[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1346-S1368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BOND:
S. 1574. A bill to provide Federal contracting opportunities for
small business concerns located in historically underutilized business
zones, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.
The HUBZone Act of 1996
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure called
the HUBZone Act of 1996. The purpose underlying this bill is to create
new opportunities for growth through small business opportunities in
distressed urban and rural communities which have suffered economic
decline. This legislation will provide for an immediate infusion of
cash and the creation of new jobs in our Nation's economically
distressed areas.
During the 8 years I served as Governor of Missouri, I met frequently
with community leaders who were seeking help in attracting businesses
and jobs to their cities and towns. We tried various programs. The
enterprise zone concept met with some limited success in Missouri but
the concept was good. Our incentives were limited to State tax relief,
which was not a very significant element, but I believe that the idea
of providing incentives for locating businesses in areas of high
unemployment makes sense.
Now, in my position representing my State and serving as chairman of
the Committee on Small Business, I continue to receive pleas for help.
We have not yet found the perfect formula to bring economic hope and
independence to these communities. But I believe we are working on it.
I think we are on the right track.
The message for help has changed somewhat. Although help has been
forthcoming from the Federal Government, high unemployment and poverty
remain. One community leader, for example, has stressed to me that his
city has all the job training funds it is capable of using. He said,
``Don't send us any more training funds. Send us some jobs.'' What the
city, the inner city, and people there need is more jobs.
Too many of our Nation's cities and rural areas have suffered
economic decline while others have prospered often with Federal
assistance. In October of last year, I chaired a hearing before the
Senate Committee on Small Business on ``Revitalizing America's Rural
and Urban Communities.'' We heard insightful testimony about the
importance of changing the U.S. Tax Code, for example, and providing
other incentives to attract businesses to the communities in need of
economic opportunity. Their recommendations have merit, and I urge my
colleagues in the committees with jurisdiction over appropriate
legislation to take swift action to bring these legislative changes to
the Senate floor.
What distinguishes the HUBZone Act of 1996 from other excellent
proposals is that there is an immediate impact this bill can have on
economically distressed communities. The HUBZone proposal would benefit
entire communities by creating meaningful incentives for small
businesses to operate and provide employment within America's most
disadvantaged inner-city neighborhoods and rural areas.
Specifically, the HUBZone Act of 1996 creates a new class of small
businesses eligible for Federal Government contract set-asides and
preferences. To be eligible, a small business must be located in a
historically underutilized business zone--that is the basis for the
acronym ``HUBZone''--and not less than 35 percent of its work force
would have to reside in a HUBZone.
I will contrast the HUBZone proposal in this legislation today with a
draft Executive order that is being circulated by the Clinton
administration to establish an empowerment contracting program. I
commend the President and the administration for focusing on the value
of targeting Federal Government assistance to low-income communities.
However, I think that program falls short of meeting the goal of
helping low-income communities and its residents.
For example, under the President's proposal, any business, large or
small, located in a low-income community would qualify for a valuable
contracting preference, even if it does not employ one resident of the
community. This is clearly a major deficiency or loophole when trying
to assist the unemployed and underemployed who live in those target
areas. A further weakness in the President's proposal is the failure to
define clearly and objectively the criteria which makes a community
eligible for his program. We need to avoid creating a new Federal
program that ends up helping well-off individuals and companies while
failing to have a significant impact on the poor.
The HUBZone Act of 1996 makes the contracting preference available
only if the small business is located in the economically distressed
area and employs 35 percent of its work force from a HUBZone. That is a
significant difference. It is one that is clearly designed to attack
deep-seated poverty in geographic locations within the United States.
To qualify for the program, the small business would have to certify
to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration that it
is located in a HUBZone and that it will comply with certain rules
governing subcontracting. In addition, a qualified small business must
agree to perform at least 50 percent of the contract in a HUBZone
unless the terms of the contract require that the efforts be conducted
elsewhere; in other words, a service contract requiring the small
business' presence in Government-owned or leased buildings, for
example. In the latter case, no less than 50 percent of the contract
would have to be performed by employees of the eligible small business.
Mr. President, the HUBZone Act of 1996 is designed to cut through
Government redtape while stressing a streamlined effort to place
Government contracts and new jobs in economically distressed
communities.
Many of my colleagues are familiar with the SBA's 8(a) minority small
business program and some of the rules which are cumbersome for small
businesses seeking to qualify for the program. Typically, an 8(a)
program applicant has to hire a lawyer to help prepare the application
and shepherd it through the SBA procedure, which can often take months.
In fact, Congress was forced to legislate the maximum time the agency
could review an application as a last-ditch effort to speed up the
process. Today, it still takes the SBA at least 90 days, the statutory
maximum, to review an application.
The HUBZone Act of 1996 is specifically designed to avoid
bureaucratic roadblocks that have delayed and discouraged small
business from taking advantage of Government programs. Simply put, if
you are a small business located in the HUBZone, employing people from
a HUBZone, you are eligible. Once eligible, the small business notifies
the SBA of its participation in the HUBZone program, and it is
qualified to receive Federal Government contract preferences.
Our goal in introducing this measure is to have new Government
contracts being awarded to small businesses in economically distressed
communities. Therefore, we have included some ambitious goals for each
Government agency. In 1997, 1 percent of the total value of all prime
Government contracts would be awarded to small businesses located in
HUBZones. The goal would increase to 2 percent in 1998, 3 percent in
1999, and 4 percent in 2000 and each succeeding year.
HUBZone contracting is a bold undertaking. Passage of the HUBZone Act
would create hope for inner cities and distressed rural areas that have
long been ignored. Most importantly, passage of the HUBZone bill will
create hope for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed or
underemployed people who long ago thought our country had given up on
them. This hope is tangible; it is jobs and income.
We are going to be holding hearings before the Committee on Small
Business on the HUBZone Act of 1996 and the role our Nation's small
business community can play in revitalizing our distressed cities and
rural communities. I really think the HUBZone proposal has great merit.
I ask my colleagues to look at it, offer comments,
[[Page S1347]]
if you agree with what we are trying to do, the goal of this program
and its objective. I welcome cosponsors. I welcome constructive
discussion and input from those who have an interest in seeing economic
opportunity brought back to inner-city areas and distressed rural
communities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a section-by-section analysis of its provisions be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1574
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 ``HUBZone Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESS ZONES.
(a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(o) Definitions Relating to Historically Underutilized
Business Zones.--For purposes of this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(1) Historically underutilized business zone.--The term
`historically underutilized business zone' means any area
located within one or more qualified census tracts or
qualified nonmetropolitan counties.
``(2) Small business concern located in a historically
underutilized business zone.--The term `small business
concern located in a historically underutilized business
zone' means a small business concern--
``(A) that is owned and controlled by one or more persons,
each of whom is a United States citizen;
``(B) the principal office of which is located in a
historically underutilized business zone; and
``(C) not less than 35 percent of the employees of which
reside in a historically underutilized business zone.
``(3) Qualified areas.--
``(A) Qualified census tract.--The term `qualified census
tract' has the same meaning as in section 42(d)(5)(C)(i)(I)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(B) Qualified nonmetropolitan county.--The term
`qualified nonmetropolitan county' means, based on the most
recent data available from the Bureau of the Census of the
Department of Commerce, any county--
``(i) that is not located in a metropolitan statistical
area (as that term is defined in section 143(k)(2)(B) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986); and
``(ii) in which the median household income is less than 80
percent of the nonmetropolitan State median household income.
``(4) Qualified small business concern located in a
historically underutilized business zone.--
``(A) In general.--A small business concern located in a
historically underutilized business zone is `qualified', if--
``(i) the small business concern has certified in writing
to the Administrator that--
``(I) it is a small business concern located in a
historically underutilized business zone;
``(II) it will comply with the subcontracting limitations
specified in Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.219-14;
``(III) in the case of a contract for services (except
construction), not less than 50 percent of the cost of
contract performance incurred for personnel will be expended
for employees of that small business concern or for employees
of other small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones; and
``(IV) in the case of a contract for procurement of
supplies (other than procurement from a regular dealer in
such supplies), the small business concern (or a
subcontractor of the small business concern that is also a
small business concern located in a historically
underutilized business zone) will perform work for not less
than 50 percent of the cost of manufacturing the supplies
(not including the cost of materials) in a historically
underutilized business zone; and
``(ii) no certification made by the small business concern
under clause (i) has been, in accordance with the procedures
established under section 30(c)(2)--
``(I) successfully challenged by an interested party; or
``(II) otherwise determined by the Administrator to be
materially false.
``(B) Change in percentages.--The Administrator may utilize
a percentage other than the percentage specified in under
subclause (III) or (IV) of subparagraph (A)(i), if the
Administrator determines that such action is necessary to
reflect conventional industry practices among small business
concerns that are below the numerical size standard for
businesses in that industry category.
``(C) Construction and other contracts.--The Administrator
shall promulgate final regulations imposing requirements that
are similar to those specified in subclauses (III) and (IV)
of subparagraph (A)(i) on contracts for general and specialty
construction, and on contracts for any other industry
category that would not otherwise be subject to those
requirements. The percentage applicable to any such
requirement shall be determined in accordance with
subparagraph (B).
``(D) List of qualified small business concerns.--The
Administrator shall establish and maintain a list of
qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones, which list shall--
``(i) include the name, address, and type of business with
respect to each such small business concern;
``(ii) be updated by the Administrator not less than
annually; and
``(iii) be provided upon request to any Federal agency or
other entity.''.
(b) Federal Contracting Preferences.--The Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 30 as section 31; and
(2) by inserting after section 29 the following new
section:
``SEC. 30. HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESS ZONES PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--There is established within the
Administration a program to be carried out by the
Administrator to provide for Federal contracting assistance
to qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones in accordance with this section.
``(b) Contracting Preferences.--
``(1) Contract set-aside.--
``(A) Requirement.--The head of an executive agency shall
afford the opportunity to participate in a competition for
award of a contract of the executive agency, exclusively to
qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones, if the Administrator determines
that--
``(i) it is reasonable to expect that not less than 2
qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones will submit offers for the
contract; and
``(ii) the award can be made on the restricted basis at a
fair market price.
``(B) Covered contracts.--Subparagraph (A) applies to a
contract that is estimated to exceed the simplified
acquisition threshold.
``(2) Sole-source contracts.--
``(A) Requirement.--The head of an executive agency, in the
exercise of authority provided in any other law to award a
contract of the executive agency on a sole-source basis,
shall award the contract on that basis to a qualified small
business concern located in a historically underutilized
business zone, if any, that--
``(i) submits a reasonable and responsive offer for the
contract; and
``(ii) is determined by the Administrator to be a
responsible contractor.
``(B) Covered contracts.--Subparagraph (A) applies to a
contract that is estimated to exceed the simplified
acquisition threshold and not to exceed $5,000,000.
``(3) Price evaluation preference in full and open
competitions.--In any case in which a contract is to be
awarded by the head of an executive agency on the basis of
full and open competition, the price offered by a qualified
small business concern located in a historically
underutilized business zone shall be deemed as being lower
than the price offered by another offeror (other than another
qualified small business concern located in a historically
underutilized business zone) if the price offered by the
qualified small business concern located in a historically
underutilized business zone is not more than 10 percent
higher than the price offered by the other offeror.
``(4) Relationship to other contracting preferences.--
``(A) Subordinate relationship.--A procurement may not be
made from a source on the basis of a preference provided in
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) if the procurement would otherwise
be made from a different source under section 4124 or 4125 of
title 18, United States Code, or the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act.
``(B) Superior relationship.--A procurement may not be made
from a source on the basis of a preference provided in
section 8(a), if the procurement would otherwise be made from
a different source under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this
subsection.
``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
terms `executive agency', `full and open competition', and
`simplified acquisition threshold' have the meanings given
such terms in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act.
``(c) Enforcement; Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall enforce the
requirements of this section.
``(2) Verification of eligibility.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Administrator shall establish procedures
relating to--
``(A) the filing, investigation, and disposition by the
Administration of any challenge to the eligibility of a small
business concern to receive assistance under this section
(including a challenge, filed by an interested party,
relating to the veracity of a certification made by a small
business concern under section 3(o)(4)(A)); and
``(B) verification by the Administrator of the accuracy of
any certification made by a small business concern under
section 3(o)(4)(A).
``(3) Random inspections.--The procedures established under
paragraph (2) may provide for random inspections by the
Administrator of any small business concern making a
certification under section 3(o)(4).
``(4) Provision of data.--Upon the request of the
Administrator, the Secretary of Labor
[[Page S1348]]
and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall promptly
provide to the Administrator such information as the
Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this
subsection.
``(5) Penalties.--In addition to the penalties described in
section 16(d), any small business concern that is determined
by the Administrator to have misrepresented the status of
that concern as a `small business concern located in a
historically underutilized business zone' for purposes of
this section, shall be subject to the provisions of--
``(A) section 1001 of title 18, United States Code; and
``(B) sections 3729 through 3733 of title 31, United States
Code.''.
SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE SMALL
BUSINESS ACT.
(a) Performance of Contracts.--Section 8(d) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``,, small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals'' and inserting ``, qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones, small business concerns owned and controlled
by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones,'' after ``small business concerns,'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``qualified small business concerns
located in historically underutilized business zones,'' after
``small business concerns,'' each place that term appears;
and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) For purposes of this contract, the term `qualified
small business concern located in a historically
underutilized business zone' has the same meaning as in
section 3(o) of the Small Business Act.'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones,'' after ``small business concerns,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``small business
concerns and'' and inserting ``small business concerns,
qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones, and'';
(4) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones,'' after ``small business concerns,'' each
place that term appears; and
(5) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones,'' after ``small business concerns,''.
(b) Awards of Contracts.--Section 15 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 644) is amended--
(1) in subsection (g)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``qualified small business concerns
located in historically underutilized business zones,'' after
``small business concerns,'' each place that term appears;
and
(B) by inserting after the second sentence the following:
``The Governmentwide goal for participation by qualified
small business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones shall be established at not less than 1
percent of the total value of all prime contract awards for
fiscal year 1997, not less than 2 percent of the total value
of all prime contract awards for fiscal year 1998, not less
than 3 percent of the total value of all prime contract
awards for fiscal year 1999, and not less than 4 percent of
the total value of all prime contract awards for fiscal year
2000 and each fiscal year thereafter.'';
(2) in subsection (g)(2)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``,, by small
business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals'' and inserting ``, by
qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones, by small business concerns
owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals'';
(B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones,'' after ``small business concerns,''; and
(C) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``by small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals and participation by small business
concerns owned and controlled by women'' and inserting ``by
qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones, by small business concerns
owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals, and by small business concerns
owned and controlled by women''; and
(3) in subsection (h), by inserting ``qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones,'' after ``small business concerns,'' each
place that term appears.
(c) Offenses and Penalties.--Section 16 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 645) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``, a `qualified small business concern
located in a historically underutilized business zone',''
after `` `small business concern',''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 9 or 15''
and inserting ``section 9, 15, or 30''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by inserting ``, a `small business
concern located in a historically underutilized business
zone','' after `` `small business concern',''.
SEC. 4. OTHER TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Title 10, United States Code.--Section 2323 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``, and qualified small business
concerns located in historically underutilized business zones
(as that term is defined in section 3(o) of the Small
Business Act)''; and
(2) in subsection (f), by inserting ``or as a qualified
small business concern located in a historically
underutilized business zone (as that term is defined in
section 3(o) of the Small Business Act)'' after ``subsection
(a))''.
(b) Federal Home Loan Bank Act.--Section 21A(b)(13) of the
Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(b)(13)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``concerns and small'' and inserting
``concerns, small''; and
(2) by inserting ``, and qualified small business concerns
located in historically underutilized business zones (as that
term is defined in section 3(o) of the Small Business Act)''
after ``disadvantaged individuals''.
(c) Small Business Economic Policy Act of 1980.--Section
303(e) of the Small Business Economic Policy Act of 1980 (15
U.S.C. 631b(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) qualified small business concerns located in
historically underutilized business zones (as that term is
defined in section 3(o) of the Small Business Act).''.
(d) Small Business Investment Act of 1958.--Section
411(c)(3)(B) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15
U.S.C. 694b(c)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``, or to a qualified small business
concern located in a historically underutilized business
zone, as that term is defined in section 3(o) of the Small
Business Act''.
(e) Title 31, United States Code.--
(1) Contracts for collection services.--Section 3718(b) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``and law firms that
are qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones (as that term is defined in
section 3(o) of the Small Business Act)'' after
``disadvantaged individuals''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period
``and law firms that are qualified small business concerns
located in historically underutilized business zones'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) the term `qualified small business concern located in
a historically underutilized business zone' has the same
meaning as in section 3(o) of the Small Business Act.''.
(2) Payments to local governments.--Section 6701(f) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) qualified small business concerns located in
historically underutilized business zones.''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) the term `qualified small business concern located in
a historically underutilized business zone' has the same
meaning as in section 3(o) of the Small Business Act.''.
(3) Regulations.--Section 7505(c) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``small business concerns
and'' and inserting ``small business concerns, qualified
small business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones, and''.
(f) Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act.--
(1) Enumeration of included functions.--Section 6(d) of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405(d))
is amended--
(A) in paragraph (5)(C), by inserting ``and of qualified
small business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones'' after ``other minorities'';
(B) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones (as that term is defined in section 3(o) of
the Small Business Act),'' after ``small businesses,''; and
[[Page S1349]]
(C) in paragraph (11), by inserting ``qualified small
business concerns located in historically underutilized
business zones (as that term is defined in section 3(o) of
the Small Business Act),'' after ``small businesses,''.
(2) Procurement data.--Section 19A of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 417a) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by inserting ``the number of qualified small business
concerns located in historically underutilized business
zones,'' after ``Procurement Policy''; and
(ii) by inserting a comma after ``women''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``For purposes of this section, the term `qualified small
business concern located in a historically underutilized
business zone' has the same meaning as in section 3(o) of the
Small Business Act.''.
(g) Energy Policy Act of 1992.--Section 3021 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13556) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) qualified small business concerns located in
historically underutilized business zones.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) The term `qualified small business concern located in
a historically underutilized business zone' has the same
meaning as in section 3(o) of the Small Business Act.''.
