[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10950-S10961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1304. A bill for the relief of Belinda McGregor; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


                       PRIVATE RELIEF LEGISLATION

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today introducing a private relief 
bill on behalf of Belinda McGregor, the beloved sister of one of my 
constituents, Rosalinda Burton.

  Mistakes are made everyday, Mr. President, and when innocent people 
suffer severe consequences as a result of these mistakes, something 
ought to be done to remedy the situation.
  In the particular case of Ms. Belinda McGregor, the federal 
bureaucracy made a mistake--a mistake which cost Ms. McGregor dearly 
and it is now time to correct this mistake. Unfortunately, the only way 
to provide relief is through Congressional action.
  Belinda McGregor, a citizen of the United Kingdom, filed an 
application for the 1995 Diversity Visa program. Her husband, a citizen 
of Ireland, filed a separate application at the same time. Ms. 
McGregor's application was among those selected to receive a diversity 
visa. When the handling clerk at the National Visa Center received the 
application, however, the clerk erroneously replaced Ms. McGregor's 
name in the computer with that of her husband.
  As a result, Ms. McGregor was never informed that she had been 
selected and never provided the requisite information. The mistake with 
respect to

[[Page S10951]]

Ms. McGregor's husband was caught, but not in time for Ms. McGregor to 
meet the September, 1995 deadline. Her visa number was given to another 
applicant.
  In short, Ms. McGregor was unfairly denied the 1995 diversity visa 
that was rightfully hers due to a series of errors by the National Visa 
Center. As far as I know, these facts are not disputed.
  Unfortunately, the Center does not have the legal authority to 
rectify its own mistake by simply granting Ms. McGregor a visa out of a 
subsequent year's allotment. Thus, a private relief bill is needed in 
order to see that Ms. McGregor gets the visa to which she was clearly 
entitled to in 1995.
  Mr. President, I have received a very compelling letter from 
Rosalinda Burton of Cedar Hills, UT which I am placing in the Record. 
Ms. Burton is Ms. McGregor's sister and she described to me the strong 
relationship that she and her sister have and the care that her sister 
provided when Ms. Burton was seriously injured in a 1993 car accident.
  I hope that the Senate can move forward on this bill expeditiously. 
Ms. McGregor was the victim of a simple and admitted bureaucratic 
snafu. The Senate ought to move swiftly to correct this injustice.
  Mr. President, I am also including in the record additional relevant 
correspondence which documents the background of this case.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Cedar Hills, UT,

                                               September 23, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Hatch. This is one of the many endless 
     attempts to seek fairness and justification regarding a very 
     unique and still unresolved case pertaining to the future of 
     my beloved sister, Belinda McGregor.
       This is a plea on my part for you to please allow me the 
     opportunity to humbly express in this letter, my deepest 
     concern which is also personally shared by Senator Edward 
     Kennedy.
       It would be a challenge to explain what once stated as 
     ``the dream come true'' for my sister, Belinda, on to paper, 
     but I hope you will grant me a moment of your time to read 
     this attempt to seek your help, as my Senator.
       Towards the end of 1993 I was the victim of a very serious 
     car accident and I could not have coped without the support 
     of my church and the tremendous help of my beloved sister, 
     Belinda, after which she expressed a strong desire to come 
     and live in Utah, to be close to me, her only sister. In 
     1994, therefore, a dream came true when, after applying for 
     the DV1 Program, which is held yearly, my sister's husband 
     David, was informed by the National Visa Center, that he was 
     selected in the 1995 Diversity Visa Lottery Program. Finally, 
     my sister had a chance to live near her family and friends. 
     Belinda, who is Austrian/British, then working for the 
     ``United Nations Drug Control Programme'' (UNDCP) at the UN 
     Headquarters in Vienna, Austria, was so thrilled to be 
     informed of the good news. Therefore, all the necessary 
     documents were provided to the National Visa Center in New 
     Hampshire.
       Her patience was put to the test, as she did not hear from 
     anybody during a lengthy period of time. She contacted the 
     American Embassy in Vienna from time to time, but to no 
     avail. She then tried contacting various offices and people 
     without success and as a last resort made contract with 
     Senator Edward Kennedy's office, who kindly looked into her 
     case. She was so happy that someone took the time to check 
     into ``the ongoings of the National Visa Center'' and you can 
     imagine the surprise when Ms. Patricia First (Senator 
     Kennedy's staff) contacted my sister to let her know the 
     outcome of their investigation (Attachment \1\). I am also 
     attaching a copy of Senator Kennedy's letter to Ms. Mary A. 
     Ryan, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, United States 
     Department of State. (Attachment \2\), which explains very 
     clearly what actually had happened. Mr. McNamara, then 
     Director of the National Visa Center, addressed his reply to 
     Senator Kennedy (Attachment \3\). As my sister always wanted 
     to come live and work near me, and always believed very 
     strongly in fairness, she was convinced that the U.S. 
     Government would then do anything possible to find a 
     resolution to this predicament. By this time it was already 
     April 1997 and being quite a determined lady due to her 3 
     year struggle, my sister, therefore, got in touch (via e-
     mail) with the newly appointed Director of the National Visa 
     Center, Ms. Josefina Papendick. She explained the whole 
     situation, sent copies of previous correspondence to Ms. 
     Papendick but was always told (Attachments \4\ \5\) that 
     unfortunately there were no more visa numbers available as 
     the deadline for the 1995 Diversity Visa Lottery was 30 
     September 1995. This was indeed a shock and disappointment 
     that no effort or willingness was shown to rectify the 
     matter, especially as the National Visa Center acknowledged 
     their own mistakes. The McGregor family did everything within 
     their power--submitted all necessary papers in a timely 
     fashion, but due to serious errors made by the National Visa 
     Center, were disqualified and their numbers were given to 
     someone else. She realizes of course that she is only a 
     minority but nevertheless--we all feel that injustice has 
     been done.
       This injustice prevented my sister in building her future 
     here with me. For one tiny moment this special gift was 
     placed in her hands, to build her own world, but was quickly 
     taken, due to these errors made. As advised, my sister has 
     since then applied every year for the DV1 Program under her 
     Austrian Nationality.
       She always worked in an international environment, her 
     previous employment being with the drug control program of 
     the United Nations and was confident her experience and 
     skills would be invaluable and beneficial to her newly 
     adopted homeland. In preparation for her invitation to 
     immigrate, she sought independence immediately and acquired a 
     secretarial position, which was put on hold for her. 
     Unfortunately and with deep regret she had to abandon the 
     offer when she was informed of the errors that were made.
       She has been in contact with the honorable Senator Kennedy 
     ever since and his kind office suggested that I contact you 
     and maybe between you and Senator Kennedy this problem could 
     be looked into and resolved.
       The future happiness of my sister is as important as my 
     own, and I hope and pray with all my heart, her tears of 
     sadness will, via your understanding, help and determination, 
     turn those tears to joy. Thank you for listening, dear 
     Senator Hatch.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Rosalinda Burton.
       PS: Should you need any further information, please do not 
     hesitate to contact Belinda at my address. Thank you.


                               footnotes

     \1\ Ms. Patricia First's (Senator Kennedy's office) e-mail to 
     Belinda McGregor
     \2\ Senator Edward Kennedy's letter to Mary A. Ryan, 
     Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.
     \3\ Mr. McNamara's reply to Senator Edward Kennedy.
     \4\ Ms. Josefina Papendick's letter to Belinda McGregor.
     \5\ Ms. Josefina Papendick's letter to Belinda McGregor.
                                  ____



                             attachment one

                                                February 15, 1996.
       Dear Ms. McGregor: I have received an answer from the State 
     Department on the specifics of both your and your husband's 
     diversity visa applications. It appears that the Department 
     of State and National Visa Center grossly mishandled your 
     applications. Our office has sent a letter to Mary Ryan, 
     Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs for the State 
     Department. Ms. Ryan's Section oversees the visa process. I 
     have attached the letter to Ms. Ryan which details the 
     mistakes made by the National Visa Center in processing your 
     applications.
       The ultimate result seems to be that you were unfairly 
     denied a diversity visa to which you were entitled. Please be 
     assured our office is doing everything we can to find an 
     administrative solution to your case. We are awaiting a 
     response from the State Department, and I will communicate 
     their response to you as soon as I receive it.
       Again, I urge you to apply for the 1997 Diversity Visa 
     Lottery, and I am sorry I cannot delivery better news. Please 
     feel free to contact me should you have any questions. I can 
     be reached at (202) 224-7878. I will update you as soon as I 
     have any new information.
           Sincerely,
     Patricia First.
                                  ____



                             attachment two


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 1996.
     Mary A. Ryan,
     Assistant Secretary, Consular Affairs,
     U.S. Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
     RE: 1995 Diversity Visa Lottery
     Applicants: Belinda McGregor, David John McGregor
     Case No: 95-EU-00020036
       Dear Ms. Ryan: I am writing to request your assistance in 
     resolving the above-referenced case. I am deeply concerned 
     about the way this case was handled by the Department of 
     State and the National Visa Center in New Hampshire.
       Belinda McGregor, a citizen of the United Kingdom, and her 
     husband, David John McGregor, a citizen of Ireland, each 
     filed a separate application for the 1995 Diversity Visa 
     Lottery program. As you know, although Belinda McGregor was 
     born in the United Kingdom, she is eligible for the diversity 
     program through her husband's Irish citizenship.
       According to your visa office and the National Visa Center, 
     Belinda McGregor's application was among those chosen as 
     eligible to receive a diversity visa. When the National Visa 
     Center received Belinda McGregor's application, however, the 
     clerk handling her case erroneously assumed Ms. McGregor, as 
     a citizen of the United Kingdom, was ineligible for the 
     diversity program. The clerk, in an apparent attempt to 
     remedy the problem, replaced Belinda McGregor's name in the 
     computer with that of her husband, David John McGregor.
       The National Visa Center then sent David John McGregor a 
     notice that his name had

