[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10730-S10738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Frist, Mr. Inhofe, 
        and Mr. Mack):
  S. 1073. A bill to establish a national advisory referendum on 
limiting the terms of Members of Congress at the general election of 
1996; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


 the national voter opportunity to inform congress effectively (voice) 
                       on term limits act of 1995

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I offer a bill similar to one I 
introduced in the last Congress. My bill, the National Voter 
Opportunity To Inform Congress Effectively on Term Limits--or VOICE--
Act, would authorize a national advisory referendum on term limits for 
Members of Congress. It is a companion bill to legislation being 
introduced today in the House by Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan.
  In recent years, the American people have come to realize that the 
seniority system, coupled with the overwhelming electoral advantages of 
incumbency, has created a class of career politicians--a class not 
envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
  Our Founding Fathers envisioned the Congress as a body of citizen-
legislators. People who had trades, professions, or businesses would 
serve for a period of time, bringing with them experience and fresh 
ideas to shape the laws that would govern commerce and quality of life.
  There has been a vigorous grassroots effort mounting in this country 
to return us to this vision. Especially over the past few years, the 
movement to limit congressional terms has gained significant ground. 
Despite the Congress' reluctance to impose term limits on itself, the 
people have chosen to press forward without us by passing ballot 
initiatives to limit the terms of their own Federal representatives. In 
23 States--nearly half the country--the people have spoken 
overwhelmingly and unequivocally that they want the terms of their 
Congressmen and
 Senators to be limited.

  Last May, the term limits movement suffered a major blow with the 
Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. versus Thornton. In a 
5-to-4 decision, the Court said the State-imposed term limits violate 
the Constitution and that any effort to limit congressional terms must 
be done through a constitutional amendment. This ruling effectively 
overturned all 23 States term-limits laws that had been passed up to 
now.
  The House's failure to pass an amendment last March proves that there 
is virtually no chance for term limits in this Congress. Even in this 
Chamber, a recent rollcall survey found that we are still 24 votes shy 
of having enough support to approve a term-limits amendment. Congress 
is truly out of touch with America on this issue.
  That is why, Mr. President, I feel it is so important that we give 
every American, in all 50 States, an opportunity to speak directly to 
their Federal representatives on the term-limits matter. My bill would 
do just that by conducting a nonbinding, national referendum. It would 
place a simple and straightforward question on every ballot in the 1996 
election, ``Should Congress approve a constitutional amendment to limit 
the number of terms that a Member of the United States House of 
Representatives and United States Senate can serve in office? Yes or 
No.''
  Let me hasten to add that this legislation would not create an 
unfunded Federal mandate. This bill provides that States would be 
reimbursed at a rate of 4 cents per voter for the cost of putting the 
question on the ballot. This Federal reimbursement would be offset by 
corresponding reduction in the franking budget for Members of the House 
and Senate.
  Mr. President, I want to urge my colleagues to join me in giving the 
American people a voice in the next election on whether the terms of 
their representatives in the U.S. Congress should be limited. Rather 
than debating about what we think the American people want and need, 
let's give them the opportunity to tell us themselves, clearly and 
directly. It is time we invoke the communicative power of democracy and 
ask the people what they think.
                                 ______

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself, Mr. Simon, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1074. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
expanding and intensifying activities of the National Institute of 
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases with respect to lupus; 
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                 the lupus research amendments of 1995

 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing with 
Senators Simon and Inouye the Lupus Research Amendments of 1995. This 
bill would provide the funding so desperately needed by NIH to increase 
current education, prevention, and treatment efforts.
  Systemic lupus erythematosus [lupus] is a painful, potentially 
devastating chronic autoimmune disease that occurs mostly in young 
women of childbearing age. Lupus causes the body's defense system to 
malfunction and attack its own healthy organs. Every element of the 
victim's musculoskeletal system is susceptible, ranging from the skin 
and joints to the blood, heart, lungs, and kidneys.
  Health officials estimate that between 1.4 million and 2 million 
Americans, 90 percent of whom are female, are afflicted with lupus. 
Both the cause and a cure for lupus are currently unknown. Treatments 
can be effective but can lead to adverse side effects which cause 
severe and sometimes incapacitating pain, making it impossible for 
victims to maintain jobs and live normal lives. Increased and intensive 
research, thus, offers the best hope for prevention and better 
treatment of lupus and its related disabilities.
  The Lupus Research Amendments of 1995 would expend clinical research 
for the discovery and evaluation of new treatments; encourage the 
coordination of improved screening techniques; and improve information 
and education programs for health care professionals and the public. In 
addition, researching the cause of lupus may reveal other abnormalities 
of the immune system, and this knowledge could help experts better 
understand related illnesses. It is to this end that I reintroduce this 
legislation, which authorizes funding of $20 million for fiscal year 
1996 and such sums as may be necessary for both fiscal years 1997 and 
1998.
  This legislation can make a real difference to the millions of 
Americans, particularly women, who are afflicted with lupus. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1074

       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 ``Lupus Research Amendment of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) lupus is a serious, complex, inflammatory, autoimmune 
     disease of particular concern to women;
       (2) lupus affects women 9 times more than men;
       (3) there are 3 main types of lupus; systemic lupus, a 
     serious form of the disease that affect many parts of the 
     body; discoid lupus, a form of the disease that affects 
     mainly the skin; and drug-induced lupus caused by certain 
     medications;
       (4) lupus can be fatal if not detected and treated early;
       (5) the disease can simultaneously affect various areas of 
     the body, such as the skin, joints, kidneys, and brain, and 
     can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms of lupus 
     are similar to those of many other diseases;
       (6) lupus disproportionately affects African-American 
     women, as the prevalence of the disease among such women is 3 
     times the prevalence among white women, and an estimated 1 in 
     250 African-American women between the ages of 15 and 65 
     develops the disease;
       (7) it has been estimated that over 500,000 Americans have 
     been diagnosed with the disease, and that many more have 
     undiagnosed cases;

[[Page S10731]]

       (8) current treatment of the disease can be effective, but 
     may lead to damaging side effects; and
       (9) many victims of the disease suffer debilitating pain 
     and fatigue, making it difficult to maintain employment and 
     lead normal lives.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION AND INTENSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES REGARDING 
                   LUPUS.