(h) Title 49, United States Code.--
(1) Project grant application approval conditioned on
assurances about airport operation.--Section 47107(e) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period ``or
qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones (as that term is defined in
section 3(o) of the Small Business Act)'';
(B) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting before the period
``or as a qualified small business concern located in a
historically underutilized business zone (as that term is
defined in section 3(o) of the Small Business Act)''; and
(C) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``or a qualified small
business concern located in a historically underutilized
business zone (as that term is defined in section 3(o) of the
Small Business Act)'' after ``disadvantaged individual''.
(2) Minority and disadvantaged business participation.--
Section 47113 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) the term `qualified small business concern located in
a historically underutilized business zone' has the same
meaning as in section 3(o) of the Small Business Act.''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting before the period ``or
qualified small business concerns located in historically
underutilized business zones''.
____
Historically Underutilized Business Zone Act of 1995--Section-by-
Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title
Historically Undercutilized Business Zone Act of 1995,
hereinafter referred to as the ``HUBZone Act of 1995.''
Section 2. Historically Underutilized Business Zones
Definitions--
Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) is any
area located within a qualified metropolitan statistical area
or qualified non-metropolitan area.
Small business concern located in a Historically
Underutilized Business Zone is a small business whose
principal office is located in a HUBZone and whose workforce
includes at least 35% of its employees from one or more
HUBZones.
Qualified Metropolitan Statistical Area is an area where
not less than 50% of the households have an income of less
than 60% of the metropolitan statistical area median gross
income as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Qualified Non-metropolitan Area is an area where the
household income is less than 80% of the non-metropolitan
area median gross income as determined by the Bureau of the
Census of the Department of Commerce.
Qualified Small Business Concern must certify in writing to
the Small Business Administration (SBA) that it (a) is
located in a HUBZone, (b) will comply with subcontracting
rules in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), (c) will
insure that not less than 50% of the contract cost will be
performed by the Qualified Small Business.
Contracting preferences--
Contract Set-Aside to a qualified small business located in
a HUBZone can be made by a procuring agency if it determines
that 2 or more qualified small businesses will submit offers
for the contract and the award can be made at a fair market
price.
Sole-source Contracts can be awarded to a qualified small
business if it submits a reasonable and responsive offer and
is determined by SBA to be a responsible contractor. Sole-
source contracts cannot exceed $5 million.
10% Price Evaluation Preference in full and open
competition can be made on behalf of the Qualified Small
Business if its offer is not more than 10% higher than the
other offeror, so long as it is not a small business concern.
Enforcement; penalties
The SBA Administrator or his designee shall establish a
system to verify certifications made by HUBZone small
businesses to include random inspections and procedures
relating to disposition of any challenges to the accuracy of
any certification. If SBA determines that a small business
concern may have misrepresented its status as a HUBZone small
business, it shall be subject to prosection under title 18,
section 1001, U.S.C., False Certifications, and title 31,
sections 3729-3733, U.S.C., False Claims Act.
Section 3. Technical and Conforming Amendments to the Small Business
Act
HUBZone preference
The Small Business Act is amended to give qualified small
business concerns located in HUBZones a higher preference
than small business concerns owned and controlled by socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals (8(a)
contractors).
HUBZone goals
This section sets forth government-wide goals for awarding
government contracts to qualified small business. In Fiscal
Year 1997, the goal will be not less than 1% of the total
value of all prime contracts awarded to qualified small
businesses located in HUBZones. In FY 1998, this goal will
increase to 2%; in FY 1999, it will be 3%; and it will reach
4% in FY 2000 and each year thereafter.
Offenses and penalties
This section provides that anyone who misrepresents any
entity as being a qualified small business in order to obtain
a government contract or subcontract can be fined up to
$500,000 and imprisoned for not more than 10 years and be
subject to the administrative remedies prescribed by the
Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801-
3812).
Section 4. Other Technical and Conforming Amendments
This section makes technical amendments to other federal
government agency programs that have traditionally provided
contract set asides and preferences to disadvantaged small
business by expanding each program to include small business
located in an Historically Underutilized Business Zone.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 1575. A bill to improve rail transportation safety, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The Rail Safety Act of 1996
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation,
the Rail Safety Act of 1996, to improve railroad safety.
Mr. President, over the last 2 weeks, there has been a rash of
railroad accidents, including two involving large numbers of
passengers. The first of these accidents occurred in my home State of
New Jersey on Friday, February 9. In the middle of the morning rush
hour, two New Jersey Transit commuter trains collided outside of
Secaucus, NJ. The crash killed two engineers and one passenger, and
injured more than 235 others. The trains were carrying more than 700
passengers combined, and the death and injury toll easily could have
been much higher.
One week later, right here in the Capital area, 11 people lost their
lives when a Maryland commuter train collided with an Amtrak train.
These accidents have revealed significant gaps in rail safety and the
failure to use existing technology to improve safety. I personally
visited the site of the New Jersey crash and was chilled by the
devastation. There is no way that one could see what happened in New
Jersey and Maryland without feeling a great sense of responsibility
about the need to improve the safety of our rail system.
Each day, over half a million Americans use commuter railroads to get
to work. Each year, Amtrak carries an additional 22 million passengers
on its national routes. In addition to those who take the train are the
millions of Americans who live near congested freight train routes
which pose their own dangers during accidents, such as spills of
hazardous materials and fires.
I recognize that passenger rail service is among the safest forms of
travel. And I think it important that we not scare the public into
believing otherwise. At the same time, in my view, there is much we
should be doing to make rail service more safe.
Just consider our Nation's commitment to rail safety compared to our
commitment to safety on commercial aircraft, which have the better
safety
[[Page S1350]]
record. On planes, there are elaborate safety procedures for each
flight. Flight attendants explain emergency measures at the beginning
of each trip. Automatic emergency mechanisms are required in each
plane, highly sophisticated technology tells pilots when problems arise
and emergency exits are well identified and easy to operate.
By contrast, many of today's railroad safety signals and procedures
date back almost to the last century. For some reason, the
technological revolution seems to have left rail safety back at the
station. Compounding matters, much of our railroad regulatory system
has been unchanged for decades.
Congress should act promptly to address this problem. We need to
review a wide variety of laws and regulations, with one overriding
philosophy: The safety of our Nation's rail passengers must come first.
Just because railroad passengers only ride 32 inches off the ground
does not mean they deserve less attention or protection than those who
ride 32,000 feet above the ground. That does not mean we should rush to
impose unrealistic mandates that would drive up costs beyond the
capacity to support changes. But, it still requires that we search for
ways to take on the issues that have been allowed to drag on for too
many years, while rail passengers continue to be exposed to danger
unnecessarily.
The Rail Safety Act of 1996 proposes important steps that I think we
should take immediately.
One of the most critical matters that we should address is the
current law that establishes the hours of service that rail engineers
may work. This law was developed in 1907 and has changed very little
over the past 90 years. Under the law, it is perfectly legal for a
locomotive engineer to work 24 hours in a 32-hour period.
Mr. President, those kinds of hours, combined with the demands and
stresses of an engineer's job, is a recipe for disaster. We would never
allow pilots or truck drivers to work these kinds of hours;
restrictions on these operators are severe. Yet engineers, who are
responsible for hundreds and hundreds of people at a time, continue to
work under these archaic rules.
The Federal Railroad Administration is in the process of studying the
issue of fatigue, as is the industry. But those studies could be years
from completion. The adverse effect of fatigue on the ability of an
individual to perform their job is well documented. We should act now.
I believe the FRA should have the ability to regulate hours of service
for railroad engineers. The FAA has authority to regulate hours of
service for pilots and the Office of Motor Carriers has the authority
to regulate hours of service for commercial drivers. Why should the
railroad industry be treated differently?
My legislation would direct the Federal Railroad Administration, not
later than 180 days after enactment of the bill, to promulgate
regulations concerning limitations on duty hours of train employees.
The bill does not prejudge the FRA's process. It encourages FRA to
develop regulations in a negotiated rulemaking process so that the
interests of all parties are fully represented. My bill protects
railroad employees by prohibiting any FRA rules from being less
stringent than the current hours of service law. This provision will
ensure that a future Administration could not abuse its discretion by
actually increasing the burdens on engineers, contrary to congressional
intent.
Beyond changing the hours of service requirements, we need to explore
ways to use technology to prevent rail accidents. For more than 75
years, automatic train control systems have been available that can
warn engineers about a missed signal and automatically stop the train.
These systems are right in the train cab. Both visually and audibly
these automatic train control systems remind the engineer about their
latest signal. In fact, such systems were installed on virtually our
entire rail network years ago. Unfortunately, that technology has been
removed from most tracks, and no related technology was in place to
prevent the accidents in New Jersey and Maryland. This situation cannot
be allowed to continue.
Mr. President, I recognize that we should be careful before mandating
the automatic train control system if more advanced, satellite-based
technology will be available in the immediate future. But, we cannot
continue to drift. Therefore, my bill directs the FRA, not later than 1
year after the date of enactment, to determine the feasibility of
satellite-based train control systems to provide positive train control
for railroad systems in the United States. Positive train control
systems use a constant flow of information to anticipate potentially
dangerous situations and order the appropriate measures long before an
accident might occur.
Under this legislation, all rail systems would be required to install
automated train control technology. However, this requirement would be
waived for those systems that establish, to the satisfaction of the
Department of Transportation, that they will install an effective
satellite-based train control system not later than the year 2001. This
seems a reasonable period to me, though I would invite comments from
interested parties on whether a different period would be more
appropriate.
Mr. President, we need to make a judgment about the prospects for the
new satellite-based train control technology, one way or the other.
Otherwise, we will find ourselves back here again in another few years,
asking the same questions while families grieve and others lie in pain
in hospital beds.
Another set of issues raised by the two passenger accidents is
emergency escape, crash worthiness of passenger cars, fuel tank
integrity, and signal placement. All have contributed to the loss of
life and injury.
My bill would direct the FRA to examine the possibility of developing
automatic escape systems. Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be
required to complete a study of the technical, structural, and economic
feasibility of automatic train escape devices. If the report is
positive, the Secretary is authorized to promulgate regulations in this
area.
Mr. President, there is reliable, off-the-shelf technology that is
used to inflate air bags during violent automobile accidents. That same
technology could be used to automatically open escape routes in violent
train accidents. Such technology might have saved the lives of
passengers in the Maryland accident, who apparently survived the crash,
but who were unable to escape the fire and smoke.
Another step I am proposing is to have FRA establish minimum safety
standards for locomotive fuel tanks. Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be
required to establish minimum safety standards for fuel tanks of
locomotives that take into consideration environmental protection and
public safety. The Secretary would be given the authority to limit the
applicability of the standards to new locomotives.
The Maryland accident demonstrated the terrifying nature of fuel-fed
fires. Many in the industry already are investing in less vulnerable
fuel tank configurations. But we need to ensure in the future that no
locomotives have the kind of exposed, vulnerable fuel tank that
contributed to the Maryland disaster.
It is also important to ensure that passenger rail cars are produced
and configured in a safe manner. Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be
required to determine whether to promulgate regulations to require
crash posts at the corners of rail passengers cars, safety locomotives
on rail passenger trains, and minimum crashworthiness standards for
passenger cab cars.
The death toll in both the New Jersey and Maryland accidents might
have been less if the passenger compartments were stronger or if some
had not been exposed by the lack of a locomotive at the front of the
train. Amtrak is investigating the possibility of using decommissioned
locomotives at the front of their push trains in order to provide
engineers with a safe platform from which to work and to provide
additional protection to the first passenger car in case of a
collision. The National Transportation Safety Board has suggested that
passenger cars be equipped with crash posts at the corner of each car.
[[Page S1351]]
The FRA is developing new safety standards for rail cars. My bill
would direct the FRA to consider crash posts and safety locomotives,
and to make a specific finding about these alternatives.
Also, after touring the scene of New Jersey Transit's sideswipe
accident, I am convinced that unprotected passenger cab cars should be
held to a higher standard than other passenger cars. The bill therefore
requires FRA to evaluate the possibility of establishing minimum
crashworthiness standards for these passenger cab cars, and to issue a
report about their conclusions.
In addition, the bill directs the FRA to look into signal placement.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of my bill, the
Department of Transportation would be required to determine whether
regulations should be promulgated to require that a signal be placed
along a railway at each exit of a rail train station; and if
practicable, a signal be placed so that it is visible only to the train
that the signal is designed to influence. If the study determines such
regulations should be promulgated, the Department of Transportation is
given the authority to promulgate those regulations. Signals should be
positioned in the best places possible to minimize human error.
Mr. President, I recognize that some in the rail community may object
to the costs of additional safety measures. And these costs cannot be
ignored. Last year, Federal operating and capital assistance to transit
agencies was cut by some 20 percent from the previous year's funding
level. This reduction represented the single largest cut of any
transportation mode in the Transportation appropriations bill.
Our Nation derives economic, social, and environmental benefits from
public transit agencies. We expect these agencies to provide safe
services. Yet, we cut their funding and then wonder why safety is
affected. We must continue to support mass transit or else we will
force commuters off relatively safe buses, subways, and trains and onto
our Nation's roads, which annually cause the premature death of some
40,000 Americans.
Mr. President, it remains critically important to improve rail
safety. I challenge skeptics to visit with the families of loved ones
who died in New Jersey and Maryland. See first hand what it means when
we compromise on safety. You will not come away unmoved.
Mr. President, we in the Congress have an obligation to protect the
public. After the Chase, MD, accident of 1987 Congress mobilized and
quickly enacted sweeping rail safety legislation. As a result, untold
Americans have been saved through the mandated use of automatic train
controls on the Northeast corridor, the creation of minimum federal
standards for licensing of railroad engineers, certification
requirements for predeparture inspections and whistle blower
protections for rail employees. I am proud of the part that I played in
developing that legislation and believe that it has been very
effective. However, more should be done. The lives and health of
literally millions of Americans are at stake.
Mr. President, both the Washington and the New York editorials of
February 21, 1996, make the case for increasing rail safety. I ask
unanimous consent that they be inserted in the Record as part of my
statement.
I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. I believe it is a
responsible approach to rail safety that builds on the lessons we have
learned from our Nation's recent rail safety accidents.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1575
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 ``Rail Safety Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.
(2) Passenger cab car.--The term ``passenger cab car''
means the leading cab car on a passenger train that does not
have a locomotive or safety locomotive at the front of the
train.
(3) Safety locomotive.--The term ``safety locomotive''
means a cab-car locomotive (whether operational or not) that
is used at the front of a rail passenger train to promote
passenger safety.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
(5) Train employee.--The term ``train employee'' has the
same meaning as in section 21101(5) of title 49, United
States Code.
SEC. 3. HOURS OF SERVICE.
(a) In General.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Administrator, shall promulgate regulations concerning
limitations on duty hours of train employees that contain--
(A) requirements concerning hours of work for train
employees and interim periods available for rest that are no
less stringent than the applicable requirements under section
21103 of title 49, United States Code, as in effect on the
day before the effective date of subsection (b); and
(B) any other related requirements that the Secretary
determines to be necessary to protect public safety.
(2) Negotiated rulemaking.--
(A) In general.--In promulgating regulations under this
subsection, the Secretary shall use negotiated rulemaking,
unless the Secretary determines that the use of that process
is not appropriate.
(B) Procedures for negotiated rulemaking.--If the Secretary
determines under subparagraph (A) that negotiated rulemaking
is appropriate, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator, shall carry out the negotiated rulemaking in
accordance with the procedures under subchapter III of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Section 21103 of title 49, United States
Code, is repealed.
(2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on
the date on which the Secretary promulgates final regulations
under subsection (a).
SEC. 4. SATELLITE-BASED TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of requiring satellite-based train control
systems to provide positive train control for railroad
systems in the United States by January 1, 2001.
(b) Time Frame for Operation; Automated Train Control
Systems.--
(1) Regulations to cover impracticability of satellite-
based train control systems.--Subject to paragraph (3), if,
upon completion of the study conducted under subsection (a),
the Secretary, acting through the Administrator, determines
that the installation of an effective satellite-based train
control system referred to in subsection (a) could not be
accomplished practicably by January 1, 2001, the Secretary
shall promulgate regulations to require, as soon as
practicable after the date of promulgation of the
regulations, the use of automated train control technology
that is available on that date.
(2) Regulations to cover practicability of satellite-based
train control systems.--
(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), if upon
completion of the study conducted under subsection (a), the
Secretary, acting through the Administrator, determines that
the installation of an effective satellite-based train
control system referred to in subsection (a) could be
accomplished practicably by January 1, 2001, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Administrator, shall promulgate
regulations to require, as soon as practicable after the date
of promulgation of the regulations, the use of automated
train control technology that is available on that date.
(B) Waivers.--If the appropriate official of a railroad
system establishes, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, and
in a manner specified by the Secretary, that the railroad
system will have in operation a satellite-based train control
system by January 1, 2001, the Secretary shall issue a waiver
for that railroad system to waive the application of the
regulations promulgated under subparagraph (A) for that
railroad system, subject to terms and conditions established
by the Secretary.
(3) Conditions.--In promulgating regulations under this
subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator, shall provide for any exceptions or conditions
that the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator,
determines to be necessary.
(4) Monitoring.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary issues a waiver for a
railroad system under paragraph (2)(B), the railroad system
shall, during the period that the waiver is in effect,
provide such information to the Secretary as the Secretary,
acting through the Administrator, determines to be necessary
to monitor the compliance of the railroad system with the
conditions of the waiver, including information concerning
the progress of the railroad system in achieving an
operational satellite-based train control system.
[[Page S1352]]
(B) Revocation of waivers.--If, at any time during the
period that a waiver issued under paragraph (2)(B) is in
effect, the Secretary determines that the railroad system
issued the waiver is not meeting the terms or conditions of
the waiver, or is not likely to have in operation a
satellite-based train control system by January 1, 2001, the
Secretary shall revoke the waiver.
SEC. 5. AUTOMATIC TRAIN ESCAPE DEVICE STUDY.
(a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, shall conduct a study of the technical,
structural, and economic feasibility of automatic train
escape devices.
(b) Report.--Upon completion of the study conducted under
this section, the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, shall--
(1) prepare a report that contains the findings of the
study; and
(2) submit a copy of the report to the appropriate
committees of the Congress.
