Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 52 (Thursday, April 15, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 52 (Thursday, April 15, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3790-S3814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Safe
Seniors Assurance Study Act of 1999.'' I am joined in this effort by my
colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada. This bill would require that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services conduct a study and analyze the
impact of physician supervision, or lack of physician supervision, on
death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of
anesthesia services. Since the

[[Page S3791]]

Medicare program began, the Health Care Financing Adminstration's
(HCFA) standards for hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers have
required that a physician either provide the anesthesia care or
supervise the anesthesia care provided by nurse anesthetists. This
requirement has also applied to the Medicaid program.
The very old and the very young, both covered by these two federal
insurance programs, represent the segments of our population that, on
average, face the highest anesthesia risks. The two programs cover over
40 million Americans.
In December 1997, HCFA proposed changes to its standards for
hospitals and surgical centers. Included in these proposed changes was
the elimination of the physician supervision requirement, leaving to
state governments the decision whether physician supervision of nurse
anesthetists was necessary. In issuing its proposed changes, HCFA
offered no scientific data indicating that anesthesia safety would not
be impaired as a result of the changed rule, and has offered no such
data to this day.
In 1992, HCFA considered a similar change, but rejected it. After
reviewing the studies available at the time showing anesthesia
outcomes, HCFA concluded: ``In consideration of the risks associated
with anesthesia procedures, we believe it would not be appropriate to
allow anesthesia administration by a non-physician anesthetist unless
under supervision by an anesthesiologist or the operating
practitioner.'' HCFA also declined to adopt as a ``national minimum
standard of care, a practice that is allowed in only some states.''
In the only comparative anesthesia outcome study published since
1992, researchers found that outcomes were better in hospitals having
Board-certified anesthesiologists on staff. In the Fall of last year,
an abstract of a University of Pennsylvania study of 65,000 Medicare
surgical cases indicated that mortality and `failure to rescue' rates
significantly improved when a nurse anesthetist was supervised by an
anesthesiologist rather than the operating surgeon. This latter study
is expected to be published in final form later this year.
The Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations
measure recommended that HCFA ``base retaining or changing the current
requirement of physician supervision. . .on scientifically valid
outcomes data.'' The Report suggested ``an outcome approach that would
examine, using existing operating room anesthesia data, mortality and
adverse outcomes rates by different anesthesia providers, adjusted to
reflect relevant scientific variables.''
A bill was introduced in the House in early February by
Representatives Dave Weldon and Gene Green that would require HCFA to
undertake the congressionally-recommended outcome study of Medicare
patients, and complete it by June 30, 2000. That bill currently has
about 37 cosponsors--Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan
issue, but an issue about safety. The bill that I am introducing with
my colleague, Senator Harry Reid today, is very similar to the Weldon/
Green bill in the House. Our Senate version would only require that the
Secretary of HHS consider the results of the June 2000 study in
deciding whether or not to implement its 1997 proposal.
Physician anesthesiologists personally provide, or supervise
anesthesia administration by a qualified non-physician, 90% of the
anesthesia care in this country. In the rest of the cases, supervision
is provided by the operating practitioner. Under the Medicare program,
there is no additional cost for having an anesthesiologist provide or
supervise the anesthesia care versus having a non-physician provide the
anesthesia under the supervision of the operating practitioner. The
proposed HCFA rule change does not, therefore, generate any cost
savings.
Anesthesiologists are physicians who, after four years of pre-medical
training in college, have completed eight years of medical education
and specialized residency training. This is in contrast to the 24 to 30
months of training received by nurse anesthetists after nursing
school--in fact, about 37% of nurse anesthetists have not graduated
from college.
The American Medical Association's House of Delegates last December
approved a resolution supporting legislation requiring that an
appropriately licensed and credentialed physician administer or
supervise anesthesia care. National surveys of Medicare beneficiaries
performed by the Tarrance Group in January 1998 and 1999 show that 4
out of 5 seniors oppose the elimination of the current physician
supervision requirement.
Let's err on the side of safety and caution by requiring that the
Secretary of HHS conduct a study on the mortality and death rates of
Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia care
by different providers. Analyzing the impact of physician supervision
on anesthesia care and requiring the Secretary to simply consider the
results of that study in determining whether or not to change current
regulations to allow unsupervised nurse anesthetists to administer
anesthesia services, is the very least we can do to ensure that we are
making safe changes to existing regulations--changes that HCFA rejected
in 1992 when studies of anesthesia outcomes were up-to-date and
available.
If HCFA is going to now change its policy in 1999, we should ask HCFA
to show us the scientific and clinical data behind its decision to
ensure that the safety of our most vulnerable populations--our children
and our elderly--are adequately protected. None of us--including HCFA--
is in a position to judge the merits of this proposed rule change
without first gathering and then analyzing up-to-date scientific
evidence. Only then can patients be confident in the safety and quality
of their anesthesia care. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 819. A bill to provide funding for the National Park System from
outer Continental Shelf revenues; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

National Park Preservation Act

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Member of the Senate, I am today
introducing the National Park Preservation Act with my colleague
Senator Reid of Nevada. This legislation will preserve and protect
threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitats, and cultural and
other core park resources within our National Park System.
As you are all aware, the National Park Service has a presence in
virtually every state in the nation. There are a total of 345 units in
the national park system spread throughout the nation. My home state of
Florida is home to three National Parks--Everglades, Biscayne, and Dry
Tortugas; two National Preserves--Big Cypress and Timucuan Ecological
and Historical Preserve; two National Seashores--Canaveral and Gulf
Islands; two National Monuments--Castillo de San Marcos and Fort
Matanzas; and two National Memorials--DeSoto and Fort Caroline.
Although these National Parks are treasured throughout the nation,
everyday activities often threaten the resources of our park system.
For example, in Yellowstone National Park an inadequate sewage system
frequently discharges materials into precious resources such as
Yellowstone Lake. Development surrounding Mojave National Park
threatens the park's desert wilderness. Ground-level ozone accumulating
at Great Smoky Mountains National Park threatens the park's core
resource--visibility. Manipulation of the natural hydrologic system
impacts water quality and water availability in Everglades National
Park.
The Graham-Reid National Park Preservation Act will preserve and
protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural
resources and other core resources within our National Park System. The
bill will establish a permanent account using Outer Continental Shelf
revenues to provide $500 million annually to the Department of Interior
to protect and preserve these resources. These funds will be made
available for projects such as land acquisition, construction, grants
to state or local governments, or partnerships with other federal
agencies that seek to combat identified threats to ecosystems, critical
habitats, cultural resources, and other core park resources. In this
legislation, I

[[Page S3792]]

also continue my longstanding efforts to protect Florida's coastal
resources by making revenues from any new oil and gas leases or from
development of any existing leases in a moratorium area ineligible for
expenditure in this account.
Thirty percent of the $500 million will be available for park units
threatened or impaired by activities occurring within the unit such as
sewage treatment at Yellowstone Park. Seventy percent of the $500
million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by
activities occurring outside of the unit, such as degradation of water
resources at Everglades National Park.
Of these funds, the legislation specifically provides $75 million to
the Everglades restoration effort as the keynote project of the
legislation.
The Everglades National Park is one component of the Everglades
ecosystem which stretches from the Kissimmee River basin near Orlando
and all the way to Florida Bay and Keys. It is the only ecosystem of
its kind in the world. It is the largest wetland and subtropical
wilderness in the United States. It is home to a unique population of
plant and wildlife. The water in this system is the lifeblood of the
freshwater aquifer that provides most of Florida's drinking water.
For more than a century, this ecosystem has been altered to
facilitate development and protect against hurricanes and droughts.
Today, almost 50% of the original Everglades has been drained or
otherwise altered. The remaining Everglades, and in particular, the
regions located within Everglades National Park, are severely
threatened by nutrient-rich water, interrupted hydrology, decreased
water supply, exotic plants, and mercury contamination.
On July 1 the Army Corps of Engineers will submit to Congress an
Everglades restoration plan, termed the ``Restudy'' by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. This plan reviews the original
Central and South Florida Flood Control project which was initiated in
the 1940s by the Army Corps and has been the source of the ecosystem
manipulation that occurred in Florida since that time. The Restudy
outlines the basic elements of a plan to restore the Everglades as
closely to their natural state as possible. This is a difficult and
complex task since the original area of the Everglades was reduced by
50% with the development of both coasts as large metropolitan areas.
Costs of execution of this plan will be shared on a 50-50 basis with
the state of Florida.
There has never been a restoration project of this size in the
history of the United States or the world. This is an opportunity to
preserve a national treasure that was destroyed by our own actions in
the past. The bill we will introduce today will provide dedicated funds
for the federal share of the land acquisition portions of this project
which is so critical to the nation.
I look forward to working with each of you as we seek to protect and
preserve the ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other
core resources within our National Park System.
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. 819

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 ``Act to Sustain the National
Parks''.

