[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5129-S5134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAMS:
S. 2091. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
ensure medicare reimbursement for certain ambulance services, and to
improve the efficiency of the emergency medical system, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
emergency medical services efficiency act of 1998
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning on behalf of all those
who serve their fellow citizens through their active participation in
the Nation's emergency care system to introduce the Emergency Medical
Services Act.
Mr. President, as a Senator who is deeply concerned about the ever-
expanding size and scope of the Federal Government, I have long
believed Washington is too big, too clumsy and too removed to deal
effectively with many of the issues in which it already meddles.
However, I also believe there's an overriding public health interest
in ensuring a viable, seamless, nationwide
[[Page S5130]]
EMS system. By designating this week as National EMS Week, the Nation
recognizes those individual who make the EMS system work.
There is no more appropriate time to reaffirm our commitment to EMS
by addressing some of the problems the system is presented with daily.
I have been privileged to get to know the men and women who dedicate
their talents to serving others in an emergency. We have together
discussed problems within the EMS system and concluded there are areas
in which the Federal Government can help.
The original result of our discussions concerning the Federal role in
EMS was S. 238, the Emergency Medical Services Act [EMSEA]. When I
introduced S. 238 on January 30, 1997, I acknowledged that it wasn't
intended to solve all the problems EMS faces; it was merely a first
step toward a meaningful national dialog on EMs. Indeed, this first
step was a productive one.
Last summer, I assembled EMS and health care leaders in Minnesota,
asked them to take another look at the EMSEA, and report back to me
with their thoughts. In January, I received a copy of their report.
I was extremely pleased with their efforts and have used those
suggestions as the basis for the legislative language comprising the
new Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act I am introducing today.
I have often said that Congress has a tendency to wait until there's
a crisis before it acts, but Congress cannot wait until there's a
crisis in the EMS system before we take steps to improve it. There is
simply too much at stake.
Whether we realize it or not, we depend on and expect the constant
readiness of emergency medical services. To ensure that readiness, we
need to make efficient and effective efforts to secure the stability of
the system.
This has been my focus in redrafting this legislation.
There are many similarities between S. 238 and the new bill I am
introducing today.
For instance, we continue to assert that the most important thing we
can do to maintain the vitality of the EMS system is to compel the
government to reimburse for the services it says it will pay for under
Medicare.
In the meetings I have had with ambulance providers, emergency
medical technicians emergency physicians, nurses, and other EMS-related
personnel, their most common request is to base reimbursement on a
``prudent layperson'' standard, rather than the ultimate diagnosis
reached in the emergency room.
While the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 [BBA] contained a provision
basing reimbursement for emergency services on the prudent layperson
standard, we have yet to see HCFA's interpretation of the provision and
whether it will include ambulance services.
I have written letters to HCFA and Senate Finance Committee Chairman
William Roth indicating my understanding that ambulance services would
be considered part of ``emergency services'' as defined in the BBA.
I have been given no assurances from HCFA that they intend to include
ambulance services as part of the ``emergency services'' definition in
the balanced budget agreement.
To illustrate how prevalent this problem is, I want to share with you
a case my staff worked on relating to Medicare reimbursement for
ambulance services. Please keep in mind that this is the fee-for-
service Medicare program.
It was back in 1994 that Andrew Bernecker of Braham, MN, was mowing
with a power scythe and tractor when he fell. The rotating blades of
the scythe severely cut his upper arm. Mr. Bernecker tried to walk
toward his home but was too faint from the blood loss, so he crawled
the rest of the way.
Afraid that his wife, who was 86 years old at the time, would panic--
or worse, have a heart attack--he crawled to the pump and washed as
much blood and dirt off as he could. His wife saw him and immediately
called 911 for an ambulance.
He was rushed to the hospital where Mr. Bernecker ultimately had
orthopedic surgery and spent some time in the intensive care unit.
In response to the bills submitted to Medicare, the Government sent
this reply with respect to the ambulance billing:
Medicare Regulations Provide that certain conditions must
be met in order for ambulance services to be covered.
Medicare pays for ambulance services only when the use of
any other method of transportation would endanger your
health.