[[Page S10952]]

     been selected in the 1995 Diversity Visa Lottery Program, and 
     listed the additional information Mr. McGregor needed to 
     provide to be eligible for a diversity visa (including, inter 
     alia, educational background and an affidavit of support). 
     David John McGregor provided this information about himself 
     to the National Visa Center in a timely fashion. The 
     McGregor's, who currently live in Austria, heard nothing more 
     about Mr. McGregor's diversity application until they asked 
     my office to inquire into the status of the application. 
     Belinda McGregor was never informed that her application had 
     been selected in the diversity lottery.
       Upon receiving Mr. McGregor's completed information, a 
     second clerk at the National Visa Center discovered that 
     Belinda McGregor's name had been improperly changed to David 
     John McGregor in the computer. This clerk changed the name 
     back to Belinda McGregor, and noted the receipt of Mr. 
     McGregor's information. The clerk, however, failed to inform 
     the McGregor's that Belinda McGregor was the diversity 
     applicant selected in the lottery, and, therefore, the 
     National Visa Center needed information on Belinda McGregor, 
     instead of David John McGregor.
       Having not received any information on Belinda McGregor by 
     the diversity visa entitlement date, September 30, 1995, the 
     National Visa Center disqualified Belinda McGregor's 
     application and gave her visa number to another applicant.
       It appears that Belinda McGregor was unfairly denied the 
     1995 diversity visa which was rightfully hers due to a series 
     of errors made by the National Visa Center. A review by your 
     office of procedures at the National Visa Center may be in 
     order. And, I would greatly appreciate your help in finding a 
     solution to the McGregor's case in light of the serious 
     errors committed by the Center. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Edward M. Kennedy.
                                  ____



                            attachment three

                                         U.S. Department of State,


                                         National Visa Center,

                                   Portsmouth, NH, March 14, 1996.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I refer to your letter of February 
     16, to Ms. Mary A. Ryan, Assistant Secretary for Consular 
     Affairs, regarding the Diversity Lottery application for Ms. 
     Melinda McGregor.
       The Immigration Act of 1990 provides for an annual 
     Diversity Immigration Program, making available each year by 
     random selection 55,000 permanent residence visas in the 
     United States. Visas are apportioned among six geographic 
     regions based on immigration rates over the last five years, 
     with a greater number of visas going to regions with lower 
     rates of immigration.
       The National Visa Center (NVC) acknowledges the allegations 
     made in your correspondence as true and correct. However, 
     there are no visa numbers available as the deadline for the 
     1995 Diversity Lottery was September 30, 1995. Unfortunately, 
     we are unable to correct the situation at this time. Ms. 
     McGregor may wish to apply for any future lotteries.
       We have reviewed this incident with our staff and have 
     taken steps to ensure that this error will not be repeated in 
     the future.
       I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact me if I can be of assistance to you in this or any 
     other matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Brian M. McNamara,
     Director.
                                  ____



                            attachment four

                                         U.S. Department of State,


                                          National Visa Center

                                   Portsmouth, NH, April 21, 1997.
       Dear Ms. McGregor: Thank you for your letter of April 14 
     regarding the Diversity Lottery applications filed on your 
     and Mr. John McGregor's behalf.
       Please note that as a citizen of United Kingdom you were 
     not eligible to apply for DV-lottery program in 1995. 
     However, as a citizen or Ireland, Mr. McGregor was eligible 
     to apply for this program and you were a derivative 
     beneficiary of his application. Mr. McGregor's case was 
     chosen at random and entered into the computer system at the 
     National Visa Center (NVC). We assigned lottery rank number 
     95-EU-00020036 to this application.
       Unfortuantely, the deadline for the completion of the DV-95 
     was September 30, 1995. If you were not issued a visa by this 
     date, the application for the 1995 program is no longer 
     valid.
       Your correspondence indicates that you believe you may be 
     eligible for immigrant visa issuance under the provision for 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (Act 1996). However, this provision applies only 
     to applicants who were residing in the U.S. and were unable 
     to adjust their status. As you were residing outside the U.S. 
     you are not eligible to be processed under the Act of 1996.
       I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact me if I can be of further assistance to you in 
     this or any other matter.
           Sincerely.
                                            Josefina L. Papendick,
     Director.
                                  ____



                            attachment five

                                         U.S. Department of State,


                                         National Visa Center,

                                     Portsmouth, NH, July 3, 1997.
     Mrs. Belinda McGregor,
     Bexleybeath, Kent, England.
       Dear Mrs. McGregor: I am replying to your e-mailed messages 
     requesting a review of your DV-95 application. Since no paper 
     file is still available after all this time, I am unable to 
     provide any new or additional information regarding the 
     processing of your case.
       I recognize your sincere wish to immigrate to the United 
     States. However, I very much regret to inform you that there 
     is no provision of law or regulations that would allow your 
     DV-95 application to be processed after September 30, 1995.
       If you wish to pursue your interest in living and working 
     in the United States, the diversity program is an option 
     available every year for applicants (or their spouses) who 
     were born in eligible countries. For individuals who are not 
     eligible under any family immigrant visa category, there are 
     other visa classifications, both non-immigrant and immigrant, 
     in the employment or professional fields to apply for. For 
     more information on these, I suggest you contact the American 
     Embassy in London.
       I am sorry that this response cannot be more encouraging. I 
     wish you and your family the best of luck in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                            Josefina L. Papendick,
                                                         Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. 
        Domenici):
  S. 1305. A bill to invest in the future of the United States by 
doubling the amount authorized for basic scientific, medical, and 
precompetitive engineering research; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


              THE NATIONAL RESEARCH INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, President Clinton has talked a lot about 
building a bridge to the 21st century and, our philosophical 
differences aside, I want to help him build that bridge--with Bucky 
Balls.

  ``Bucky Ball'' is the nickname for Buckminsterfullerene, a molecular 
form of carbon that was discovered by Prof's. Robert F. Curl and 
Richard E. Smalley of Rice University in Houston. They won the 1996 
Nobel Prize in chemistry for this discovery.
  Bucky Balls were named after R. Buckminster Fuller, the architect 
famous for his geodesic domes, because this new molecule closely 
resembles his designs. The silly nickname notwithstanding, their 
discovery was a breakthrough that will have scientific and practical 
applications across a wide variety of fields, from electrical 
conduction to the delivery of medicine into the human body.
  Bucky Balls are impervious to radiation and chemical destruction, and 
can be joined to form tubes 10,000 times smaller than a human hair, yet 
100 times stronger than steel. Use of the molecules is expected to 
establish a whole new class of materials for the construction of many 
products, from airplane wings and automobile bodies to clothing and 
packaging material.
  This may be more than you want to know about molecular physics, but 
think about it this way: Because we encourage the kind of thinking that 
leads to discoveries like Bucky Balls, the United States stands as the 
economic, military, and intellectual leader of the world. We achieved 
this not by accident, but by a common, unswerving conviction that 
America's future was something to plan for, invest in, and celebrate. 
Using the products of imagination and hard work, from Winchester rifles 
and steam engines to space shuttles, Americans built a nation. We're 
still building, but for what we need in the next century, we're going 
to have to turn to people like Curl and Smalley to give us materials 
like Bucky Balls, and the Government has a role to play.
  Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, the American Government has 
set different priorities. In 1965, 5.7 percent of the Federal budget 
was spent on nondefense research and development. Thirty-two years 
later in 1997, that figure has dropped by two-thirds. We spend a lot 
more money than we did in 1965, but we spend it on social programs, not 
science. We invest in the next elections, not the next generation.
  The United States is underinvesting in basic research. That's right. 
The author of the landmark deficit reduction legislation known today as 
Gramm-Rudman supports the idea of the Government spending more money on 
something.
  Not only do I support the idea of spending more on science and 
technology, I am today introducing a piece