(c) Regulations.--If, by the date specified in subsection
(a), the Secretary makes a determination (on the basis of the
findings of the study) that automatic train escape devices
should be required on rail passenger trains, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Administrator, shall, not later than
180 days after such date, promulgate regulations to require
automatic train escape devices on rail passenger trains as
soon as practicable after the date of promulgation of the
regulations.
SEC. 6. LOCOMOTIVE FUEL TANKS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Administrator, shall establish, by regulation, minimum
safety standards for fuel tanks of locomotives of rail
passenger trains that take into consideration environmental
protection and public safety.
(b) Applicability.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator, may limit the applicability of the regulations
promulgated under subsection (a) to new locomotives (as
defined by the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator) if the Secretary determines that the
limitation is appropriate.
SEC. 7. PASSENGER CAR CRASH-WORTHINESS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Administrator, shall determine whether to promulgate
regulations, for the purpose of protecting public safety,
to--
(1) require crash posts at the corners of rail passenger
cars;
(2) require safety locomotives on rail passenger trains;
(3) establish minimum crash-worthiness standards for
passenger cab cars; or
(4) carry out any combination of paragraphs (1) through
(3).
(b) Regulations.--If, the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, determines that promulgating any of the
regulations referred to in subsection (a) are necessary to
protect public safety, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Administrator, shall, not later than 180 days after such
date, promulgate such regulations in final form, to take
effect as soon as practicable after the date of promulgation
of the regulations.
(c) Report.--If the Secretary determines under subsection
(a) that taking any action referred to in paragraphs (1)
through (3) of such subsection is not necessary to protect
public safety, not later than the date of the determination,
the Secretary shall submit a report to the appropriate
committees of the Congress that provides the reasons for the
determination.
SEC. 8. SIGNAL PLACEMENT.
(a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, shall conduct a study of the placement of rail
signals along railways. In conducting the study, the
Secretary, acting through the Administrator, shall determine
whether regulations should be promulgated to require--
(1) that a signal be placed along a railway at each exit of
a rail station; and
(2) if practicable, that a signal be placed so that it is
visible only to the train employee of a train that the signal
is designed to influence.
(b) Regulations.--If, upon completion of the study
conducted under subsection (a), the Secretary determines that
the regulations referred to in that subsection are necessary
for the protection of public safety, the Secretary shall, not
later than 180 days after the completion of the study,
promulgate those regulations.
(c) Report.--If, upon completion of the study conducted
under subsection (a), the Secretary determines that
promulgating any of the regulations referred to in subsection
(a) is not necessary for the protection of public safety, not
later than the date of completion of the study, the Secretary
shall submit a report to the appropriate committees of the
Congress that provides the reasons for that determination.
____
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 21, 1996]
Lessons From the Train Disaster
The horrifying details of death by fire and smoke--of
people frantically seeking escape from a mangled commuter-
train-turned-furnace Friday night--continue to prompt
questions about rail safety policies in general and about
what happened in Silver Spring specifically. Some answers
must await the findings of investigators from the National
Transportation Safety Board. But there are safety procedures,
policies and equipment that have been the subjects of debate
in the industry for years, and that haunt every autopsy of a
train wreck:
Signals. What, if any, signals did engineer Richard Orr,
aboard Maryland commuter train 286, notice or remember in the
final miles before this train slammed into Amtrak's Capitol
Limited? Before arriving in Kensington, he passed a signal
that should have warned him to be prepared to stop. The
signal system is considered highly reliable. But there is a
more effective system that goes back to the 1920s: With it,
even if the engineer fails to spot or continue to remember
the warning signal, he sees a small light in his cab, and
each time his train goes through a restrictive signal he
hears a whistle. Should he fail to push a lever to
acknowledge the signal and then slow down or stop, the train
would do so automatically. Why isn't every train equipped
with this?
They used to be--on any line that was to travel faster than
80 mph--under a 1947 Interstate Commerce Commission order.
But over time, railroads were permitted on a case-by-case
basis to remove the system, in part because the age of fast
passenger trains was seen as ending. Besides, railroads
argued that the systems were expensive and that the braking
systems caused other safety problems for freight trains.
Today's signal system for MARC, like those for most lines,
does not provide automatic train control.
Although railroads today have a better safety record than
at any time in history, this history includes earlier
crashes--in Seabrook, Prince George's County, in 1978 and in
Chase, Md., in 1987--that prompted the NTSB to recommend that
all trains in the Northeast Corridor be equipped with
automatic stopping devices. They now are.
Passenger Escape. Yesterday, federal regulators issued
emergency regulations that, in addition to setting 30 mph
limits on non-automatic control lines for trains between a
station stop and the first signal, included a call for more
visible exit signs on train cars. Visible, uncomplicated
instructions for opening windows, doors and escape routes
ought to be posted everywhere. How about instructions on the
back of every seat?
Train Design. Though America's trains are among the
sturdiest pieces of equipment moving on land or in the skies,
there is the question of the Amtrak train's exposed diesel
fuel tanks, which splashed the fuel that ignited the terrible
fire. Newer models don't have this feature; the sooner the
old models are gone the better.
``Push-Pull.'' The MARC train was being pushed by its
locomotive, a common practice for quick back-and-forth runs.
Passengers may feel safer with a locomotive in front of them,
but there is no hard evidence that safety is compromised when
it is pushing instead of pulling.
Another issue affects public confidence in railroad travel:
Maryland transit officials issued conflicting, inaccurate and
constantly changing reports on the accident for hours Friday.
At first they were telling television stations that no MARC
passengers were involved; they gave out a telephone number
that assured callers that no passengers on the train had been
injured. This was occurring as televised scenes and witness
accounts were indicating otherwise. Whatever MARC may have
had as an emergency preparedness plan, it failed. Amtrak, on
the other hand, seemed to be issuing as much information as
it could.
More questions are sure to arise as the fact-finding
continues. A safe transportation system of any kind requires
more than the mere recitation of probability statistics.
Public confidence must be taken into account not only by
government regulators but also by the industry officials.
____
[From the New York Times, Feb. 21, 1996]
In the Train Wrecks' Aftermath
Two train collisions seven days apart have brought calamity
to the ordinarily quiet and safe commuter systems of New York
and Washington D.C. Federal and local officials are
responding with intense investigations and emergency
measures. They have already found some surprising soft spots
in the rail network's safety rules and practices.
New Jersey Transit, responding to the metropolitan region's
worst commuter train crash in 38 years, quickly eliminated
the nighttime split shift that enabled an engineer to work
extra-long hours just before his train collided with another
on Feb. 9. There was no need to await final analyses of what
caused the accident to discontinue a work arrangement that
was inherently hazardous.
The authorities are still investigating the accident, but
it appears that a train bound for Hoboken ran through yellow
and red lights that should have warned the engineer to stop
before entering tracks where an outbound train had the right
of way. The inbound train's engineer, John DeCurtis, was
operating during the morning rush hour at the end of a split
shift that had started 14\1/2\ hours earlier. He had a chance
to rest five hours during the middle of the night, but with
no cot or quiet space provided. Officials also need to weigh
whether Mr. DeCurtis's safety record, which included two
previous suspensions for running red lights, was a warning
that should have been heeded, and whether the installation of
automatic braking systems should be accelerated to prevent
such tragic accidents.
Similarly in last Friday evening's collision between a
Washington-bound commuter
[[Page S1353]]
train and an Amtrak train headed north from Washington, the absence of
automatic train controls has already emerged as a safety gap
in the local system. Even more critically, the cars may have
lacked fully operational and clearly marked evacuation routes
with the kind of safety instructions that might have
prevented the death of eight young Job Corps trainees, who
were killed along with three crew members.
The signal system on the Maryland track was inadequate.
There was a caution light just before a suburban station
where the train was stopping anyway, but no similar light
immediately after to remind the engineer not to accelerate to
a high speed. The train rounded a bend and slammed into the
Amtrak train that had been temporarily routed on the same
tracks.
The Transportation Department responded yesterday with
belated but sensible stopgap rules. When a train leaves a
station, engineers must proceed no faster than 30 miles an
hour. They must call out to other crew members any warning
signal they see. All the nation's railroads are instructed to
test emergency exits and submit safety plans for Federal
review. Clearly, many safety hazards need examination and
correction as the result of these two tragedies.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 1576. A bill to provide that Federal employees who are furloughed
or are not paid for performing essential services during a period of a
lapse in appropriations, may receive a loan, paid at their standard
rate of compensation, from the Thrift Savings Fund, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
THE FURLOUGH RELIEF ACT OF 1996
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I am introducing
legislation with Senator Sarbanes called the Furlough Relief Act of
1996. Our bill would help Federal employees weather the storm during
Government shutdowns by allowing them access to interest free loans
from their Thrift Savings Plans.
About the only thing that Federal employees can rely on today is
uncertainty. During the last year we have seen one attack after another
aimed at Federal workers. Between assaults on earned retirement
benefits, downsizing, and furloughs, these dedicated people have to be
wondering what's coming next.
Today we are operating much of the Government under an emergency
continuing resolution. I fervently hope there will not be another
shutdown, and I will be doing all I can to prevent one from happening.
But there is no guarantee that Federal employees will be able to go to
work and earn their paychecks after this continuing resolution expires
on March 15. They could face yet another shutdown. That would mean more
lost pay, more lost productivity, and more uncertainty.
I am a Federal employee Senator. I believe in honest pay for hard
work, and I know of no group of Americans that works harder than our
Federal employees. That is why I am introducing legislation today that
will help Federal employees who want to help themselves.
As my colleagues know, Federal employees currently are allowed to
borrow from their tax deferred Thrift Savings Plans for reasons such as
furthering their education, buying a home, or undergoing a medical
procedure. However, the approval process for a TSP loan can take weeks.
There is also no guarantee that the loan will be approved, and if it is
approved, the borrower must pay interest when paying back the loan.
The Furlough Relief Act of 1996 would allow furloughed Federal
employees to be automatically eligible for a TSP loan from their
account during any Government shutdown. This loan would continue to be
paid as long as the employee remains on furlough. It would help Federal
employees make up for lost wages. When a furlough ends, the employee
would be able to pay back the loan without interest.
The Furlough Relief Act will cut through the redtape of the TSP loan
process. It will provide a dependable source of income for Federal
employees who have been denied their pay, and it will finally give a
break to dedicated people who have not had many breaks in the past
year.
I think it's time to stop these assaults on Federal employees. We
cannot continue to devalue Government workers and at the same time
expect Government to work better. In my State of Maryland, there are
thousands of Federal employees making Government work better and making
a difference in the lives of all Americans. I salute them, and I
dedicate myself to making a difference in their lives.
______
By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 1577. A bill to authorize appropriations for the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission for fiscal years 1998,
1999, 2000, and 2001; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure for me to
today introduce a bill to reauthorize the functions of the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission on which I serve. I am
pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes and I have a long association with the Commission.
This important organization, closely associated with the National
Archives and Records Administration, has been diligently performing
some of the most vital archival preservation work in the country.
Realizing the importance of preserving historical works and
collections, Congress established the National Historical Publications
and Records Commission in 1934. Its purpose was to collect, edit, and
publish the papers of the Founding Fathers, the writings of other
distinguished Americans, and the documentary histories of the First
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the process of the ratification of the
Constitution. In 1974, Congress expanded the Commission's
responsibilities to include providing advice and assistance to public
and private institutions in the development and administration of
archival systems. In the same year, the NHPRC established a Historical
Records Advisory Board in each State to help coordinate overall
preservation strategies and to ensure that the Commission would have a
strong Federal-State partnership for its records programs.
Today, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission
has not strayed from its original mission. The NHPRC continues to
screen and determine the historical works it considers appropriate for
preserving or publishing. The Commission administers grants to projects
dedicated to preserving annals essential for historical research,
publishing historical papers, and archiving nationally significant
records. Without the preservation of these invaluable records,
historians have little hope of accurately analyzing our Nation's
history. Another important aspect of the Commission's objective is to
encourage and instruct local agencies, schools, museums, and
individuals to forge ahead in their actions to preserve and publish
historical works; the tasks facing archival institutions, manuscript
depositories, and scholars require more than the valiant efforts of a
single Federal Commission. The valuable work of the Commission is a
very good example of a healthy partnership between public and private
institutions, Federal and State agencies. The NHPRC pays no more than
one-third of the funds of the projects that it supports. Thus, the
program is one of aiding and working closely with individuals and local
institutions dedicated to preserving important facets of our history.
The number of records that the Commission has preserved and published
is an impressive tribute to its efficient organization. To date, the
NHPRC has supported 1,056 archival projects in all 50 States, three
territories, and the District of Columbia. These projects have
published 717 documentary volumes. Recent project grants have gone to
an agency in Illinois to preserve Abraham Lincoln's legal papers and to
a center in Atlanta to publish the papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. In
addition, the Commission has produced 8,280 reels of microfilm as well
as 1,822 microfiche. Finally, the NHPRC has supported a total of 274
documentary editing projects. As the numbers suggest, the Commission
has been quite successful in its mission to preserve and publish the
Nation's historical works.
The bill I am introducing today seeks to extend authorization of
appropriations for an additional 4 years in amounts up to $10 million
annually. This appropriation would cover fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000,
and 2001. One hundred percent of the appropriations go
[[Page S1354]]
entirely toward project grants; the National Archives bears the
administrative costs. The American public may be assured that their
investment is well spent by the NHPRC.
Passage of this important legislation will reassure America's
community of scholars, librarians, and archivists working closely with
the NHPRC that Congress is committed to the important mission of the
Commission. In the past, Congress has clearly supported the work of the
NHPRC and has recognized the importance of the Commission's efforts to
ensure that the words, thoughts, and ideas of our Nation's historic
individuals are collected from fragile or deteriorating source material
and placed in books or on microfilm. Passage of this bill will ensure
that present and future generations of inquisitive minds will have
access to our history.
Mr. President, this bill will allow the NHPRC to continue its
valuable work for the next 4 years--work that will be of the utmost
benefit to scholars, researchers, libraries, and the public. Our
Nation's history needs to be preserved, and the future generations of
Americans deserve the right to have accurate records of their past. The
preservation of our historical documents will protect and enrich our
Nation's wonderful history. I am proud to be a sponsor of this
legislation and confident in urging my colleagues to give their support
to this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1577
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION.
Section 2504(f)(1) of title 44, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (F) by striking out ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (G) by striking out the period and
inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(H) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(I) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
``(J) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
``(K) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.''
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with
Senator Hatfield in introducing legislation to reauthorize the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission for 4 years.
It has been my privilege to alternate with Senator Hatfield in
serving as the representative of the U.S. Senate on the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission, Senator Hatfield
represented the Senate from 1983 to 1988, and I succeeded him until my
term expired last year. The Commission has had strong bipartisan
support throughout its history, and I trust will continue to do so.
The NHPRC's statutory mandate is to promote the preservation and use
of America's historical legacy. The work of the NHPRC assures all
Americans that the history of our Nation will be documented, that vital
historical records will be kept safe, and that historians and others
will have ready access to those records.
Grants awarded through the National Historical Publications and
Records Commission are producing valuable results. In my own State of
Maryland, the Commission is helping scholars edit, and presses publish,
editions of papers that document the emancipation of slaves and the
careers of important historical figures.
Other important discoveries have resulted from grants awarded to
scholars by the Commission. For example, NHPRC grants resulted recently
in the discovery of the longest document yet known that Abraham Lincoln
wrote in his own hand, a group of letters written to James Madison by a
famous jurist in the era of our revolution, an the original drawing
made by Architect William Thornton for the ground plan of the U.S.
Capitol.
Although the Commission has been doing this work since it was
established by Congress in 1934, its efforts remain relevant to today's
concerns. We have seen States and local governments across the country,
with advice and assistance from the Commission, establish archival
programs. We have seen the Commission launch several projects to deal
with the growing problem facing archivists in controlling and accessing
valuable electronic records, and helping historians make their
documentary editions accessible electronically on the Internet.
Mr. President, it is important that the Commission continue its
respected work in preserving the heritage of our Nation. The
reauthorization legislation I am joining Senator Hatfield in
introducing is a practical and important step in ensuring continuity of
the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. I urge my
colleagues to join us in ensuring its swift passage.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
S. 1578. A bill to amend the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I am pleased and proud to introduce
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1996.
These amendments will guide our actions into the next century as we
plan and secure educational opportunities for over 5 million American
children with disabilities. Many recent polls have ranked education as
one of the top concerns of Americans. These polls are a wakeup call. We
must help America's children succeed and be able to demonstrate that
they have succeeded. We must find ways to affect the culture of
education, not through intrusive mandates, but through incentives for
partnership and innovation. We must not give up on any child. We must
view planning a child's education as a collaborative process. These
important goals are the basis of the reauthorization of the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act, commonly referred to as IDEA.
As everyone knows I am new to this business of drafting Federal
legislation. I am not new to the effects of Federal legislation on
individual lives. In my surgical practice, I have sometimes been able
to save lives because of Federal legislation and sometimes in spite of
the barriers such legislation imposed on my efforts.
Thus, I take my responsibility as chairman of the Disability Policy
Subcommittee very seriously. I am grateful for the partnership of my
colleague from Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin, who was a partner in the
entire process, and whose past leadership of this subcommittee was and
is an inspiration.
I have been both cautious and careful as I have weighed
recommendations for amendments bought to me to change IDEA.
The Right of a Child with a Disability to an Education is Preserved
IDEA is a civil rights statute. It guarantees access to a free
appropriate public education for children with disabilities. This
understanding was established clearly in the predecessor to IDEA,
Public Law 94-142, which was enacted in 1975. IDEA is founded in the
14th amendment of the Constitution, which is the equal protection
clause. This connection is reinforced through 20 years of case law and
bipartisan legislative history. The IDEA amendments introduced today
will not undermine the civil right of any child with a disability to a
free appropriate public education.
Public Law 94-142 was based on five principles.
First, educational planning for a child with a disability should be
done on an individual basis. Public Law 94-142 required that an
individualized education program [IEP] be developed for each child with
a disability.
Second, parents of a child with a disability should participate in
the development of their child's IEP. Public Law 94-142 required such
participation.
Third, decisions about a child's eligibility and education should be
based on objective and accurate information. Public Law 94-142 required
evaluation of a child to establish his or her need for special
education and related services and to determine the child's progress.