The Government denied payment, claiming the ambulance wasn't
medically necessary.
Apparently, Medicare believed the man's wife--who was, remember, 86
years old--should have been able to drive him to the hospital for
treatment. Mr. and Mrs. Bernecker appealed, but were denied, and they
began paying what they could afford each month on the ambulance bill.
After several years of paying $20 a month, they finally paid off the
ambulance bill. Medicare however, later reopened the case and
reimbursed the Berneckers.
I believe the experience this family had with Medicare's denial of
payment for ambulance services happens far too often, and Congress
needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Another similarity between the two versions of this bill is the
creation of a Federal commission on emergency medical services to make
recommendations and to help provide input on how Federal regulatory
actions affect all types of EMS providers.
EMS needs a seat at the table when health care and other regulatory
policy is made.
Few things are more frustrating for ambulance services than trying to
navigate and comply with the tangled mess of laws and regulations from
the Federal level on down, only to receive either a reimbursement that
doesn't cover the costs of providing the service or otherwise a flat
denial of the payment.
Mr. President, I came across this chart last year, the chart I have
with me on the floor this morning, that demonstrates how a Medicare
claim moves from submittal to payment, denial, or write-off by the
ambulance provider.
If you look at this chart, I ask you, tell me how a rural ambulance
provider who depends on volunteers has the manpower or the expertise to
navigate through this entire mess. And, in the event that it is
navigated successfully, ambulance services are regularly reimbursed at
a level that doesn't even cover their costs.
Now let us talk about how much it costs to run just one ambulance.
There is the cost of the dispatcher who remains on the line to give
prearrival assistance, the ambulance itself, which costs from $85,000
to $100,000 to put on the road, the radios, beepers, and the cellular
telephones used to communicate between the dispatcher, the ambulance,
and the hospital, the supplies and equipment in the ambulance,
including defibrillators, stretchers, EKG monitors, and bandages, and
the two emergency medical technicians or paramedics who both drive the
ambulance and provide care to the patient, the vehicle repair,
maintenance, and insurance costs, and the liability insurance for the
paramedics. As you can see, the list goes on and on.
Yes, the costs can be high, but it is clear to me that, with the
uncertainty ambulance providers face out in the field each day, they
need to be prepared for every type of injury or condition. Mr.
President, that is expensive, but we as consumers expect that in the
case of an emergency.
I am convinced those who complain about the high costs of emergency
care would be aghast if the ambulance that arrived to care for them in
an emergency didn't have the lifesaving equipment needed for their
treatment.
Let us be honest with ourselves: We want the quickest and best
service when we face an emergency--and the bottom line is that costs
money.
Mr. President, many of our political debates in Washington center
around how to better prepare for the 21st century.
I have always supported research and efforts to expand the limits of
technology and continue to believe technological innovations and
advances in biomedical and basic scientific research hold tremendous
promise.
Under the new bill I am introducing today, Federal grant programs
will be clarified to ensure that EMS agencies are eligible for programs
that relate to highway safety, rural development, and tele-health
technology.
[[Page S5131]]
Emergency medical services have come a long way since the first
ambulance services began in Cleveland and New York City way back during
the 1860's.
Indeed, the scientific and technological advances have created a new
practice of medicine in just 2 short decades, and have dramatically
improved the prospects of surviving any serious trauma.
There is reason to believe further advances will have equally
meaningful results.
Innovations like tele-health technology may soon allow EMT's, nurses,
and paramedics to perform more sophisticated procedures under a
physician's supervision via real-time, ambulance-mounted monitors and
cameras networked to emergency departments in specific service areas.
By not considering EMS agencies for Federal grant dollars, we may
cause significant delays in the application of current technologies.
That would be a mistake.
Perhaps the most dramatic departure the reintroduced bill takes from
S. 238 related to the designation of a lead Federal agency for EMS.
In August of 1996, the National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration and the Health Resources and Services Administration,
Maternal and Child Health Bureau issued their report, ``Emergency
Medical Services: Agenda for the Future.''
The report outlined specific ways EMS can be improved, and one of the
stated goals was the authorization of a ``lead Federal agency.''