[[Page S10953]]

of legislation to achieve that goal. I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Lieberman, Domenici, and Bingaman as I introduce S. 1305, the 
National Research Investment Act of 1998. This bill, an update of my 
earlier bill, S. 124, would double the amount spent by the Federal 
Government on basic scientific, medical, and precompetitive engineering 
research over 10 years from $34 billion in 1999 to $68 billion in 2008.
  If we, as a country, do no restore the high priority once afforded 
science and technology in the Federal budget and increase Federal 
investment in research, it will be impossible to maintain the U.S. 
position as the technological leader of the world. Since 1970, Japan 
and Germany have spent a larger share of their national income on 
research and development than we have. We can no longer afford to fall 
behind. Expanding the Nation's commitment to research in basic science 
and medicine is a critically important investment in the future of our 
Nation. It means saying no to many programs with strong political 
support, but by expanding research we are saying yes to jobs and 
prosperity in the future.
  I believe that if we want the 21st century to be a place worth 
building a bridge to, and if we want to maintain the U.S. position as 
the leader of the free world, then we need to restore the prominence 
that research and technology once had in the Federal budget. Our 
parent's generation fought two World Wars, overcame some of the worst 
economic conditions in the history of our Nation, and yet still managed 
to invest in America's future. We have an obligation to do at least an 
equal amount for our children and grandchildren.
  Over the past 30 years, we have not lived up to this obligation, but 
it isn't too late to change our minds. The discovery of Bucky Balls is 
a testament to the resilience of the American scientific community. I 
believe that if we once again give scientists and researchers the 
support that they deserve, if we make the same commitment to our 
children's future that our parents made to ours, then the 21st century 
promises to be one of unlimited potential.
  America is a great and powerful country for two reasons. First, we 
have had more freedom and opportunity than any other people who have 
ever lived and with that freedom and opportunity people like us have 
been able to achieve extraordinary things. Second, we have invested 
more in science than any people in history. Science has given us the 
tools and freedom has allowed us to put them to work. If we preserve 
freedom and invest in science, there is no limit on the future of the 
American people. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important 
legislation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the National Research Investment Act of 
1998, which Senator Gramm and I introduced this morning, is important 
legislation designed to reverse a downward trend in the Federal 
Government's allocation to science and engineering research. Although 
America currently enjoys a vibrant economy, with robust growth of over 
4 percent and record low unemployment, we should pause for a moment to 
examine reasons which underlie our current prosperity.
  In one of the few models agreed upon by a vast majority of 
economists, Dr. Robert Solow won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that 
at least half of the total growth in the U.S. economy since the end of 
World War II is attributable to scientific and technological 
innovation. In other words, money spent to increase scientific and 
engineering knowledge represents an investment which pays rich 
dividends for America's future.
  Dr. Solow's economic theory is the story of our Nation's innovation 
system--a system that has transformed scientific and technological 
innovation into a potent engine of economic growth for America. In 
broad terms, our innovation system consists of industrial, academic, 
and governmental institutions working together to generate new 
knowledge, new technologies, and people with the skills to move them 
effectively into the marketplace. Publicly funded science has shown to 
be surprisingly important to the innovation system. A new study 
prepared for the National Science Foundation found that 73 percent of 
the main science papers cited by American industrial patents in two 
recent years were based on domestic and foreign research financed by 
governments or nonprofit agencies.
  Patents are the most visible expression of industrial creativity and 
the major way that companies and inventors are able to reap benefits 
from a bright idea. Even though industry now spends far more than the 
Federal Government on research, the fact that most patents result from 
research performed at universities, government labs, and other public 
agencies demonstrate our dependence on these institutions for the vast 
majority of economic activity. Such publicly funded science, the study 
concluded, has turned into a fundamental pillar of industrial advance.
  Last week's awarding of the Nobel Prize to Dr. William Phillips from 
the Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology 
provides a wonderful example of how publicly funded science pays 
dividends. Dr. Phillips was honored for his work which used laser light 
to cool and trap individual atoms and molecules. I am told that the 
methods developed by Dr. Phillips and his coworkers may lead to the 
design of more precise atomic clocks for use in global navigation 
systems and atomic lasers, which may be used to manufacture very small 
electronic components for the next generation of computers. Dr. 
Phillips' achievement is the most visible recognition of the Department 
of Commerce's laboratory. Since 1901, however, the agency has quietly 
carried out research to develop accurate measurement and calibration 
techniques. The NIST laboratory, together with Commerce's technology 
programs, have greatly aided American business and earned our 
Nation billions of dollars in industries such as electrical power, 
semiconductor manufacturing, medical, agricultural, food processing, 
and building materials.

  Yet, despite the demonstrated importance of publicly funded 
scientific research, the amount spent on science and engineering by the 
Federal Government is declining. Senator Gramm has already noted that 
``in 1965, 5.7 percent of the Federal budget was spent on nondefense 
research and development. Thirty two years later, that figure has 
dropped by two-thirds to 1.9 percent.'' If you believe as I do, that 
our current prosperity, intellectual leadership in science and medicine 
and the growth of entire new industries are directly linked to 
investments made 30 years ago, then you have got to ask where will this 
country be 30 years from now?
  At the same time, it is likely that several countries, particularly 
in Asia, will exceed on a per capita basis, the U.S. expenditure in 
science. Japan is already spending more than we are in absolute dollars 
on nondefense research and development. This is an historic reversal. 
Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, China, South Korea, and India are 
aggressively promoting R&D investment. These facts led Erich Bloch, the 
former head of the National Science Foundation, to write that the 
``whole U.S. R&D system is in the midst of a crucial transition. Its 
rate of growth has leveled off and could decline. We cannot assume that 
we will stay at the forefront of science and technology as we have for 
50 years.''
  The future implications of our failure to invest can be better 
understood if we consider what our lives would be like today without 
the scientific innovations of those past 50 years. Imagine medicine 
without x rays, surgical lasers, MRI scanners, fiber-optic probes, 
synthetic materials for making medical implants, and the host of new 
drugs that combat cancer and even show promise as suppressors of the 
AIDS virus. Consider how it would be to face tough choices about how to 
protect the environment without knowledge of upper atmospheric physics, 
chemistry of the ozone layer or understanding how toxic substances 
effect human health. Imagine communication without faxes, desktop 
computers, the internet, or satellites. Less tangible but nonetheless 
disconcerting, is the prospect of a future for our country of free 
thinkers, if all new advances and innovation were to originate from 
outside of America's shores.
  Although difficult, the partisan conflicts and rifts of the past 
several years may have performed a useful service in clarifying the 
debate over when public funding on research is justified. Senator Gramm 
and I have discussed this

[[Page S10954]]

topic at some length. We believe it is a mistake to separate research 
into two warring camps, one flying the flag of basic science and the 
other applied science. Rather the research enterprise represents a 
broad spectrum of human activity with basic and applied science at 
either end but not in opposition. Every component along the spectrum 
produces returns--economic, social, and intellectual gains for the 
society as a whole. The Federal Government should patiently invest in 
science, medicine, and engineering that lies within the public domain. 
Once an industry or company begins to pursue proprietary research, then 
support for that particular venture is best left to the private sector. 
This is what we mean by the term ``precompetitive research.''
  With introduction of the National Research Investment Act of 1998, we 
begin a bipartisan effort to build a consensus that will support a 
significant increase in Federal research and development efforts. I am 
particularly appreciative of the support given today from nearly 100 
different scientific and engineering professional societies which 
collectively represent many more than 1 million members. 
Accomplishments of your members illuminate the role that science and 
engineering plays in the innovation process.
  In a Wall Street Journal survey of leading economists published in 
March, 43 percent cited investments in education and research and 
development as the Federal action that would have the most positive 
impact on our economy. No other factors, including reducing Government 
spending or lowering taxes, scored more than 10 percent. While Senator 
Gramm and I are certainly committed to fiscal responsibility and 
balancing the budget, we think that the country would be best served by 
promoting investments in education and R&D and reducing entitlement 
consumption spending. Failure to do so now may well imperil America's 
future economic vitality and our leadership in science and technology.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act of 1998.
  Boosting the strength of our R&D infrastructure is crucially 
important to the future health and prosperity of every inhabitant of my 
home State of New Mexico, just as it is to every American. The 
scientific, technical, and medical advances of the past 40 years have 
dramatically improved our standard of living. If we are to maintain 
these advances into the future, we cannot afford to stand still.
  Unfortunately, we are now headed in the wrong direction. Federal 
funding for research and development has declined as an overall 
percentage of the Federal budget over the last 20 years. We now spend 
less than 2 cents of each dollar of Federal spending on science and 
engineering research and development. We need to do better. It is clear 
that if we want to create the kind of high-paying, high-technology jobs 
that will ensure a decent standard of living for American workers, we 
will need a much stronger commitment to investing in research and 
development.
  Although the focus of this bill is ensuring a strong future for 
civilian R&D, it is important to recognize that the basic science and 
fundamental technology development supported by the Defense portion of 
our budget also contributes to our domestic prosperity. For our Nation 
to remain prosperous into the next century, we need both sources of 
support for basic science and fundamental technology to remain strong, 
even in a time of constrained budgets.
  There was a time when our investment in research and development 
equaled that of the rest of the world combined. But through the years, 
we have allowed our commitment to slide, and have lost much ground 
compared to our international competitors. Mr. President, this is not 
where we want to be, and I hope that the National Research Investment 
Act of 1998 will put us on the path to a better future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE:
  S. 1307. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 with respect to rules governing litigation contesting 
termination or reduction of retiree health benefits and to extend 
continuation coverage to retirees and their dependents; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