       Subpart 4 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285d et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 441 the following new section:


                                ``lupus

         ``Sec. 441A. (a) In General.--The Director of the 
     Institute shall expand and intensify research and related 
     activities of the Institute with respect to lupus.
         ``(b) Coordination With Other Institutes.--The Director 
     of the Institute shall coordinate the activities of the 
     Director under subsection (a) with similar activities 
     conducted by the other national research institutes and 
     agencies of the National Institutes of Health to the extent 
     that such Institutes and agencies have responsibilities that 
     are related to lupus.
       ``(c) Programs for Lupus.--In carrying out subsection (a), 
     the Director of the Institute shall conduct or support 
     research to expand the understanding of the causes of, and to 
     find a cure for, lupus. Activities under such subsection 
     shall include conducting and supporting the following:
       ``(1) Research to determine the reasons underlying the 
     elevated prevalence of lupus in women, including African-
     American women.
       ``(2) Basic research concerning the etiology and causes of 
     the disease.
       ``(3) Epidemiological studies to address the frequency and 
     natural history of the disease and the differences among the 
     sexes and among racial and ethnic groups with respect to the 
     disease.
       ``(4) The development of improved screening techniques.
       ``(5) Clinical research for the development and evaluation 
     of new treatments, including new biological agents.
       ``(6) Information and education programs for health care 
     professionals and the public.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995, and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996 and 
     1997. The authorization of appropriations established in the 
     preceding sentence is in addition to any other authorization 
     of appropriations that is available for such 
     purpose.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1075. A bill to reauthorize and improve the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


   the individuals with disabilities education act amendments of 1995

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 20 years ago this November, Congress 
enacted Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children 
Act, now known as part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act [IDEA]. The purpose of this law is simple--to assist States and 
local communities meet their obligation to provide equal educational 
opportunity to children with disabilities in accordance with the equal 
protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  I believe that IDEA is an excellent law. Prior to the enactment of 
Public Law 94-142, 1 million children with disabilities were excluded 
entirely from receiving a public education and more than half of the 
children with disabilities in the United States did not receive 
appropriate educational services that would enable them to enjoy full 
equality of opportunity.
  Because of IDEA, millions of children with disabilities are now 
receiving a free and appropriate public education. Educational outcomes 
for children with disabilities have improved dramatically over this 20-
year period.
  For many parents who have disabled children, IDEA is a lifeline of 
hope. As one parent recently told me:

       Thank God for IDEA. Because of IDEA our child is achieving 
     academic success. He is also treated by his nondisabled peers 
     as ``one of the guys.'' I am now confident that he will 
     graduate high school prepared to hold down a job and lead an 
     independent life.
       The rewards of IDEA go beyond the classroom and into the 
     very being of our family. IDEA gives us the strength to face 
     the challenges of bringing up a child with a disability. We 
     know that our son is entitled to an appropriate education 
     just like his nondisabled peers. We also know that IDEA 
     provides us with the tools to ensure that the promise of 
     equal educational opportunity is realized.

  In May, Danette Crawford, a junior at Urbandale High School in Des 
Moines, IA, testified before the Subcommittee on Disability Policy. 
Danette explained that she has cerebral palsy which greatly limits her 
ability to carry out any personal care tasks and fine motor activities 
such as writing. She uses a wheelchair for mobility. Danette testified 
that:

       My grade point average stands at 3.8 and I am enrolled in 
     advanced placement courses. The education I am receiving is 
     preparing me for a real future. Without IDEA I am convinced I 
     would not be receiving the
      quality education that Urbandale High School and the 
     Talented and Gifted Program provide me. After graduating 
     high school I hope to attend Carleton College in 
     Northfield, Minnesota, focusing on a double major in 
     political science or history and Spanish. Carlton is 
     sometimes referred to as the ``Harvard of the midwest.'' I 
     hope to pursue a law degree.

  However, despite the great progress that has been made over the past 
20 years, significant challenges remain. As Secretary Riley points out, 
too many students with disabilities are still failing courses and 
dropping out of school; enrollment in postsecondary education is still 
too low; and too many students are leaving school ill-prepared for 
employment and independent living.
  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I am 
pleased to introduce, along with Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, the Clinton administration's 
bill reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  With this reauthorization we have the opportunity to take what we 
have learned over the past 20 years and use it to update and improve 
this critical law.
  I commend Secretary Riley, Judy Heumann, Assistant Secretary for 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Tom Hehir, Director of 
the Office of Special Education Programs, and their staffs for 
developing a carefully crafted bill that will enhance educational 
opportunities for over 5 million children with disabilities.
  The administration has developed their bill based on numerous 
meetings and discussions with all interested parties, including 
parents, educators, and administrators across the country. The 
administration has reviewed over 2,000 recommendations sent in response 
to a call for comment last fall on suggestions for improving the IDEA.
  I do not believe that everyone will be in complete agreement about 
each of the provisions in the bill. But, I do believe that the 
administration has achieved a necessary balance that is so important in 
this law.
  I fully support the six key principles on which the administration's 
proposal are based:
  Aligning IDEA with State and local education reform efforts so 
students with disabilities will benefit from them;
  Improving results for students with disabilities through higher 
expectations and meaningful access to the general curriculum, to the 
maximum extent possible;
  Addressing individual needs in the least restrictive environment for 
students;
  Providing families and teachers with the knowledge and training to 
effectively support students' learning;
  Focusing on teaching and learning; and
  Strengthening early intervention to ensure that every child starts 
school ready to learn.
  I look forward to working with Senator Frist, the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Disability Policy, Senator Kassebaum the chair of the 
Labor Committee, and other colleagues to craft a consensus bill in the 
tradition of this committee. It is my hope that the administration's 
bill will be used as the vehicle for achieving this consensus.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of transmittal 
of the administration's bill from Secretary Riley to Al Gore, in his 
capacity as President of the Senate, be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 U.S. Department of Education,

                                                    June 30, 1995.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed for consideration of the 
     Congress is the ``Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     Amendments of 1995,'' the Administration's proposal for 
     improving and restructuring Federal education programs for 
     children with 