My original legislation instructed the Secretaries of Health and
Transportation to confer on and facilitate the transfer of all EMS-
related functions to the Department of Transportation.
While we recognized that there would be some who would applaud the
notion and others who would berate it, the suggestion compelled people
to consider the issue and offer alternative approaches.
The recommendations of the advisory committee and the comments I have
received from national groups indicate we have yet to reach a solution
to the problematic designation of a lead Federal agency.
As such, under the new legislation, we call for an independent study
to determine which existing agency or new board would best serve as the
lead Federal entity for EMS.
The concerns expressed to me about designating the Department of
Transportation as the lead Federal agency were virtually identical to
the concerns about granting lead-agency designation to the Department
of Health and Human Services. It just didn't seem to fit.
Therefore, I believe the most appropriate action is to take our time
and get it right by conducting this study.
Mr. President, in 1995, there were approximately 100 million visits
to emergency departments across the country.
Roughly 20 to 25 percent of those visits started with a call for an
ambulance. Each one of those calls is important, especially to those
seeking assistance and the responding EMS personnel.
The Nation owes a great deal to the EMS personnel who have dedicated
themselves to their profession because they care about people and they
want to help those who are suffering.
Nobody gets rich as a professional paramedic, and there is even less
compensation as a volunteer. The field of emergency medical services
presents many challenges--but offers the reward of knowing you helped
someone in need of assistance.
Every year, the American Ambulance Association recognizes EMS
personnel across the country for their contributions to the profession,
and bestows upon them the Stars of Life Award.
This year, 124 individuals have been chosen by their peers to be
honored for demonstrating exceptional kindness and selflessness in
performing their duties.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed the 1998 American Ambulance
Association Stars of Life honorees in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
1998 Stars of Life Honorees
Alaska--Monica Helmuth.
Arizona--Jeff Mayhew, Michael Norling, Tammy Smith, Karen
Deo, and Sharon R. Featherston.
California--Eva Eveland, John Erie Henry, Chris McGeragle,
Nephty Landin, Victor Oseguera, Todd Hombs, Kathy Hester, Les
Hutchison, David Pratt, Ted Boorkman, and Paul Maxwell.
Colorado--Kurt Dennison and Jed Swank.
Connecticut--Leonard Sudniek, Michael Pederson, and Alfonso
Anglero.
Delaware--Mary McGuire.
Florida--Sean Kelley, Kenneth Warner, David Meck, and John
Morrow.
Georgia--Damon Wisdom and Dwayne Friday.
Hawaii--Thomas Sodoma.
Iowa--Elaine Snell and Gary Soderstrom.
Illinois--Julie Burke.
Indiana--Thomas Shoemaker, Rebecca Johnson, and Betty
Nickens.
Kansas--Darren Root.
Kentucky--Aaron Gutermuth.
Louisiana--Mark Reis, Wilson ``Billy'' Hughes, Patrice
Shows, and Dennis McKinley.
Massachusetts--Warren F. Nicklas, Shawn Payton, Bernard
Underwood, Chester ``Chuck'' Cummens, Michael Ward, Dana
Gerrard, Priscilla Gerrard, and John Conceison, Jr.
Maryland--James Pirtle, John Dimitriadis, Chad Packard, and
Jeff Meyer.
Maine--Paul Knowlton and Doug Chapelle.
Michigan--Nancy Hunger, Craig Veldheer, Jeffrey Buchanan,
Timothy Waters, Lydia Paulus, Thomas Scott, and Tonya
Prescott.
Minnesota--Daryl Howe, Dan Anger, and John Hall.
Missouri--David Michael, Royce McGuire, and Kirk N.
Wattman.
Mississippi--Denise Pilgreen.
North Carolina--Cynthia Seamon, Amy Beinke, Jerry
Cornelison, Ronald Corrado, Thomas Wright, Tim Marshburn, and
Heather VanRaalte.
Nebraska--Jodi Kozol.
New Jersey--Kimberly Matthews and Michael Maciejczyk.
New Mexico--Gergory Pollard.
Nevada--Mike Denton and Eric Guevin.