           THE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that 
restores employer health coverage to individuals who, throughout their 
careers, were led to believe their retiree health benefits were secure. 
These retirees earned their benefits through years of labor and have 
reached an age when other private coverage is difficult if not 
impossible to find. The Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act of 1997 
reempowers retirees whose employers renege, often without notice, on a 
commitment they made to retiree security and health.
  The bill I am offering today melds two measures I first introduced in 
the 104th Congress. The goal is to restore retirees' rights and options 
when their former employer takes action to terminate their health 
benefits.
  The legislation was drafted to address a serious problem brought to 
my attention by the retirees of the Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux 
Falls, SD. In January 1995, more than 3,300 Morrell retirees in Sioux 
Falls and around the country were given 1 week's notice that their 
health benefits were being terminated.
  Pre-Medicare retirees were offered continued health coverage for only 
one year under Morrell's group plan, if the retiree assumed the full 
cost of coverage. When this option lapsed in January 1996, many of 
these people became uninsured. These retirees, like so many who face 
this situation, had spent years building the company and taking lower 
pensions or wages in exchange for the promise of retiree health 
benefits.
  This problem is unfortunately not limited to the Morrell retirees. 
Recent data confirms that a declining share of employers maintain 
health benefits for their retirees. In fact, the percentage of large 
employers offering such coverage has dropped by nearly 10 percentage 
points over the last 5 years. In 1991, 80 percent of large employers 
provided retiree benefits. As of 1996, 71 percent do.
  Early retirees age 50-64 who lose their health benefits are 
especially vulnerable to becoming uninsured, because health insurance 
is expensive when purchased at an older age, or unavailable as a result 
of preexisting conditions.
  The bill I am introducing today would establish a number of 
protections to address this alarming trend.
  To minimize unexpected terminations of benefits, my bill would ensure 
that benefits are terminated or reduced only when evidence shows that 
retirees were given adequate warning--before their retirement--that 
their health care benefits were not promised for their lifetimes. If 
the contract language establishing retiree benefits is silent or 
ambiguous about the termination of these benefits, my bill would place 
the burden of proof on the employer to show that the plan allows for 
the termination or reduction of retiree health benefits.
  To help protect coverage for retirees and their families until fair 
settlements are reached, if an employer's decision to terminate 
benefits is challenged in court, my bill requires the employer to 
continue to provide retiree health benefits while these benefits are in 
litigation.
  To prevent early retirees and their families from being left 
uninsured, this legislation would extend so-called COBRA benefits to 
early retirees and their dependents whose employer-sponsored health 
care benefits are terminated or substantially reduced.
  Broadly stated, COBRA currently requires employers to offer 
continuing health coverage for up to 18 months for employees who leave 
their place of employment. The employee is responsible for the entire 
cost of the premium, but is allowed to remain in the group policy, thus 
taking advantage of lower group rates. This legislation would extend 
the COBRA law to cover early retirees and their families who are more 
than 18 months away from Medicare eligibility.
  This bill would not prohibit employers from modifying their retiree 
health benefits to implement legitimate cost-savings measures, such as 
utilization review or managed care arrangements.
  Mr. President, retirees deserve this kind of health security.

[[Page S10955]]

  Workers often give up larger pensions and other benefits in exchange 
for health benefits. Unfortunately, in the case of the Morrell 
employees and far too many others, the thanks they get for their 
sacrifices is that their benefits are taken away with no notice and no 
compensating increase in their pensions or other benefits.
  Early retirees often have been with the same company for decades, 
perhaps all of their adult lives. They rightfully believe that a 
company they help build will reward their loyalty, honesty, and hard 
work.
  It is time for this Congress to address this victimization of 
retirees by companies that put profits before integrity and cost-
cutting before fairness. We should not simply sit back while this 
system creates another population of uninsured individuals. Instead, we 
should take this opportunity to preserve private coverage for as many 
retirees as possible and restore the financial security and freedom 
they earned and thought they could depend upon.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1307

       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 ``Retiree Health Benefits 
     Protection Act''.
              TITLE I--RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. RULES GOVERNING LITIGATION INVOLVING RETIREE HEALTH 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Part 5 of subtitle B of title I of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1131 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 516. RULES GOVERNING LITIGATION INVOLVING RETIREE 
                   HEALTH BENEFITS.

       ``(a) Maintenance of Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--If--
       ``(A) retiree health benefits or plan or plan sponsor 
     payments in connection with such benefits are to be or have 
     been terminated or reduced under an employee welfare benefit 
     plan; and
       ``(B) an action is brought by any participant or 
     beneficiary to enjoin or otherwise modify such termination or 
     reduction,

     the court without requirement of any additional showing shall 
     promptly order the plan and plan sponsor to maintain the 
     retiree health benefits and payments at the level in effect 
     immediately before the termination or reduction while the 
     action is pending in any court. No security or other 
     undertaking shall be required of any participant or 
     beneficiary as a condition for issuance of such relief. An 
     order requiring such maintenance of benefits may be refused 
     or dissolved only upon determination by the court, on the 
     basis of clear and convincing evidence, that the action is 
     clearly without merit.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     action if--
       ``(A) the termination or reduction of retiree health 
     benefits is substantially similar to a termination or 
     reduction in health benefits (if any) provided to current 
     employees which occurs either before, or at or about the same 
     time as, the termination or reduction of retiree health 
     benefits, or
       ``(B) the changes in benefits are in connection with the 
     addition, expansion, or clarification of the delivery system, 
     including utilization review requirements and restrictions, 
     requirements that goods or services be obtained through 
     managed care entities or specified providers or categories of 
     providers, or other special major case management 
     restrictions.
       ``(3) Modifications.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude a court from modifying the obligation of a plan or 
     plan sponsor to the extent retiree benefits are otherwise 
     being paid by the plan sponsor.
       ``(b) Burden of Proof.--In addition to the relief 
     authorized in subsection (a) or otherwise available, if, in 
     any action to which subsection (a)(1) applies, the terms of 
     the employee welfare benefit plan summary plan description 
     or, in the absence of such description, other materials 
     distributed to employees at the time of a participant's 
     retirement or disability, are silent or are ambiguous, either 
     on their face or after consideration of extrinsic evidence, 
     as to whether retiree health benefits and payments may be 
     terminated or reduced for a participant and his or her 
     beneficiaries after the participant's retirement or 
     disability, then the benefits and payments shall not be 
     terminated or reduced for the participant and his or her 
     beneficiaries unless the plan or plan sponsor establishes by 
     a preponderance of the evidence that the summary plan 
     description or other materials about retiree benefits--
       ``(1) were distributed to the participant at least 90 days 
     in advance of retirement or disability;
       ``(2) did not promise retiree health benefits for the 
     lifetime of the participant and his or her spouse; and
       ``(3) clearly and specifically disclosed that the plan 
     allowed such termination or reduction as to the participant 
     after the time of his or her retirement or disability.

     The disclosure described in paragraph (3) must have been made 
     prominently and in language which can be understood by the 
     average plan participant.
       ``(c) Representation.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, an employee representative of any retired employee or 
     the employee' spouse or dependents may--
       ``(1) bring an action described in this section on behalf 
     of such employee, spouse, or dependents; or
       ``(2) appear in such an action on behalf of such employee, 
     spouse or dependents.
       ``(d) Retiree Health Benefits.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the term `retiree health benefits' means health 
     benefits (including coverage) which are provided to--
       ``(1) retired or disabled employees who, immediately before 
     the termination or reduction, have a reasonable expectation 
     to receive such benefits upon retirement or becoming 
     disabled; and
       ``(2) their spouses or dependents.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1 of such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 515 the following new item:

``Sec. 516. Rules governing litigation involving retiree health 
              benefits.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to actions relating to terminations or reductions 
     of retiree health benefits which are pending or brought, on 
     or after January 1, 1998.
                TITLE II--RETIREE CONTINUATION COVERAGE

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF COBRA CONTINUATION COVERAGE.

       (a) Public Health Service Act.--
       (1) Type of coverage.--
       (A) In general.--Section 2202(1) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(1)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the coverage''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Certain retirees.--In the case of an event described 
     in section 2203(6), the qualified beneficiary may elect to 
     continue coverage as provided for in subparagraph (A) or may 
     elect coverage--
       ``(i) under any other plan offered by the State, political 
     subdivision, agency, or instrumentality involved; or
       ``(ii) notwithstanding paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 
     2741(b), through any health insurance issuer offering health 
     insurance coverage (as defined in section 2791(b)(1)) in the 
     individual market in the State.''.
       (B) Technical amendment.--Section 2202(2)(D)(i) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(D)(i)) is 
     amended by striking ``covered under any other'' and inserting 
     ``except with respect to coverage obtained under paragraph 
     (1)(B), covered under any other''.
       (2) Period of coverage.--Section 2202(2)(A) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(A)) is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
       ``(v) Qualifying event involving substantial reduction or 
     elimination of a retiree group health plan.--In the case of 
     an event described in section 2203(6), the date on which such 
     covered qualified beneficiary becomes entitled to benefits 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.''.
       (3) Qualifying event.--Section 2203 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-3) is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The substantial reduction or elimination of group 
     health coverage as a result of plan changes or termination 
     with respect to a qualified beneficiary described in section 
     2208(3)(A).''.
       (4) Notice.--Section 2206 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300bb-6) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or (4)'' and inserting 
     ``(4), or (6)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``or (4)'' and 
     inserting ``(4), or (6)''.
       (5) Definition.--Section 2208(3) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-8(3)) is amended by adding at 
     the end thereof the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Special rule for retirees.--In the case of a 
     qualifying event described in section 2203(6), the term 
     `qualified beneficiary' includes a covered employee who had 
     retired on or before the date of substantial reduction or 
     elimination of coverage and any other individual who, on the 
     day before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the 
     plan--
       ``(i) as the spouse of the covered employee;
       ``(ii) as the dependent child of the covered employee; or
       ``(iii) as the surviving spouse of the covered employee.''.
       (b) Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.--
       (1) Type of coverage.--
       (A) In general.--Section 602(1) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1162(1)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the coverage''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S10956]]