Fourth, if appropriate for a child with a disability, he or she
should be educated in general education with
[[Page S1355]]
necessary services and supports. Public Law 94-142 required educational
placements based on such determinations.
Fifth, parents and educators should have a means of resolving
differences about a child's eligibility, IEP, educational placement, or
other aspects of the provision of a free appropriate public education
to the child. Public Law 94-142 required that if the parents of a child
requested one, they were entitled to an impartial due process hearing.
And, if differences between parents and educators could not be resolved
through administrative proceedings such as a local due process hearing
or a State-level review of the facts in the situation, either side
could use court to settle the matter. In 1986, the law was amended to
clarify that the Federal courts have the power to require the awarding
of attorneys' fees to parents who prevail in administrative proceedings
or court actions.
The amendments offered today will not undermine any of these five
principles or their manifestation in IDEA.
In fact, this reauthorization of IDEA reinforces its basic principles
and adds to the law a viable set of tools with which to help adults
help children with disabilities prepare for a successful future.
Focused Accountability Expected
The amendments address accountability. People involved in educational
planning for a child with a disability will be expected to show
results--where a child is and where a child is going in terms of the
general education curriculum. How does he or she do in the classroom?
How does he or she do on local or statewide assessments of student
progress? Is a child getting appropriate services and supports to
demonstrate what he or she knows and can do? The amendments reshape
expectations for children with disabilities and create a common frame
of reference--the general education curriculum. Most children with
disabilities can learn and benefit from the general education
curriculum. Some may need to learn it at a slower pace or in a modified
form. Some may need to demonstrate what they have learned in a
different way than their peers. Nonetheless, they can learn and
therefore, should have the opportunity to learn, what their brothers,
sisters, and friends are learning.
Unless we secure the general education curriculum as the educational
anchor for most children with disabilities, their ability to succeed on
district-wide and statewide assessments of student progress will be
jeopardized. If they fail or perform poorly on such assessments,
because they were taught from a watered-down general education
curriculum or a different curriculum, we are reinforcing the beliefs of
people who say that children with disabilities cannot learn as much or
as well as other children. We also are reinforcing the beliefs of
people who prefer separate educational opportunities for children with
disabilities. Moreover, if children are taught from a watered-down
general education curriculum or a different curriculum, we may
inadvertently create a justification for ignoring children with
disabilities when undertaking school reform initiatives.
If the general education curriculum is the focus for planning for a
child with a disability, it will improve communication throughout the
system--a child with a disability and peers, educators and the child's
parents, special education teachers and general teachers, related
services professionals and teachers, and parents of children with and
without disabilities. Such a focus also will affect expenditures and
uses of personnel. The emphasis will shift to what services and
supports are necessary in order for a child with a disability to
succeed in the general education curriculum. This shift may save a
school district money, while continuing an appropriate education for a
child with a disability. Lines of responsibility will blend--the
question will become--``How do we make the general education curriculum
work for a particular child with a disability?'' If this blending of
responsibility takes off, and I believe it will work, not only will
children with disabilities benefit, but children at risk will benefit,
because personnel will acquire new skills and supports that equip them
to serve all children.
Culture in the Educational Environment Changed
The amendments will affect the culture of schools--to create new
bases for teamwork, to reinforce existing partnerships, and to provide
incentives to view the delivery of educational services to children
with disabilities not as a distinct, separate mandate, but as an
integral part of the overall business of education. I come to this
conclusion from personal experience.
Giving an individual a new heart, a chance at a longer life with
quality, is the ultimate high. When that moment comes, I am filled with
powerful emotions--pride, love, prayers of thanks, satisfaction, and a
profound appreciation of the power of teamwork. Reaching that moment
and the critical ones that follow it is not possible without teamwork,
involving the transplant recipient, the donor's bereaved family, the
organ donor coordinator, medical, surgical, technical and nursing
staff, counselors, and the recipient's family. This process is long,
complex, emotional and risky, but it is not a contest. Everyone has a
common goal. Information is compiled and analyzed. Options are
considered. Differences are aired. Decisions are made.
As I became engaged in the reauthorization of IDEA I realized that
planning the education of any child with a disability should not be
viewed as a contest, but as an opportunity for teamwork. The bill
includes many provisions which encourage and reinforce teamwork.
Parents will be a source of information when compiling evaluation data
on a child suspected of having or known to have a disability. Parents
will have the opportunity to participate in all meetings in which
decisions which affects their child's education are made. Parents of
children with disabilities will have the opportunity to help develop
school-based improvement plans designed to expand and improve
educational experiences for their children. Teachers--those who do or
could work with disabled children--will be involved in providing and
interpreting information on the educational and social strengths,
progress, and needs of children with disabilities, which would be used
in IEP meetings.
School districts will see a substantial reduction in paperwork under
IDEA and will have increased flexibility on the use of personnel and
the fiscal tracking of the use of personnel. Because of these
amendments we will see more reasons for educators and parents to have
common goals; fewer reasons for administrators to call IDEA burdensome;
more general and special education teachers and related services
personnel working together; more children with disabilities succeeding
in the general education curriculum; more children with disabilities
participating in school reform initiatives; and most important, more
children at risk of failure will succeed.
We will not see these changes overnight. They will take time. The
amendments to IDEA restructure the 14 discretionary or support
programs--totaling $254 million in authorizations--to facilitate and
realize these changes, as well as others. Thirty million dollars are
authorized for a new Systems Change State Grant Program. States will
compete for access to these dollars. The purpose of this grant program
is to provide funds to help States to address problems that have
statewide implications. For example, States could use grant awards to
design effective ways for general education and special education
teachers to work in the same classrooms; to develop effective within-
school options for addressing behaviors subject to school disciplinary
measures; or to arrange effective transitions for children with
disabilities from early intervention to preschool programs, from high
school to the adult world, or at other important times in a child's
life.
The amendments clearly link funding for personnel training and
research to the needs of children with disabilities, their families,
school personnel, and school districts. Any institution that seeks a
training grant will be obligated to identify a personnel shortage that
they intend to address. Any institution that seeks to train teachers to
work with blind children must teach trainees how to teach Braille.
With regard to research grants, I appreciate the fact that research
takes extended effort. Research results are never immediate and are
often modest building blocks toward some broader area of knowledge.
Research infrastructure requires a sustained, predictable commitment to
funding. However,
[[Page S1356]]
the amendments offered today expect researchers to keep their eye on
the child in the classroom, the teacher in the classroom, the principal
in the school, the child's parents, the school district, or the State
education agency. Researchers will be expected to provide information
that benefits children with disabilities, their teachers, or other
targeted audiences. Practical research will be valued. Through this
reauthorization, the allocation of research dollars will emphasize
lines of inquiry that will result in information that teachers or
others can use to help children with disabilities succeed in the
general education curriculum.
The amendments also sustain and strengthen the Federal support for
information that helps children with disabilities, their parents,
teachers, related service personnel, early intervention professionals,
administrators, researchers, teacher trainers, and others learn about,
access, and use state-of-the-art tools and strategies to be effective
as partners in the business of education. The amendments require
grantees who are involved in the business of information gathering and
dissemination and the grantees who are responsible for technical
assistance to make a difference--to know their audiences, to provide
them with information and assistance that they need and can use, and to
verify that their efforts counted, not just in terms of numbers of
people reached or pieces of paper disseminated, but in terms of lives
changed.
I certainly know the difference between an established and an
experimental surgical procedure, and I know what it takes to teach new
techniques to professionals across the country, and to do it well. It
is my hope that the standards of information and dissemination and
technical assistance achieved in medicine will come to be expected
within the professional community serving infants, toddlers, children,
and youth with disabilities. I think it is reasonable to expect that
when anyone asks for information or assistance from a federally funded
source, that source is prepared to say, ``This will work; or, this will
work if certain conditions are present; or, this works 50 percent of
the time; or this might work.'' This reauthorization moves us toward
increased confidence in the information requested, received, or offered
under information dissemination and technical assistance activities
funded through IDEA. With increased confidence will come the
opportunity to be a better equipped participant and partner in the
identification, evaluation, selection or design of educational
opportunities for children with disabilities.
Helping Each Child Is an Investment in the Future
The amendments also address another priority of many Americans--
intervening in the lives of children before they fail, before they are
labeled, or before they are lost. Effective intervention and targeted
prevention are themes that cut across many of the provisions in the
reauthorization of IDEA.
Early intervention. The bill reauthorizes part H, the Early
Intervention Program, in IDEA. Part H was originally enacted in 1986.
This program, in which all States participate, has been extremely
effective in reaching infants and toddlers with disabilities early in
their young lives, often at birth. This early intervention program
helps these small ones, and their parents, unlock their abilities and
become prepared to realize maximum benefits from their later preschool
and school experiences.
The amendments direct the Federal Government to develop a model
definition and service delivery standards for infants and toddlers at
risk of being developmentally delayed. Early intervention professionals
are very successful at diagnosing and serving infants and toddlers with
disabilities, that is, disabilities which are discernable before,
during, or shortly after birth. These professionals are experienced in
developing appropriate intervention strategies for such children. They
are less successful in identifying infants and toddlers who show more
subtle signs indicative of later disability. I anticipate that the
model definition and service standards, which will draw from the
experiences of States which currently are serving at-risk populations,
eventually will provide early intervention professionals with the tools
to identify and reach greater numbers of at-risk infants and toddlers.
The amendments also give States increased administrative flexibility
with regard to the transition of a child from an early intervention
program funded by part H into a preschool program funded by section 619
of part B of IDEA. This flexibility will provide an incentive to focus
on what is best for a particular child--allowing the child to remain in
an early intervention program after his or her third birthday during a
school year and to transition to a preschool program in the next school
year. This flexibility permits the child's individualized family
services plan [IFSP] to be the child's IEP until planning is done for
the next school year.
As a surgeon I understand the importance and effect of early
intervention in a medical situation. As a Senator I have been reminded
of the benefits of Headstart and have witnessed the benefits of early
intervention and preschool programs at the Kennedy Institute at
Vanderbilt University. I have no doubt that as we continue to invest
Federal funds in the very young lives of infants and toddlers with
disabilities, we will deliver to our schools children who can learn
more easily, participate more fully, and be less distinguishable from
their peers in terms of expectations, progress, and friendships.
Labeling deemphasized. These amendments lessen the need for and
meaning of labels. School districts will be required to report the
number of children with IEP's, and the number of students in each of
two placement categories. They will not be required to continue
reporting the numbers of children in twelve disability categories, by
age group, or by multiple types of placements. This will significantly
reduce the longstanding reporting burden imposed on school districts
and States. I anticipate that this administrative relief will translate
into less interest in and use of disability labels in schools and
classrooms.
The amendments encourage States to adopt placement-neutral funding
formulas. Thus, over time there will be fewer incentives for
segregated, label-driven educational placements for children with
disabilities.
Under certain conditions, school districts also will have the
opportunity to commingle IDEA dollars with other funds when serving
children with disabilities--when children with disabilities are in
general education classrooms being taught by general and special
education teachers; when children eligible for services under IDEA are
being served with children identified as disabled under the Americans
With Disabilities Act or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; or when
a school has a school improvement plan in effect. This flexibility in
the use of IDEA dollars will cause school officials to rethink how
services may be delivered more efficiently and more effectively; cause
labeling to be viewed as less relevant or necessary; and cause teachers
to view their roles in reaching children as complementary and their
responsibilities for helping all children succeed as a joint effort.
The amendments recognize that many children from minority backgrounds
are inappropriately identified as being eligible for special education
and related services under IDEA. It is anticipated that with the
opportunity to use IDEA funds in more flexible ways, parents, teachers,
and administrators will not need to use the referral and evaluation
procedures connected to special education as frequently as in the past
to secure more or different services for children from minority
backgrounds.
No child to be lost or forgotten. The amendments take a broad view of
the concept of ``dropout.'' In the amendments numerous, interrelated
provisions have been crafted to reduce the likelihood that child with a
disability will either figuratively or literally drop out of school and
become disconnected from peers and professionals who can contribute to
the child's growth and success in school. These provisions will require
affirmative efforts on the part of educators, other professionals, and
the parents of the child to keep the child connected in meaningful ways
to the business of learning. Three sets of provisions particularly
should result in fewer children with disabilities being lost or
forgotten.
[[Page S1357]]
Integrated transition services for secondary school students with
disabilities. Developing a secondary student's IEP for a particular
year should not be an activity divorced from transition planning for
the child that may encompass multiple years. Therefore, the amendments
make transition planning for a child 14 or older a part of the IEP
process. This clarification should result in simplification of
administrative procedures. Secondary school personnel and personnel
responsible for transition services, to the extent that they are
different, will have a common process--the development or modification
of a student's IEP--in which to make contributions and through which to
influence what others may propose. Parents and students with
disabilities will continue to have direct roles in the planning process
as well. Students at the designated age of majority, in States where
this is permitted, will be able to be the principal representative of
their own interests and preferences.
Clarification of fiscal responsibilities for related services. In
order to succeed in school and connect to the social culture of school,
children with disabilities may need more than specially designed
instruction. They may need one of many related services, such as speech
therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, or counseling. Such
services may be critical at any time in the school years of a child
with a disability, because they help a child acquire the tools to blend
in and be accepted by peers and teachers--to communicate, to walk, to
sit, to function more independently, to hold a pen, use a keyboard, or
to use socially appropriate behavior. Accessing related services
personnel can be costly and is not always easy, even when cost is not a
factor. The amendments clearly establish that fiscal responsibility for
such services extends beyond school districts; spell out the broader
obligation of local and State agencies that could and should absorb
such costs; and indicate that school districts have the opportunity to
seek reimbursement from such agencies, when a child's eligibility for
such services, funded by other than a local school district, is known.
School discipline and civil rights. A few children with disabilities
sometimes pose a danger to themselves or others, or are so disruptive
that neither they or their classmates can learn. Such children should
not, must not, be abandoned.
How to best address such situations was the most contentious issue
during the development of this reauthorization of IDEA. Educators
reported that current provisions in IDEA prevent them from removing
disabled students who are dangerous from school. One exception in
current law is when a student with a disability brings a weapon to
school. Such a student can be removed from his or her current
educational placement for up to 45 days. Parents of children with
disabilities argued strenuously that if IDEA were to make it easier for
educators to remove disabled students who are dangerous or seriously
disruptive from their educational placements, the law would give
educators a reason to serve children with disabilities in more
segregated settings or not at all. Moreover, parents argued that
increasing educators' ability and discretion to remove children with
disabilities from their current educational placements, without
parental consent, would provide educators with the opportunity to
divert responsibility for having inappropriately served children with
disabilities in the first place and reward educators for the actions or
inactions that led to the dangerous or disruptive behavior.
The amendments to address this issue are not in the bill. I plan to
continue working on this issue with my colleagues, with professional
organizations and associations who have already contributed to this
process, and especially with parents. I have come to consider both the
contentions of educators and those of parents to be valid. I anticipate
creation of an amendment that will strike a balance between the
educators' responsibility to maintain safe schools and the right of
children with disabilities, even when they engage in dangerous or
seriously disruptive behavior, to continue their education.
I anticipate negotiating a discipline amendment that will: Define
dangerous behavior; sustain a commitment from schools to involve
parents in their children's education before crises develop; reach an
agreement on a mechanism that allows the removal of a student with a
disability in an expedited manner when the student is truly a danger to
himself or herself or to others; and that will allocate resources to
train principals and to train teachers and students in conflict
resolution strategies and related behavior management techniques.
We have a long history of bipartisan commitment to IDEA. We must
continue to be courageous, on both sides of the aisle, in our
commitment to improve the lives of our citizens with disabilities, most
especially children. We must continue to be courageous in our
commitment to making American schools the best they can be for all of
our children.
In our hearings on IDEA in May 1995, a mother from Kentucky came in,
even though her son Ryan had died, and told us her son's story. I
remember that she said she was guided in her advocacy by a quote from
Daniel Burnham, who said:
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's
blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big
plans, aim high and hope they work, remembering that a noble,
logical diagram, once recorded, will never die, but long
after we are gone will be a living thing asserting itself
with ever-growing insistency.
This is the kind of courage children with disabilities must bring to
their everyday lives. This is the kind of courage that parents of
children with disabilities show every day as they dream their dreams
and work, step-by-step, toward a better, more independent, more
productive life for their child. This is the kind of courage that
America's dedicated and professional teachers bring to their work with
American students every school day, aiming high and hoping their big
plans work.
We can do no less. We will do no less. These amendments will keep us
on track.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a short list of
improvements to IDEA, and a section-by-section summary of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1996
SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE TO CURRENT LAW BY FRIST BILL
Part A--General provisions (Secs. 601-610)
Sec. 601--Short Title/Findings/Purpose
Updates ``Findings''--to reflect changes made in the
education of children with disabilities over the past 20
years (since enactment of P.L. 94-142), and to restate that
the ``right to equal educational opportunities'' is inherent
in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Updates ``Purposes'' of IDEA--to incorporate all relevant
IDEA programs in the purpose statements (i.e., the basic
State grant program under Part B, the early intervention
program for infants and toddlers with disabilities under Part
H, and the various support programs under Parts C through E,
including systems change activities, coordinated research and
personnel preparation, and coordinated technical assistance,
dissemination, and technology development and media
services).
Sec. 602--Definitions
Adds definitions of ``behavior management plan'',
``educational service agency'' (to replace ``intermediate
educational unit''), ``general education curriculum'',
``inappropriately identified'', ``individualized family
service plan (IFSP)'', ``infant or toddler with a
disability'', ``outlying areas'', ``parent'' (to include
guardians), ``public or private nonprofit agency or
organization'', ``supplementary aids and services'',
``systems change activities''; ``systems change outcomes'',
and ``unserved and underserved''.
Deletes definitions of ``research and related purposes'',
``public and private agency'', and ``youth with a
disability''; and moves the definition of ``transition
services'' to sec. 614(i).
Revises definitions of--
(1) ``IEP''--by removing all substantive provisions, and
referring to sections 614(d)-614(j), where all provisions
(both process and content) are contained.
(2) ``Institution of Higher Education (IHE)''--by making a
simple cross reference to the Higher Education Act of 1965,
etc.
(3) ``Related Services''--by adding ``orientation and
mobility services'' (to be consistent with current policy of
the Education Department).