[[Page S10732]]
     disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (IDEA). 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.
       Since enactment of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All 
     Handicapped Children Act of 1975, results for children with 
     disabilities have improved dramatically. Before the enactment 
     of that ground-breaking law, one million children with 
     disabilities were excluded from school altogether, and many 
     were housed in dehumanizing institutions. Today, one of the 
     basic goals of the IDEA has been largely met--children with 
     disabilities have access to education. As we undertake a 
     review of this legislation, we reaffirm our commitment to the 
     basic purposes of the IDEA and the recognition of the Federal 
     role in ensuring that all children with disabilities are 
     provided the equal educational opportunity that the 
     Constitution guarantees. With this reauthorization, we have 
     the opportunity to take what we have learned over the past 
     twenty years and use it to update and improve this important 
     law.
       Despite the great progress that has been made, significant 
     challenges remain. Too many students with disabilities are 
     failing courses and dropping out of school. When appropriate 
     interventions are not provided, these students often get in 
     trouble with the law and spend significant time in jail. 
     Enrollment in postsecondary education is still low, and 
     students are leaving school ill prepared for employment and 
     independent living. Children from minority backgrounds and 
     children with limited English proficiency are often 
     inappropriately identified as disabled and placed in special 
     education classrooms with low expectations. In addition, 
     school officials and others complain that the current law is 
     unnecessarily prescriptive, that it focuses too much on 
     paperwork and process, that it imposes unnecessary costs, 
     that it creates barriers to effective discipline, and that it 
     spawns too much litigation.
       Our reauthorization proposal addresses these issues and 
     makes improvements to ensure that the fundamental objectives 
     of the law are achieved, while preserving and maintaining 
     existing rights and protections for children and their 
     families. We based our reauthorization proposal on six key 
     principles that clearly define our mission to improve results 
     for students with disabilities, beginning as early as 
     possible in the child's life.
       (1) Align the IDEA with State and local education reform 
     efforts so students with disabilities can benefit from them.
       (2) Improve results for students with disabilities through 
     higher expectations and meaningful access to the general 
     curriculum, to the maximum extent appropriate.
       (3) Address individual needs in the least restrictive 
     environment for the student.
       (4) Provide families and teachers--those closest to 
     students--with the knowledge and training to effectively 
     support students' learning.
       (5) Focus on teaching and learning.
       (6) Strengthen early intervention to ensure that every 
     child starts school ready to learn.
       Aligning the IDEA with State and local education reform 
     efforts so students with disabilities can benefit from them 
     underlies our entire proposal.
       We need to stop thinking about ``special education'' as a 
     separate program and separate place to put students and start 
     thinking about the supports and services children need in 
     whatever setting is the least restrictive--whether it be the 
     regular classroom, a resource room, a separate classroom, or 
     a separate school. We must promote the transformation of our 
     current categorical education system into a system for all 
     children that meets the individual needs of each child.
       We envision an education system that sets higher 
     expectations for all students, gives all students the 
     opportunity to learn to challenging standards, and takes 
     responsibility and is accountable for the success of all 
     children. The strategies we describe below are critical to 
     the development of a system that meets this vision.
       Our second principle is that the IDEA must focus on 
     improving results for students with disabilities through 
     higher expectations and meaningful access to the general 
     curriculum, to the maximum extent appropriate.
       We know that most children work harder and do better when 
     more is expected of them. Disabled students are no different. 
     When we have high expectations for students with 
     disabilities, most can achieve to the challenging standards 
     established for all students, and all can achieve more than 
     society has historically expected.
       One strategy for increasing expectations and access to the 
     general curriculum is improving the individualized education 
     program (IEP). Our proposal would refocus the IEP process on 
     educational results and include requirements that make more 
     sense. The new IEP would include meaningful annual objectives 
     for the student and focus on enabling the child to 
     participate and achieve in the general curriculum. Parents 
     would be informed of their children's progress, by means such 
     as report cards, with the same frequency used to inform 
     parents of nondisabled children. The IEP procedures would be 
     revised to require the participation of at least one regular 
     education teacher in the IEP meeting, and provide for earlier 
     transition planning to help ensure that each student 
     completes secondary school prepared for employment or 
     postsecondary education and independent living.
       A related strategy for promoting high expectations and 
     access to the general curriculum is the inclusion of students 
     with disabilities in State and district-wide assessments. 
     While civil rights laws already prohibit the discriminatory 
     exclusion of students with disabilities from participation in 
     assessments, some States exclude over 90 percent of all 
     students with disabilities from those assessments. Of course, 
     a small number of students with significant cognitive 
     disabilities cannot appropriately be included in general 
     State and district-wide assessments. States and districts 
     would conduct alternate assessments for these few students.
       Our long-range strategy is that each State would use 
     assessment results and other data it collects on students, 
     such as drop-out rates, to assess and report on its progress 
     toward meeting goals the State would establish for the 
     performance of children with disabilities. We believe that 
     when States assess students with disabilities and report to 
     the public on the results, they will focus more on ensuring 
     that students with disabilities receive the help they need to 
     participate and achieve in the general curriculum and meet 
     the challenging standards established for all students.
       The third principle underlying our proposal is addressing 
     individual needs in the least restrictive environment 
     appropriate for the student.
       A central purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that each child 
     receives an effective and individualized education that 
     addresses the child's particular needs in the least 
     restrictive environment. Today, children are often identified 
     and served according to the disability category within which 
     they are labeled rather than according to what they need to 
     achieve their full potential. Several critical changes will 
     help defeat this unfortunate categorization.
       Our first strategy is to ensure that Federal and State 
     requirements and funding systems do not create disincentives 
     for appropriate placements and services. We propose that the 
     Federal funding formula be changed to allocate to States all 
     new funding above their fiscal year 1995 grants on the basis 
     of the total number of children in the State, not just 
     children with disabilities. This change in the formula would 
     remove disincentives for States to undertake improvements 
     such as the increased provision of early intervention 
     services, and would remove incentives for States to over-
     identify students as disabled. We are also proposing that any 
     State that bases State aid on the type of settings in which 
     children are served demonstrate that its funding formula does 
     not result in placements that violate the IDEA's least-
     restrictive-environment requirement or agree to change its 
     formula.
       Our second strategy is to promote better ways of 
     identifying and serving students. Under the current IDEA, 
     students must be identified as being in one of 13 specific 
     disability categories to be served. This fosters an 
     undesirable categorical approach to evaluating, labeling, 
     placing, and serving children. We propose to use a new 
     eligibility definition which, together with changes in 
     reporting requirements, would encourage States to move toward 
     less categorical approaches, while permitting States to 
     retain their current eligibility criteria if they choose to 
     do so. Evaluation procedures would also be streamlined so 
     that what is educationally relevant is not lost and resources 
     can be better devoted to helping students. Currently, States 
     are required to conduct extensive evaluations and 
     reevaluations that are costly and of limited utility in 
     making decisions regarding a student's particular educational 
     needs. Under our proposal, agencies would be required to 
     convene an evaluation team every three years to consider the 
     need for additional data, but they would no longer have to 
     conduct tests to re-determine whether the child has a 
     disability unless the agency or parent believes it is 
     necessary. Our proposal would increase the focus of 
     evaluations and reevaluations on instructionally relevant 
     information and whether modifications are necessary to 
     achieve the IEP objectives for the child.
       Our fourth principle is that families and teachers must 
     have the knowledge and training to effectively support 
     student learning.
       We must provide families and teachers--those closest to 
     students--with the knowledge and training to effectively 
     support students' learning.
       There are 14 categorical programs in the IDEA, and over the 
     past two decades there has been much good work done in each 
     of them. However, despite some real successes, we believe 
     that these programs need significant reform. Having developed 
     separately over the years to address specific issues, the 14 
     programs are fragmented and too narrowly focused. We 
     envisioned a streamlined, comprehensive, and coordinated 
     approach for the discretionary programs that will be more 
     effective in improving results for children with 
     disabilities, while also making more effective use of 
     resources. To achieve this, our proposal would replace the 14 
     current programs with five flexible authorities. This action 
     would reduce duplication and fragmentation, while fostering 
     collaborative, coordinated efforts across
      disciplines. The programs would concentrate on developing 
     meaningful and timely information on improving results for 
     students with disabilities and then putting that 
     information into the hands of those who need it: States, 
     school districts, educators, and parents. To ensure that 
     issues concerning the special needs of children with low-
     incidence disabilities, such 