SEC. 2. DEDICATION OF A PORTION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
REVENUES TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Leased tract.--The term ``leased tract'' means a tract
leased under section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) for the purpose of drilling for,
developing, and producing oil and natural gas resources,
consisting of a block, a portion of a block, or a combination
of blocks or portions of blocks, as specified in the lease
and as depicted on an Outer Continental Shelf Official
Protraction Diagram.
(2) Outer continental shelf.--The term ``outer Continental
Shelf'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331).
(3) Outer continental shelf revenues.--
(A) In general.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf
revenues'' means all amounts received by the United States
from leased tracts, less--
(i) such amounts as are credited to States under section
8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1337(g)); and
(ii) such amounts as are needed for adjustments or refunds
of overpayments for rents, royalties, or other purposes.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf
revenues'' includes royalties (including payments for royalty
taken in kind and sold), net profit share payments, and
related late-payment interest from natural gas and oil leases
issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1331 et seq.) for a leased tract.
(C) Exclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf
revenues'' does not include amounts received by the United
States under--
(i) any lease issued on or after the date of enactment of
this Act;
(ii) any lease under which no oil or gas production
occurred before January 1, 1999; or
(iii) any lease in an area for which there is in effect a
moratorium on leasing or drilling on the outer Continental
Shelf.
(b) Separate Account.--Of the amount of outer Continental
Shelf revenues received by the Secretary of the Interior
during each fiscal year, $500,000,000 shall be deposited in a
separate account in the Treasury of the United States and
shall, without further Act of appropriation, be available to
the Secretary of the Interior in subsequent fiscal years
until expended.
(c) Threatened Park Resources.--
(1) In general.--The amounts made available under
subsection (b) shall be available for expenditure in units of
the National Park System that have ecosystems, critical
habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources
that are threatened or impaired.
(2) Identified threats.--The amounts made available under
subsection (b)--
(A) shall be used only to address identified threats and
impairments described in paragraph (1), including use for
land acquisition, construction, grants to State, local, or
municipal governments, or partnerships with other Federal
agencies or nonprofit organizations; and
(B) shall not be directed to other operational or
maintenance needs of units of the National Park System.
(3) Allocation.--Of the amounts made available under
subsection (b)--
(A) 30 percent shall be available for expenditure in units
of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical
habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources
threatened or impaired by activities occurring inside the
unit; and
(B) 70 percent shall be available for expenditure in units
of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical
habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources
threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside the
unit (including $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2015 for the Federal share of the Everglades and
South Florida ecosystem restoration project under the
comprehensive plan developed under section 528 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767)).
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended by
striking ``All rentals'' and inserting ``Except as provided
in section 2 of the National Park Preservation Act, all
rentals''.
______

By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Jeffords);
S. 820. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the 4.3- cent motor fuel excise taxes on railroads and inland waterway
transportation which remain in the general fund of the Treasury; to the
Committee on Finance.

the transportation tax equity and fairness act

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along
with Senators Breaux and Jeffords, to correct an inequity that
currently exists with the taxes imposed on transportation fuels.
In 1990 Congress extended fuel taxes beyond their traditional role as
transportation user fees by introducing a 2.5 cents-per-gallon federal
deficit reduction tax on railroad and highway fuels. These taxes were
enacted as part of legislation that was designed to reduce the federal
budget that existed at that time.
In 1993, Congress increased these ``deficit reduction fuel taxes''
and extended them to inland waterway users and commercial airlines. The
taxes imposed on barges went into effect immediately, while those
affecting the airlines were delayed for 2 years. As a result of these
two pieces of legislation a deficit reduction fuel tax of 6.8 cents per
gallon was imposed on railroads and trucks, 4.3 cents per gallon on
barges, and a suspended 4.3 cents per gallon tax on airlines.
Beginning in 1995, however, Congress began to redirect these taxes
for other uses. The first step was taking 2.5 cents of the amount paid
by highway users and transferring it to the Highway Trust Fund. The
Highway Trust Fund,

[[Page S3793]]

as many of my colleagues know, is the principal source of money used
for highway infrastructure. Taxes paid into this trust fund by highway
users results in a direct benefit to them by being recycled back into
improvements to our nation's roads and bridges.
Recognizing that this transfer would place the railroad industry--a
direct competitor of the trucking industry--at a competitive
disadvantage, Congress reduced the deficit reduction tax paid by
railroads by 1.25 cents. As a result of these changes, then, highway
users, commerical airlines and inland waterway users paid a deficit
reduction tax of 4.3 cents while railroads paid a tax of 5.55 cents.
The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act further disadvantaged the railroad and
inland waterway sectors by relieving highway users and commercial
airlines from the remaining 4.3 cent deficit reduction fuel tax.
Instead of these funds going into the General Fund of the Treasury, the
taxes paid by these sectors were redirected to their respective trust
funds.
I have a chart that I will ask be included with my statement that
shows the evolution of deficit reduction fuel excise taxes over the
past decade.
Today, two sectors of the transportation industry--railroads and
inland waterway users--pay ``deficit reduction'' taxes even though we
no longer have a deficit. Furthermore, these sectors are required to
continue paying these taxes even though their competitors do not.
There is absolutely no policy rationale for railroads and barge
operators to pay deficit reduction fuel taxes while motor carriers and
commerical airlines are required to pay nothing.
We believe the time has come to correct this unfairness. This bill
levels the playing field by repealing the remaining 4.3 cent tax paid
by the railroads and inland waterway users.
I urge all of my colleagues to our legislation. Mr. President, I ask
that the chart be included in the Record.
The chart follows:

DEFICIT REDUCTION FUEL EXCISE TAXES PAID BY THE VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION
SECTORS BY YEAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1993 1995 1997 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Users........................ 2.5 6.8 4.3 0 0
Railroads............................ 2.5 6.8 5.55 5.55 4.3
Barges............................... 0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
Commercial Airlines.................. 0 0 4.3 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, and
Mr. Torricelli):
S. 821. A bill to provide for the collection of data on traffic
stops; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