       ``(B) Certain retirees.--In the case of an event described 
     in section 603(7), the qualified beneficiary may elect to 
     continue coverage as provided for in subparagraph (A) or may 
     elect coverage--
       ``(i) under any other plan maintained by the plan sponsor 
     involved; or
       ``(ii) notwithstanding paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 
     2741(b) of the Public Health Service Act, through any health 
     insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage (as 
     defined in section 2791(b)(1) of such Act) in the individual 
     market in the State.''.
       (B) Technical amendment.--Section 602(2)(D)(i) of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1162(2)(D)(i)) is amended by striking ``covered under any 
     other'' and inserting ``except with respect to coverage 
     obtained under paragraph (1)(B), covered under any other''.
       (2) Period of coverage.--Section 602(2)(A) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1162(2)(A)) 
     is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     clause:
       ``(vi) Qualifying event involving substantial reduction or 
     elimination of a group health plan covering retirees, spouses 
     and dependents.--In the case of an event described in section 
     603(7), the date on which such covered qualified beneficiary 
     becomes entitled to benefits under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act.''.
       (3) Qualifying event.--Section 603 of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1163) is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) The substantial reduction or elimination of group 
     health plan coverage as a result of plan changes or 
     termination with respect to a qualified beneficiary described 
     in section 607(3)(C).''.
       (4) Notice.--Section 606(a) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1166) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or (6)'' and inserting 
     ``(6), or (7)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``or (6)'' and 
     inserting ``(6), or (7)''.
       (5) Definition.--Section 607(3)(C) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1167(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``603(6)'' and inserting ``603(6) or 
     603(7)''.
       (c) Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
       (1) Type of coverage.--
       (A) In general.--Section 4980B(f)(2)(A) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (i) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     coverage''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Certain retirees.--In the case of an event described 
     in paragraph (3)(G), the qualified beneficiary may elect to 
     continue coverage as provided for in clause (i) or may elect 
     coverage--

       ``(I) under any other plan maintained by the plan sponsor 
     involved; or
       ``(II) notwithstanding paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 
     2741(b) of the Public Health Service Act, through any health 
     insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage (as 
     defined in section 2791(b)(1) of such Act) in the individual 
     market in the State.''.

       (B) Technical amendment.--Section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(iv)(I) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``covered under any other'' and inserting ``except with 
     respect to coverage obtained under paragraph (1)(B), covered 
     under any other''.
       (2) Period of coverage.--Section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(i) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following new subclause:

       ``(VI) Qualifying event involving substantial reduction or 
     elimination of a retiree group health plan.--In the case of 
     an event described in paragraph (3)(G), the date on which 
     such covered qualified beneficiary becomes entitled to 
     benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.''.

       (3) Qualifying event.--Section 4980B(f)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) The substantial reduction or elimination of group 
     health coverage as a result of plan changes or termination 
     with respect to a qualified beneficiary described in 
     subsection (g)(1)(D).''.
       (4) Notice.--Section 4980B(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or (F)'' and 
     inserting ``(F), or (G)''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``or (F)'' and 
     inserting ``(F), or (G)''.
       (5) Definition.--Section 4980B(g)(1)(D) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``(f)(3)(F)'' and 
     inserting ``(f)(3)(F) or (f)(3)(G)''.

     SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect as if enacted on January 1, 
     1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 1308. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure 
taxpayer confidence in the fairness and independence of the taxpayer 
problem resolution process by providing a more independently operated 
Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                  the taxpayer protection act of 1997

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this afternoon, I rise to introduce 
legislation representing, I think, a very important step in giving 
American taxpayers an additional tool for them to use in solving 
problems that they have when they are entering into a dispute with the 
Internal Revenue Service. My bill would ensure that American taxpayers 
have someone with real authority and significant resources who will 
represent their interests when dealing with IRS, a true taxpayer 
advocacy organization which will be on the side of the American 
taxpayer and not on the side of Washington bureaucrats.
  I want to also point out that I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
Kerrey-Grassley bill, which is a broader restructuring of the entire 
Internal Revenue Service, that came about as part of the work that the 
bipartisan commission studied for over a year's time.
  The bill, however, that I am introducing today will strengthen the 
part of the bill dealing with the Office of Taxpayer Advocate by making 
the advocate's office much more independent than it is now and giving 
it more muscle in representing the interests of American taxpayers.
  Last month, our Senate Finance Committee had 3 days of hearings 
looking at the practices and procedures within the Internal Revenue 
Service. In addition to hearing from taxpayers who had been mistreated 
by the Internal Revenue Service, our committee also heard very shocking 
testimony from both current and former IRS employees. These witnesses 
clearly underscored the importance of doing some major changes in how 
the Internal Revenue Service operates.
  We heard, for instance, Acting Commissioner of IRS Mike Nolan say, 
``The IRS is undergoing tremendous change.''
  That is very encouraging and also very long overdue. My concern is 
that there is a big disconnect between the Commissioner's office and 
over 100,000 IRS employees who work all over America, and even a 
greater disconnect between some of these employees--not all, but some--
and the American taxpayer. This became very painfully clear as a result 
of our 3 days of hearings.
  I want to point out that the IRS is a very convenient political 
punching bag for many, and speeches condemning the IRS are met with 
widespread applause at any type of a townhall meeting you want to have. 
But this is not an issue that we should demagog. Americans want us to 
solve the problem and not just pass the blame around and blame the 
other side for their failures.
  As was the case with the balanced budget amendment, Republicans and 
Democrats need to come together in a bipartisan fashion and act 
responsibly to come up with some real changes that are going to help 
address this problem and protect the American taxpayer.
  Unless we don't want a national defense or a public highway system or 
schools and national parks, we have to ask ourselves, what will we have 
if we just eliminated the Internal Revenue Service? When the Department 
of Defense, I am reminded, had all of these problems buying $200 toilet 
seats and $500 hammers, we didn't do away with the Department of 
Defense, we reformed it. We gave them specific instructions on how they 
should conduct their business. As a result, we still have a Department 
of Defense, thank goodness, but it is operating more efficiently and 
more effectively and not making the type of mistakes that we saw in the 
past. The bottom line is we reformed it. We have to do the same thing 
with the Internal Revenue Service.
  There are many issues to look at when we talk about how to 
restructure. One is IRS management, how to model a new oversight 
structure at the IRS that would make it more responsive and accountable 
to their management problems.
  There also is a separate issue, and that is how to strengthen the 
hand of the American taxpayer when they have to deal with the Internal 
Revenue Service and let our American taxpayers know that somewhere 
there is someone who is on their side when they have problems with the 
Federal Government and specifically with the IRS.
  On the first issue of management, attention has focused on who should 
sit on the board of directors that runs an IRS and what kind of 
authority and responsibilities this board would have. I

[[Page S10957]]

think there is widespread agreement that the management and oversight 
of the IRS needs to improve dramatically. We need to have more private 
sector involvement in that board of directors.
  The Finance Committee is going to have hearings on the restructuring 
question next week. I hope that we have a fair and open discussion 
about what needs to be done, because that is the only way a solution 
will be arrived at. I personally think we should try and model the 
management of IRS on a real board of directors, a concept that is part 
of the bill introduced by Senator Kerrey and Senator Grassley and also 
Congressmen Portman and Cardin in the House of Representatives. I am a 
cosponsor of their legislation and will be actively participating in 
getting that done.
  There is no reason why the Internal Revenue Service shouldn't be just 
as advanced technologically from an organizational standpoint as any 
Fortune 500 company in America. Our goal should be to have an oversight 
board that improves the IRS accountability and also their operations. A 
better managed IRS will translate into better customer service for 
taxpayers.
  But just as important, however, we need to look at ways to improve 
the everyday outcomes when taxpayers have a problem and have to engage 
with the IRS. An oversight board may solve some of those, but we need 
to put in place some independent group that is going to represent the 
interests of the American taxpayer on a day-to-day basis, and that is 
what my legislation would do.
  Currently, the IRS has an Office of Taxpayer Advocate whose job is to 
represent the American taxpayers in dealings with the IRS. The problem 
with the current structure, however, is that this taxpayer advocate 
does not have enough independence. The taxpayer advocate in each 
district reports directly to the district director of the IRS. 
Taxpayers need someone who will work for them and represent their 
interests and not just be an employee of the IRS.
  My bill would make the taxpayer advocate a great deal more 
independent by giving it more resources, more authority and more 
responsibilities. The American taxpayers would then have someone 
working for them and not just working for the IRS when they need help.
  My bill would do the following:
  No. 1: A national taxpayer advocate would be appointed directly by 
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He or she 
would not continue to be appointed by the IRS Commissioner. The 
national taxpayer advocate would also not be selected from the ranks of 
the IRS, to make sure that person is truly independent.
  No. 2: The national taxpayer advocate will make the hiring and firing 
decisions regarding the heads of the local taxpayer advocate office in 
the IRS district and service centers. No longer would the local 
taxpayer advocate be hired and fired by the district director.
  No. 3: The initial contact between the IRS and the taxpayer will 
include a disclosure that the taxpayers have a right to contact their 
local taxpayer advocate and information on how to contact them so that 
the taxpayer will know that this office is there and it is there to 
protect their legitimate interests.
  No. 4: The local taxpayer advocate office would have a separate phone 
number, fax number, and post office box apart from the IRS district 
office.
  And finally, No. 5: The taxpayer advocate would also have the 
discretion not to disclose taxpayer information to IRS employees, 
another tool which could help taxpayers.
  All of these measures are designed to give the taxpayer advocate a 
much stronger voice, a much stronger hand in representing American 
taxpayers. What taxpayers in this country need is someone who is on 
their side, not on the Government side, who has the resources to go up 
against the IRS.
  I have been working closely with Senator Kerrey and pleased he 
supports including my provision in the overall bill that they are 
planning to introduce. So, I think we are making progress. I think we 
ought to be doing it in a continued responsible fashion, in a 
bipartisan fashion. If we can get this done, I just suggest that the 
American taxpayer will now know that there is some office that is on 
their side representing their interests before their Government.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Chafee, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. 
        Moseley-Braun, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1309. A bill to provide for the health, education, and welfare of 
children under 6 years of age; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                  THE EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT ACT