[[Page S10733]]
     as deaf-blindness, continue to be adequately addressed, there would be 
     a minimum ``floor'' for discretionary spending across the 
     new discretionary authorities to meet the needs of these 
     children.
       Family involvement is at the heart of the IDEA. Our 
     proposal will more fully involve parents in decisions about 
     where and how their child is educated. For example, our 
     proposal would require parents to be involved in the decision 
     regarding the child's educational placement. Currently, 
     parents are entitled to participate in the IEP meeting in 
     which decisions are made about the services to be provided, 
     but they are not entitled to participate in placement 
     decisions, and are, therefore, often excluded. Detailed 
     notice to families of their rights is another critical 
     safeguard, yet families currently receive duplicative notices 
     with excessive and confusing information. Our proposal would 
     streamline the notice requirements while ensuring that 
     families would receive all the necessary information whenever 
     they need it.
       We also want to reduce unnecessary lawsuits that create 
     emotional and financial burdens for parents and school 
     districts. While the right of parents to ``due process'' 
     hearings to resolve disputes is central to the implementation 
     of the law, recourse to these hearings should be a last 
     resort when less adversarial methods have failed. In States 
     that have mediation in place, parents and school districts 
     report that mediation not only helped them to clarify and 
     resolve their particular disagreement, but that it also 
     helped them to work together better and avoid future 
     conflicts. Our proposal would require that mediation be 
     offered to all parents as an option to resolve disputes.
       Many children with disabilities have significant health and 
     other needs that cannot and should not be met by schools 
     alone. Our proposal would give States and districts the 
     flexibility to use some of their IDEA funds to help support 
     the development of State or district-wide systems for 
     coordinating education, health, mental health, and social 
     services.
 our fifth principle is to increase the focus on teaching and learning

       Over the past 20 years, the IDEA has focused on process 
     without sufficient attention to educational results for 
     children with disabilities. Too often, the fundamental 
     purpose of the law is lost. To achieve the improvements we 
     are seeking, we must maximize the extent to which resources 
     are used for teaching and learning. The proposals I have 
     described above for improving IEPs, eligibility 
     determinations, and evaluations of children will help to 
     redirect considerable resources toward more instructionally 
     relevant activities that support higher achievement for 
     children with disabilities. We also propose to reduce 
     unnecessary paperwork for schools, while improving services 
     for students, by allowing schools to use their IDEA funds to 
     pay for special education services in the regular classroom 
     for the purpose of benefiting students with disabilities 
     without having to track whether nondisabled students also 
     benefit.
       Requirements imposed on State and local educational 
     agencies also drain resources that could be better used to 
     improve teaching and learning. For example, current 
     application requirements direct States to document their 
     compliance with various procedures. To establish their 
     eligibility for funding, States routinely submit to the 
     Department boxes of documents containing copies of all State 
     policies and procedures for special education. Yet, States 
     are not required to plan for improving educational results. 
     To reduce unnecessary burden, our proposal would eliminate 
     State plans. States would merely be required to update 
     documentation kept on file at the Department. Similarly, we 
     would give States the discretion to eliminate applications 
     from LEAs as long as appropriate documentation is on file.
       A new State improvement authority would recognize the key 
     role that the States play in implementing the law and enhance 
     the ability of State agencies to carry out their own plans 
     for program improvement by providing flexible resources based 
     on an IDEA State Improvement Plan. Recognizing that the 
     essential element of school improvement is well-prepared 
     teachers and administrators, the authority would focus 
     substantial attention and funding on teacher preparation. 
     This authority would distribute funds to States on a formula 
     basis and would be an impetus for improving the entire IDEA 
     program by giving States additional resources to undertake 
     the strategies they have identified for meeting their 
     performance goals for children with disabilities. To assist 
     States in these efforts, States would also be given 
     flexibility to consolidate funds available for administration 
     of Part B programs.
       Maintaining a safe and orderly environment is essential for 
     learning. Our proposal addresses the issue of school 
     discipline related to students with disabilities. We believe 
     the changes we are proposing to improve the educational 
     opportunities of students with disabilities and to promote 
     effective practices will help curb potential discipline 
     problems. However, prevention is not always sufficient, and 
     there are times when schools must take steps to address 
     misconduct. Our proposal would extend the Improving America's 
     Schools Act amendment to IDEA, which permits schools to 
     immediately remove a child from the classroom for up to 45 
     days for bringing a gun to school, to cover other dangerous 
     weapons such as knives. We are also proposing that schools be 
     permitted to go to hearing officers to obtain quick decisions 
     about whether a child is dangerous and may be removed from 
     the classroom. Hearing officers already exist in every State 
     to address special education issues. This provision would 
     help schools to expedite decisions related to dangerous 
     conduct that does not involve weapons.
       Our sixth principle is to strengthen early intervention to 
     help ensure that every child starts school ready to learn.
       Support for families also means working with them to 
     address the early intervention needs of their infants and 
     toddlers. While States and communities have made tremendous 
     progress in implementing their early intervention systems for 
     children from birth through age two under Part H of the IDEA, 
     there remain two major challenges: ensuring that all eligible 
     infants and toddlers receive services, and supporting the 
     prevention of developmental delays by expanding the inclusion 
     of at-risk infants and toddlers within the Part H 
     comprehensive system of services. To address these 
     challenges, our proposal would give States greater 
     flexibility in their efforts to serve infants and toddlers at 
     risk of developmental delay. We also propose to draw on the 
     best expertise in the nation to evaluate the need for and 
     develop an appropriate definition of developmental delay in 
     infants and toddlers in order to help States ensure that all 
     children in need are identified and served.
       I urge Congress to act favorably and quickly on these 
     proposals. Their enactment will help local communities in 
     their efforts to create safe, disciplined schools that have 
     high expectations for all their students, and well prepared 
     teachers, and will strengthen the involvement of families in 
     their children's education. I look forward to working with 
     you as we all strive to improve the IDEA in order to improve 
     results for children with disabilities.
       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,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Harkin, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability 
Policy of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, in introducing the 
Clinton administration's bill reauthorizing the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act.
  In its 20 years of existence, IDEA has greatly improved public 
education for students with disabilities in the United States. It has 
given them the opportunity for a public education and the necessary 
services to improve the quality of their lives and futures.
  However, despite the significant advances made through IDEA over the 
past 20 years, we still have a long way to go. Educational outcomes for 
students with disabilities remain less than satisfactory. Enrollment in 
post-secondary education is low, and students with disabilities too 
often emerge from public education poorly prepared to find employment 
and live independently.
  Moreover, children from minority backgrounds are often mislabeled and 
placed in special education classrooms, subject to low expectations for 
achievement. In the majority of States, African-American students are 
overrepresented in special
 education programs, compared with their percentage of the overall 
student population. In fact, studies have shown that young African-
American males are often inappropriately placed in special education 
programs, or placed in overly restrictive settings. Once there, they 
generally remain trapped there, often with very little opportunity to 
move into regular classrooms, even when such transitions are obviously 
warranted.