traffic stops statistics study act of 1999

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that
will help our nation deal with the problem of racial profiling during
traffic stops. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators
Feingold, Kennedy, and Torricelli.
Across the country, too many motorists fear that they will be stopped
by law enforcement for nothing more than the color of their skin. The
offense of ``D.W.B.'' or ``Driving While Black'' is well known to
minorities, and the fact that this term has entered the common
vocabulary demonstrates the pervasiveness of the problem.
In my home state and other states along the Interstate-95 corridor,
there have been many serious and credible allegations of racial
profiling. For example, statistics recently released by the state of
New Jersey, reveal that 73 percent of motorists arrested on the New
Jersey turnpike in early 1997 were minorities. Similarly, a court-
ordered study in Maryland found that more than 70 percent of drivers
stopped on Interstate-95 were African American though they made up only
17.5 percent of drivers.
Not surprisingly, the practice of racial profiling has led to
litigation. In the case of State versus Soto, a state court judge ruled
that troopers were engaging in racial profiling on the southernmost
segment of the New Jersey Turnpike. That decision spurred the United
States Department of Justice to begin a ``pattern and practice''
investigation, in December 1996, to determine whether the New Jersey
State Police had violated the constitutional rights of minority
motorists. The Department of Justice is also investigating police
agencies in Eastpointe, Michigan, and Orange County, Florida.
Additionally, a number of individuals and organizations have filed
private lawsuits seeking to end the inappropriate use of racial
profiling.
While litigation may bring about limited reforms, it is clear that
Congress must develop a nationwide approach. The legislation I am
introducing today will help define the scope of the problem, increase
police awareness, and suggest whether additional steps are necessary.
It would require that the Attorney General collect data on traffic
stops and report the results to Congress. Because better relations
between police and citizens will help ease racial tensions, the measure
will also authorize grants to law enforcement agencies for the
development of better training programs and policing strategies.
In recent decades, we have made great progress in strengthening the
civil rights of all Americans. Many dedicated law enforcement officials
have contributed greatly to this effort by applying the law fairly and
working to strengthen the bonds of trust in the communities they serve.
To their credit, some police agencies have spoken out against the
practice of racial profiling. In New Jersey, the State Troopers
Fraternal Association, the State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers
Association, and the State Troopers Superior Officers Association have
stated that ``anyone out there using racial profiling or in any way
misusing or abusing their position, must be identified and properly
dealt with.'' But we cannot allow the actions of some police officials
to undermine these achievements, and we should work to ensure that
minority motorists are no longer subjected to unwarranted traffic
stops.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and help protect the
civil rights of all Americans. 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. 821

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 ``Traffic Stops Statistics
Study Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a
nationwide study of stops for traffic violations by law
enforcement officers.
(2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform
an initial analysis of existing data, including complaints
alleging and other information concerning traffic stops
motivated by race and other bias.
(3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial
analysis under paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall then
gather the following data on traffic stops from a nationwide
sample of jurisdictions, including jurisdictions identified
in the initial analysis:
(A) The traffic infraction alleged to have been committed
that led to the stop.
(B) Identifying characteristics of the driver stopped,
including the race, gender, ethnicity, and approximate age of
the driver.
(C) Whether immigration status was questioned, immigration
documents were requested, or an inquiry was made to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service with regard to any
person in the vehicle.
(D) The number of individuals in the stopped vehicle.
(E) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop
and whether consent was requested for the search.
(F) Any alleged criminal behavior by the driver that
justified the search.
(G) Any items seized, including contraband or money.
(H) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a result
of the stop.
(I) Whether an arrest was made as a result of either the
stop or the search and the justification for the arrest.
(J) The duration of the stop.
(b) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the
results of its initial analysis to Congress, and make such
report available to the public, and identify the
jurisdictions for which the study is to be conducted. Not
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of the
data collected under this Act to Congress, a copy of which
shall also be published in the Federal Register.

SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM.

In order to complete the study described in section 2, the
Attorney General may provide grants to law enforcement
agencies to collect and submit the data described in section
2 to the appropriate agency as designated by the Attorney
General.

[[Page S3794]]

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA.

Information released pursuant to section 2 shall not reveal
the identity of any individual who is stopped or any law
enforcement officer involved in a traffic stop.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means an agency of a State or political subdivision
of a State, authorized by law or by a Federal, State, or
local government agency to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of
criminal laws, or a federally recognized Indian tribe.
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village,
or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges
to exist as an Indian tribe.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend the
senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) in introducing the
Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999. This legislation represents a
substantial step toward ending an insidious form of discrimination that
is plaguing African-American and Hispanic drivers on our roadways--
racial profiling. Most law enforcement officers do their best to
respect and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, but it has
become undeniable that racial profiling has become a disturbingly
common practice.
Racial profiling is the practice of pulling over African American,
Hispanic, and other minority drivers for routine traffic stops as a
premise for conducting a search for drugs. They might be driving just
like any ordinary driver, and so they might be surprised to be pulled
over. ``Was I speeding?'' they ask. Often, they are told that they have
committed some minor traffic infraction that most people are not even
aware of--sometimes, the infraction is just a pretext--they might be
told that their tire tread is not of the correct depth, or that they
have a bumper sticker affixed incorrectly. Any such infraction can be
alleged in order to pull over a target of racial profiling, and as a
premise to ask for a search. Many people are not aware that they have
the right to refuse a search, and many innocent people are afraid that
saying no will make them look guilty.
The reality is, if they do refuse a search, victims can sometimes
look forward to being detained anyway while a canine unit comes out to
sniff for drugs. That is what happened to attorney Robert Wilkins and
his family as they returned to Maryland by car from his grandfather's
funeral in Chicago. Mr. Wilkins was fortunate enough to be an attorney
who knew his rights, and proceeded to join with the ACLU and other
groups to sue the Maryland State Police. As a result of that lawsuit,
Maryland has conducted its own study of traffic stops, and the results
indicate that over 75 percent of those people stopped and search on I-
95 are African-American, even though African-Americans make up only 17
percent of the state's population. The innocent people who are
inevitably caught in these racially motivated stops feel like they are
being punished for what is now called ``DWB''--``Driving While Black,''
or ``Driving While Brown.''
Mr. President, by and large when minorities are stopped by law
enforcement officers, they are not attorneys, and they may not know or
assert all of their rights--they are scared and they are resentful. And
rightly so, when they have been the victim of racial profiling. Is this
the way we want to stop the flow of drugs in America? By randomly
targeting racial and ethnic minorities who are doing nothing more
suspicious than driving their cars? Do we want law-abiding American
citizens to feel as though they are living in a police state, scared
and reluctant to travel in their cars for fear of being stopped and
searched for no reason?
While African-Americans make up under 20% of the American population,
several local studies like the Maryland one I mentioned earlier
indicate that they make up a much greater percentage of all routine
traffic stops, and are far more likely to be searched and subsequently
arrested. In my own home state of Wisconsin, a 1996 study by the
Madison Capital Times revealed that African-Americans receive 13% of
Madison's traffic tickets, despite the fact that they make up only 4%
of the city's population, In Florida, the Orlando Sentinel newspaper
obtained more than 140 hours of videotapes from police patrol cars
showing drivers being stopped on Interstate 95. About 70% of the
drivers stopped were black or Hispanic, even though they made up only
5% of all drivers on the road. And in New Jersey, a recent study
suggests that African Americans are almost five times as likely to be
stopped for speeding as drivers of other races.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that ``injustice anywhere is a
threat to justice everywhere.'' As Americans, we should all feel
threatened when any one of us is denied our personal liberty. Just last
week, the United States Supreme Court took yet another step toward
eradicating our Fourth Amendment rights against the invasion of our
privacy. It held in Wyoming versus Houghton that police can search the
personal belongings of all passengers inside a car when looking for
criminal evidence against the driver. I fear that this will send a
message to some law enforcement officers that they can now expand
racial profiling to include not only the driver of a passing car, but
also the passengers. And if you happen to be a passenger in a car that
was pulled over because of the color of the driver's skin, you can now
look forward to having your personal belongings searched through and
pored over.
The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999 will begin to shed
light on the practice of racial profiling. By analyzing the data that
the Justice Department obtains over the next two years, we will get a
clear picture of the prevalence of the practice of pulling people over
because of their skin color or apparent ethnicity. A version of this
bill passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. The
simultaneous introduction of this bill in the Senate and the House
shows that we are serious about sending this to the President's desk. I
urge my colleagues in the Senate to join with us to enact this
legislation.
It is high time to put a stop to this blatant and offensive practice,
which is taking some law enforcement officers, and the rest of us, down
a dangerous and discriminatory road.
______