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce today the Early 
Childhood Development Act with Senator Bond. I want to thank Senator 
Bond for his leadership, both as a Governor who began the successful 
Parents as Teachers Program and for joining together in this bipartisan 
effort to develop a real world solution to real world problems.
  Mr. President, there is no issue more important in America than the 
urgent needs of young children. This country must rededicate itself to 
investing in children, an investment which will have tremendous 
returns. Early intervention can have a powerful effect on reducing 
Government welfare, health, criminal justice, and education 
expenditures in the long run. By taking steps now we can significantly 
reduce later destructive behavior such as school dropout, drug use, and 
criminal acts. A study of the High/Scope Foundation's Perry Preschool 
found that at-risk toddlers who received preschooling and a weekly home 
visit reduced the risk that these children would grow up to become 
chronic lawbreakers by a startling 80 percent. The Syracuse University 
Family Development Study showed that providing quality early-childhood 
programs to families until children reached age 5 reduces the 
children's risk of delinquency 10 years later by 90 percent. It's no 
wonder that a recent survey of police chiefs found that 9 out of 10 
said that ``America could sharply reduce crime if Government invested 
more'' in these early intervention programs.
  These programs are successful because children's experiences during 
their early years of life lay the foundation for their future 
development. Our failure to provide young children what they need 
during this period has long-term consequences and costs for America. 
Recent scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that enhancing 
children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development 
will result in tremendous benefits for children, families, and our 
Nation. The electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the 
physical structure of the brain itself. Without a stimulating 
environment, the baby's brain suffers. At birth, a baby's brain 
contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are 
stars in the Milky Way. But the wiring pattern between these neurons 
develops over time. Children who play very little or are rarely touched 
develop brains 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age.
  Mr. President, reversing these problems later in life is far more 
difficult and costly. I want to discuss several examples.
  First, poverty seriously impairs young children's language 
development, math skills, IQ scores, and their later school completion. 
Poor young children also are at heightened risk of infant mortality, 
anemia, and stunted growth. Of the 12 million children under the age of 
3 in the United States today, 3 million--25 percent--live in poverty.
  Second, three out of five mothers with children younger than 3 work, 
but one study found that 40 percent of the facilities at child care 
centers serving infants provided care of such poor quality as to 
actually jeopardize children's health, safety, or development.

  Third, in more than half of the States, one out of every four 
children between 19 months and 3 years of age is not fully immunized 
against common childhood diseases. Children who are not immunized are 
more likely to contact preventable diseases, which can cause long-term 
harm.
  And fourth, children younger than 3 make up 27 percent of the 1 
million children who are determined to be abused or neglected each 
year. Of the 1,200 children who died from abuse and neglect in 1995, 85 
percent were younger than 5 and 45 percent were younger than 1.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, our Government expenditure patterns are

[[Page S10958]]

inverse to the most important early development period for human 
beings. Although we know that early investment can dramatically reduce 
later remedial and social costs, currently our Nation spends more than 
$35 billion over 5 years on Federal programs for at-risk or delinquent 
youth and child welfare programs for children ages 12 to 18, but far 
less for children from birth to age 6.
  Today we seek to change our priorities and put children first. I am 
introducing the Early Childhood Development Act of 1997 to help empower 
local communities to provide essential interventions in the lives of 
our youngest at-risk children and their families.
  This legislation seeks to provide support to families by minimizing 
Government bureaucracy and maximizing local initiatives. We would 
provide additional funding to communities to expand the thousands of 
successful efforts for at-risk children ages zero to 6 such as those 
sponsored by the United Way, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other less well-
known grassroots organizations, as well as State initiatives such as 
Success By Six in Massachusetts and Vermont, the Parents as Teachers 
program in Missouri, Healthy Families in Indiana, and the Early 
Childhood Initiative in Pittsburgh, PA. All are short on resources. And 
nowhere do we adequately meet demand although we know that many States 
and local communities deliver efficient, cost-effective, and necessary 
services. Extending the reach of these successful programs to millions 
of children currently underserved will increase our national well-being 
and ultimately save billions of dollars.
  The second part of this bill would provide funding to States to help 
them provide a subsidy to all working poor families to purchase quality 
child care for infants, toddlers, and preschool children. We would not 
create a new program but would simply increase resources for the 
successful Child Care and Development Block Grant [CCDBG]. Child care 
for infants and toddlers is much more expensive than for older children 
since a higher level of care is necessary. Additional funding would 
also pay for improving the salaries and training level of child care 
workers, improving the facilities of child care centers and family 
child care homes, and providing enriched developmentally appropriate 
educational opportunities.
  Finally, the bill would increase funding for the Early Head Start 
Program. The successful Head Start Program provides quality services to 
4 and 5 year-olds. The Early Head Start program, which currently is a 
modest program funded at $200 million annually, provides comprehensive 
child development and family support services to infants and toddlers. 
Expanding this program would help more young children receive the early 
assistance they need.
  I was delighted to be joined earlier today by Dr. Berry Brazelton and 
Rob Reiner to announce this bill. I want to thank Governor Dean of 
Vermont and Governor Romer of Colorado for supporting this legislation 
and the wide range of groups who support this legislation including the 
Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies, Boys and Girls 
Clubs of America, Children's Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of 
America, Coalition On Human Needs, Harvard Center for Children's 
Health, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National Black Child 
Development Institute, Inc., National Council of Churches of Christ in 
the USA, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and Rob Reiner of 
the I Am Your Child Campaign.
  Children need certain supports during their early critical years if 
they are to thrive and grow to be contributing adults. I look forward 
to working with Senator Bond and both sides of the aisle to pass this 
legislation and ensure that all children arrive at school ready to 
learn.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1309

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Early 
     Childhood Development Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

                 TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Allotments to States.
Sec. 103. Grants to local collaboratives.
Sec. 104. Supplement not supplant.
Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations.

                   TITLE II--CHILD CARE FOR FAMILIES

Sec. 201. Amendment to Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 
              1990.

              TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO THE HEAD START ACT

Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 302. Allotment of funds.
Sec. 303. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings--
       (1) The Nation's highest priority should be to ensure that 
     children begin school ready to learn.
       (2) New scientific research shows that the electrical 
     activity of brain cells actually changes the physical 
     structure of the brain itself and that without a stimulating 
     environment, a baby's brain will suffer. At birth, a baby's 
     brain contains 100,000,000,000 neurons, roughly as many nerve 
     cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. But the wiring 
     pattern between these neurons develops over time. Children 
     who play very little or are rarely touched develop brains 
     that are 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age.
       (3) This scientific evidence also conclusively demonstrates 
     that enhancing children's physical, social, emotional, and 
     intellectual development will result in tremendous benefits 
     for children, families, and our Nation.
       (4) Since more than 50 percent of the mothers of children 
     under the age of 3 now work outside of the home, our society 
     must change to provide new supports so young children receive 
     the attention and care that they need.
       (5) There are 12,000,000 children under the age of 3 in the 
     United States today and 1 in 4 lives in poverty.
       (6) Compared with most other industrialized countries, the 
     United States has a higher infant mortality rate, a higher 
     proportion of low-birth weight babies, and a smaller 
     proportion of babies immunized against childhood diseases.
       (7) National and local studies have found a strong link 
     between increased violence and crime among youth when there 
     is no early intervention.
       (8) The United States will spend more than $35,000,000,000 
     over the next 5 years on Federal programs for at-risk or 
     delinquent youth and child welfare programs, which address 
     crisis situations which frequently could be avoided or made 
     much less severe with good early interventions.
       (9) Many local communities across the country have 
     developed successful early childhood efforts and with 
     additional resources could expand and enhance opportunities 
     for young children.
                 TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).
       (2) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' means the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (4) State board.--The term ``State board'' means a State 
     Early Learning Coordinating Board established under section 
     102(c).
       (5) Young child.--The term ``young child'' means an 
     individual from birth through age 5.
       (6) Young child assistance activities.--The term ``young 
     child assistance activities'' means the activities described 
     in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of section 103(b).