Makes technical and conforming changes to several other
definitions e.g., by adding a definition for the term ``child
with a disability (current law defines the plural ``children
with disabilities''), and alphabetizes and adds heading to
terms.
[[Page S1358]]
Sec. 603--Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).
(Provisions regarding the administrative staffing of
OSEP)
Amends sec. 603--to allow OSEP to ``accept voluntary and
uncompensated services in furtherance of the purposes of this
Act.''
Sec. 604--Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity. (Current
law provides that the Federal Government has the right to
bring a suit against a State for violation of IDEA)
No changes.
Sec. 605--Acquisition of Equipment and Construction of
Necessary Facilities
Repealed.
Sec. 606--Employment of Individuals with Disabilities
No changes.
Sec. 607--Grants for the Removal of Architectural Barriers
Repealed.
Sec. 608--Requirements for Prescribing Regulations. (Current
law requires a 90-day public comment period for
regulations proposed under Part B of the IDEA)
Makes technical and conforming changes.
Sec. 609--Eligibility for Financial Assistance. (Current law
provides that no grants may be made for projects that
focus exclusively on children aged 3-5, unless the State
is eligible for a preschool grant under sec. 619)
Makes technical and conforming changes.
Sec. 610--Administrative Provisions Applicable to Parts D and
E
(Parts D&E include support programs under IDEA concerning
research, personnel training, etc. The Senate bill (1)
reduces the number of support programs from 14 to 7, and (2)
reorganizes the remaining provisions contained in Parts C
through G of current law into three Parts: Part C--State
Systems Change Grants, Part D--Coordinated Research and
Personnel Preparation, and Part E--Technical Assistance,
Support, and Dissemination.) The Senate bill reorganizes and
substantially revises sec. 610, as described below:
1. Requires Secretary to develop and implement a
comprehensive plan for activities under D and E, to enhance
services to children with disabilities under parts B and H.
2. Identifies eligible applicants for awards (SEAs, LEAs,
IHEs, private nonprofit organizations, Indian tribes, and, in
some cases, ``for profit'' organizations); and specifies that
the Secretary may limit individual competitions to one or
more categories of applicants, etc.
3. Extends current provisions regarding outreach to
minorities (i.e., requires at least one percent of the total
funds appropriated under parts D and E to be used for
outreach purposes for ``HBCUs'' and IHEs with minority
enrollments of at least 25 percent. This is a continuation of
current law.
4. Provides that the Secretary may, without rulemaking,
limit competitions to projects that give priority to one or
more targeted areas set out in the bill--so long as each
project addresses the needs of children with disabilities and
their families.
5. Sets out specific applicant responsibilities.
6. Includes provisions for application management--
including (1) requiring a peer review process, with detailed
criteria for selection of panel members, and (2) providing
that the Secretary may use a portion of funds under Parts D
and E (a) to pay nonfederal entities for administrative
support, (b) for Federal employees to monitor projects, and
for evaluation of activities carried out under these
programs.
part b--assistance for education of all children with disabilities
(secs. 611-620)
Sec. 611--Entitlements and Allocations
1. Retains the ``child count'' formula.
2. Expands the list of activities that a State may carry
out if it retains Part B funds at the State level (e.g., to
meet performance goals, and to develop and implement the
mediation process required by sec. 615, systems change
activities authorized under part C, and a statewide
coordinated services system, etc.).
3. Revises the $7,500 minimum subgrant provision (which
prohibits subgrants to very small LEAs that would receive
less than $7,500 under sec. 611). The bill (1) eases this
restriction by giving States the option to decide whether to
make subgrants of less than that amount, and (2) adds
preschool funds under sec. 619 to the amount that could be
counted in determining if an LEA meets the $7,500 minimum.
(Bill retains the provision requiring that, if a State
doesn't make a subgrant to an LEA, it must use those funds to
provide FAPE to children residing in the LEA).
4. Defines ``outlying areas'' as including the Federated
States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and
the Republic of Palau and requires the outlying areas to use
their Part B funds in accordance with the purposes of IDEA,
and not for other purposes, as permitted under P.L. 95-134.
5. Makes technical changes regarding grants to the
Secretary of the Interior, and makes other technical and
conforming changes.
Sec. 612--State Eligibility
1. Simplifies provisions related to State participation
under Part B--by combining most of the elements of current
sections 612 (State eligibility) and 613 (State plans), so
that all conditions of State eligibility (including policies
on FAPE, procedural safeguards, LRE, etc.) appear in one
comprehensive section.
2. Amends ``child find'' requirements (Sec. 612(a)(3))--to
codify current Department policy, which provides that, so
long as a child meets the ``two-pronged'' test as a ``child
with a disability'' under sec. 602(4) (i.e., has a disability
and needs special education), the child does not have to be
classified by a specific impairment or condition in order to
be eligible for service under Part B.
3. Amends LRE provisions (Sec. 612(a)(5))--to ensure that
the State's funding formula does not result in placements
that violate the policy that children are placed in the least
restrictive environment, and (2) that the state educational
agency examines data to determine if significant racial
disproportionality is occurring in the evaluation and
placement of children under this Act; and if either situation
is identified, to take appropriate corrective action.
4. Amends provisions on Transition from Part H to Preschool
Programs (Sec. 612(a)(9))--to conform Part B with the
transition planning requirements under Part H (Sec.
678(a)(8)) (i.e., to ensure the LEA staff participate in
transition planning conferences convened by the Part H lead
agency, in order to ensure an effective transition for
infants and toddlers with disabilities who move into
preschool programs under Part B.
5. Addresses unilateral placements by parents (Sec.
612(a)(10))--to clarify that if the parents of a child with a
disability unilaterally place the child in a private school
and a hearing officer agrees with the parent's placement, the
LEA may be required to reimburse the parents. However, the
amount of reimbursement may be reduced or denied--(1) if
prior to removal of the child from the public school, the
parents do not provide a statement to the LEA rejecting its
proposed placement, or (2) upon a judicial finding of
unreasonableness the respect to actions taken by the parents.
6. Strengthens requirements on ensuring provision of
services by non-educational agencies (Sec. 612(a)(12)) (i.e.,
while retaining the single line of responsibility of the SEA
(Sec. 612(a)(11)), the bill provides (1) that if a non-
educational agency is responsible for providing or paying for
services that are also necessary for ensuring FAPE to
children with disabilities, that agency must pay for, or
provide such services directly or by contract or other
arrangements, (2) that the State must ensure that interagency
agreements or other mechanisms are in effect between
educational agencies and non-educational agencies for
defining respective financial responsibilities, resolving
interagency disputes, and for interagency coordination, and
(3) that the State must establish a mechanism by which local
educational agencies may seek reimbursement from agencies for
the costs of providing related services and disseminate those
procedures to local educational agencies.
7. Amends ``comprehensive system of personnel development''
(CSPD) requirements (Sec. 612(a)(14))--to simplify and reduce
the burden of such requirements, especially the data
provisions, and make the requirements more meaningful.
8. Amends ``Personnel Standards'' to include use of
paraprofessionals (Sec. 612(a)(15))--to allow districts to
utilize appropriately trained and supervised
paraprofessionals to provide services.
9. Conforms the IDEA to general education initiatives (sec.
612 (a)(16) and (17))--by requiring States to (1) establish
performance goals and indicators for children with
disabilities, and (2) ensure that these children participate
in general State and district-wide assessments, with
appropriate accommodations, where necessary, and that
guidelines are developed for participation in alternative
assessments for those children who cannot participate in
state and district-wide assessments.
10. Consolidates funding requirements under current law in
one place (Sec. 612(a)(18)), and deletes non-germane
provisions.
11. Consolidates the public participation requirements of
current law in one place (Sec. 612(a)(19)), and provides
language to reduce burden--by clarifying that, if the State's
policies and procedures have been subjected to public comment
through a State rulemaking process, no further public review
or public comment period is required.
12. Amends provisions on State Advisory Panels--by (1)
specifying other categories of participants of such panels,
(2) adding new duties of the Panel (e.g., advise the SEA
developing corrective action plans to address findings
identified through Federal monitoring reports, and to
developing and implementing policies related to coordination
of services), and (3) providing that a State panel
established under the ESEA or Goals 200: Educate America Act
may also serve as the State Advisory Panel if it meets the
requirements of this part.
13. Significantly reduces paperwork and staff burden, by no
longer requiring States to submit three-year State plans.
Once a State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that it has in effect policies and procedures that
meet the eligibility requirements of the new sec. 612, the
State does not have to resubmit such materials, unless those
policies and procedures are change.
14. Simplifies provisions related to participation of
LEAs--by (1) replacing the LEA application requirements in
sec. 614 of current law with new ``LEA eligibility''
provisions in sec. 613, and (2) conforming those provisions,
as appropriate, to the new State eligibility requirements
under sec. 612.
Sec. 613--LEA Eligibility
1. Simplifies provisions related to participation of LEAs--
by (1) replacing the LEA application requirements in sec. 614
of current
[[Page S1359]]
law with new ``LEA eligibility'' provisions in sec. 613, and (2)
conforming those provisions, as appropriate, to the new State
eligibility requirements under sec. 612.
2. Includes ``Maintenance of Effort'' provision--to ensure
that the level of expenditures for the education of children
with disabilities within each LEA from State and local funds
will not drop below the level of such expenditures for the
preceding fiscal year; but provides four specific exceptions
(i.e., (1) decreases in enrollment of children with
disabilities, (2) end of LEA's responsibility to provide an
exceptionally costly program to a child with a disability
[because child leaves the LEA, etc.], (3) retirement or other
voluntary departure of special education staff who are at or
near the top of the salary schedule, and (4) end of unusually
large expenditures for equipment or construction). (Bill
retains ``excess costs'' and ``supplement--not supplant''
provisions of current law.)
3. Provides greater flexibility to LEAs in the use of Part
B funds, while still ensuring that children with disabilities
receive needed special education and related services. The
bill identifies specific activities that an LEA may carry out
(notwithstanding the excess cost and noncomingling
requirements in secs. 613(3)(B) and 612(a)(18)(A)(ii)),
including using Part B funds for--
Incidental benefits (i.e., LEAs could provide special
education services to a child with a disability in the
regular classroom without having to track the costs of any
incidental benefits to non-disabled students from those
services).
Simultaneous services on a space-available basis (i.e.,
special education and related services that are provided to
``IDEA-eligible'' children could simultaneously be provided,
on a space available basis, to children with disabilities who
are protected by ``ADA-504'').
A coordinated services system (i.e., an LEA could use up to
5 percent of its Part B funds to develop and implement a
coordinated services system that links education, health, and
social welfare services, and various systems and entities in
a manner designed to improve educational and transitional
results for all children and their families, including
children with disabilities and their families).
A school-based improvement plan (i.e., an LEA could (if
authorized by the SEA) permit one or more local schools
within the LEA to design, implement, and evaluate a school-
based improvement plan for improving educational and
transitional results for children with disabilities and, as
appropriate, for other children, consistent with the
provisions on incidental benefits and simultaneous services
in sec. 613(a)(4) (A) and (B)).
4. Provides that an LEA may join with other LEAs to jointly
establish eligibility under Part B.
5. Significantly reduces paperwork and staff burden for
SEAs and LEAs--by providing that once an LEA demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the SEA that it has in effect policies
and procedures that meet the eligibility requirements of the
new sec. 613, the SEA may consider that those requirements
have been met; and the LEA would not have to resubmit such
materials, unless those policies and procedures are changed.
6. Simplifies local involvement with a State's
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development--and requires
that a local educational agency only, to the extent
appropriate, contribute to and benefit from the State
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development.
Sec. 614--Evaluations, Reevaluations, IEPs, and Educational
Placements
1. Simplifies State and local administration of provisions
on evaluation, IEPs, and placements--by placing all such
provisions in one newly established sec. 614.
2. Addresses Evaluations and Reevaluations:
Reduces cost and administrative burden--by requiring that
existing evaluation data on a child be reviewed to determine
if any other data are needed to make decisions about a
child's eligibility and services. (If it is determined by
appropriate individuals that additional data are not needed,
the parents must be so informed of that fact and of their
right to still request an evaluation; but no further
evaluations are required at that time unless requested by the
parents.)
Includes protections in evaluation procedures--by requiring
LEAs to ensure that tests and other evaluation materials are
relevant, validated for the specific purpose for which they
are being used, etc.; and retains the nondiscriminatory
testing procedures required in current law.
3. Addresses IEP provisions:
Consolidates all substantive provisions on IEPs (both
content and process) in one place (secs. 614(d)-614(j)), and
re-orders the provisions, so that there is a logical
sequence--from (1) procedures for developing IEPs, (2) IEP
content, (3) measuring and reporting on each child's
progress, and (4) reviewing and revising the IEP.
Requires IEP team to consider specific factors in
developing each child's IEP, including (1) basic information
about the child (e.g., most recent evaluation results,
child's strengths, and parent concerns for enhancing the
child's education), and (2) other special factors and
possible remedies, as appropriate (e.g., in the case of a
child with a visual or hearing impairment, limited English).
Revises content of IEPS--by (1) replacing ``annual goals
and short term instructional objectives'' with ``measurable
annual objectives'', (2) placing greater emphasis on ensuring
that each child, as appropriate, has the opportunity to
progress in the general curriculum, and to participate with
nondisabled children in various environments.
Amends provisions on transition services (i.e., the bill
requires that transition services needs (1) be considered for
all students with disabilities beginning at age 14 (or
younger . . .), and, as appropriate, addressed under the
applicable components of the IEP (e.g., levels of
performance, objectives, and services), and (2) be considered
in light of the student's participation in the general
curriculum (e.g., a vocational education or school to work
program).)
The bill (1) retains current law requiring a statement of
transition services beginning at age 16 (or younger), and (2)
moves the definition of ``transition services'' from Part A
to sec. 614(I).
4. Adds a provision regarding transfer of rights at the age
of majority (i.e., requiring that, at least one year before a
student reaches the age of majority under State law, the IEP
must include ``a statement about the rights under this Act,
if any, that will transfer to the student on reaching the age
of majority under sec. 615(j).''
Sec. 615--Procedural Safeguards.
1. Revises the written notice provision--(a) to set out the
specific content of notices to parents, and (b) to reduce
burden under current law and regulations--by permitting
notices to include only a brief summary of the procedural
safeguards under Part B relating to due process hearings (and
appeals, if applicable), civil actions, and attorney fees--
together with a statement that a full explanation of such
safeguards will be provided if the parents request it or
request a due process hearing, etc.
2. Reduces potential conflict between LEAs and parents of
children with disabilities--by requiring States to make
mediation available to such parents, on a voluntary basis.
(The use of mediation can resolve disputes quickly and
effectively, and at less cost.)
3. Provides clearer notice of the existence of a conflict
between an LEA and the parents of a child with disabilities.
The bill requires the parents to provide the LEA a written
notice of their intent to file a complaint (request a due
process hearing) under Part B, on any matter regarding the
identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the
child or the provision of FAPE to the child, 10 calendar days
prior to filing the complaint, if the parents (1) have new
information about any matter described above, and (2) are
initiating a complaint about such a matter, and have signed
the most recent IEP of the child.
The bill further states that (1) if, prior to filing the
complaint, the parents have new information on any matter
described above, they must provide the information to the LEA
along with the notice of intent to file a complaint; and (2)
if the parents were duly informed by the LEA of their
obligation to file such a notice, and fail to do so, ``the
time line for a final decision on the complaint shall be
extended by 10 calendar days.''
4. Amends provisions on attorney fees--by clarifying that
``the determination of whether a party is a prevailing party
under this section shall be made in accordance with the law
established by the Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424 (1983);'' and (2) that, ``for the purpose of this
section, an IEP meeting, in and of itself, shall not be
deemed a proceeding triggering the awarding of attorneys
fees''.
5. Permits the transfer of parental rights to a student
with disabilities upon reaching the age of majority under
State law; and provides that if (under State law) such a
student is determined to not have the ability to provide
informed consent under Part B, the State must have procedures
for appointing the parent or another person to represent the
student's interests throughout the student's eligibility
under this part.
6. Makes other technical and conforming changes.
Sec. 616--Withholding and Judicial Review
Makes technical and conforming changes.
Sec. 617--Administration
1. Adds a provision prohibiting the Secretary from
rulemaking via policy letters or other statements. (The bill
provides that, in order to establish a new rule that is
required for compliance and eligibility under Part B, the
Secretary must follow standard rulemaking requirements.)
2. Adds a provision requiring the Department of Education
to widely disseminate, on a quarterly basis, a list of
correspondence from the Department during the previous
quarter that describes the Department's interpretations of
this part and the implementing regulations. (Each item on the
list must identify the topic being addressed, include ``such
other summary information as the Secretary finds
appropriate.''
Sec. 618--Evaluation and Program Information
1. Significantly reduces the data burden to States and
LEAs--by eliminating the requirement for individual State
data reports by disability category, but requires the
Secretary, directly or by grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement, to conduct studies and evaluations necessary to
assess the effectiveness of efforts to provide FAPE and early
intervention services, including assessing ``the placement of
children with disabilities by disability category.''
2. Requires the Secretary to conduct a longitudinal study
that measures the educational and transitional services
provided
[[Page S1360]]
to and results achieved by children with disabilities under this Act,
etc.
3. Provides for earmarking up to one-half of one percent of
the amounts appropriated under Parts B and H to carry out the
purposes of sec. 618.
Sec. 619--Preschool Grants
Includes changes that are virtually identical to the
changes made in sec. 611, with respect to State
administration and State use of funds, subgrants to LEAs and
other State agencies, and the provision on the use of funds
by the outlying areas.
Sec. 620--Payments
Makes technical and conforming changes.
Support Programs (Parts C through E, and H)
part c--promoting systems change to improve educational and
transitional services and results for children with disabilities (Secs.
621-625)
A new Part C has been developed. [It replaces current Part
C which authorized a wide range of special interest
demonstration and technical assistance initiatives, most with
their own authorization earmarks.] The new Part C authorizes
a new ``Systems Change'' State grant program. State Education
Agencies, in partnership with local education agencies, and
other interested individuals, agencies, and organizations,
would be able to compete for planning or implementation
grants to improve educational and transitional services and
results for children with disabilities on a system wide
basis.