By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 822. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a
flat tax only on individual taxable earned income and business taxable
income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

flat tax act of 1999

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation on a flat tax. This, of course, is a famous day, April 15,
the day when Federal income tax returns are due. Across this land for
many days, many weeks, some months, Americans have been struggling with
their tax returns. As we speak, some may have on C-SPAN2 quietly while
they are working on their returns at this very moment.
I recall seeing long lines at the Philadelphia post office near
midnight on income tax day when cars were lined up and people were
dropping off their tax returns at the post office to beat the filing
deadline.
This is a good occasion to talk about the flat tax which permits
taxpayers to report their income on a postcard. It can actually be done
in the course of some 15 minutes. I filed my tax return and sent it off
yesterday. It is very complicated. They say it takes a Philadelphia
lawyer to fill out a tax return. I think it takes more than a
Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a Federal income tax return, and we
have labored under the complexities of the Internal Revenue Code for
far too long.
I first introduced this legislation in March of 1995. I was the
second one in the Congress of the United States to introduce flat-tax
legislation. The majority leader, Dick Armey, had introduced the flat
tax in the House of Representatives the preceding fall. I studied it. I
studied the model of Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka, two
distinguished professors of economics and tax law at Stanford
University, and concluded that America ought to have a flat tax and
that we could, in fact, have a flat tax if the American people really
understood what a flat tax was all about.
The Hall-Rabushka model was revenue neutral at 19 percent. I have
added 1 percent in order to allow for two deductions: one on charitable
contributions up to $2,500 a year and a second on interest on home
mortgages of

[[Page S3795]]

borrowings up to $100,000 to take care of middle-class Americans,
because I think without those two deductions, it would be a political
impossibility to have a flat tax enacted.
The advantage of the flat tax is that it does have the flatness with
only those two deductions, so it is a very simple matter to return the
tax return.
Here is a sample tax return. You fill in your name and your address.
You list your total wage, salary, or pension. There is a personal
allowance, for a family of four. Up to $27,500 pays no tax at all. That
constitutes about 53 percent of Americans. It has the two deductions
for mortgage interest on debt up to $100,000 for an owner-occupied home
and charitable contributions up to $2,500; total compensation
multiplied by 20 percent, and that is that.
The tax burden costs Americans about $224 billion a year of our gross
national product, which is mired in complexity and unnecessary
regulation.
The flat tax seeks to bring equity into the tax payment by taxing
only once so that the flat tax eliminates tax on net dividends, capital
gains or estates because all of those items have already been taxed.
It would enable Americans to accumulate a great deal more in capital
which would help business expansion which would help the economy. And
it is projected that the gross national product would be increased by
some $2 trillion over 7 years by virtue of this flat tax proposal.
The flat tax is a win-win situation all up and down the line because,
by eliminating the loopholes, it eliminates the opportunities of very
wealthy Americans to avoid paying taxes at all. When you take a look at
the returns of the very, very rich, with the practices of deductions
and tax shelters, all of which is legal, the very, very wealthy avoid
paying any tax at all.
But this flat tax would have the advantages of capital accumulation,
would have the advantage of increasing the gross national product, but
most of all would have the simplicity of being able to file a tax
return on a postcard.
I think that as I speak--it is always problematic as to how many
people are watching C-SPAN2--but I think as I speak there are many
Americans across the land tonight who would like to be able to fill out
a tax return in 15 minutes. And my view is that if it were better
understood, that there would be a great public clamor to have a flat
tax enacted.
Mr. President, to reiterate, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation to provide for a flat 20% tax on individuals and
businesses. In the 104th Congress, I was the first Senator to introduce
flat tax legislation and the first Member of Congress to set forth a
deficit-neutral plan for dramatically reforming our nation's tax code
and replacing it with a flatter, fairer plan designed to stimulate
economic growth. My flat tax legislation was also the first plan to
retain limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable
contributions.
As I traveled around the country and held town hall meetings across
Pennsylvania and other states, the public support for fundamental tax
reform was overwhelming. I would point out in those speeches that I
never leave home without two key documents: (1) my copy of the
Constitution; and (2) a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon
realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax
postcard--many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see
what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only
take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer
burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital
gains and estates.
Support for the flat tax is growing as more and more Americans
embrace the simplicity, fairness and growth potential of flat tax
reform. An April 17, 1995, edition of Newsweek cited a poll showing
that 61 percent of Americans favor a flat tax over the current tax
code. Significantly, a majority of the respondents who favor the flat
tax preferred my flat tax plan with limited deductions for home
mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Well before he entered
the 1996 Republican presidential primary, publisher Steve Forbes opined
in a March 27, 1995, Forbes editorial about the tremendous appeal and
potency of my flat tax plan.
Congress was not immune to public demand for reform. Jack Kemp was
appointed to head up the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax
Reform and the Commission soon came out with its report recognizing the
value of a fairer, flatter tax code. Mr. Forbes soon introduced a flat
tax plan of his own, and my fellow candidates in the 1996 Republican
presidential primary began to embrace similar versions of either a flat
tax or a consumption-based tax system.
Unfortunately, the politics of that Presidential campaign denied the
flat tax a fair hearing and momentum stalled. On October 27, 1995, I
introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to
expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which
was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted.
I reintroduced this legislation in the 105th Congress with slight
modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal
allowances and dependent allowances. While my flat tax proposal was
favorably received at town hall meetings in Pennsylvania, Congress
failed to move forward on any tax reform during the 105th Congress. I
tried repeatedly to raise the issue with leadership and the Finance
Committee to no avail. I think the American people want this debate to
move forward and I think the issue of tax reform is ripe for
consideration.
In this period of opportunity as we commence the 106th Session of
Congress, I am optimistic that public support for tax reform will
enable us to move forward and adopt this critically important and
necessary legislation. That is why today I am again introducing my Flat
Tax Act of 1999.
My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax
code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This
legislation would institute a simple, flat 20% tax rate for all
individuals and businesses. It will allow all taxpayers to file their
April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-line postcard. This proposal is not
cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing
attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective
and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness and economic
growth.
Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat
tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing
our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the
study of the complexities of the tax code 40 years ago as a law student
at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in
my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I
published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension
and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held
Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335,
which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement
benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was
apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal
Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some.
Before I introduced my flat tax bill early in the 104th Congress, I
had discussions with Congressman Richard Armey, the House Majority
Leader, about his flat tax proposal. In fact, I testified with House
Majority Leader Richard Armey before the Senate Finance and House Ways
& Means Committees, as well as the Joint Economic Committee and the
House Small Business Committee on the tremendous benefits of flat tax
reform. Since then, and both before and after introducing my original
flat tax bill, my staff and I have studied the flat tax at some length,
and have engaged in a host of discussions with economists and tax
experts, including the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to
evaluate the economic impact and viability of a flat tax. Based on
those discussions, and on the revenue estimates supplied to us, I have
concluded that a simple flat tax at a rate of 20% on all business and
personal income can be enacted without reducing federal revenues.

A flat tax will help reduce the size of government and allow ordinary
citizens to have more influence over how their money is spent because
they will spend it--not the government. By creating strong incentives
for savings and investment, the flat tax will have the

[[Page S3796]]