  Currently, Federal and State funding contributes to this problem by 
creating disincentives for appropriate placements and services. Some 
funding systems base allocations on the number of disabled students 
that each State educates. As a result, special education programs often 
operate in ways specifically designed to attract State and Federal 
dollars to local school districts--not to serve students best.
  The administration's bill takes a significant step in addressing this 
problem by changing the formula so that all new funding to States above 
their grants for the 1995 fiscal year is allocated on the basis of the 
total number of children in the States, rather than just the number of 
children with disabilities.
  We have learned much over the past 20 years, and have gained an 
understanding about what does and does not work. We now have the 
opportunity to 

[[Page S10734]]
make significant improvements in the implementation and enforcement of 
this important law. The Department of Education has worked diligently 
and carefully to develop legislation that makes substantial 
improvements in areas that need revision, and to expand upon provisions 
that have worked in the past.
  Specifically, the legislation focuses on aligning IDEA with State and 
local education reforms, giving students with disabilities the same 
opportunity to benefit from those reform efforts as other students. The 
legislation focuses on ensuring that each child receives an 
individualized education that addresses the child's particular needs in 
the least restrictive environment possible. It increases the focus on 
teaching and learning, and works to strengthen early intervention to 
help ensure that every child starts school ready to learn. It promotes 
training and education for parents and teachers to help them serve 
their students better.
  The bill also promotes involvement by families of every economic 
level. Family involvement is a critical component of success in 
education, and should be at the heart of education reform. Parents in 
all communities must be able to take a more active role in 
decisionmaking concerning the education and placement of their 
children. The administration's bill takes effective steps to make this 
possible, and contains provisions to ensure that families, teachers and 
school administrators have the knowledge and training they need to work 
effectively with students and with each other. It also provides 
mechanisms to encourage mediation as an available option for parents 
seeking to resolve disputes.
  One of the most significant reforms of public education is to reduce 
categorizing and labeling, and to focus instead on raising expectations 
and increasing access to the general curriculum for all students.
  All children have the right and deserve the opportunity to receive 
the proper education for their individual needs, whether or not they 
have a disability. Each parent has a right to be involved in that 
process.
  I am proud to cosponsor this vital legislation, and I commend 
Secretary Richard Riley and his staff for their efforts to make the act 
more effective for all children with disabilities. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the committee to reauthorize and improve 
IDEA and to achieve its great goals.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1076. A bill to designate the Western Program Service Center of 
the Social Security Administration located at 1221 Nevin Avenue, 
Richmond, California, as the ``Francis J. Hagel Building,'' and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


               The Francis J. Hagel Building Act of 1995

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today to 
introduce this legislation to honor a true hero among civil servants--
Frank Hagel--a Federal employee who rose through the ranks to become a 
top manager and whose leadership was sorely tested during a crisis at 
the center a few years ago.
  His death at an early age last January was mourned throughout the San 
Francisco Bay area.
  Frank Hagel was the seventh director of the Social Security Western 
Program Service Center in Richmond, CA. Built in 1975, the center 
stands in the heart of Richmond, and has had as many as 2,000 
employees, but now down to 1,200 largely because of automation. In 
addition to updating the benefit payment rolls, center employees answer 
the Social Security Administration's national toll-free number during 
peak times.
  Hagel, a native of Missouri, began his Federal career as a file clerk 
in 1965 at what was then called the Kansas City Payment Center. His 
hard work and talent enabled him to work his way up through technical 
and managerial positions in the organization. His special abilities 
were recognized at the highest levels in SSA. He was called upon 
frequently to lead management review teams, to serve on strategic 
planning task forces, and to lead national work groups on critical 
organizational issues. For his effort, he was recognized with the 
agency's highest honor award, the Commissioner's Citation.
  In March 1986, he moved to California from Missouri to undertake the 
challenge of providing Federal oversight and liaison to the State of 
California's disability determination process. He helped the State 
achieve consistency in timeliness and accuracy.
  His continued success led to his promotion in December 1990, when he
   became Assistant Regional Commissioner, processing center 
operations. This was a crowning achievement for a man who had started 
25 years earlier as a file clerk. Before the year was out, Hagel's 
skills and abilities would be tested again.

  The Western Program Service Center suffered an outbreak of 
Legionnaire's disease in September 1991. This outbreak included two 
deaths and serious illness to a dozen more employees from the disease. 
Fear and panic were rampant but Hagel led his employees through this 
terrifying period. His first steps were to reassure employees by 
providing information, health screening, and blood tests to all who 
wanted it. Hagel then began to put the center back in operation. 
Because the building had to be closed, the entire 1,200-person work 
force had to be relocated, and within 2 weeks the operation serving 
Social Security beneficiaries was back on its feet.
  Hagel's calm and steady hand at the head of the center during this 
crisis earned him a second Commissioner's Citation in 1992.
  In 1994, Hagel became Assistant Regional Commissioner, management and 
budget, region IX. In this position, he had a broader set of 
responsibilities to provide support to the entire regional operation, 
including 180 field facilities. Again, his leadership and his example 
proved invaluable to the region.
  Hagel died on January 1, 1995, leaving a reputation for his 
willingness to listen closely to everyone, unerring respect for each 
and every individual, broad lines of communication from labor to the 
business community and most important, an intense caring for the 
American people for whom he served.
  That caring carried into his personal life. He counseled at-risk 
youth at the high school level and encouraged other adults to 
participate.
  Mr. President, hundreds of Social Security employees have petitioned 
me--from mail clerks to top managers--asking that we honor Frank Hagel 
by naming the building in which they work after their late leader. I am 
honored to present legislation carrying out their wishes.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a copy of the bill 
and a resolution from the city of Richmond, CA, in support of this 
naming bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1076

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FRANCIS J. HAGEL BUILDING.

       The Western Program Service Center of the Social Security 
     Administration located at 1221 Nevin Avenue, Richmond, 
     California, shall be known and designated as the ``Francis J. 
     Hagel Building''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the building referred 
     to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``Francis J. Hagel Building.''
                                                                    ____

                              ``Resolution

       ``Whereas, The City of Richmond is proud to recognize 
     significant contributions provided by Francis J. Hagel, to 
     improve the quality of life of those Americans who qualify 
     for Social Security benefits, and to provide critical 
     assistance to Richmond residents, while Assistant Regional 
     Commissioner for Processing Center Operations for the Social 
     Security Administration's Western Program Service center in 
     Richmond, and,
       ``Whereas, Francis J. Hagel, as a Richmond resident, was 
     committed to rendering the highest caliber of community 
     service to its inhabitants, and,
       ``Whereas, Francis J. Hagel, as Assistant Regional 
     Commissioner for Processing Center Operations of the Social 
     Security Administration's Western Program Service Center, 
     directed the activities of employees processing the benefit 
     payment records for over 4.5 million people in 14 western 
     states and the Pacific Islands, and,
       ``Whereas, Francis J. Hagel, as Assistant Regional 
     Commissioner for Processing Center Operations, with its 1200 
     employees, led it as an integral part of the local economy 
     and one of its major employers: Now, therefore, be it
       ``Resolved, That I, Rosemary M. Corbin, Mayor of the City 
     of Richmond, on behalf of 