New York--Thomas Murphy, Vicki Knarr, Tina Pawlukovich-
Cross, Lynn Pulaski, Stacey Wallace, Larry Abbey, Edward
Schaeffer, Brent Sala, Dana Peritore, Jean Zambrano, Darrel
Grigg, Debra Yandow, John Falgitano, Sam Lubin, and Jim
Mazzucca.
Ohio--Kenton Kirkland, Robert Good, and James Drake.
Oklahoma--Terri Farmer.
Oregon--Gregory Sanders, Doug Carlson, and Shawn Hunt.
Pennsylvania--Lisa Mauger, Stephanie Schmoyer, and
Christine Webster.
Tennessee--James Quilliams.
Texas--Cory Jeffcoat, Eric Silva, Christine Saucedo, Elaine
Tyler, and Brad Redden.
Utah--Marcie Mehl, Charles Cruz, and Patrick Eden.
Virginia--Gerrit ``Bip'' Terhune.
Vermont--Eric Davenport and Paul Jardine.
Washington--George McGibbon and Jim Hogenson.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, in closing I have talked with many EMT's,
paramedics, and emergency nurses, and most tell me that they wouldn't
think of doing anything else for their chosen career.
So, in honoring them during this National EMS Week, I can think of no
better way to recognize their service than through the introduction of
legislation that will help them to help others.
I ask my colleagues to support them by supporting the Emergency
Medical Services Act.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Thomas, and
Mr. Brownback):
S. 2092. A bill to promote full equality at the United Nations for
Israel; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EQUALITY FOR ISRAEL AT THE UNITED NATIONS ACT OF 1998
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation
requiring the Secretary of State report on actions taken by our
Ambassador to the United Nations to push the nations of the Western
Europe and Others Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their group.
As you may know, Israel is the only nation among the 185 member
states that does not hold membership in a regional group. Membership in
a regional group is the prerequisite for any nation to serve on key
United Nations bodies such as the Security Council. In order to correct
this inequality, I am introducing ``The Equality for Israel at the
United Nations Act of 1998.'' I believe that this legislation will
prompt our United Nations Representative to make equality for Israel at
the United Nations a high priority.
I am proud to be joined by Senators Wyden, Brownback and Thomas as
original co-sponsors of this important legislation.
Mr. President, Israel has been a member of the United Nations since
[[Page S5132]]
1949, yet it has been continuously precluded from membership in any
regional bloc. Most member states from the Middle East would block the
vote needed to join their own regional group. The Western Europe and
Others Group, however, has accepted countries from other geographical
areas--the United States and Australia for example.
Recently United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that
``It's time to usher in a new era of relations between Israel and the
United Nations . . . One way to rectify that new chapter would be to
rectify an anomaly: Israel's position as the only Member State that is
not a member of one of the regional groups, which means it has no
chance of being elected to serve on main organs such as the Security
Council or the Economic and Social Council. This anomaly would be
corrected.''
I believe it is time to back Secretary General Annan's idea with
strong support from the United States Senate and I ask all my
colleagues to join me in sending this message to the UN to stop this
discrimination against Israel.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this legislation
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2092
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 ``Equality for Israel at the
United Nations Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. EFFORTS TO PROMOTE FULL EQUALITY AT THE UNITED
NATIONS FOR ISRAEL.
(a) Congressional Statement.--It is the sense of the
Congress that--
(1) the United States must help promote an end to the
persistent inequity experienced by Israel in the United
Nations whereby Israel is the only longstanding member of the
organization to be denied acceptance into any of the United
Nations regional blocs, which serve as the basis for
participation in important activities of the United Nations,
including rotating membership on the United Nations Security
Council; and
(2) the United States Ambassador to the United Nations
should take all steps necessary to ensure Israel's acceptance
in the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) regional bloc,
whose membership includes the non-European countries of
Canada, Australia, and the United States.
(b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act and on a quarterly basis
thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report which includes
the following information (in classified or unclassified form
as appropriate):
(1) Actions taken by representatives of the United States,
including the United States Ambassador to the United Nations,
to encourage the nations of the Western Europe and Others
Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their regional bloc.