beneficial result of making available larger pools of capital for
expansion of the private sector of the economy--rather than more tax
money for big government. This will mean more jobs and, just as
important, more higher-paying jobs.
As a matter of federal tax policy, there has been considerable
controversy over whether tax breaks should be used to stimulate
particular kinds of economic activity, or whether tax policy should be
neutral, leaving people to do what they consider best from a purely
economic point of view. Our current tax code attempts to use tax policy
to direct economic activity. Yet actions under that code have
demonstrated that so-called tax breaks are inevitably used as the basis
for tax shelters which have no real relation to solid economic
purposes, or to the activities which the tax laws were meant to
promote. Even when the government responds to particular tax shelters
with new and often complex revisions of the regulations, clever tax
experts are able to stay one or two steps ahead of the IRS bureaucrats
by changing the structure of their business transactions and then
claiming some legal distinctions between the taxpayer's new approach
and the revised IRS regulations and precedents.
Under the massive complexity of the current IRS Code, the battle
between $500-an-hour tax lawyers and IRS bureaucrats to open and close
loopholes is a battle the government can never win. Under the flat tax
bill I offer today, there are no loopholes, and tax avoidance through
clever manipulations will become a thing of the past.
The basic model for this legislation comes from a plan created by
Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institute at
Stanford University. Their plan envisioned a flat tax with no
deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to
include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage
interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions
up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of
the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying
and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are
so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that
they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and
also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained,
passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them,
probably impossible.
In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a
modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that
the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19%
rate, is based on a well documented model founded on reliable
governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19% to
20% to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and
charitable deductions. A preliminary estimate in the 104th Congress by
the Committee on Joint Taxation places the annual cost of the home
interest deduction at $35 billion, and the cost of the charitable
deduction at $13 billion. While the revenue calculation is complicated
because the Hall-Rabushka proposal encompasses significant revisions to
business taxes as well as personal income taxes, there is a sound basis
for concluding that the 1% increase in rate would pay for the two
deductions. Revenue estimates for tax code revisions are difficult to
obtain and are, at best, judgment calls based on projections from fact
situations with myriad assumed variables. It is possible that some
modification may be needed at a later date to guarantee revenue
neutrality.
This legislation offered today is quite similar to the bill
introduced in the House by Congressman Armey and in the Senate late in
1995 by Senator Richard Shelby, which were both in turn modeled after
the Hall-Rabushka proposal. The flat tax offers great potential for
enormous economic growth, in keeping with principles articulated so
well by Jack Kemp. This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their
source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends,
capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code
can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which
translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs,
and raising the standard of living for all Americans.
In the 104th Congress, we took some important steps toward reducing
the size and cost of government, and this work is ongoing and vitally
important. But the work of downsizing government is only one side of
the coin; what we must do at the same time, and with as much energy and
care, is to grow the private sector. As we reform the welfare programs
and government bureaucracies of past administrations, we must replace
those programs with a prosperity that extends to all segments of
American society through private investment and job creation--which can
have the additional benefit of producing even lower taxes for Americans
as economic expansion adds to federal revenues. Just as Americans need
a tax code that is fair and simple, they also are entitled to tax laws
designed to foster rather than retard economic growth. The bill I offer
today embodies those principles.
My plan, like the Armey-Shelby proposal, is based on the Hall-
Rabushka analysis. But my flat tax differs from the Armey-Shelby plan
in four key respects: First, my bill contains a 20% flat tax rate.
Second, this bill would retain modified deductions for mortgage
interest and charitable contributions (which will require a 1% higher
tax rate than otherwise). Third, my bill would maintain the automatic
withholding of taxes from an individual's paycheck. Lastly, my bill is
designed to be revenue neutral, and thus will not undermine our vital
efforts to balance the nation's budget.

The key advantages of this flat tax plan are three-fold: First, it
will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove
much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and
corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their
energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which
rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth
in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and
savings accounts, and as interest rates drop.
Under this tax plan, individuals would be taxed at a flat rate of 20%
on all income they earn from wages, pensions and salaries. Individuals
would not be taxed on any capital gains, interest on savings, or
dividends--since those items will have already been taxed as part of
the flat tax on business revenue. The flat tax will also eliminate all
but two of the deductions and exemptions currently contained within the
tax code. Instead, taxpayers will be entitled to ``personal
allowances'' for themselves and their children. The personal allowances
are: $10,000 for a single taxpayer; $15,000 for a single head of
household; $17,500 for a married couple filing jointly; and $5,000 per
child or dependent. These personal allowances would be adjusted
annually for inflation after 1999.
In order to ensure that this flat tax does not unfairly impact low
income families, the personal allowances contained in my proposal are
much higher than the standard deduction and personal exemptions allowed
under the current tax code. For example in the 1998 tax year, the
standard deduction is $4,250 for a single taxpayer, $6,250 for a head
of household and $7,100 for a married couple filing jointly, while the
personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $2,700. Thus,
under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize
deductions would pay tax on all income over $17,900 (personal
exemptions of $10,800 and a standard deduction of $7,100). By contrast,
under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal
exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax only on income over that
amount.
My legislation retains the provisions for the deductibility of
charitable contributions up to a limit of $2,500 and home mortgage
interest on up to $100,000 of borrowing. Retention of these key
deductions will, I believe, enhance the political salability of this
legislation and allow the debate on the flat tax to move forward. If a
decision is made to eliminate these deductions, the revenue saved could
be used to reduce the overall flat tax rate below 20%.
With respect to businesses, the flat tax would also be a flat rate of
20%. My legislation would eliminate the intricate scheme of complicated
depreciation schedules, deductions, credits, and

[[Page S3797]]

other complexities that go into business taxation in favor of a much-
simplified system that taxes all business revenue less only wages,
direct expenses and purchases--a system with much less potential for
fraud, ``creative accounting'' and tax avoidance.
Businesses would be allowed to expense 100% of the cost of capital
formation, including purchases of capital equipment, structures and
land, and to do so in the year in which the investments are made. The
business tax would apply to all money not reinvested in the company in
the form of employment or capital formation--thus fully taxing revenue
at the business level and making it inappropriate to re-tax the same
monies when passed on to investors as dividends or capital gains.
Let me now turn to a more specific discussion of the advantages of
the flat tax legislation I am introducing today.
The first major advantage to this flat tax is simplicity. According
to the Tax Foundation, Americans spend approximately 5.3 billion hours
each year filling out tax forms. Much of this time is spent burrowing
through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown
from 744,000 words in 1955 to 5.6 million words in 1995.
Whenever the government gets involved in any aspect of our lives, it
can convert the most simple goal or task into a tangled array of
complexity, frustration and inefficiency. By way of example, most
Americans have become familiar with the absurdities of the government's
military procurement programs. If these programs have taught us
anything, it is how a simple purchase order for a hammer or a toilet
seat can mushroom into thousands of words of regulations and
restrictions when the government gets involved. The Internal Revenue
Service is certainly no exception. Indeed, it has become a
distressingly common experience for taxpayers to receive computerized
print-outs claiming that additional taxes are due, which require
repeated exchanges of correspondence or personal visits before it is
determined, as it so often is, that the taxpayer was right in the first
place.
The plan offered today would eliminate these kinds of frustrations
for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the
great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and
delete most of the five million words in the Internal Revenue Code.
Instead of tens of millions of hours of non-productive time spent in
compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend
only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-sized
form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable
hours freed up to engage in productive business activity, or for more
time with their families, instead of poring over tax tables, schedules
and regulations.
The flat tax I have proposed can be calculated just by filling out a
small postcard which would require a taxpayer only to answer a few easy
questions. Filing a tax return would become a manageable chore, not a
seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers.