     SEC. 102. ALLOTMENTS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make allotments under 
     subsection (b) to eligible States to pay for the Federal 
     share of the cost of enabling the States to make grants to 
     local collaboratives under section 103 for young child 
     assistance activities.
       (b) Allotment.--
       (1) In general.--From the funds appropriated under section 
     105 for each fiscal year and not reserved under subsection 
     (i), the Secretary shall allot to each eligible State an 
     amount that bears the same relationship to such funds as the 
     total number of young children in poverty in the State bears 
     to the total number of young children in poverty in all 
     eligible States.
       (2) Young child in poverty.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``young child in poverty'' means an individual who--
       (A) is a young child; and
       (B) is a member of a family with an income below the 
     poverty line.
       (c) State Boards.--
       (1) In general.--In order for a State to be eligible to 
     obtain an allotment under this title, the Governor of the 
     State shall establish, or designate an entity to serve as, a

[[Page S10959]]

     State Early Learning Coordinating Board, which shall receive 
     the allotment and make the grants described in section 103.
       (2) Established board.--A State board established under 
     paragraph (1) shall consist of the Governor and members 
     appointed by the Governor, including--
       (A) representatives of all State agencies primarily 
     providing services to young children in the State;
       (B) representatives of business in the State;
       (C) chief executive officers of political subdivisions in 
     the State;
       (D) parents of young children in the State;
       (E) officers of community organizations serving low-income 
     individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the State;
       (F) representatives of State nonprofit organizations that 
     represent the interests of young children in poverty, as 
     defined in subsection (b), in the State;
       (G) representatives of organizations providing services to 
     young children and the parents of young children, such as 
     organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start 
     programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), 
     providing services through a family resource center, 
     providing home visits, or providing health care services, in 
     the State; and
       (H) representatives of local educational agencies.
       (3) Designated board.--The Governor may designate an entity 
     to serve as the State board under paragraph (1) if the entity 
     includes the Governor and the members described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (2).
       (4) Designated state agency.--The Governor shall designate 
     a State agency that has a representative on the State board 
     to provide administrative oversight concerning the use of 
     funds made available under this title and ensure 
     accountability for the funds.
       (d) Application.--To be eligible to receive an allotment 
     under this title, a State board shall annually submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 
     At a minimum, the application shall contain--
       (1) sufficient information about the entity established or 
     designated under subsection (c) to serve as the State board 
     to enable the Secretary to determine whether the entity 
     complies with the requirements of such subsection;
       (2) a comprehensive State plan for carrying out young child 
     assistance activities;
       (3) an assurance that the State board will provide such 
     information as the Secretary shall by regulation require on 
     the amount of State and local public funds expended in the 
     State to provide services for young children; and
       (4) an assurance that the State board shall annually 
     compile and submit to the Secretary information from the 
     reports referred to in section 103(d)(2)(F)(iii) that 
     describes the results referred to in section 103(d)(2)(F)(i).
       (e) Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described in 
     subsection (a) shall be--
       (A) 85 percent, in the case of a State for which the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in section 
     1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b))) is 
     not less than 50 percent but is less than 60 percent;
       (B) 87.5 percent, in the case of a State for which such 
     percentage is not less than 60 percent but is less than 70 
     percent; and
       (C) 90 percent, in the case of any State not described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (2) State share.--
       (A) In general.--The State shall contribute the remaining 
     share (referred to in this paragraph as the ``State share'') 
     of the cost described in subsection (a).
       (B) Form.--The State share of the cost shall be in cash.
       (C) Sources.--The State may provide for the State share of 
     the cost from State or local sources, or through donations 
     from private entities.
       (f) State Administrative Costs.--
       (1) In general.--A State may use not more than 5 percent of 
     the funds made available through an allotment made under this 
     title to pay for a portion, not to exceed 50 percent, of 
     State administrative costs related to carrying out this 
     title.
       (2) Waiver.--A State may apply to the Secretary for a 
     waiver of paragraph (1). The Secretary may grant the waiver 
     if the Secretary finds that unusual circumstances prevent the 
     State from complying with paragraph (1). A State that 
     receives such a waiver may use not more than 7.5 percent of 
     the funds made available through the allotment to pay for the 
     State administrative costs.
       (g) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor the activities 
     of States that receive allotments under this title to ensure 
     compliance with the requirements of this title, including 
     compliance with the State plans.
       (h) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     that has received an allotment under this title is not 
     complying with a requirement of this title, the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) provide technical assistance to the State to improve 
     the ability of the State to comply with the requirement;
       (2) reduce, by not less than 5 percent, an allotment made 
     to the State under this section, for the second determination 
     of noncompliance;
       (3) reduce, by not less than 25 percent, an allotment made 
     to the State under this section, for the third determination 
     of noncompliance; or
       (4) revoke the eligibility of the State to receive 
     allotments under this section, for the fourth or subsequent 
     determination of noncompliance.
       (i) Technical Assistance.--From the funds appropriated 
     under section 105 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve not more than 1 percent of the funds to pay for the 
     costs of providing technical assistance. The Secretary shall 
     use the reserved funds to enter into contracts with eligible 
     entities to provide technical assistance, to local 
     collaboratives that receive grants under section 103, 
     relating to the functions of the local collaboratives under 
     this title.

     SEC. 103. GRANTS TO LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.

       (a) In General.--A State board that receives an allotment 
     under section 102 shall use the funds made available through 
     the allotment, and the State contribution made under section 
     102(e)(2), to pay for the Federal and State shares of the 
     cost of making grants, on a competitive basis, to local 
     collaboratives to carry out young child assistance 
     activities.
       (b) Use of Funds.--A local collaborative that receives a 
     grant made under subsection (a)--
       (1) shall use funds made available through the grant to 
     provide, in a community, activities that consist of education 
     and supportive services, such as--
       (A) home visits for parents of young children;
       (B) services provided through community-based family 
     resource centers for such parents; and
       (C) collaborative pre-school efforts that link parenting 
     education for such parents to early childhood learning 
     services for young children; and
       (2) may use funds made available through the grant--
       (A) to provide, in the community, activities that consist 
     of--
       (i) activities designed to strengthen the quality of child 
     care for young children and expand the supply of high quality 
     child care services for young children;
       (ii) health care services for young children, including 
     increasing the level of immunization for young children in 
     the community, providing preventive health care screening and 
     education, and expanding health care services in schools, 
     child care facilities, clinics in public housing projects (as 
     defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))), and mobile dental and vision 
     clinics;
       (iii) services for children with disabilities who are young 
     children; and
       (iv) activities designed to assist schools in providing 
     educational and other support services to young children, and 
     parents of young children, in the community, to be carried 
     out during extended hours when appropriate; and
       (B) to pay for the salary and expenses of the administrator 
     described in subsection (e)(4), in accordance with such 
     regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe.
       (c) Multi-Year Funding.--In making grants under this 
     section, a State board may make grants for grant periods of 
     more than 1 year to local collaboratives with demonstrated 
     success in carrying out young child assistance activities.
       (d) Local Collaboratives.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section for a community, a local 
     collaborative shall demonstrate that the collaborative--
       (1) is able to provide, through a coordinated effort, young 
     child assistance activities to young children, and parents of 
     young children, in the community; and
       (2) includes--
       (A) all public agencies primarily providing services to 
     young children in the community;
       (B) businesses in the community;
       (C) representatives of the local government for the county 
     or other political subdivision in which the community is 
     located;
       (D) parents of young children in the community;
       (E) officers of community organizations serving low-income 
     individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the community;
       (F) community-based organizations providing services to 
     young children and the parents of young children, such as 
     organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start 
     programs, or providing pre-kindergarten education, mental 
     health, or family support services; and
       (G) nonprofit organizations that serve the community and 
     that are described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code.
       (e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local collaborative shall submit an 
     application to the State board at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the State board may 
     require. At a minimum, the application shall contain--
       (1) sufficient information about the entity described in 
     subsection (d)(2) to enable the State board to determine 
     whether the entity complies with the requirements of such 
     subsection; and
       (2) a comprehensive plan for carrying out young child 
     assistance activities in the community, including information 
     indicating--
       (A) the young child assistance activities available in the 
     community, as of the date of submission of the plan, 
     including information on efforts to coordinate the 
     activities;

[[Page S10960]]

       (B) the unmet needs of young children, and parents of young 
     children, in the community for young child assistance 
     activities;
       (C) the manner in which funds made available through the 
     grant will be used--
       (i) to meet the needs, including expanding and 
     strengthening the activities described in subparagraph (A) 
     and establishing additional young child assistance 
     activities; and
       (ii) to improve results for young children in the 
     community;
       (D) how the local cooperative will use at least 60 percent 
     of the funds made available through the grant to provide 
     young child assistance activities to young children and 
     parents described in subsection (f);
       (E) the comprehensive methods that the collaborative will 
     use to ensure that--
       (i) each entity carrying out young child assistance 
     activities through the collaborative will coordinate the 
     activities with such activities carried out by other entities 
     through the collaborative; and
       (ii) the local collaborative will coordinate the activities 
     of the local collaborative with--

       (I) other services provided to young children, and the 
     parents of young children, in the community; and
       (II) the activities of other local collaboratives serving 
     young children and families in the community, if any; and

       (F) the manner in which the collaborative will, at such 
     intervals as the State board may require, submit information 
     to the State board to enable the State board to carry out 
     monitoring under section 102(f), including the manner in 
     which the collaborative will--
       (i) evaluate the results achieved by the collaborative for 
     young children and parents of young children through 
     activities carried out through the grant;
       (ii) evaluate how services can be more effectively 
     delivered to young children and the parents of young 
     children; and
       (iii) prepare and submit to the State board annual reports 
     describing the results;
       (3) an assurance that the local collaborative will comply 
     with the requirements of subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of 
     paragraph (2), and subsection (g); and
       (4) an assurance that the local collaborative will hire an 
     administrator to oversee the provision of the activities 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (b).
       (f) Distribution.--In making grants under this section, the 
     State board shall ensure that at least 60 percent of the 
     funds made available through each grant are used to provide 
     the young child assistance activities to young children (and 
     parents of young children) who reside in school districts in 
     which half or more of the students receive free or reduced 
     price lunches under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1751 et seq.).
       (g) Local Share.--
       (1) In general.--The local collaborative shall contribute a 
     percentage (referred to in this subsection as the ``local 
     share'') of the cost of carrying out the young child 
     assistance activities.
       (2) Percentage.--The Secretary shall by regulation specify 
     the percentage referred to in paragraph (1).
       (3) Form.--The local share of the cost shall be in cash.
       (4) Source.--The local collaborative shall provide for the 
     local share of the cost through donations from private 
     entities.
       (5) Waiver.--The State board shall waive the requirement of 
     paragraph (1) for poor rural and urban areas, as defined by 
     the Secretary.
       (h) Monitoring.--The State board shall monitor the 
     activities of local collaboratives that receive grants under 
     this title to ensure compliance with the requirements of this 
     title.