(2) Efforts undertaken by the Secretary General of the
United Nations to secure Israel's full and equal
participation in that body.
(3) Specific responses solicited and received by the
Secretary of State from each of the nations of Western Europe
and Others Group (WEOG) on their position concerning Israel's
acceptance into their organization.
(4) Other measures being undertaken, and which will be
undertaken, to ensure and promote Israel's full and equal
participation in the United Nations.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 2093. A bill to provide class size demonstration grants; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the National
SAGE Act. This legislation would authorize a limited number of
innovative demonstration grant programs to assist states in their
efforts to reduce public school class size and improve learning in the
earliest grades.
Mr. President, my own state of Wisconsin has been a leader in the
effort to reduce class size in public schools. This legislation is
modeled after Wisconsin's successful pilot program, the Student
Achievement Guarantee in Education of SAGE program. I am proud that my
bill bears the same name as that groundbreaking program.
SAGE is a very appropriate acronym for this legislation, for a sage
is a teacher who imparts knowledge and wisdom through direct engagement
with his or her students. By providing grants to states trying to
reduce class size and implement educational reforms, the National SAGE
Act would give students and teachers more opportunities to interact
directly. The result will be better teacher morale, better student
performance and a happier, more successful school.
Mr. President, I have heard about the need for smaller classes from
parents, teachers and school administrators around Wisconsin--including
my mother-in-law, who has been a 1st grade teacher for more than 20
years in Waunakee. They all tell me by reducing class size students
receive more attention from teachers, and it stands to reason that more
attention will translate into more learning.
When asked to evaluate the Wisconsin SAGE program, eight-year
teaching veteran Shelia Briggs, of Glendale Elementary School in
Madison, Wisconsin said, ``SAGE is just phenomenal. I have
kindergarteners who are writing paragraphs. In addition, behavior is a
huge benefit of SAGE. With too many little bodies, you will have
difficulties. Things are so much more manageable.'' Additionally,
second grade teacher Amy Kane says, ``I have taught second grade for
nine years and never had this high a percentage of readers. Their
writing skills are much higher, and they are able to behave better. I
make contact with parents now that I could never make with 34
students.''
Wisconsin's SAGE program has again demonstrated empirically what we
know instinctively: students in smaller classes get more attention from
teachers, and teachers with fewer students will have more time and
energy to devote to each child.
In addition to vital input from these Wisconsin educators, other
studies confirm that small class size promotes effective teaching and
learning. The leading scientific studies of the impact of small class
size, Tennessee's STAR study and its follow up, the Lasting Benefit
Study, found that students in small classes in the early years earned
significantly higher scores on basic skill tests in all four years and
in all types of schools. Follow-up studies have shown that these
achievement gains were sustained in later years even if students are
placed in larger classes. While I certainly recognize that teacher
quality, high expectations an parental involvement are important
factors in quality education, the significance of small class size
should not be underestimated and cannot be ignored.
Mr. President, Wisconsin is not the only state fighting to reduce
class size and implement educational reforms in its public schools.
Several states have made small class size a priority, including
California, Tennessee, Indiana and Nevada to name a few. My
legislation, the National SAGE Act, authorizes $75 million over a
period of five years to fund a limited number of demonstration grants
to state that create innovative programs to reduce public school class
size and improve educational performance, as Wisconsin has done. The
Secretary of Education would choose the states to receive funding based
on several criteria, including the state's need to reduce class size,
the ability of a state education agency to furnish 50 percent of the
funds and the degree to which parents, teachers, school administrators
and local teacher organizations are consulted in designing the program.
The funding for the National SAGE Act would be fully offset by cuts in
a wasteful federal program that subsidizes research and development for
a huge aircraft manufacturer. That's classic corporate welfare and by
eliminating it, we can fund this important SAGE program and still
reduce federal spending by more than $1.7 billion over a five year
period.
The National SAGE Act also includes a comprehensive research and
evaluation component to document the benefit of smaller class size in
the earliest grades, and support efforts to reduce class size in
schools all over America.