Along with the advantage of simplicity, enactment of this flat tax
bill will help to remove the burden of costly and unnecessary
government regulation, bureaucracy and red tape from our everyday
lives. The heavy hand of government bureaucracy is particularly onerous
in the case of the Internal Revenue Service, which has been able to
extend its influence into so many aspects of our lives.
In 1995, the IRS employed 117,000 people, spread out over countless
offices across the United States. Its budget was in excess of $7
billion, with over $4 billion spent merely on enforcement. By
simplifying the tax code and eliminating most of the IRS' vast array of
rules and regulations, the flat tax would enable us to cut a
significant portion of the IRS budget, including the bulk of the
funding now needed for enforcement and administration.
In addition, a flat tax would allow taxpayers to redirect their time,
energies and money away from the yearly morass of tax compliance.
According to the Tax Foundation, in 1996, the private sector spent over
$150 billion complying with federal tax laws. According to a Tax
Foundation study, adoption of flat tax reform would cut pre-filing
compliance costs by over 90 percent.
Monies spent by businesses and investors in creating tax shelters and
finding loopholes could be instead directed to productive and job-
creating economic activity. With the adoption of a flat tax, the
opportunities for fraud and cheating would also be vastly reduced,
allowing the government to collect, according to some estimates, over
$120 billion annually.
The third major advantage to a flat tax is that it will be a
tremendous spur to economic growth. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson
estimates adoption of a flat tax like the one offered today would
increase future national wealth by over $2 trillion, in present value
terms, over a seven year period. This translates into over $7,500 in
increased wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth
also means that there will be more jobs--it is estimated that the $2
trillion increase in wealth would lead to the creation of 6 million new
jobs.
The economic principles are fairly straightforward. Our current tax
system is inefficient; it is biased toward too little savings and too
much consumption. The flat tax creates substantial incentives for
savings and investment by eliminating taxation on interest, dividends
and capital gains--and tax policies which promote capital formation and
investment are the best vehicle for creation of new and high paying
jobs, and for a greater prosperity for all Americans.
It is well recognized that to promote future economic growth, we need
not only to eliminate the federal government's reliance on deficits and
borrowed money, but to restore and expand the base of private savings
and investment that has been the real engine driving American
prosperity throughout our history. These concepts are related--the
federal budget deficit soaks up much of what we have saved, leaving
less for businesses to borrow for investments.
It is the sum total of savings by all aspects of the U.S. economy
that represents the pool of all capital available for investment--in
training, education, research, machinery, physical plant, etc.--and
that constitutes the real seed of future prosperity. The statistics
here are daunting. In the 1960s, the net U.S. national savings rate was
8.2 percent, but it has fallen to a dismal 1.5 percent. Americans save
at only one-tenth the rate of the Japanese, and only one-fifth the rate
of the Germans. This is unacceptable and we must do something to
reverse the trend.
An analysis of the components of U.S. savings patterns shows that
although the federal budget deficit is the largest cause of
``dissavings,'' both personal and business savings rates have declined
significantly over the past three decades. Thus, to recreate the pool
of capital stock that is critical to future U.S. growth and prosperity,
we have to do more than just get rid of the deficit. We have to very
materially raise our levels of private savings and investment. And we
have to do so in a way that will not cause additional deficits.
The less money people save, the less money is available for business
investment and growth. The current tax system discourages savings and
investment, because it taxes the interest we earn from our savings
accounts, the dividends we make from investing in the stock market, and
the capital gains we make from successful investments in our homes and
the financial markets. Indeed, under the current law these rewards for
saving and investment are not only taxed, they are overtaxed--since
gains due solely to inflation, which represent no real increase in
value, are taxed as if they were profits to the taxpayer.
With the limited exceptions of retirement plans and tax free
municipal bonds, our current tax code does virtually nothing to
encourage personal savings and investment, or to reward it over
consumption. This bill will change this system, and address this
problem. The proposed legislation reverses the current skewed
incentives by promoting savings and investment by individuals and by
businesses. Individuals would be able to invest and save their money
tax-free and reap the benefits of the accumulated value of those
investments without paying a capital gains tax upon the sale of these
investments. Businesses would also invest more as the flat tax allowed
them to expense fully all sums invested in new equipment and technology
in the year the

[[Page S3798]]

expense was incurred, rather than dragging out the tax benefits for
these investments through complicated depreciation schedules. With
greater investment and a larger pool of savings available, interest
rates and the costs of investment would also drop, spurring even
greater economic growth.

Critics of the flat tax have argued that we cannot afford the revenue
losses associated with the tremendous savings and investment incentives
the bill affords to businesses and individuals. Those critics are
wrong. Not only is this bill carefully crafted to be revenue neutral,
but historically we have seen that when taxes are cut, revenues
actually increase, as more taxpayers work harder for a larger share of
their take-home pay, and investors are more willing to take risks in
pursuit of rewards that will not get eaten up in taxes.
As one example, under President Kennedy when individual tax rates
were lowered, investment incentives including the investment tax credit
were created and then expanded and depreciation rates were accelerated.
Yet, between 1962 and 1967, gross annual federal tax receipts grew from
$99.7 billion to $148 billion--an increase of nearly 50%. More recently
after President Reagan's tax cuts in the early 1980's, government tax
revenues rose from just under $600 billion in 1981 to nearly $1
trillion in 1989. In fact, the Reagan tax cut program helped to bring
about one of the longest peacetime expansion of the U.S. economy in
history. There is every reason to believe that the flat tax proposed
here can do the same--and by maintaining revenue neutrality in this
flat tax proposal, as we have, we can avoid any increases in annual
deficits and the national debt.
In addition to increasing federal revenues by fostering economic
growth, the flat tax can also add to federal revenues without
increasing taxes by closing tax loopholes. The Congressional Research
Service estimates that for fiscal year 1995, individuals sheltered more
than $393 billion in tax revenue in legal loopholes, and corporations
sheltered an additional $60 billion. There may well be additional
monies hidden in quasi-legal or even illegal ``tax shelters.'' Under a
flat tax system, all tax shelters will disappear and all income will be
subject to taxation.
The growth case for a flat tax is compelling. It is even more
compelling in the case of a tax revision that is simple and
demonstrably fair.
By substantially increasing the personal allowances for taxpayers and
their dependents, this flat tax proposal ensures that poorer taxpayers
will pay no tax and that taxes will not be regressive for lower and
middle income taxpayers. At the same time, by closing the hundreds of
tax loopholes which are currently used by wealthier taxpayers to
shelter their income and avoid taxes, this flat tax bill will also
ensure that all Americans pay their fair share.
The flat tax legislation that I am offering will retain the element
of progressivity that Americans view as essential to fairness in an
income tax system. Because of the lower end income exclusions, and the
capped deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable
contributions, the effective tax rates under my bill will range from 0%
for families with incomes under about $30,000 to roughly 20% for the
highest income groups.
My proposed legislation demonstrably retains the fairness that must
be an essential component of the American tax system.
The proposal that I make today is dramatic, but so are its
advantages: a taxation system that is simple, fair and designed to
maximize prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages
are:
Simplicity: A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms
and attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 5.3
billion hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance.
Cuts Government: The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS
rules, regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000
words in 1955 to 5.6 million words and 12,000 pages currently. It would
also allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of 117,000
employees.
Promotes Economic Growth: Economists estimate a growth of over $2
trillion in national wealth over seven years, representing an increase
of approximately $7,500 in personal wealth for every man, woman and
child in America. This growth would also lead to the creation of 6
million new jobs.
Increases Efficiency: Investment decisions would be made on the basis
of productivity rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to
even greater economic expansion.
Reduces Interest Rates: Economic forecasts indicate that interest
rates would fall substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat
tax removes many of the current disincentives to savings.
Lowers Compliance Costs: Americans would be able to save up to $224
billion they currently spend every year in tax compliance.
Decreases Fraud: As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is
simplified, there will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and
fraud, which now amounts to over $120 billion in uncollected revenue
annually.
Reduces IRS Costs: Simplification of the tax code will allow us to
save significantly on the $7 billion annual budget currently allocated
to the Internal Revenue Service.
Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within seven years
of enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6 percent
increase in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and
increased capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500
increase in the personal income of all Americans.
No one likes to pay taxes. But Americans will be much more willing to
pay their taxes under a system that they believe is fair, a system that
they can understand, and a system that they recognize promotes rather
than prevents growth and prosperity. The legislation I introduce today
will afford Americans such a tax system.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 823. A bill to establish a program to assure the safety of
processed produce intended for human consumption, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

the fruit and vegetable safety act

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
bridge obvious gaps in the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables. This
legislation will establish basic standards of sanitation for processed
fruits and vegetables, simple standards that will help assure that
Americans can enjoy these foods safely.
American families are on the front lines of this food safety battle
three times a day--breakfast, lunch and dinner. Health experts advise
us to eat at least five servings a day of fresh fruits and vegetables
as part of a healthy lifestyle. Studies show these foods can cut our
risks of cancer and heart disease. Americans have listened, and our
consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables has grown every year. We can
now find a variety of out-of-season produce, imported and exotic foods.
We also enjoy convenience foods, ready-to-eat mixed salads, sprouts,
mixed juices, a variety of frozen berries, dried spices, and other
treats unavailable a few decades ago.
Americans can buy produce that is the safest in the world, and food
safety problems from produce are rare. But these problems can be
devastating for victims, and consumers are demanding stronger laws to
protect themselves from food borne illness. Since 1990, more than 40
outbreaks of foodborne illness have been linked to fresh fruit,
vegetable and juice products consumed in the United States. More than
6300 illnesses were reported, with victims in almost all 50 states.
Domestic melons, imported strawberries, lettuce, sprouts and orange
juice each took their toll.
Processed or ready-to-eat produce may be more easily contaminated
because it is handled extensively, cut up and rinsed, and then is eaten
by the consumer without further preparation. It is essential that the
processor handle these foods safely, because there is nothing the
consumer can do once these products are contaminated.
This bill will improve the safety of these products by requiring that
they are always processed under sanitary conditions. These are the same
conditions you would use in your own kitchen, and should expect from a
processor. The guidelines are simple; that rinse water be clean and
sewage be kept

