. The other 20
percent have other mental impairments such as childhood autism or
schizophrenia.
The families of such children need cash assistance in addition to
medical services. In many of these cases, one parent must remain home
with the child; in this case, the program serves as income replacement
for a parent who must quit working. If these families were to lose
their SSI cash benefits, many would not have the resources to care for
their children at home resulting in a significant increase in
institutionalization. Mr. President, if there is one thing we can all
agree on it is that, whenever possible, children should remain at home
with their families and in the community instead of in institutions.
This legislation continues to make that possible.
The cash is also used for other critical supports, such as specially
trained child care providers, specially equipped vehicles to transport
children who use wheelchairs, home modifications and adaptations,
special telecommunication services, and family support services.
Having said that, I also recognize that there are some problems with
the children's SSI program, and that is why we are introducing
legislation today. There has been rapid growth in the SSI program for
children over the last 5 years. In 1989 the program was providing cash
assistance to
300,000 children; by 1994 it was serving 890,000 children. During this
same period the cost of the children's SSI program grew from $1.2
billion to $4.5 billion.
The growth in the program has now leveled out, but clearly, we need
to ask ourselves why the program suddenly exploded and how we can
prevent this from happening in the future. There are a couple of
reasons for the sudden growth. First, the recession in the early 1990's
resulted in many people falling into poverty, precipitating an
increased need for government assistance. Second, in 1989 the Congress
directed the Social Security Administration [SSA] to conduct outreach
for the first time to potentially eligible families with children who
have severe disabilities. Third, there was a change made to the mental
impairment listings. And, finally, the 1990 Supreme Court decision, the
so-called Zebley decision required SSA to change its childhood
disability determination process to evaluate the child's level of
functioning in addition to his or her medical condition. It was
estimated at that time that 1 million additional children will meet the
new criteria under Zebley.
We have all heard and read about the stories of parents gaming the
system and coaching their children to act disabled in some fashion to
qualify for SSI. And I do not question that some of this occurs. But is
it rampant? The GAO finds no solid evidence of parents coaching their
children, although it
[[Page S6537]] does recommend that we take a serious look at certain
aspects of the eligibility determination process. And that is what our
legislation does.
First, the legislation tightens eligibility to ensure that only
children with severe and persistent impairments, which substantially
limit their ability to function, receive benefits. Second, it increases
and better targets continuing disability reviews to ensure that only
those who remain eligible actually continue to receive benefits. Third,
it expands penalties for coaching children to act inappropriately in
order to receive benefits. Finally, it imposes graduated payments for
additional children, like other cash assistance programs such as AFDC.
Mr. President, I think this legislation is a fair and balanced
approach. It acknowledges and corrects abuses in the system while
reinforcing the
purpose of the program: to enable children with disabilities to remain
at home or in another appropriate and cost-effective setting and to
cover the additional costs of caring for and raising such a child.
Who is this money serving? Children like Juan, a 9-year-old youngster
in my home State of Rhode Island. Juan has been on SSI since birth,
confined to a wheelchair and dependent on medical technology to
survive. Without the cash assistance he receives under SSI, Juan's
mother would be forced to put him into a residential facility at a cost
of almost $200,000 per year. Compare this to the maximum SSI benefit of
$438 a month. It seems to me that we are getting a pretty good deal,
and that families like Juan's deserve every nickel they get.
The Finance Committee will be taking up this issue in the coming
weeks as part of welfare reform. Many of my colleagues are familiar
with the provision in the House-passed welfare reform bill which would
eliminate cash assistance for all children unless they would be
otherwise institutionalized. In my view, this should be rejected. I
sincerely hope that my colleagues on the Finance Committee will
consider the legislation we are introducing today as an alternative
which provides effective reforms without removing disabled children
from the rolls who are truly in need.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator
Conrad's Childhood Supplemental Security Income [SSI] Eligibility
Reform Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I
would like to begin by acknowledging and thanking my colleague Senator
Conrad for his hard work and dedication on drafting this bill to cure
the problems in the children's SSI program. I am hopeful for this
bill's quick consideration and adoption.
In the welfare reform bill passed earlier this year by our colleagues
in the House, substantial changes were made in the children's SSI
program. However, I believe that the House version of this bill fails
to address the criticisms leveled towards this program while at the
same time ensuring that the children and families that rely on and need
these benefits receive them.
For example, a family I know of in Vermont has two young children
with cystic fibrosis. They live in a very rural area of Vermont about 2
hours away from the specialty clinic and hospital they go to. This
distance creates a constant expense of travel to this clinic and
hospital. In addition, the medication costs for the two children are
very high. The infant had growth problems related to malabsorption
which required special formula. The older child had severe
malabsorption that required surgery and requires subsequent close
follow-up of his nutritional status.
The father of these children works full time, but has to take time
off to attend the clinics with the children and to transport and visit
them in the hospital. Some of the time off is unpaid because he has
limited vacation time.
The children's mother had intended to return to work after they were
born but cannot find a day care provider who is comfortable with the
children's medical care needs. She undoubtedly would also have
difficulty finding an employer who would allow her the necessary time
off for appointments, hospitalizations, and so forth.
Mr. President, this family has a clear need for the Medicaid coverage
and extra income that SSI provides. It is difficult to imagine how they
could continue to provide the medical care that their children need
without these benefits. They are a hard-working and tax-paying couple
who struggle to do the best that they can for their children. The
effect of the House bill on this family would be devastating, while our
bill would ensure that this family that needs to receive these benefits
would still receive them.
I believe that the bill being introduced today will meet both of
these goals: preserve the essential parts of the children's SSI
program, while, at the same time, addressing the concerns raised by its
critics. I would now like to address the valid criticisms of the SSI
program, and our specific solutions in the bill to these criticisms.
First, our bill will address the issue that SSI's purpose for
children with disabilities was never sufficiently defined. By defining
the program as maintaining children with disabilities in the most
appropriate and cost effective setting, and enhancing such children's
opportunities to develop into independent adults, our bill will combat
the old once-disabled-always-disabled way of thinking.
This bill will also combat the current problem that children who are
not severely disabled are drawing benefits. By tightening the SSI
eligiibility requirements, our bill will ensure that children and
families that truly need these benefits will be receiving them.
In addition, by increasing penalties to parents and guardians that
knowingly and willfully coach children to act in ways that render them
eligible for SSI, and requiring greater use of standardized testing,
our bill will stem the practice of children who should be ineligible
for benefits being found to be eligible for SSI.
Further, our bill will graduate payments to families for each
additional child in the family receiving SSI benefits. This provision
will ensure that families with multiple kids receiving SSI benefits
will not be receiving the maximum benefit for each child.
Finally, our bill will help children receiving SSI benefits move
toward self-sufficiency. I, for one, find this to be one of the most
important provisions of the bill. By ensuring that we move people
toward self-sufficiency, we are helping reduce the number of children
receiving SSI benefits, while increasing the possibility that these
individuals will not require future governmental support.
Mr. President, I believe that our bill changes what is wrong with the
SSI program while maintaining legitimate benefits that children and
their families rely on. We don't want to go back to a much more costly
system that institutionalizes children rather than affording them an
opportunity for productive and self-sufficient lives. Thus, I feel
confident in stating that this bill will ensure that continued support
of SSI benefits to families, like the one from Vermont I described
earlier, while solving some of the problems currently plaguing the
children's SSI system.
____________________