[[Page S10735]]
     the City Council, in recognition of the valuable contributions made by 
     Francis J. Hagel to the City of Richmond as a resident and 
     also as Assistant Regional Commissioner for Processing Center 
     Operations, do hereby support the request that the name of 
     the Social Security Administration's Western Program Service 
     Center be changed to the Francis J. Hagel Building.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 1077. A bill to authorize research, development, and demonstration 
of hydrogen as an energy carrier, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                    THE HYDROGEN FUTURE ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Akaka, Kyl, 
Inouye, Bingaman, and Reid, I am introducing today a very important 
piece of bipartisan legislation, the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995. I 
want to especially commend my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, for 
his leadership in this area and for the good work he has done in 
putting together this bill. He continues a great tradition begun by the 
late Spark Matsunaga as a national leader in the field of hydrogen 
energy research and development.
  Hydrogen is plentiful, efficient, and clean burning source of energy. 
It is ideal in that it combusts to pure water, and leaves no 
pollutants--no ozone depleting chemicals, no acid rain, no radioactive 
waste. All you get is pure, clean when you burn hydrogen.
  Hydrogen also efficiently powers fuel cells, the latest breakthrough 
in power. Unlike electricity, which it complements, hydrogen can be 
stored and it can be piped long distances with no energy loss. And 
hydrogen energy is not simply a pipe dream. It is already on the road, 
powering some buses in Vancouver. But much more work needs to be done 
to bring hydrogen energy to the point where it can be used on a 
widescale basis.
  With a modest investment in research and development, we can save 
billions through improved efficiencies and better protect our fragile 
environment. If we don't act now to develop this alternative energy 
source, our global competitors will clearly have an advantage. They are 
already investing more than we are in developing hydrogen. For example, 
as of several years ago, Germany was spending about $50 million a year 
on renewable hydrogen, five times our meager investment.
  Our bill says that the United States is committed to hydrogen. We 
recognize its great potential. And we are willing to make a very modest 
and cost effective investment to back up that commitment. As does the 
bill passed by the House, our legislation authorizes $25 million in 
fiscal year 1996, $35 million in fiscal year 1997, and $40 million in 
fiscal year 1998 for research on hydrogen energy. This bill is clearly 
not everything I would want. It is a good faith attempt at a bipartisan 
compromise to move us forward.
  As you may know, the House has already passed H.R. 655, the companion 
to our bill. H.R. 655 was sponsored by Representative Bob Walker, chair 
of the House Science and Technology Committee, and it was passed by 
voice vote on May 2, 1995. Representative Walker has been a real leader 
in this area and has done it not for political reasons, but out of a 
true commitment to science and a careful study of the great potential 
of hydrogen. So the Hydrogen Future Act has broad bipartisan support in 
Congress and I am hopeful that the Senate will follow the House in 
quickly and decisively passing this bill.
  It is up to us to provide vision to the energy policy of this country 
by authorizing funds for hydrogen research. Then it is up to our 
scientists to provide focus to the hydrogen program, through the 
Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel, which our bill continues, and 
through peer reviewed research, which our bill emphasizes.
  During the first energy crisis back in the seventies, I served on the 
House Science and Technology Committee shaping programs for renewable 
energy and alternative energy production during the Carter 
administration.
  And we held dozens of hearings regarding energy and particularly the 
role of technology in providing new sources of energy.
  If one thing emerged from my 10 years on that committee, it was the 
understanding--the realization--that hydrogen is truly our best hope 
for an environmentally safe sustainable energy future.
  I carried that understanding with me to the Senate where I learned 
even more from giants like Spark Matsunaga. And I am proud to have 
sponsored the Renewable Hydrogen Energy Research and Development Act 
which built on Senator Matsunaga's work and is reflected in the 
legislation we are introducing today.
  I know hydrogen can be the answer to many of the energy and 
environmental challenges we face today. It can lead us down the road to 
a better future. But it is up to us to pave that road. It is up to us 
to build it. We should fund hydrogen research until every American 
knows what the promise of hydrogen is, through his or her use of 
hydrogen in everyday life.
  And I know we have begun. When I first became interested in solar 
hydrogen several years ago, the DOE program consisted of three or four 
basic university research programs, exploring alternative methods to 
produce hydrogen. The program has grown--much more slowly than I would 
have liked--but it has grown.
  In addition to the basic research into alternative hydrogen 
production techniques, DOE now funds programs in advanced hydrogen 
storage, systems analysis, as well as the fuel cell for transportation 
program that has grown a lot faster than the hydrogen program itself.
  Do we want a set of fuel cell automobile fleets and hydrogen 
dispensing stations? Or do we want a dozen photovolatic and wind 
hydrogen generating stations? Do we want to set a long-term goal of 
supplying 1 or 5 or 10 quads of energy by 2105 from renewable hydrogen?
  I would vote for all of the above.
  But even if Congressman Walker, Senator Akaka, Senator Kyl, I and the 
other supporters of this legislation succeed in doubling or tripling 
what I consider to be a totally inadequate hydrogen budget, we could 
not meet all of these goals.
  So we have to be selective. We have to make choices. This bill does 
that. We have compromised on the level of funding authorized and the 
activities to be undertaken.
  As I have indicated to you, there are many promising avenues of 
research for hydrogen. But I want to give one specific example so you 
can understand the potential of hydrogen. Well, let me tell you about a 
major hydrogen project that I think is quite important for America. 
It's called electro-farming.
  As Joan Ogden of Princeton and other scientists have shown, hydrogen 
from biomass is probably the least costly source of renewable hydrogen 
we have today. DOE does have a biomass energy program, and it has grown 
very rapidly over the last few years. But the DOE biomass program is 
focussed on either methanol production or direct electricity production 
via steam generators--or on biomass gasification to drive gas turbines.
  But, as far as I know, there is no program to maximize the hydrogen 
production in a biomass gasifier for use in a fuel cell. Electro-
farming would take advantage of one of our Nation's greatest 
underutilized assets: the American agriculture production system.
  What would that mean on the ground in a State like Iowa? Well right 
now, the Federal Government pays farmers not to grow crops on 34 
million acres of erodible land--the Conservation Reserve Program or 
CRP.
  Just a couple of years ago, the Iowa legislature passed legislation 
mandating utilities to buy renewable electricity at 6 cents per 
kilowatt/hour. Well, I worked out a proposal which I presented to the 
Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel last year using present day input 
costs What we found was that if farmers grew an energy crop like 
switchgrass, the Government could save on CRP payments and the farmer 
could earn a profit for growing biomass for energy.
  In fact, based on preliminary numbers we found that an Iowa corn 
farmer could earn 3-10 times more per acre growing switchgrass on an 
electro-farm than growing corn on a conventional farm. The fact is 
electro-farming is a win-win-win proposal. The Federal Government 
wins--cutting conservation reserve program payments, improving our 
environment, and reducing 

[[Page S10736]]
dependence on foreign oil. The farmer wins--diversifying his earning 
base, improving his income, and possibly even becoming energy 
independent. And utilities win--adding capacity relative to demand and 
reducing transmission costs.
  I think the electro-farm could form one foundation for what I believe 
to be a good midterm goal for the hydrogen program: sustainable energy 
centers.
  As I suggested to the hydrogen scientists last year, the Department 
of Energy should initiate one or more sustainable energy centers to 
demonstrate the production, storage, and use of hydrogen as an energy 
carrier.
  The main purpose of these centers would be to prove to the public and 
the business community
 the technical and economic potential of renewable hydrogen. This would 
show to everybody that hydrogen can provide a zero emission fuel for 
the future in a cost effective manner.