Sec. 621--Findings and Purposes
Sec. 622--Grants
Authorizes grants to State Education Agencies in
partnership with local education agencies, and other
individuals, agencies, and organizations to address
comprehensive systems change.
Authorizes grants to multiple States, in collaboration with
universities and interested persons to address system change
barriers of a regional or national scope.
Grants for planning for one year duration and
implementation grants may be 5 years duration.
Sec. 623--Application
Grants to be based upon the performance of children with
disabilities on State assessments and other performance
indicators.
Grants to describe the organizational structures, policies,
procedures and practices that will be changed to improve
educational and transitional services and results for
children with disabilities.
Sec. 624--Incentives
Provides incentives for significant and substantial levels
of collaboration among participating partners.
Provides incentives for addressing the needs of unserved,
underserved, and inappropriately identified populations of
children with disabilities.
Sec. 625--Authorization of Appropriations
part d research and personnel preparation (sec. 631-634)
A new Part D authorizes research/innovation and personnel
preparation activities which are to be coordinated with
system changes initiatives funded under Part C and improve
results for children with disabilities. [Consolidates current
Part D, which funds personnel preparation, and Part E, which
funds research.]
Sec. 631--Findings and Purpose
Sec. 632--Definitions
Sec. 633--Research and Innovation
New knowledge production--supports research and innovation
projects in areas of new knowledge, such as, learning styles,
instructional approaches, behavior management, assessment
tools, assistive technology, program accountability and
personnel preparation models.
Integration of research and practice--supports projects
which validate new knowledge findings through demonstration
and dissemination of successful practice.
Improvement in the use of professional knowledge--supports
projects to organize and disseminate professional knowledge
in ways that empower teachers, parents, and others to use
such knowledge in their classrooms and other learning
settings.
Sec. 634--Personnel Preparation
High incidence disabilities--supports the preparation of a
variety of personnel providing educational and transitional
services and supports to students in high incidence
disability areas, such as, learning disabilities, mental
retardation, behavior disordered, and other groups.
Leadership preparation--supports the preparation of
leadership personnel at the advanced graduate, doctoral, and
post-doctoral levels of training.
Low-incidence disabilities--supports the preparation of a
variety of personnel providing educational and transitional
services and supports to children in low incidence disability
areas, such as, sensory impairment, multiple disabilities,
and severe disabling conditions.
Projects of national significance--supports the development
and demonstration of new and innovative program models and
approaches in the preparation of personnel to work with
children with disabilities.
part e--technical assistance, support, and dissemination of information
(secs. 641-644)
A new Part E provides authorizations for parent training
and information centers, technical assistance, support,
dissemination, and technology and media activities which are
to be coordinated with system change initiatives funded under
Part C and other activities that are designed to improve
educational and transitional services and results for
children with disabilities. [Consolidates activities
authorized in various Parts of current law, especially Parts
G and F; removes numerous authorization earmarks.]
Sec. 641--Findings and Purposes
Sec. 642--Definitions
Sec. 643--Parent Training and Information
Provides support for Statewide Parent Training and
Information Center activities, as authorized in current law,
with the following additions:
Supports collaboration between Centers and other parent
groups in a State and between parent groups and systems
change activities in States.
Requires Centers to work together through national and
regional networks, and to address the needs of unserved and
underserved parents in their State.
Provides support for Community-based Parent and Information
Programs:
Supports the building of capacity, demonstration, and
replication of models to ensure that parents of children with
disabilities from unserved and underserved populations
participate in parent training and information activities.
Supports the provision of services to parents of children
with disabilities from unserved and underserved populations.
Supports the provision of training and information
concerning children inappropriately identified as disabled.
Supports technical assistance activities to develop,
coordinate, and disseminate information.
Sec. 644--Coordinated Technical Assistance and Dissemination
Supports systemic technical assistance to States, local
education agencies, and other entities to plan and conduct
comprehensive systems change activities.
Supports inter-organizational technical assistance
activities to address interagency barriers to systems change
and to improved transitional and educational results for
children with disabilities.
Supports national dissemination activities in areas related
to: Infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities
and their families; provision of services and supports for
deaf-blind children; services to blind and print disabled
children; postsecondary services to individuals with
disabilities; personnel to provide services to children with
disabilities.
Supports national technical assistance and dissemination
coordination activities.
Sec. 645--Technology Development, Demonstration, and
Utilization and Media Services
Supports research, development, and demonstration of
innovative and emerging technology benefiting children with
disabilities.
Supports dissemination and transfer of technology for use
by children with disabilities.
Supports video descriptions, and open and closed captioning
of television programs.
Supports recorded free educational materials and textbooks
for visually impaired and print-disabled students in
elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and graduate school.
Supports activities of the National Theater of the Deaf.
Requires the collection and reporting of appropriate
evaluation data concerning technology and media activities.
part h--infants and toddlers with disabilities (secs. 671-687)
The early intervention program for infants and toddlers
with disabilities under Part H of this Act is an evolving
program that has proven successful and enjoyed strong support
since its enactment in 1986. Therefore, no major amendments
are proposed. However, the bill:
1. Provides greater flexibility in addressing the needs of
``at risk infants and toddlers'' in those States not
currently serving such children--by permitting Part H funds
to be used for referring those children to other (non-Part H)
services, and conducting periodic follow-ups on each referral
to determine if the child's eligibility under Part H has
changed.
2. Provides for a review of the definition of
``developmental delay''--by requiring the Federal Interagency
Coordinating Council (FICC) to convene a panel to develop
recommendations regarding a model definition of
``developmental delay''--to assist States, as appropriate,
with their own respective definitions.
3. Facilitates the provision requiring a smooth transition
for toddlers with disabilities from the Part H program to
preschool services under Part B--by permitting the planning
to begin up to 6 months before the child's 3rd birthday, if
the parents and agencies agree.
4. Provides technical changes related to (1) membership on
the FICC (2) responsibilities of the State and Federal
Interagency Coordinating Councils, and (3) definitions of
terms; and makes other technical and conforming changes.
____
The First Bill--Commonsense Improvements to IDEA
1. Eliminates the major bureaucratic burden of three-year
plan submissions.--State and local educational agencies will
make only one plan or application, instead of the currently
mandated submission of once every three years. Under the
First bill, state and local agencies will update their plans
only if they report substantial changes.
[[Page S1361]]
2. Reduces burden on school funding sources to pay for
supports and related services.--The First bill helps local
districts pay for supports and related services by requiring
that other agencies pay their fair share of the cost of
services to children who are eligible for those agencies'
services.
3. Cuts mandatory data collection by 50%.--The First bill
cuts data collection and reporting burdens on state and local
educational agencies. Currently, agencies are required to
report numbers of children receiving special education by
age, by four placement categories and by the disability of
the student. Under the Frist bill, agencies will report only
the total number of children receiving special education and
the number of children in each of only two placement
categories.
4. Reduces litigation by adding mediation.--If there is a
dispute over an IEP, school districts and families will be
able to use mediation to try to resolve issues instead of
automatically having to go to a due process hearing.
5. Eliminates regulation through Department of Education
policy letters.--The Frist bill will reduce the burden of new
regulations on state and local educational agencies. Policy
letters issued by the Department of Education will no longer
be used for purposes of eligibility and compliance
monitoring. Letters may be issued only for non-regulatory
guidance and purposes of explanation and clarification of
existing policy.
6. Relieves burden by allowing flexible local control of
funds:
A. Allows flexibility in the use of funds for school
improvement and coordination with general education reform.--
States will be allowed to use up to 1% of the funds received
under Part B, and local districts may use up to 5% of Part B
funds to develop better services for all children, including
children with disabilities. In addition, school districts
will be allowed all of their Part B funds to establish
school-based improvement plans designed to improve
educational results for children with disabilities.
B. Relieves financial burden of the current maintenance of
effort requirement.--The Frist bill allows local education
agencies to reduce the overall level of spending for
educating children with disabilities by the following; when
the reduction results from lower per-teacher staff costs or
per-pupil student costs, when a reduction is due to a one-
time expenditure in the preceeding fiscal year, or when there
are decreases in district enrollment of students with
disabilities.
C. Eliminates wasteful fiscal tracking mandates.--Building
and district administrators will no longer be required to
keep track of the educational benefits to non-disabled
children when a child with a disability is provided special
education and related services in the regular education
classroom.
7. Reduces the administrative burden of student
evaluations.--The Frist bill will simplify and streamline the
process of student evaluation. Initial evaluations and
reevaluations will focus on collecting only the information
that is necessary for educational planning. Reevaluations
will take place when additional information is needed, or at
natural transitions such as when a student moves from
elementary school to junior high.
8. Cuts data collection requirements of personnel
development programs.--The Frist bill simplifies and reduces
data collection requirements for a state to maintain its
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD). In
addition, local control will increase because school
districts will decide their level of participation in the
state's CSPD.
9. Cuts paperwork and providers administrative relief in
IEP process.--The Frist bill eliminates mandated short-term
objectives in an IEP. Paperwork will be reduced by the
elimination of short-term objective tracking and repetitive
reporting of test results and other information in the IEP. A
flexible, sensible, workable schedule of educational reports
to parents of children with disabilities will be determined
by the IEP team.
10. Empowers school officials in disciplining children.--
For the first time since its enactment, IDEA will contain
comprehensive language that will untie school officials'
hands when disciplining students with disabilities.
[Currently under discussion, will be worked out by date of
mark-up and then inserted]
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I am pleased to join Senator Frist,
the chair of that subcommittee, in introducing the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] Amendments of 1996. It has been a
privilege and a pleasure for me to work with Senator Frist and our
respective staffs in developing this reauthorization proposal. I also
would like to compliment Pat Morrissey, Senator Frist's staff director
for the Subcommittee on Disability Policy for her efforts to enhance
the partnership between parents of children with disabilities and the
educational community.
The amendments we are proposing today provide fine-tuning to powerful
education legislation with a long and successful history. Just 3 months
ago, on November 29, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the signing
of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of
1975, now known as part B of IDEA. The purpose of this law is simple--
to assist States and local communities to meet their obligations 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.
As we look back on that day two decades ago, we know that this law
has literally changed the world for millions of children with
disabilities. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 94-142, 1 million
children with disabilities in the United States were excluded entirely
from the public school system, and more than half of all children with
disabilities did not receive appropriate educational services.
On that day in 1975, we lit a beacon of hope for millions of children
with disabilities and their families. We sent a simple, yet powerful
message heard around the world that the days of exclusion, segregation,
and denial of education for children with disabilities are over in this
country. And we sent a powerful message that families count and they
must be treated as equal partners
Because of IDEA, tremendous progress has been made in addressing the
problems that existed in 1975. Today, every State in the Nation has
laws in effect assuring the provision of a free appropriate public
education for all children with disabilities. And over 5,000,000
children with disabilities are now receiving special education and
related services.
For many parents who have disabled children, IDEA is a lifeline of
hope. As one parent recently told me:
Thank God for IDEA. IDEA gives us the strength to face the
challenges of bringing up a child with a disability. It has
kept our family together. 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.
In May, Danette Crawford, a senior at Urbandale High School in Des
Moines, testified before the Disability Policy Subcommittee. Danette,
who has cerebral palsy, 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 provides me.
We are now graduating the first generation of students who have had
the benefits of the provisions of IDEA. Already, for example, since
1978 the percentage of incoming college freshman with disabilities has
more than tripled from 2.4 percent to over 9 percent. We once heard
despondency and anger from parents. We now hear enthusiasm and hope, as
I have, from a parent from Iowa writing about her 7-year-old daughter
with autism. She said, ``I have no doubt that my daughter will live
nearly independently as an adult, will work, and will be a very
positive contributor to society. That is very much her dream, and it is
my dream for her. The IDEA has made this dream capable of becoming a
reality.''
Mr. President, these are not isolated statements from a few parents
in Iowa. They are reflective of the general feeling about the law
across the country. The National Council on Disability [NCD] recently
conducted 10 regional meetings throughout the Nation regarding progress
made in implementing the IDEA over the past 20 years. In its report,
NCD stated that ``in all of the 10 regional hearings * * * there were
ringing affirmations in support of IDEA and the positive difference it
has made in the lives of children and youth with disabilities and their
families.'' The report adds that ``all across the country witnesses
told of the tremendous power of IDEA to help children with disabilities
fulfill their dreams to learn, to grow, and to mature.''
These comments, as well as testimony presented at the four hearings
held by the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, make it clear to me that
major changes in IDEA are not needed nor wanted. IDEA is as critical
today as it was 20 years ago, particularly the due process protections.
These provisions level the playing field so that parents can sit down
as equal partners in designing an education for their children.
The witnesses at these hearings did make it clear, however, that we
need to fine-tune the law--in order to make sure that children with
disabilities are
[[Page S1362]]
not left out of educational reform efforts that are now underway, and
to take what we have learned over the past 20 years and use it to
update and improve this critical law.
Based on 20 years of experience and research in the education of
children with disabilities, we have reinforced our thinking and
knowledge about what is needed to make this law work, and we have
learned many new things that are important if we are to ensure an equal
educational opportunity for all children with disabilities.
For example, our experience and knowledge over the past 20 years have
reaffirmed that the provision of quality education and services to
children with disabilities must be based on an individualized
assessment of each child's unique needs and abilities; and that, to the
maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated
with children who are not disabled and children should be removed from
the regular educational environment only when the nature and severity
of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the
use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily.
We have also learned that students with disabilities achieve at
significantly higher levels when schools have high expectations--and
establish high goals--for these students, ensure their access to the
general curriculum, whenever appropriate, and provide them with the
necessary services and supports. And there is general agreement that
including children with disabilities in general State and district-wide
assessments is an effective accountability mechanism and a critical
strategy for improving educational results for these children.
Our experience over the past 20 years has underscored the fact that
parent participation is a crucial component in the education of
children with disabilities, and parents should have meaningful
opportunities, through appropriate training and other supports, to
participate as partners with teachers and other school staff in
assisting their children to achieve to high standards.
There is general agreement today at all levels of government that
State and local educational agencies must be responsive to the
increasing racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity that prevails in
the nation's public schools today. Steps must be taken to ensure that
the procedures used for referring and evaluating children with
disabilities include appropriate safeguards to prevent the over or
under-identification of minority students requiring special education.
Services, supports, and other assistance must be provided in a
culturally competent manner. And greater efforts must be made to
improve post-school results among minority students with disabilities.
The progress that has been made over the past 20 years in the
education of children with disabilities has been impressive. However,
it is clear that significant challenges remain. We must ensure that
this crucial law not only remains intact as the centerpiece for
ensuring equal educational opportunity for all children with
disabilities, but also that it is strengthened and updated to keep
current with the changing times.
The basic purposes of Public Law 94-142 must be retained under the
proposed reauthorization of IDEA: To assist States and local
communities in meeting their obligation to ensure that all children
with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public
education that emphasizes special education and related services that
are designed to meet the unique needs of these children and enable them
to lead productive independent adult lives; to ensure that the rights
of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; and to
assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with
disabilities.
We also need to expand those purposes to promote the improvement of
educational services and results for children with disabilities and
early intervention services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities--by assisting the systems change initiatives of State
educational agencies in partnerships with other interested parties, and
by assisting and supporting coordinated research and personnel
preparation, and coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and
evaluation, as well as technology development and media services.
Mr. President, this bipartisan bill we are presenting here today
provides the fine-tuning that is needed to up-date current law along
the lines I have described. These amendments will help ensure that
children with disabilities have equal educational opportunities along
with their nondisabled peers to leave school with the skills necessary
for them to be included and integrated in the economic and social
fabric of society and to live full, independent productive lives as
adults.
In closing, Mr. President, I would like to quote Ms. Melanie Seivert
of Sibley, IA, who is the parent of Susan, a child with Downs syndrome.
She states:
Our ultimate goal for Susan is to be educated academically,
vocationally, [and] in life-skills and community living so as
an adult she can get a job and live her life with a minimum
of management from outside help. Through the things IDEA
provides . . . we will be able to reach our goals.
Does it not make sense to give all children the best
education possible? Our children need IDEA for a future.
Mr. President, IDEA is the shining light of educational opportunity.
And we, in the Congress, must make sure that the light continues to
burn bright. We still have promises to keep. I urge my colleagues to
support the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of
1996.
______
By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Pryor, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Brown):
S. 1579. A bill to streamline and improve the effectiveness of
chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
``Single Audit Act``); to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
the single audit act amendments of 1996
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to
amend the Single Audit Act of 1984. This legislation will both improve
financial management of Federal funds and reduce paperwork burdens on
State and local governments, universities and other nonprofit
organizations that receive Federal assistance. I am happy that the
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Stevens, joins
with me in cosponsoring the bill, as do Senators Levin, Cochran, Pryor,
Cohen, Lieberman, and Brown, all fellow members of the Governmental
Affairs Committee.
Over the last several years we have made great strides in reforming
the sloppy and wasteful state of Federal financial management. The
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which I strongly support, was a
major accomplishment in this regard. Much more remains to be done,
however, to achieve greater accountability for the hundreds of billions
of dollars of Federal assistance that go to or through State and local
governments and nonprofit organizations. Much more also remains to be
done to reduce the auditing and reporting burdens of the Federal
assistance management process. The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996,
which I introduce today, goes a long way toward achieving these goals.
The Single Audit Act was enacted in 1984 to overcome serious gaps and
duplications that existed in audit coverage over Federal funds provided
to State and local governments, which now amount to about $200 billion
a year. Some governments rarely saw an auditor interested in examining
Federal funds, others were swamped by auditors, each looking at a
separate grant award. The Single Audit Act remedied that problem by
changing the audit focus from compliance with individual Federal grant
requirements to a periodic single overall audit of the entity receiving
Federal assistance. The act also set specific dollar thresholds to
exempt small grant recipients from regular audit requirements. This
structured approach of entity-wide audits simplified overlapping audit
requirements and improved grantee-organization administrative controls.
The Single Audit Act also served an important purpose of prompting
State and local governments to improve their general financial
management practices. The act encouraged the governments to review and
revise their financial management practices, including instituting
annual financial statement audits, installing new accounting systems,
and implementing monitoring systems. The improvements represented long-
needed and long-lasting
[[Page S1363]]
financial management reforms. Studies by the General Accounting Office
[GAO] confirmed these accomplishments. The success of the act also
prompted the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] to apply single
audit principles to educational institutions and other nonprofits that
receive or passthrough Federal funds (OMB Circular No. A-133, ``Audits
of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit
Organizations,'' March 1990).