Mr. President, I want to take a moment to say how pleased I am that
the Clinton Administration has been pushing the issue of class size to
the forefront of the education debate. In January I wrote to the
President requesting that he make reducing class size a priority in his
FY 99 education budget. I was pleased that the President's budget
includes an incentive to help schools provide small classes in the
early grades.
While I support the intent of the President's class size proposal, it
is not funded. I was uncomfortable with the President's original
proposal to fund a
[[Page S5133]]
small class size initiative with money from a tobacco settlement that
did not yet exist. I am hopeful that Congress will soon pass tobacco
legislation, Mr. President, but it is best that we not tie class size
legislation to something as controversial and decisive as the tobacco
bill.
My fear is that the end of the 105th session will come and Congress
will go home having done nothing to assist States trying to reduce
class size. My bill approaches this issue more directly, without the
baggage of the tobacco bill and without expanding the deficit.
I have been very active on the class size issue over the last year
because again--I believe that there is a great national purpose of
helping our children to learn by doing all we can to reduce class sizes
for children in the earliest grades. While I embrace that national
purpose, I do not seek a national mandate for smaller classes. That is
not a proper federal goal. Instead, I support smaller classes as a
national goal, to be achieved by the local school boards. I think we
all can agree that there are no magic remedies to the problems in our
public schools and no instant fix to improve learning. However, I
believe that targeting federal funds matched on a 50-50 basis by state
funding, to assist school districts moving toward smaller class size,
is an effective use of federal dollars.
At its core, Mr. President, the small class size issue is really
about protecting pubic education. The promising achievements of state
efforts in education reform merit strong federal support. We have an
obligation to strengthen public schools, because they are the principal
institution for educating American children.
Public schools are all-inclusive; they accept all students,
regardless of income, race, religion or ethnicity. In introducing the
National SAGE Act today, I want to reiterate my strong commitment to
quality public education. I am proud of the education I received from
Wisconsin's public schools; proud to have graduated from them, and
proud that my children attend them. I am committed to helping our
public schools improve and adapt and respond to the increased burdens
placed on them. I feel strongly that the federal government has a
limited--but important role to play in public education.
Mr. President, the Washington Post recently wrote an article about
the growing number of families in the Washington area deciding to
educate their children at home, rather than participate in the public
school system. Mr. President, this trend is not happening in Washington
alone, but around the nation.
The Post article states that one of their biggest complaints for
families opting out of the public schools is large class size. Parents
understand the importance of a low teacher to child ratio in the
classroom. They understand the critical difference additional teacher
attention can make for their child's educational achievement.
The parent's highlighted in the Post article, Mr. President, are fed
up with public school classes made up of twenty-five to thirty students
or more, fed up with the lack of individual attention their children
are receiving in the classroom; and finally, Mr. President, parents are
fed up with the discipline problems created by too many children and
too few adults in one classroom.
While I support the choices of families who send their children to
public schools or home school their children, the growing trend to move
public resources away from the public schools, where more than 90% of
our nation's children are educated, is disturbing. Instead of
abandoning public education with tax breaks for private schools or
spending time and energy designing a Constitutionally flawed voucher
program, Congress should be working to ensure that we target federal
dollars to meet the needs of local school districts. Those of us who
believe a high quality public education system is essential to the
productivity of our nation should be very alarmed by this growing
effort to move resources away from our public schools.
Mr. President, the federal government has a responsibility during the
105th Congress to take a positive step toward helping school districts
reduce class size as part of an overall effort to improve education and
ensure that our children have the best chance to excel and reach their
full potential. I look forward to continued debate on this issue and
hope that my colleagues will consider the National SAGE Act as a
reasonable, fiscally responsible proposal to assist states in their
efforts to reduce public school class size and improve learning in the
earliest grades.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2093
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION. 1. CLASS SIZE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS.
Subpart 3 of part D of title V of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1109 et seq.) is amended to read as
follows:
``Subpart 3--Class Size Demonstration Grants
``SEC. 561. PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this subpart to provide grants to
State educational agencies to enable such agencies to
determine the benefits, in various school settings, of
reducing class size on the educational performance of
students and on classroom management and organization.