     SEC. 104. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       Funds appropriated under this title shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     public funds expended to provide services for young children.

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $500,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2000, $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2003, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal year 2004 and each subsequent fiscal year.
                   TITLE II--CHILD CARE FOR FAMILIES

     SEC. 201. AMENDMENT TO CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 
                   ACT OF 1990.

       The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 is 
     amended by inserting after section 658C (42 U.S.C. 9858b) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 658C-1. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZERO TO SIX PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Payments.--Subject to the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (d), each State shall, for the purpose of 
     providing child care assistance on behalf of children under 6 
     years of age, receive payments under this section in 
     accordance with the formula described in section 658O.
       ``(2) Indian tribes.--The Secretary shall reserve 2 percent 
     of the amount appropriated to carry out this section in each 
     fiscal year for payments to Indian tribes and tribal 
     organizations.
       ``(3) Remainder.--Any amount appropriated for a fiscal year 
     under subsection (d), and remaining after the Secretary 
     awards grants under paragraph (1) and after the reservation 
     under paragraph (2), shall be used by the Secretary to make 
     additional grants to States based on the formula under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Reallotment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any portion of the allotment under 
     paragraph (1) to a State that the Secretary determines is not 
     required by the State to carry out the activities described 
     in subsection (b), in the period for which the allotment is 
     made available, shall be reallotted by the Secretary to other 
     States in proportion to the original allotments to the other 
     States.
       ``(B) Limitations.--
       ``(i) Reduction.--The amount of any reallotment to which a 
     State is entitled to under subparagraph (A) shall be reduced 
     to the extent that it exceeds the amount that the Secretary 
     estimates will be used in the State to carry out the 
     activities described in subsection (b).
       ``(ii) Reallotments.--The amount of such reduction shall be 
     similarly reallotted among States for which no reduction in 
     an allotment or reallotment is required by this paragraph.
       ``(C) Indian tribes or tribal organizations.--Any portion 
     of a grant made to an Indian tribe or tribal organization 
     under paragraph (2) that the Secretary determines is not 
     being used in a manner consistent with subsection (b) in the 
     period for which the grant or contract is made available, 
     shall be allotted by the Secretary to other tribes or 
     organizations in accordance with their respective needs.
       ``(5) Availability.--Amounts received by a State under a 
     grant under this section shall be available for use by the 
     State during the fiscal year for which the funds are provided 
     and for the following 2 fiscal years.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts received by a State under this 
     section shall be used to provide child care assistance, on a 
     sliding fee scale basis, on behalf of eligible children (as 
     determined under paragraph (2)) to enable the parents of such 
     children to secure high quality care for such children.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive child care 
     assistance from a State under this section, a child shall--
       ``(A) be under 6 years of age;
       ``(B) be residing with at least one parent who is employed 
     or enrolled in a school or training program or otherwise 
     requires child care as a preventive or protective service (as 
     determined under rules established by the Secretary); and
       ``(C) have a family income that is less than 85 percent of 
     the State median income for a family of the size involved.
       ``(3) Infant care set-aside.--A State shall set-aside 10 
     percent of the amounts received by the State under a grant 
     under subsection (a)(1) for a fiscal year for the 
     establishment of a program to establish innovations in infant 
     and toddler care, including models for--
       ``(A) the development of family child care networks;
       ``(B) the training of child care providers for infant and 
     toddler care; and
       ``(C) the support, renovation, and modernization of 
     facilities used for child care programs serving infants.
       ``(4) Poverty line.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     ``poverty line'' means the income official poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) that is applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       ``(c) Levels of Assistance.--
       ``(1) Adjustment of rates.--With respect to the levels of 
     assistance provided by States on behalf of eligible children 
     under this section, a State shall be permitted to adjust 
     rates above the market rates to ensure that families have 
     access to high quality infant and toddler care.
       ``(2) Additional assistance.--In administering this 
     section, the Secretary shall encourage States to provide 
     additional assistance on behalf of children for enriched 
     infant and toddler services.
       ``(3) Amount of assistance.--In providing assistance to 
     eligible children under this section, a State shall ensure 
     that an eligible child with a family income that is less than 
     100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size 
     involved is eligible to receive 100 percent of the amount of 
     the assistance for which the child is eligible.
       ``(d) Appropriation.--For grants under this section, there 
     are appropriated--
       ``(1) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(3) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 
     2003; and
       ``(4) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2004 
     and each subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     concerning--
       ``(1) the appropriate child to staff ratios for infants and 
     toddlers in child care settings, including child care centers 
     and family child care homes; and
       ``(2) other best practices for infant and toddler care.
       ``(f) Application of Other Requirements.--
       ``(1) State plan.--The State, as part of the State plan 
     submitted under section 658E(c), shall describe the 
     activities that the State intends to carry out using amounts 
     received under this section, including a description of the 
     levels of assistance to be provided.

[[Page S10961]]

       ``(2) Other requirements.--Amounts provided to a State 
     under this section shall be subject to the requirements and 
     limitations of this subchapter except that section 
     658E(c)(3), 658F, 658G, 658J, and 658O shall not apply.''.
              TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO THE HEAD START ACT

     SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 639(a) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9834(a)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, $4,900,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, 
     $5,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $6,100,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal year 2002''.

     SEC. 302. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

       Section 640(a)(6) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9835(a)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1997, and'' and inserting ``1997,''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``1998,'' the following: ``6 percent 
     for fiscal year 1999, 7 percent for fiscal year 2000, 8 
     percent for fiscal year 2001, and 10 percent for fiscal year 
     2002,''.

     SEC. 303. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on October 1, 1998.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise today, along with my distinguished 
colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, to introduce the 
Early Childhood Development Act of 1997. Let me thank all who have 
worked so hard to develop this legislation.
  The most important thing we can do to address the many social 
problems we face, is to recognize that the family is the centerpiece of 
our society and take steps to strengthen families and mobilize 
communities to support young children and their families.
  This legislation follows up on recent scientific research showing 
that infant brain development occurs much more rapidly than previously 
thought, and that early, positive interaction with parents plays the 
critical role in brain development.
  Not surprisingly parents have known instinctively for generations 
what science is just now figuring out: that reading to a baby, 
caressing and cuddling him, and helping him to have a wide range of 
good experiences will enhance his development. When children fail to 
receive love and nurturing at home when they do not receive quality 
child care, whether it is provided by centers, family child care homes, 
or relatives, they are far more likely to develop social and academic 
problems.
  Yet parents today face burdens that were unimaginable a generation 
ago. Half of all marriages now end in divorce, and 28 percent of all 
children under the age of 18 live in a single-parent family. One in 
four infants and toddlers under the age of 3--nearly 3 million 
children--live in families with incomes below the Federal poverty 
level.
  Many women, particularly in low- and moderate-income families, are 
essential in helping support their families financially and have 
entered the workforce in record numbers during the last generation. In 
many families, both parents work. Each day, an estimated 13 million 
children younger than 6--including 6 million babies and toddlers--spend 
some or all of their day being cared for by someone other than their 
parents. Children of working mothers are entering care as early as 6 
weeks of age and spending 35 or more hours a week in some form of child 
care. Whether by choice or necessity, parents must try to find quality 
child care--which is not always available.
  We are seeking, through this legislation, to provide families with 
support through early childhood education and more child care options. 
Our bill will support families--not bureaucracy--by building on local 
initiatives that are already working for families with infants and 
toddlers. We will help communities improve their services and supports 
to families with young children by expanding the thousands of 
successful efforts for families with children from birth to 6, such as 
those sponsored by the United Way and Boys and Girls Clubs as well as 
State initiatives such as Success by Six in Massachusetts and Vermont, 
the Parents as Teachers programs in Missouri and 47 other States, and 
the Early Childhood Initiative in Pennsylvania.
  The Early Childhood Development Act will provide funds for early 
childhood education programs for all children that emphasize the 
primary role of parents and help give them the tools they need to be 
their children's best teachers. Parents are the key to a child's 
healthy development and as we all know, we will never solve our social 
problems unless we involve parents in the process and in their 
children's lives.
  In addition, the bill will expand quality child care programs for 
families, especially for infants. And we will begin the Head Start 
Program earlier--when its impact could be much greater--at birth.
  While Government cannot and should not become a replacement for 
parents and families, we can help families become stronger by providing 
support to help them give their children the encouragement, the love 
and the healthy environment they need to develop their social and 
intellectual capacities.
  Our legislation balances the desire to provide support with the need 
to do so responsibly. I am proud that we have come together on a 
bipartisan basis to invest in programs that encourage family 
responsibility and obligation while helping families in need to reach 
those goals.
  I am very optimistic that the spirit of bipartisanship will guide our 
consideration of this legislation and move it forward. Recent polls 
have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans want early 
childhood development issues to be top priorities for our country. We 
must all work together to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are 
given the care and protection they need and deserve.
  Mr. President. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
improve the quality of life for all children.

                          ____________________