During my tenure as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I
requested that GAO study the implementation of the Single Audit Act and
suggest any needed changes. The resulting report, Single Audit:
Refinements Can Improve Usefulness (GAO/AIMD-94-133, June 1994),
reviewed the successes of the act, but also pointed out specific
modifications that could improve the act's usefulness. The legislation
I introduce today is based on GAO's findings, and in fact, was
developed in cooperation with GAO and OMB. Moreover, OMB is presently
revising its Circular A-133 consistent with the purposes of this
legislation. Finally, the bill also reflects comments received from
State, local and private sector accounting, and audit professionals, as
well as program managers. Altogether, the legislation will strengthen
the act, while simultaneously reducing its burdens.
First, the legislation extends the act to cover nonprofit entities
that receive Federal assistance. Again, these organizations are
currently subject to the single audit process under OMB Circular A-133.
Broadening the act's coverage in this way ensures that all nonFederal
grantee organizations will be covered uniformly by a single audit
process.
Second, the bill reduces audit and related paperwork burdens by
raising the single audit threshold from $100,000 to $300,000. This
would exempt thousands of smaller State and local governments and
nonprofits from Federal single audit requirements. It would still
ensure, however, that the vast majority of Federal funds would be
subject to audit testing. Needless to say, it would also not interfere
with the ability of Federal agencies to audit or investigate grantees
when needed to safeguard Federal funds.
Third, the bill would improve audit effectiveness by establishing a
risk-based approach for selecting programs to be tested during single
audits for adequacy of internal controls and compliance with Federal
program requirements, such as eligibility rules. The Single Audit Act
has required audit testing solely on the basis of dollar criteria.
Using the risk-based approach will ensure coverage of large programs,
as well as others that are actually more at risk.
Fourth, the legislation improves the contents and timeliness of
single audit reporting to make the reports more useful. Currently,
auditors often include a number of different documents in a single
audit report. These documents are designed to comply with auditing
standards but leave many confused. A summary document, written in plain
language, would greatly increase the usefulness of single audit
reports.
Shortening the reporting timeframes will also make the single audit
reports more useful. The current practice of filing reports 13 months
after the end of the year that was audited significantly reduces their
utility. An ideal period would be the Government Finance Officers
Association's standard of 6 months for timely reporting by State and
local governments. However, given the multiple audits that some State
auditors have to perform, the legislation establishes a 9-month
standard. Moreover, the legislation gives flexibility for extensions as
needed. The overall goal, still, is to shorten the reporting timeframe
to make the single audit reports more useful to assess the stewardship
of organizations entrusted with Federal funds and to prompt any needed
corrective actions.
Fifth, the legislation increases administrative flexibility. OMB is
authorized to issue rules to implement the act and may revise certain
audit requirements as needed, without seeking amendments to the act.
For example, OMB would be authorized to raise even higher the $300,000
threshold. Auditors also will have greater flexibility to target
programs at risk.
In these and other ways, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 will
streamline the underlying Single Audit Act, update its requirements,
reduce burdens, and provide for more flexibility. This legislation
builds on the significant accomplishments of the 1984 act and I am
confident that the Senate will move the legislation expeditiously.
In December 1995, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held a
hearing on the status of Federal financial management, including the
Single Audit Act. Charles Bowsher, the Comptroller General of the
United States and, Kurt Sjoberg, the California State auditor,
representing the National State Auditors Association, strongly
supported the legislation and recommended that it be enacted. Edward
DeSeve, Office of Management and Budget Controller, also applauded the
legislative effort.
The support of the Comptroller General and the State auditors is
especially important. The Comptroller General was instrumental in
advising the Congress when the original Single Audit Act was enacted.
He followed the subsequent implementation of the act and has made the
recommendations for improving the act that was the basis for the
current legislation. I give great weight to his recommendations for
amending the Single Audit Act. State auditors, for their part, are key
players in the single audit process. They conduct or arrange for
thousands of single audits each year. So, their views are also
critically important. Following the December hearing, the National
State Auditors Association met to discuss the legislation and decided
unanimously to support its enactment. I submit their letter of support
for the Record.
Finally, I commend to my colleagues the fact that this legislation is
bipartisan. Again, Senator Stevens, chairman of the Governmental
Affairs Committee, joins with me in cosponsoring the bill, as do
Senators Levin, Cochran, Pryor, Cohen, Lieberman, and Brown. This
bipartisanship also extends to the House of Representatives. With this
bipartisan support, I am sure that this good Government legislation can
soon become law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
S. 1579
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; PURPOSES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Single
Audit Act Amendments of 1996''.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) promote sound financial management, including effective
internal controls, with respect to Federal awards
administered by non-Federal entities;
(2) establish uniform requirements for audits of Federal
awards administered by non-Federal entities;
(3) promote the efficient and effective use of audit
resources;
(4) reduce burdens on State and local governments, Indian
tribes, and nonprofit organizations; and
(5) ensure that Federal departments and agencies, to the
maximum extent practicable, rely upon and use audit work done
pursuant to chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code (as
amended by this Act).
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.
Chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``CHAPTER 75--REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE AUDITS
``Sec.
``7501. Definitions.
``7502. Audit requirements; exemptions.
``7503. Relation to other audit requirements.
``7504. Federal agency responsibilities and relations with non-Federal
entities.
``7505. Regulations.
``7506. Monitoring responsibilities of the Comptroller General.
``7507. Effective date.
``Sec. 7501. Definitions
``(a) As used in this chapter, the term--
``(1) `Comptroller General' means the Comptroller General
of the United States;
``(2) `Director' means the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget;
``(3) `Federal agency' has the same meaning as the term
`agency' in section 551(1) of title 5;
``(4) `Federal awards' means Federal financial assistance
and Federal cost-reimbursement contracts that non-Federal
entities receive directly from Federal awarding agencies or
indirectly from pass-through entities;
``(5) `Federal financial assistance' means assistance that
non-Federal entities receive or administer in the form of
grants, loans, loan guarantees, property, cooperative
agreements, interest subsidies, insurance,
[[Page S1364]]
donated surplus property, food commodities, direct appropriations, or
other assistance, but does not include amounts received as
reimbursement for services rendered to individuals in
accordance with guidance issued by the Director;
``(6) `Federal program' means all Federal awards to a non-
Federal entity assigned a single number in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance or encompassed in a group of
numbers or other category as defined by the Director;
``(7) `generally accepted government auditing standards'
means the government auditing standards issued by the
Comptroller General;
``(8) `independent auditor' means--
``(A) an external State or local government auditor who
meets the independence standards included in generally
accepted government auditing standards; or
``(B) a public accountant who meets such independence
standards;
``(9) `Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation,
or other organized group or community, including any Alaskan
Native village or regional or village corporation (as defined
in, or established under, the Alaskan Native Claims
Settlement Act) that is recognized by the United States as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by
the United States to Indians because of their status as
Indians;
``(10) `internal controls' means a process, effected by an
entity's management and other personnel, designed to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives
in the following categories:
``(A) Effectiveness and efficiency of operations.
``(B) Reliability of financial reporting.
``(C) Compliance with applicable laws and regulations;
``(11) `local government' means any unit of local
government within a State, including a county, borough,
municipality, city, town, township, parish, local public
authority, special district, school district, intrastate
district, council of governments, any other instrumentality
of local government and, in accordance with guidelines issued
by the Director, a group of local governments;
``(12) `major program' means a Federal program identified
in accordance with risk-based criteria prescribed by the
Director under this chapter, subject to the limitations
described under subsection (b);
``(13) `non-Federal entity' means a State, local
government, or nonprofit organization;
``(14) `nonprofit organization' means any corporation,
trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that--
``(A) is operated primarily for scientific, educational,
service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public
interest;
``(B) is not organized primarily for profit; and
``(C) uses net proceeds to maintain, improve, or expand the
operations of the organization;
``(15) `pass-through entity' means a non-Federal entity
that provides Federal awards to a subrecipient to carry out a
Federal program;
``(16) `program-specific audit' means an audit of one
Federal program;
``(17) `recipient' means a non-Federal entity that receives
awards directly from a Federal agency to carry out a Federal
program;
``(18) `single audit' means an audit, as described under
section 7502(d), of a non-Federal entity that includes the
entity's financial statements and Federal awards;
``(19) `State' means any State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, any instrumentality thereof, any multi-
State, regional, or interstate entity which has governmental
functions, and any Indian tribe; and
``(20) `subrecipient' means a non-Federal entity that
receives Federal awards through another non-Federal entity to
carry out a Federal program, but does not include an
individual who receives financial assistance through such
awards.
``(b) In prescribing risk-based program selection criteria
for major programs, the Director shall not require more
programs to be identified as major for a particular non-
Federal entity, except as prescribed under subsection (c) or
as provided under subsection (d), than would be identified if
the major programs were defined as any program for which
total expenditures of Federal awards by the non-Federal
entity during the applicable year exceed--
``(1) the larger of $30,000,000 or 0.15 percent of the non-
Federal entity's total Federal expenditures, in the case of a
non-Federal entity for which such total expenditures for all
programs exceed $10,000,000,000;
``(2) the larger of $3,000,000, or 0.30 percent of the non-
Federal entity's total Federal expenditures, in the case of a
non-Federal entity for which such total expenditures for all
programs exceed $100,000,000 but are less than or equal to
$10,000,000,000; or
``(3) the larger of $300,000, or 3 percent of such total
Federal expenditures for all programs, in the case of a non-
Federal entity for which such total expenditures for all
programs equal or exceed $300,000 but are less than or equal
to $100,000,000.
``(c) When the total expenditures of a non-Federal entity's
major programs are less than 50 percent of the non-Federal
entity's total expenditures of all Federal awards (or such
lower percentage as specified by the Director), the auditor
shall select and test additional programs as major programs
as necessary to achieve audit coverage of at least 50 percent
of Federal expenditures by the non-Federal entity (or such
lower percentage as specified by the Director), in accordance
with guidance issued by the Director.
``(d) Loan or loan guarantee programs, as specified by the
Director, shall not be subject to the application of
subsection (b).
``Sec. 7502. Audit requirements; exemptions
``(a)(1)(A) Each non-Federal entity that expends a total
amount of Federal awards equal to or in excess of $300,000 or
such other amount specified by the Director under subsection
(a)(3) in any fiscal year of such non-Federal entity shall
have either a single audit or a program-specific audit made
for such fiscal year in accordance with the requirements of
this chapter.
``(B) Each such non-Federal entity that expends Federal
awards under more than one Federal program shall undergo a
single audit in accordance with the requirements of
subsections (b) through (i) of this section and guidance
issued by the Director under section 7505.
``(C) Each such non-Federal entity that expends awards
under only one Federal program and is not subject to laws,
regulations, or Federal award agreements that require a
financial statement audit of the non-Federal entity, may
elect to have a program-specific audit conducted in
accordance with applicable provisions of this section and
guidance issued by the Director under section 7505.
``(2)(A) Each non-Federal entity that expends a total
amount of Federal awards of less than $300,000 or such other
amount specified by the Director under subsection (a)(3) in
any fiscal year of such entity, shall be exempt for such
fiscal year from compliance with--
``(i) the audit requirements of this chapter; and
``(ii) any applicable requirements concerning financial
audits contained in Federal statutes and regulations
governing programs under which such Federal awards are
provided to that non-Federal entity.
``(B) The provisions of subparagraph (A)(ii) of this
paragraph shall not exempt a non-Federal entity from
compliance with any provision of a Federal statute or
regulation that requires such non-Federal entity to maintain
records concerning Federal awards provided to such non-
Federal entity or that permits a Federal agency, pass-through
entity, or the Comptroller General access to such records.
``(3) Every 2 years, the Director shall review the amount
for requiring audits prescribed under paragraph (1)(A) and
may adjust such dollar amount consistent with the purposes of
this chapter, provided the Director does not make such
adjustments below $300,000.
``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3),
audits conducted pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted
annually.
``(2) A State or local government that is required by
constitution or statute, in effect on January 1, 1987, to
undergo its audits less frequently than annually, is
permitted to undergo its audits pursuant to this chapter
biennially. Audits conducted biennially under the provisions
of this paragraph shall cover both years within the biennial
period.
``(3) Any nonprofit organization that had biennial audits
for all biennial periods ending between July 1, 1992, and
January 1, 1995, is permitted to undergo its audits pursuant
to this chapter biennially. Audits conducted biennially under
the provisions of this paragraph shall cover both years
within the biennial period.
``(c) Each audit conducted pursuant to subsection (a) shall
be conducted by an independent auditor in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards, except
that, for the purposes of this chapter, performance audits
shall not be required except as authorized by the Director.
``(d) Each single audit conducted pursuant to subsection
(a) for any fiscal year shall--
``(1) cover the operations of the entire non-Federal
entity; or
``(2) at the option of such non-Federal entity such audit
shall include a series of audits that cover departments,
agencies, and other organizational units which expended or
otherwise administered Federal awards during such fiscal year
provided that each such audit shall encompass the financial
statements and schedule of expenditures of Federal awards for
each such department, agency, and organizational unit, which
shall be considered to be a non-Federal entity.
``(e) The auditor shall--
``(1) determine whether the financial statements are
presented fairly in all material respects in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles;
``(2) determine whether the schedule of expenditures of
Federal awards is presented fairly in all material respects
in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole;
``(3) with respect to internal controls pertaining to the
compliance requirements for each major program--
``(A) obtain an understanding of such internal controls;
``(B) assess control risk; and
``(C) perform tests of controls unless the controls are
deemed to be ineffective; and
``(4) determine whether the non-Federal entity has complied
with the provisions of laws, regulations, and contracts or
grants pertaining to Federal awards that have a direct and
material effect on each major program.
[[Page S1365]]
``(f)(1) Each Federal agency which provides Federal awards
to a recipient shall--
``(A) provide such recipient the program names (and any
identifying numbers) from which such awards are derived, and
the Federal requirements which govern the use of such awards
and the requirements of this chapter; and
``(B) review the audit of a recipient as necessary to
determine whether prompt and appropriate corrective action
has been taken with respect to audit findings, as defined by
the Director, pertaining to Federal awards provided to the
recipient by the Federal agency.
``(2) Each pass-through entity shall--
``(A) provide such subrecipient the program names (and any
identifying numbers) from which such assistance is derived,
and the Federal requirements which govern the use of such
awards and the requirements of this chapter;
``(B) monitor the subrecipient's use of Federal awards
through site visits, limited scope audits, or other means;
``(C) review the audit of a subrecipient as necessary to
determine whether prompt and appropriate corrective action
has been taken with respect to audit findings, as defined by
the Director, pertaining to Federal awards provided to the
subrecipient by the pass-through entity; and
``(D) require each of its subrecipients of Federal awards
to permit, as a condition of receiving Federal awards, the
independent auditor of the pass-through entity to have such
access to the subrecipient's records and financial statements
as may be necessary for the pass-through entity to comply
with this chapter.
``(g)(1) The auditor shall report on the results of any
audit conducted pursuant to this section, in accordance with
guidance issued by the Director.
``(2) When reporting on any single audit, the auditor shall
include a summary of the auditor's results regarding the non-
Federal entity's financial statements, internal controls, and
compliance with laws and regulations.
``(h) The non-Federal entity shall transmit the reporting
package, which shall include the non-Federal entity's
financial statements, schedule of expenditures of Federal
awards, corrective action plan defined under subsection (i),
and auditor's reports developed pursuant to this section, to
a Federal clearinghouse designated by the Director, and make
it available for public inspection within the earlier of--
``(1) 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report; or
``(2)(A) for a transition period of at least 2 years after
the effective date of the Single Audit Act Amendments of
1996, as established by the Director, 13 months after the end
of the period audited; or
``(B) for fiscal years beginning after the period specified
in subparagraph (A), 9 months after the end of the period
audited, or within a longer timeframe authorized by the
Federal agency, determined under criteria issued under
section 7505, when the 9-month timeframe would place an undue
burden on the non-Federal entity.
``(i) If an audit conducted pursuant to this section
discloses any audit findings, as defined by the Director,
including material noncompliance with individual compliance
requirements for a major program by, or reportable conditions
in the internal controls of, the non-Federal entity with
respect to the matters described in subsection (e), the non-
Federal entity shall submit to Federal officials designated
by the Director, a plan for corrective action to eliminate
such audit findings or reportable conditions or a statement
describing the reasons that corrective action is not
necessary. Such plan shall be consistent with the audit
resolution standard promulgated by the Comptroller General
(as part of the standards for internal controls in the
Federal Government) pursuant to section 3512(c).
``(j) The Director may authorize pilot projects to test
alternative methods of achieving the purposes of this
chapter. Such pilot projects may begin only after
consultation with the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of
Representatives.
``Sec. 7503. Relation to other audit requirements
``(a) An audit conducted in accordance with this chapter
shall be in lieu of any financial audit of Federal awards
which a non-Federal entity is required to undergo under any
other Federal law or regulation. To the extent that such
audit provides a Federal agency with the information it
requires to carry out its responsibilities under Federal law
or regulation, a Federal agency shall rely upon and use that
information.
``(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a Federal agency may
conduct or arrange for additional audits which are necessary
to carry out its responsibilities under Federal law or
regulation. The provisions of this chapter do not authorize
any non-Federal entity (or subrecipient thereof) to
constrain, in any manner, such agency from carrying out or
arranging for such additional audits, except that the Federal
agency shall plan such audits to not be duplicative of other
audits of Federal awards.
``(c) The provisions of this chapter do not limit the
authority of Federal agencies to conduct, or arrange for the
conduct of, audits and evaluations of Federal awards, nor
limit the authority of any Federal agency Inspector General
or other Federal official.
``(d) Subsection (a) shall apply to a non-Federal entity
which undergoes an audit in accordance with this chapter even
though it is not required by section 7502(a) to have such an
audit.
``(e) A Federal agency that provides Federal awards and
conducts or arranges for audits of non-Federal entities
receiving such awards that are in addition to the audits of
non-Federal entities conducted pursuant to this chapter
shall, consistent with other applicable law, arrange for
funding the full cost of such additional audits. Any such
additional audits shall be coordinated with the Federal
agency determined under criteria issued under section 7504 to
preclude duplication of the audits conducted pursuant to this
chapter or other additional audits.