``SEC. 562. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) Program Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants, on a
competitive basis, to State educational agencies to pay the
Federal share of the costs of conducting demonstration
projects that demonstrate methods of reducing class size that
may provide information meaningful to other State educational
agencies and local educational agencies.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share shall be 50
percent.
``(b) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve not more than
5 percent of the amount appropriated under section 565A for
each fiscal year to carry out the activities described in
section 565.
``(c) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall make grants
to State educational agencies on the basis of--
``(1) the need and the ability of a State educational
agency to reduce the class size of an elementary school or
secondary school served by such agency;
``(2) the ability of a State educational agency to furnish
the non-Federal share of the costs of the demonstration
project for which assistance is sought;
``(3) the ability of a State educational agency to continue
the project for which assistance is sought after the
termination of Federal financial assistance under this
subpart; and
``(4) the degree to which a State educational agency
demonstrates in the application submitted pursuant to section
564 consultation in program implementation and design with
parents, teachers, school administrators, and local teacher
organizations, where applicable.
``(d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this subpart, the
Secretary shall give priority to demonstration projects that
involve at-risk students in the earliest grades, including
educationally or economically disadvantaged students,
students with disabilities, and limited English proficient
students.
``(e) Grants Must Supplement Other Funds.--A State
educational agency shall use the Federal funds received under
this subpart to supplement and not supplant other Federal,
State, and local funds available to the State educational
agency to carry out the purpose of this subpart.
``SEC. 563. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Annual Competition.--In each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall announce the factors to be examined in a
demonstration project assisted under this subpart. Such
factors may include--
``(1) the magnitude of the reduction in class size to be
achieved;
``(2) the level of education in which the demonstration
projects shall occur;
``(3) the form of the instructional strategy to be
demonstrated; and
``(4) the duration of the project.
``(b) Random Techniques and Appropriate Comparison
Groups.--Demonstration projects assisted under this subpart
shall be designed to utilize randomized techniques or
appropriate comparison groups.
``SEC. 564. APPLICATION.
``(a) In General.--In order to receive a grant under this
subpart, a State educational agency shall submit an
application to the Secretary that is responsive to the
announcement described in section 563(a), at such time, in
such manner, and containing or accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(b) Duration.--The Secretary shall encourage State
educational agencies to submit applications under this
subpart for a period of 5 years.
``(c) Contents.--Each application submitted under
subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) a description of the objectives to be attained with
the grant funds and the manner in which the grant funds will
be used to reduce class size;
``(2) a description of the steps to be taken to achieve
target class sizes, including,
[[Page S5134]]
where applicable, the acquisition of additional teaching
personnel and classroom space;
``(3) a statement of the methods for the collection of data
necessary for the evaluation of the impact of class size
reduction programs on student achievement;
``(4) an assurance that the State educational agency will
pay, from non-Federal sources, the non-Federal share of the
costs of the demonstration project for which assistance is
sought; and
``(5) such additional assurances as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
``(d) Sufficient Size and Scope Required.--The Secretary
shall award grants under this subpart only to State
educational agencies submitting applications which described
projects of sufficient size and scope to contribute to
carrying out the purpose of this subpart.
``SEC. 565. EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION.
``(a) National Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct a
national evaluation of the demonstration projects assisted
under this subpart to determine the costs incurred in
achieving the reduction in class size and the effects of the
reductions on results, such as student performance in the
affected subjects or grades, attendance, discipline,
classroom organization, management, and teacher satisfaction
and retention.
``(b) Cooperation.--Each State educational agency receiving
a grant under this subpart shall cooperate in the national
evaluation described in subsection (a) and shall provide such
information to the Secretary as the Secretary may reasonably
require.
``(c) Reports.--The Secretary shall report to Congress on
the results of the evaluation conducted under subsection (a).
``(d) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall widely
disseminate information about the results of the class size
demonstration projects assisted under this subpart.
``SEC. 565A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subpart $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.''.
SEC. 2. PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
BY NASA RELATING TO AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE.
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration may not carry out research and development
activities relating to the performance of aircraft (including
supersonic aircraft and subsonic aircraft) unless the
Administrator receives payment in full for such activities
from the private sector.
____________________