[[Page S3799]]

away from the food, that workers can and do wash their hands, that
flies, birds and rodents be kept out of the processing plant.
Under the bill provisions, FDA will inspect processors, domestic and
importing, annually, to be sure they are following sanitary guidelines.
FDA will also coordinate with other food safety agencies to develop
research programs aimed at setting standards for safe agricultural
practices for produce, and for testing methods that can verify that
fruit or vegetable products has been processed safely.
Last August, the National Academy of Sciences, in evaluating the
federal food safety system, advised that food safety agencies be able
to ``mandate minimum sanitation standards for food.'' Food safety
should be a requirement--not a suggestion. We have had basic sanitation
standards in place for meat and poultry for 93 years. FDA needs strong
mandatory sanitation guidelines for produce. My bill would establish
basic sanitation standards for processed fruits and vegetables. Most
processors in the US are already following these reasonable standards,
and are keeping their products safe. This bill will bring everyone up
to par domestically, and allow FDA to address produce sanitation
problems in importing countries.
Agriculture is clearly our nation's largest employer, providing jobs
for millions from the farm to the corner markets. Agricultural
communities cannot afford to have the American public question the
safety of the food in their grocery stores. This is not just a public
health issue, it is also an economic issue.
I believe these simple standards of cleanliness are reasonable, are
long overdue, and will help assure that Americans can safely make these
foods a part of every meal.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Cleland, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Bryan):
S. 284. A bill to improve educational systems and facilities to
better educate students throughout the United States; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

comprehensive school improvement and accountability act of 1999

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think every American knows what today
is--Tax Day, 1999. It's a day that I think no doubt leaves most
Americans, certainly, tired from the all too hurried rush to file those
forms--but I hope also reminded that as we pay our taxes we're really
making choices about our priorities--investing in a strong national
defense, making a difference in research and development, protecting
Social Security and Medicare--and the truth is that while no one likes
to pay taxes, this is why we do it--so we can invest in certain
priorities that make our nation strong.
Well, Mr. President, today I want to join with my colleague Gordon
Smith to talk about one of those investments, about the commitment
Americans want us to make to our public schools, and about the biggest
tax cut we can ever deliver for our children and grandchildren--the tax
cut you give to future generations when you insist--today--that you're
going to have a committed and qualified teacher in every classroom,
that you're going to make every public school work, and that you're
going to put every child on the road to a life in which they can make
the most of their own talents and capacities for success.
Let's be honest--as a society, there is no decision of greater
importance to the long term health, stability, and competitiveness of
this nation, than the way we decide to educate our children.
We look to public schools today to educate our children to lead in an
information age where the term ``wired worker'' will soon be redundant
because of an information revolution that has literally put more power
in the computer chip of a digital watch than in every computer combined
in the United States just fifty years ago; massive technological change
and demands to improve our productivity, putting more Americans to work
for longer hours and putting them in front of computer screens for
hours more when they're not at work; a global economy where borders
have vanished--and the wealth of nations will be determined by the
wisdom of their workers--by their level of training, the depth of their
knowledge, and their ability to compete with workers around the world.
Mr. President, two hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson told us that
our public schools would be ``the pillars of the republic''--he was
right then, he is right now--but today there is a caveat: those public
schools must also be--more than ever--the pillars of our economy and
the pillars of our communities.
And I would respectfully suggest to you that there has not been a
more urgent time than the present to reevaluate--honestly--the way
America's greatest democratic experiment is working--the experiment of
our nation's public schools.
Those pillars of the republic have never before had to support so
heavy a burden as they do today. In our world of telecommuting, the
Internet, hundreds and soon thousands of television channels, sixty,
seventy and eighty hour work weeks--there are fewer and fewer places
where Americans come together in person to share in that common civic
culture, fewer ways in which we unite as citizens--and caught up in
that whirlwind are more students living in poverty, more students
dealing with disabilities, more students with limited command of the
English language.
More reasons, I believe, why this nation must have a great public
school system.
And what can we say of the system before us today? I think we must
say that--although there are thousands of public schools in this
country doing a magnificent job of educating our children to a world
class level--too many of our schools are struggling and too many kids
are being left behind.
Mr. President, I believe we have a responsibility to be the true
friends of public education--and the best friends are critical friends,
and it is time that we seek the truth and offer our help to a system
that is not doing enough for a large proportion of the 50 million
children in our public schools today--children whose reading scores
show that of 2.6 million graduating high school students, one-third are
below basic reading level, one-third are at basic, only one-third are
proficient and only 100,000 are at a world class reading level;
children who edge out only South Africa and Cyprus on international
tests in science and math, with 29 percent of all college freshmen
requiring remedial classes in basic skills.
Mr. President, this year we have already passed the Ed-Flex Bill, a
step forward in giving our schools the flexibility and the
accountability they need to enact reform, making it a matter of law
that we won't tie their hands with red tape when Governors and Mayors
and local school districts are doing all they can to educate our kids,
but also emphasizing that with added flexibility comes a responsibility
to raise student achievement.
But Mr. President, EdFlex was just one step in a forward moving
direction--balancing accountability and flexibility--to continue the
process of real education reform--and that is why I am joining with my
colleague from Oregon, Gordon Smith, to introduce bipartisan
legislation today--the Kerry-Smith Bill--with our colleagues the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, my colleague Ted Kennedy and
with Max Cleland, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Carl Levin, Patty Murray,
Richard Bryan, as well as John Chafee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe
from Maine--legislation which together we believe will make a
difference in our schools, legislation which can bring together leaders
from across the political spectrum around good ideas which unite us
rather than dividing us.
Mr. President, for too long in this country the education debate has
been stuck both nationally and locally--leaders unable or unwilling to
answer the challenge, trapped in a debate that is little more than an
echo of old and irrelevant positions with promising solutions stymied
by ideology and interest groups--both on the right and on the left.
Nowhere more than in the venerable United States Senate, where we
pride ourselves on our ability to work together across partisan lines,
have we--

[[Page S3800]]

in so many debates--been stuck in a place where Democrats and
Republicans seem to talk past each other. Democrats are perceived to be
always ready to throw money at the problem but never for sufficient
accountability or creativity; Republicans are perceived as always ready
to give a voucher to go somewhere else but rarely supportive of
investing sufficient resources to make the public schools work.
Well, I think it is in this Congress, this year, that we can finally
disengage ourselves from the political combat, and acknowledge that
with so much on the line, such high stakes in our schools, you can't
just talk past each other and call it reform.
We all need to do our part to find a new answer, and Mr. President I
would respectfully suggest that in the bipartisan support you see for
this legislation, there is a different road we can meet on to make it
happen.
Together we are introducing the kind of comprehensive education
reform legislation that I believe will provide us a chance to come
together not as Democrats and Republicans, but as the true friends of
parents, children, teachers, and principals--to come together as
citizens--and help our schools reclaim the promise of public education
in this country. We need to ask one question: ``What provides our
children with the best education?'' And whether the answer is
conservative, liberal or simply practical, we need to commit ourselves
to that course.
Our bill is built on the notion of giving grants for schools--with
real accountability--to pursue comprehensive reform and adopt the
proven best practices of any other school--Voluntary State Reform
Incentive Grants so school districts that choose to finance and
implement comprehensive reform based on proven high-performance models
can bring forth change. We will target investments at school districts
with high numbers of at-risk students and leverage local dollars
through matching grants. This component of the legislation will give
schools the chance to quickly and easily put in place the best of what
works in any other school--private, parochial or public--with
decentralized control, site-based management, parental engagement, and
high levels of volunteerism--while at the same time meeting high
standards of student achievement and public accountability. I believe
public schools need to have the chance to make changes not tomorrow,
not five years from now, not after another study--but now--today.
So if schools will embrace this new framework--every school adopting
the best practices of high achieving schools, building accountability
into the system--what then are the key ingredients of excellence that
every school needs to succeed?
Well, Mr. President, I think we can start by guaranteeing that every
one of our nation's 80,000 principals have the capacity to lead--the
talents and the know-how to do the job; effective leadership skills;
the vision to create an effective team--to recruit, hire, and transfer
teachers and engage parents. Without those abilities, the title of
principal and the freedom to lead means little. We are proposing an
``Excellent Principals Challenge Grant'' which would provide funds to
local school districts to train principals in sound management skills
and effective classroom practices. This bill helps our schools make
being a principal the great calling of our time.