``(f) Upon request by a Federal agency or the Comptroller
General, any independent auditor conducting an audit pursuant
to this chapter shall make the auditor's working papers
available to the Federal agency or the Comptroller General as
part of a quality review, to resolve audit findings, or to
carry out oversight responsibilities consistent with the
purposes of this chapter. Such access to auditor's working
papers shall include the right to obtain copies.
``Sec. 7504. Federal agency responsibilities and relations
with non-Federal entities
``(a) Each Federal agency shall, in accordance with
guidance issued by the Director under section 7505, with
regard to Federal awards provided by the agency--
``(1) monitor non-Federal entity use of Federal awards, and
``(2) assess the quality of audits conducted under this
chapter for audits of entities for which the agency is the
single Federal agency determined under subsection (b).
``(b) Each non-Federal entity shall have a single Federal
agency, determined in accordance with criteria established by
the Director, to provide the non-Federal entity with
technical assistance and assist with implementation of this
chapter.
``(c) The Director shall designate a Federal clearinghouse
to--
``(1) receive copies of all reporting packages developed in
accordance with this chapter;
``(2) identify recipients that expend $300,000 or more in
Federal awards or such other amount specified by the Director
under section 7502(a)(3) during the recipient's fiscal year
but did not undergo an audit in accordance with this chapter;
and
``(3) perform analyses to assist the Director in carrying
out responsibilities under this chapter.
``Sec. 7505. Regulations
``(a) The Director, after consultation with the Comptroller
General, and appropriate officials from Federal, State, and
local governments and nonprofit organizations shall prescribe
guidance to implement this chapter. Each Federal agency shall
promulgate such amendments to its regulations as may be
necessary to conform such regulations to the requirements of
this chapter and of such guidance.
``(b)(1) The guidance prescribed pursuant to subsection (a)
shall include criteria for determining the appropriate
charges to Federal awards for the cost of audits. Such
criteria shall prohibit a non-Federal entity from charging to
any Federal awards--
``(A) the cost of any audit which is--
``(i) not conducted in accordance with this chapter; or
``(ii) conducted in accordance with this chapter when
expenditures of Federal awards are less than amounts cited in
section 7502(a)(1)(A) or specified by the Director under
section 7502(a)(3), except that the Director may allow the
cost of limited scope audits to monitor subrecipients in
accordance with section 7502(f)(2)(B); and
``(B) more than a reasonably proportionate share of the
cost of any such audit that is conducted in accordance with
this chapter.
``(2) The criteria prescribed pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall not, in the absence of documentation demonstrating a
higher actual cost, permit the percentage of the cost of
audits performed pursuant to this chapter charged to Federal
awards, to exceed the ratio of total Federal awards expended
by such non-Federal entity during the applicable fiscal year
or years, to such non-Federal entity's total expenditures
during such fiscal year or years.
``(c) Such guidance shall include such provisions as may be
necessary to ensure that small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals will have the opportunity to participate in the
performance of contracts awarded to fulfill the audit
requirements of this chapter.
``Sec. 7506. Monitoring responsibilities of the Comptroller
General
``(a) The Comptroller General shall review provisions
requiring financial audits of non-Federal entities that
receive Federal awards that are contained in bills and
resolutions reported by the committees of the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
``(b) If the Comptroller General determines that a bill or
resolution contains provisions that are inconsistent with the
requirements of this chapter, the Comptroller General shall,
at the earliest practicable date, notify in writing--
``(1) the committee that reported such bill or resolution;
and
``(2)(A) the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate (in the case of a bill or resolution reported by a
committee of the Senate); or
[[Page S1366]]
``(B) the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of
the House of Representatives (in the case of a bill or
resolution reported by a committee of the House of
Representatives).
``Sec. 7507. Effective date
``This chapter shall apply to any non-Federal entity with
respect to any of its fiscal years which begin after June 30,
1996.''.
SEC. 3. TRANSITIONAL APPLICATION.
Subject to section 7507 of title 31, United States Code (as
amended by section 2 of this Act) the provisions of chapter
75 of such title (before amendment by section 2 of this Act)
shall continue to apply to any State or local government with
respect to any of its fiscal years beginning before July 1,
1996.
____
Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996
This bill amends the Single Audit Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-
502). The 1984 Act replaced multiple grant-by-grant audits
with an annual entity-wide audit process for State and local
governments that receive Federal assistance. The new bill
would broaden the scope of the Act to cover universities and
other nonprofit organizations, as well. It would also
streamline the process. Thus, the bill would improve
accountability for hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal
assistance, while also reducing auditing and paperwork
burdens on grant recipients.
The bill was developed on the basis of GAO review of
implementation of the Single Audit Act ``Single Audit:
Refinements Can Improve Usefulness,'' GAO/AIMD-94-133, June
21, 1994). Major stakeholders in the single audit process
were consulted during the drafting process. Support for the
bill was confirmed at a December 14, 1995, hearing of the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
The 10 years' experience under the 1984 Act demonstrated
that the single audit concept promotes accountability over
Federal Assistance and prompts related financial management
improvements by covered entities. Experience also showed,
however, that process can be strengthened. This bill would
(1) improve audit coverage of federal assistance, (2) reduce
Federal burden on non-Federal entities, (3) improve audit
effectiveness, (4) improve single audit reporting, and (5)
increase administrative flexibility.
Improve Audit Coverage
The bill would improve audit coverage of Federal assistance
by including in the single audit process all State and local
governments and nonprofit organizations that receive Federal
assistance. Currently, the Act only applies to State and
local governments. Nonprofit organizations are subject
administratively to single audits under OMB Circular A-133,
``Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other
Nonprofit Organizations.'' -Including nonprofit organizations
under the Act would result in a common set of single audit
requirements for Federal assistance.
Reduce Federal Burden
The bill would simultaneously reduce Federal burdens on
thousands of State and local governments and nonprofits, and
ensure audit coverage over the vast majority of Federal
assistance provided to those organizations. It would do so by
raising the dollar threshold for requiring a single audit
from $100,000 to $300,000. While this would relieve many
grantees of Federal single audit mandates, GAO estimated that
a $300,000 threshold would cover, for example, 95% of direct
Federal assistance to local governments. This is commensurate
with the coverage provided at the $100,000 threshold when the
Act was passed in 1984. Thus, exempting thousands of entities
from single audits would reduce audit and paperwork burdens,
but not significantly diminish the percentage of Federal
assistance covered by single audits.
Improve Audit Effectiveness
The bill would improve audit effectiveness by directing
audit resources to the areas of greatest risk. Currently,
auditors must perform audit testing on the largest--but not
necessarily the riskiest--programs that an entity operates.
The bill would require auditors to assess the risk of the
programs an entity operates and select the riskiest programs
for testing. As the President of the National State Auditors
Association said, ``It makes good economic sense to
concentrate audits where increased corrective action and
recoveries are likely to result.''
Improve Single Audit Reporting
The bill would greatly improve the usefulness of single
audit reports by requiring auditors to provide a summary of
audit results. The reports would also be due sooner--9 months
after the year-end rather than the current 13 months.
Interpretations of current rules lead auditors to include 7
or more separate reports in each single audit report. Such a
large number of reports tends to confuse rather than inform
users. A summary of the audit results would highlight
important information and thus enable users to quickly
discern the overall results of an audit. Federal managers
surveyed by GAO overwhelmingly support the summary reporting
and faster submission of reports.
Increase Administrative Flexibility
The bill would enable the single audit process to evolve
with changing circumstances. For example, rather than lock
specific dollar amount audit thresholds into law, OMB would
have the authority to periodically revise the audit threshold
above the new $300,000 threshold. OMB also could revise
criteria for selecting programs for audit testing. By giving
OMB such authority, specific requirements within the single
audit process could be revised administratively to reflect
changing circumstances that affect accountability for Federal
financial assistance.
Conclusion: Good Government Reform
Developed by GAO and endorsed by the National State
Auditors Association, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996
represents consensus good government legislation that will
improve accountability over Federal funds and reduce burdens
on State and local governments and nonprofit organizations.
____
National State
Auditors Association,
Baltimore, MD, January 29, 1996.
Hon. John Glenn,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Glenn: The National State Auditors Association
has voted unanimously to support the proposed bill to amend
the Single Audit Act of 1984. My state audit colleagues and I
believe that the proposed legislation is an excellent measure
that deserves to be passed into law as soon as possible.
The Single Audit Act amendments provide a unique
opportunity to address the needs of federal, state and local
government auditors and program managers. The original act is
over 10 years old and the amendments address many of the
changes that have occurred over the years in the auditing
profession and in government financial management. The bill
is the result of open and constructive dialog along the
stakeholders. Over the last several months, we have worked
closely with congressional staff as well as representatives
of the General Accounting Office and the Office of Management
and Budget. As currently drafted, the bill provides needed
improvements to financial accountability over federal grant
funds.
While there are several excellent provisions in the amended
act, two are particularly noteworthy. First, the minimum
threshold of receipts requiring any entity to have a single
audit performed is raised in the bill to $300,000. Similarly,
the thresholds for larger recipients are also adjusted. These
modifications will relieve many state and local governments
of unnecessary federal mandates and generate savings of audit
costs. Second, the amendments allow federal and state
governments to focus audit resources on ``high-risk'' grants
where the potential for savings is the greatest. It makes
good economic sense to concentrate audits where increased
corrective action and recoveries are likely to result.
In summary, the National State Auditors Association is
pleased to fully support the amendments to the Single Audit
Act of 1984 and assist you in any way possible to facilitate
its passage this year.
Sincerely,
Anthony Verdecchia,
President.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Faircloth,
Mr. Grams, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Pressler, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Thomas,
and Mr. Thompson):
S.J. Res. 49. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to require two-thirds majorities for
bills increasing taxes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, during the next 8 weeks, millions of
Americans will file their income tax returns. According to estimates by
the Internal Revenue Service, individuals will have spent about 1.7
billion hours on tax-related paperwork by the time their returns are
completed. Businesses will spend another 3.4 billion hours. The Tax
Foundation estimates that the cost of compliance will approach $200
billion.
Mr. President, if that is not evidence that our Tax Code is one of
the most inefficient and wasteful ever created, I do not know what is.
Money and effort that could have been put to productive use solving
problems in our communities, putting Americans to work, putting food on
the table, or investing in the Nation's future are instead devoted to
convoluted paperwork.
It is no wonder that the American people are frustrated and angry,
and that they are demanding radical change in the way their Government
taxes and spends. It is no wonder that tax reform has become one of the
major issues of this year's Presidential campaign.
Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution with more than a
dozen of my colleagues that represents the first concrete step toward
comprehensive tax reform. The resolution, which we call the tax
limitation amendment, would establish a constitutional requirement for
a two-thirds majority vote in each House of Congress for the approval
of tax-rate increases.
[[Page S1367]]
A companion resolution, House Joint Resolution 159, was introduced in
the House of Representatives on February 1 by Congressman Joe Barton of
Texas and 155 other House Members.
The two-thirds supermajority that we have proposed was among the
recommendations of the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax
Reform, appointed by Majority Leader Bob Dole and Speaker Gingrich. The
Commission, chaired by former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, advocated a
supermajority requirement in its recent report on how to achieve a
simpler, single-rate tax to replace the existing maze of tax rates,
deductions, exemptions, and credits that makes up the Federal income
tax as we know it today.
Here are the words of the Commission:
The roller-coaster ride of tax policy in the past few
decades has fed citizens' cynicism about the possibility of
real, long-term reform, while fueling frustration with
Washington. The initial optimism inspired by the low rates of
the 1986 Tax Reform Act soured into disillusionment and anger
when taxes subsequently were hiked two times in less than
seven years. The commission believes that a two-thirds super-
majority vote of Congress will earn Americans' confidence in
the longevity, predictability, and stability of any new tax
system.
Mr. President, in the 10 years since the last attempt at
comprehensive tax reform, Congress and the President have made some
4,000 amendments to the Tax Code. Four thousand amendments. That means
that taxpayers have never been able to plan for the future with any
certainty about the tax consequences of the decisions they make. They
are left wondering whether saving money for a child's education today
will result in an additional tax burden tomorrow. They can never be
sure that if they make an investment, the capital gains tax will not be
increased when they are ready to sell. Rules are changed in the middle
of the game, and in some cases, the rules have been changed even after
the game is over. President Clinton's tax increase in 1993
retroactively raised taxes on many Americans, including some who had
died.
The volatility of the Tax Code is not new. You will recall that the
income tax was established in 1913 with a top rate of 7 percent; fewer
than 2 percent of American families were even required to file a tax
return. Just 3 years later, on the eve of the First World War, the top
rate soared to 67 percent. By the Second World War, the top rate had
risen again--to 94 percent--and it remained in that range through the
1950's. Of course, by that time, the tax had been expanded to cover
almost every working American.
Ten years ago, President Reagan succeeded in reducing the number of
tax rates to just two--15 percent and 28 percent. But it was not long
before additional rates were established, and taxes were raised again
under the Clinton administration.
The tax limitation amendment would put an end to the roller coaster
ride of tax policy that has so bedeviled hard-working Americans. And it
guarantees more than stability and predictability. It will also ensure
that taxes cannot be raised--whether we ultimately adopt a single-rate
tax as the Kemp commission has proposed, a national sales tax as
Senator Lugar has proposed, or some alternative--unless there is
sufficient consensus and strong bipartisan support in Congress and
around the country.
Mr. President, the last tax increase to have cleared the Congress was
proposed by President Clinton in 1993, and you will remember that it
was the largest tax increase in history.
I was serving in the House of Representatives at the time. It seemed
to me that most Americans strongly opposed the plan. The calls,
letters, and faxes from my constituents in Arizona ran about 10 to 1 in
opposition to the President's tax plan. There was a lot of opposition
in Congress, too. The opposition was bipartisan--Republicans and
Democrats. Unfortunately, the President was able to hold onto enough
members of his own party in the House to pass it there, but only with
partisan Democrat support.
The story was different in the Senate. Not more than 50 Senators were
willing to support the largest tax increase in history. A measure would
normally fail on a tie vote--in this case, 50 to 50. The reason the tax
increase passed was that the Vice President, as in the case of any tie
in the Senate, had the right to cast the deciding vote. That is his
right under the Constitution. The tax bill was not passed improperly,
but it is notable that the largest tax increase in history managed to
become law without the support of a majority of the people's elected
Senators. To me, that is a travesty.
The tax increase of 1990--the next largest in history after the 1993
law--passed with a majority of 54 percent in the Senate and 53 percent
in the House. That was only slightly better. Yet given the size of the
increase and the burden it placed on the American economy, it seems to
me that there should have been greater consensus to pass it, too.
Taxing away people's hard-earned income is an extraordinary event--or
at least it should be. However, in Washington, it has become routine.
A two-thirds majority vote is, as George Will put it, ``one way of
building into democratic decisionmaking a measurement of intensity of
feeling as well as mere numbers.'' He noted that supermajority
requirements are a device for assigning special importance to certain
matters, and maybe taxation should be one of them.
The last two tax increases were passed without much intensity of
feeling at all--without any real consensus that a majority of Americans
supported them.
Some people might say, fine, there should be consensus, but ours is a
government of majority rule. I would respond by noting that
supermajority requirements are not new to the Constitution. Two-thirds
votes are required for the approval of treaties, for conviction in an
impeachment proceeding, for expulsion of a member from either body, for
proposed constitutional amendments, and for certain other actions.
If it is appropriate to require a two-thirds vote to ratify a compact
with a foreign country, it seems to me that it is certainly appropriate
to require a two-thirds vote to approve a compact with our own citizens
that requires them to turn over a greater share of what is theirs to
the Government.
I want to quote briefly from one of our Founding Fathers, James
Madison. He was, of course, a strong supporter of majority rule. Yet he
argued eloquently that the greatest threat to liberty in a republic
would come from unrestrained majority rule. This is what he said in
``Federalist No. 51'':
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard
the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to
guard one part of the society against the injustice of the
other part.
If Madison were here today, I believe he would conclude, first of
all, that the Tax Code is oppressive to our people. Americans never
paid an income tax until early in this century. By 1948, the average
American family paid only about 3 percent of its income to the Federal
Government. The average family now sends about 25 percent of its income
to Washington. Add State and local taxes to the mix, and the burden
approaches 40 percent. That is oppression.
Note that Madison also warned, in the quotation I just read, about
pitting one part of America against the rest of the country. That is
happening here as well. Certain segments of our society--some call them
special interests--have learned in recent years how to feed at the
public trough while spreading the cost among all taxpayers. This cost-
shifting has left the country with a debt that is $4.9 trillion and
growing. Our Founding Fathers could never have imagined such
profligacy, or I believe they would have imposed constitutional limits
on taxing and spending at the very start of the Republic.
If you are interested in lobbying reform, I will tell you this: a
two-thirds requirement for tax changes would probably do more to
curtail lobbying for special breaks than just about anything else we
could do. Since every tax break must be offset with a tax increase on
someone else to ensure revenue neutrality--and the second part of the
equation, remember, would be out of reach without massive political
support--the two-thirds requirement would make it virtually impossible
for special interests to gain special advantage in the Tax Code.
Confidence. Stability. Predictability. These are things that a two-
thirds supermajority would bring to the Tax
[[Page S1368]]
Code. Combine this with comprehensive tax reform that is aimed at
simplifying the law and minimizing people's tax burden, and we could
see an explosion of economic growth and opportunity unmatched in this
country for many years.
Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting the
tax limitation amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 49
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
the date of its submission by the Congress:
``Article--
``Section 1. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the
rate or base of any tax may pass only by a two-thirds
majority of the whole number of each House of Congress.
``Section 2. The Congress may waive section 1 when a
declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also waive
section 1 when the United States is engaged in military
conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to
national security and is so declared by a joint resolution,
adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House,
which becomes law. Any provision of law which would, standing
alone, be subject to section 1 but for this section and which
becomes law pursuant to such a waiver shall be effective for
not longer than 2 years.
``Section 3. All votes taken by the House of
Representatives or the Senate under this article shall be
determined by yeas and nays and the names of persons voting
for and against shall be entered on the Journal of each House
respectively.''.
____________________