  But unfortunately most people don't know about hydrogen. For most 
citizens, hydrogen reminds them of the hydrogen bomb or, if you're 
older, the Hindenburg. If we are to create a sustainable energy option 
for the future based on renewable hydrogen, we have to educate people 
on the merits of hydrogen. So the main purpose of the sustainable 
energy centers would be to show people how hydrogen can be used safely 
and effectively to heat their homes, power their cars, and drive their 
factories.
  The sustainable energy centers would also serve as a training center 
for hydrogen scientists and technicians. It would permit the testing of 
new hydrogen components, and it would permit the integration of various 
production, storage, and utilization devices into a complete working 
energy system. In addition, it would permit the evaluation of many 
costs, to reassure private industry and interest them in developing 
hydrogen products on a commercially viable basis.
  I believe that sustainable energy centers will take hydrogen the next 
step--moving it from a university-based R&D program to a publicly 
accepted energy carrier to complement electricity.
  And substantially increasing the hydrogen budget is critical to move 
hydrogen from a basic R&D program to a major sustainable energy option 
for the 21st century.
  In short, we all know what the vision is: hydrogen produced by 
renewable energy with absolutely no pollution of any type, and no 
resource depletion of any kind--a truly sustainable energy option.
  Now we need to put flesh and bones on that vision.
  We need to make it real so people can feel the heat from a hydrogen 
furnace, or drive a hydrogen powered car and see that there are no 
emissions from the tailpipe--or, in the case of a hydrogen fuel cell 
car, see that there is no tailpipe at all.
  By passing and implementing this legislation, we can pass on to our 
children and grandchildren a better future, a brighter future--without 
the pollution, without the smog, and without the resource depletion 
that is a fact of life today, but that can be a relic of the past 
tomorrow.
  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. 1077
       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 ``Hydrogen Future Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) fossil fuels, the main energy source of the present, 
     have provided this country with tremendous supply but are 
     limited;
       (2) additional research, development, and demonstration are 
     needed to encourage private sector investment in development 
     of new and better energy sources and enabling technologies;
       (3) hydrogen holds tremendous promise as a fuel because it 
     can be extracted from water and can be burned much more 
     cleanly than conventional fuels;
       (4) hydrogen production efficiency is a major technical 
     barrier to society's collectively benefiting from one of the 
     great energy carriers of the future;
       (5) an aggressive, results-oriented, multiyear research 
     initiative on efficient hydrogen fuel production and use 
     should be maintained; and
       (6) the current Federal effort to develop hydrogen as a 
     fuel is inadequate.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct a 
     research, development, and demonstration program leading to 
     the production, storage, transport, and use of hydrogen for 
     industrial, residential, transportation, and utility 
     applications; and
       (2) to provide advice from academia and the private sector 
     in the implementation of the Department of Energy's hydrogen 
     research, development, and demonstration program to ensure 
     that economic benefits of the program accrue to the United 
     States.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Energy.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.

     SEC. 5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Authorized Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to this section, the Spark M. 
     Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12401 et seq.), and section 2026 of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13436), and in 
     accordance with the purposes of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     conduct a hydrogen energy research, development, and 
     demonstration program relating to production, storage, 
     transportation, and use of hydrogen, with the goal of 
     enabling the private sector to demonstrate the feasibility of 
     using hydrogen for industrial, residential, transportation, 
     and utility applications.
       (2) Priorities.--In establishing priorities for Federal 
     funding under this section, the Secretary shall survey 
     private sector hydrogen activities and take steps to ensure 
     that activities under this section do not displace or compete 
     with the privately funded hydrogen activities of the United 
     States industry.
       (b) Schedule.--
       (1) Solicitation.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of an Act providing appropriations for 
     programs authorized by this Act, the Secretary shall solicit 
     proposals from all interested parties for research and 
     development activities authorized under this section.
       (2) Department facility.--The Secretary may consider, on a 
     competitive basis, a proposal from a contractor that manages 
     and operates a department facility under contract with the 
     Department, and the contractor may perform the work at that 
     facility or any other facility.
       (3) Award.--Not later than 180 days after proposals are 
     submitted, if the Secretary identifies one or more proposals 
     that are worthy of Federal assistance, the Secretary shall 
     award financial assistance under this section competitively, 
     using peer review of proposals with appropriate protection of 
     proprietary information.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Research.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in 
     the case of a research proposal, the Secretary shall require 
     a commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 25 percent 
     of the cost of the research.
       (B) Basic or fundamental nature.--The Secretary may reduce 
     or eliminate the non-Federal requirement under subparagraph 
     (A) if the Secretary determines that the research is purely 
     basic or fundamental.
       (2) Development and demonstration.--In the case of a 
     development or demonstration proposal, the Secretary shall 
     require a commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 50 
     percent of the cost of development or demonstration.
       (d) Consultation.--Before financial assistance is provided 
     under this section or the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen 
     Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12401 et seq.)--
       (1) the Secretary shall determine, in consultation with the 
     United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of 
     Commerce, that the terms and conditions under which financial 
     assistance is provided are consistent with the Agreement on 
     Subsidies and Countervailing Measures referred to in section 
     101(d)(12) of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3511(d)(12)); and
       (2) an industry participant shall be required to certify 
     that--
       (A) the participant has made reasonable efforts to obtain 
     non-Federal funding for the entire cost of the project; and
       (B) full non-Federal funding could not be reasonably 
     obtained.
       (e) Duplication of Programs.--The Secretary shall not carry 
     out any activity under this section that unnecessarily 
     duplicates an activity carried out by another government 
     agency or the private sector.

     SEC. 6. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.

       (a) Exchange.--The Secretary shall foster the exchange of 
     generic, nonproprietary information and technology developed 
     pursuant to section 5 among industry, academia, and 
     government agencies.
       (b) Economic Benefits.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     economic benefits of the exchange of information and 
     technology will accrue to the United States economy.

     SEC. 7. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to Congress a detailed report on the status 
     and progress of the Department's hydrogen research and 
     development program.
       (b) Contents.--A report under subsection (a) shall 
     include--

[[Page S10737]]

       (1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the program, to be 
     prepared and submitted by the Hydrogen Technical Advisory 
     Panel established under section 108 of the Spark M. Matsunaga 
     Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12407); and
       (2) recommendations of the Panel for any improvements in 
     the program that are if needed, including recommendations for 
     additional legislation.
       (3) Repeal of unnecessary provision.--The Spark M. 
     Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by striking section 103;
       (B) by redesignating sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, and 
     109 as sections 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 108, 
     respectively;
       (C) in section 103 (as redesignated)--
       (i) in subsection (a) by striking ``, consistent with the 
     5-year comprehensive program management plan under section 
     103,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (e) by striking ``106'' and inserting 
     ``105'';
       (D) in section 104(b) (as redesignated) by striking ``104'' 
     and inserting ``103'';
       (E) in section 105(a) (as redesignated) by striking ``108'' 
     and inserting ``107'';
       (F) in section 106(c) (as redesignated) by striking ``108'' 
     and inserting ``107''; and
       (G) in section 107(d) (as redesignated)--
       (i) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (ii) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a period; and
       (iii) by striking paragraph (3).

     SEC. 8. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION.

       (a) Coordination With Other Federal Agencies.--The 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) coordinate all hydrogen research and development 
     activities in the Department with the activities of other 
     Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, the 
     Department of Transportation, and the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration, that are engaged in similar 
     research and development; and
       (2) pursue opportunities for cooperation with those Federal 
     entities.
       (b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel established under section 
     108 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, development, 
     and Demonstration Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12407) as necessary 
     in carrying out this Act.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act--
       (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and
       (3) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
       (b) Limitation on Authority to Obligate Funds.--
       (1) Limitation.--In each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 
     1998, the total amount that may be obligated for energy 
     supply research and development activities shall not exceed 
     the total amount obligated for such activities in fiscal year 
     1995.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not be 
     construed as authorizing the appropriation of any Federal 
     funds.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is difficult to believe that the solution 
to U.S. air pollution and dependence on foreign oil could be solved by 
the most abundant element in the universe--hydrogen. Yet we know that 
hydrogen can fuel our cars and cool our homes while producing water as 
its only byproduct.
  We know that this is possible through research conducted by the U.S. 
Department of Energy. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to extract 
hydrogen from water in large enough quantities or at a low enough cost 
to make it a viable fuel alternative in the United States.
  While the Department of Energy has researched hydrogen as an 
alternative fuel for the last 5 years, the Governments of Japan, 
Germany, and Canada, where hydrogen-powered buses already run in 
Vancouver, have out-spent and out-researched us. The United States is 
already purchasing hydrogen fuel cells from Canada because they are not 
produced here.
  By implementing the Hydrogen Future Act and increasing our funding 
for hydrogen research, we will remain competitive with other countries 
and will increase the likelihood that we will develop a nonpolluting 
alternative fuel which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 
energy products.
  This bill would make hydrogen research a priority without increasing 
spending for research and development within the Department of Energy. 
It would also require non-Federal sources to pay for at least 25 
percent of the research program costs and 50 percent of the costs 
directly related to any research development or demonstration project.
  As I said before, we already know hydrogen can act as a power 
carrier. We already know our major international competitors are 
seriously researching its possibilities. We need to know how to produce 
it in larger quantities and at a reasonable cost, and that is why the 
Senate needs to pass the Hydrogen Future Act.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I join my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Harkin, in introducing legislation to encourage the development 
of a fuel for the future--hydrogen.
  Hydrogen is an efficient and environmentally friendly energy carrier 
that can be obtained using conventional or renewable resources. There 
is growing evidence that hydrogen can be a solution for America's long-
term energy needs.
  Our Nation's economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Eighty-
nine percent of our primary energy base consists of oil, natural gas, 
and coal. These fossil fuels are nonrenewable and eventually will be 
exhausted.
  U.S. energy consumption has risen steadily for more than a decade and 
will continue to rise over the next 20 years. From 1983 to 1992, our 
Nation's consumption of energy from primary sources rose 17 percent. 
Recent projections by the Energy Information Administration suggest 
that the United States' consumption of oil, natural gas, and coal will 
increase by more than 1.0 percent each year through the year 2010.
  I want to point out that last year, for the first time ever, more 
than half of the oil used in our country came from foreign sources. 
Steadily rising demand for these finite energy resources dictates the 
need for research on alternatives such as hydrogen.
  Now is the time to increase research efforts to develop a new source 
of energy if we are to make a smooth transition to the next generation 
energy source. Growing evidence points to hydrogen as the fuel to 
resolve our energy problems and satisfy a wide variety of the world's 
energy needs.
  One advantage of hydrogen is that it can be produced from renewable 
resources through biomass conversion. Biomass conversion uses crops and 
forest product residues to produce hydrogen. Ultimately, the direct 
generation of hydrogen from water will provide us with a continuous 
supply of the fuel.
  Hydrogen as a fuel is not a new concept, but technical progress 
towards this goal has been slow. For more than two decades there has 
been continuing worldwide interest in hydrogen as a renewable fuel.
  The Library of Congress reported in ``Hydrogen: Technology and 
Policy'' that large quantities of hydrogen are being produced each year 
for nonenergy uses, however, it would be difficult or impossible to 
meet future energy demands with today's hydrogen technology.
  Some of the problems facing the development of hydrogen as a fuel are 
the high cost of production, storage, and distribution. More economical 
methods of producing hydrogen are urgently needed. Currently, the cost 
of producing pure hydrogen from water by electrolysis is prohibitive, 
unless cheap electricity is available.
  The vast majority of the hydrogen produced today is transported only 
a short distance before use. An integrated production, storage, and 
distribution system will also be required. These are only a few of the 
barriers to making hydrogen fuel commercially viable.
  Our Nation needs an active and systematic research, development, and 
demonstration program to make the breakthroughs necessary so that 
hydrogen can become a viable alternative to fossil fuels. ``The Green 
Hydrogen Report'' to be published by the Secretary of Energy's Hydrogen 
Technical Advisory Panel this summer will detail a research agenda for 
the fuel.
  My predecessor, Senator Spark Matsunaga, was one of the first to 
focus attention on hydrogen by sponsoring hydrogen research 
legislation. The Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, as this legislation came to be 
known, was designed to accelerate development of a domestic capability 
to produce economically renewable hydrogen in sufficient quantities to 
reduce the Nation's dependence upon conventional fuels. As a result of 
Spark Matsunaga's vision, the Department of Energy is conducting 
research that will decrease the costs of producing, storing, and using 
hydrogen. But Congress's continued support for this program is needed.
  The bill introduced today expands the current research program 
efforts under the Matsunaga Hydrogen Act. This new initiative 
acknowledges the 

[[Page S10738]]
potential of hydrogen; the need for a strong partnership between the 
Federal Government, industry, and academia; and the importance of 
continued support for hydrogen research. It fosters collaboration among 
Federal agencies, State and local governments, universities, and 
industry. It encourages private sector investment and cost-sharing in 
the development of hydrogen as an energy source and associated 
technologies.
  Hydrogen holds tremendous promise as the long-term solution to our 
Nation's energy problems. We urge our colleagues to support the 
Hydrogen Future Act of 1995.


                          ____________________