But as we set our sights on recruiting a new generation of effective
principals, we must acknowledge what today's best principals know:
principals can only produce results as good as the teachers with whom
they must work. To get the best results, we need the best teachers. And
we must act immediately to guarantee that we get the best as the United
States hires 2 million new teachers in the next ten years, 60% of them
in the next five years. In the Kerry-Smith Bill we will empower our
states and school districts to find new ways to hire and train
outstanding teachers: through a focus on teacher quality and training--
in Title V of this bill--we can use financial incentives to attract a
larger group of qualified people into the teaching profession and we
can provide real ongoing education and continued training for our
nation's teachers.
This legislation will allow states to reconfigure their certification
policies and their teaching standards to address the reality that our
standards for teachers are not high enough--and at the same time, they
are too rigid in setting out irrelevant requirements that don't make
teaching better; they make it harder for some who choose to teach. We
know we need to streamline teacher certification rules in this country
to recruit the best college graduates to teach in the United States.
Today we hire almost exclusively education majors to teach, and liberal
arts graduates are only welcomed in our country's top private schools.
Our legislation will allow states to rewrite the rules so principals
have a far greater flexibility to hire liberal arts graduates as
teachers, graduates who can meet high standards; while at the same time
allowing hundreds of thousands more teachers to achieve a more broad
based meaningful certification--the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards certification with its rigorous test of subject
matter knowledge and teaching ability.
This legislation will build a new teacher recruitment system for our
public schools--providing college scholarships for our highest
achieving high school graduates if they agree to come back and teach in
our public schools.
We will demand a great deal from our principals and our teachers--
holding them accountable for student achievement--but Mr. President we
also hope to build a new consensus in America that recognizes that you
can't hold someone accountable if they don't have the tools to succeed.
Our bill helps to close the resource gap in public education: helping
to eliminate the crime that turns too many hallways and classrooms into
arenas of violence by giving school districts incentives to write
discipline codes and create ``Second Chance'' schools with a range of
alternatives for chronically disruptive and violent students--
everything from short-term in-school crisis centers, to medium duration
in-school suspension rooms, to high quality off-campus alternatives;
helping every child come to school ready to learn by funding
successful, local early childhood development efforts; and making
schools the hubs of our communities once more by providing support for
after school programs where students receive tutoring, mentoring, and
values-based education--the kind of programs that are open to entire
communities, making public schools truly public.
And our legislation will help us bring a new kind accountability to
public education by injecting choice and competition into a public
school system badly in need of both. We are not a country that believes
in monopolies. We are a country that believes competition raises
quality. And we ought to merge the best of those ideas by ending a
system that restricts each child to an administrator's choice and not a
parent's choice where possible. It is time we adopt a competitive
system of public school choice with grants awarded to schools that meet
parents' test of quality and assistance to schools that must catch up
rapidly. That is why our bill creates an incentive for schools all
across the nation to adopt public school choice to the extent
logistically feasible.
Mr. President, we are not just asking Democrats and Republicans to
meet in a compromise, a grand bargain to reform public education. We
are offering legislation that helps us do it, that forces not just a
debate, but a vote--yes or no, up or down, change or more of the same.
Together we can embrace new rights and responsibilities on both sides
of the ideological divide and admit that the answer to the crisis of
public education is not found in one concept alone--in private school
vouchers or bricks and mortar alone. We can find answers for our
children by breaking with the instinct for the symbolic, and especially
the notion that a speech here and there will make education better in
this country. It can't and it won't. But our hard work together in the
coming year--Democrats and Republicans together--can make a difference.
Education reform can work in a bi-partisan way. There is no shortage of
good ideas or leadership here in the Senate--the experience of Gordon
Smith who spent years in the Oregon legislature working to balance
resources and accountability to raise the quality of public education;
with

[[Page S3801]]

tireless leadership from former Governors like Evan Bayh and John
Chafee; bi-partisan creativity from Patty Murray and Olympia Snowe; and
the leadership and passion, of course, of the senior Senator from my
state, Senator Kennedy, who has led the fight on education in this
Senate, and who has provided this body with over 30 years of unrivaled
leadership and support for education.
We look forward to working with all of our colleagues this year to
pass this legislation, in this important year as we undergo the process
of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to find
common ground in ideas that we can all support--bold legislation that
sends the message--finally--to parents and children struggling to find
schools that work, and to teachers and principals struggling in schools
simultaneously bloated with bureaucracy and starved for resources--to
prove to them not just that we hear their cries for help, but that we
will respond not with sound bites and salvos, but with real answers.
I thank my colleagues and I ask unanimous consent that the full text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 824

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
``Comprehensive School Improvement and Accountability Act of
1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. General requirements.

TITLE I--VOLUNTARY STATE REFORM INCENTIVE GRANTS

Sec. 101. Demonstrations of innovative practices.
Sec. 102. Fully funding title I of ESEA.

TITLE II--ENSURING THAT CHILDREN BEGIN SCHOOL READY TO LEARN

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Allotments to States.
Sec. 203. Grants to local collaboratives.
Sec. 204. Appropriations.

TITLE III--EXCELLENT PRINCIPALS CHALLENGE GRANT

Sec. 301. Grants to States for the training of principals.

TITLE IV--SECOND CHANCE PROGRAMS FOR DISRUPTIVE OR VIOLENT STUDENTS

Sec. 401. Establishment of second chance grant program.

TITLE V--TEACHER QUALITY AND TRAINING

Sec. 501. Grants for low-income areas.
Sec. 502. Scholarships for future teachers.
Sec. 503. Teacher quality.
Sec. 504. Loan forgiveness and cancellation for teachers.
Sec. 505. Teacher quality enhancement grants.
Sec. 506. Improving teacher technology training.

TITLE VI--INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY-BASED SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Sec. 601. 21st century community learning centers.
Sec. 602. Grants for programs requiring community service.

TITLE VII--EXPANDING NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR TEACHERS

Sec. 701. Purpose.
Sec. 702. Grants to expand participation in the National Board
Certification Program.

TITLE VIII--ENCOURAGING PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE

Sec. 801. Grants to encourage public school choice.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

The definitions in section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801) shall apply
to this Act.

SEC. 3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Eligibility.--
(1) State eligibility.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under title I, III, or VIII of this Act, or part E
of title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, a State educational agency, consortium of State
educational agencies, or State shall reserve not more than 5
percent of the funds the State educational agency,
consortium, or State, as appropriate, receives under title I,
III, or VIII, or such part E, respectively, for a fiscal year
to enable the State educational agency, consortium, or State,
as appropriate--
(A) to specify to the Secretary how the receipt of the
Federal funds will lead to school improvements, such as
increasing student academic achievement, reducing out-of-
field teacher placements, increasing teacher retention, and
reducing the number of emergency teaching certificates;
(B) to conduct an annual evaluation to determine whether or
not such improvements have occurred;
(C) if the improvements have not occurred, to specify to
the Secretary what steps will be taken in the future to
ensure the improvements; and
(D) for general administrative expenses of the activities
assisted under title I, III, or VIII, or such part E,
respectively.
(2) Local educational agency.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under title I or III of this Act, or parts E or F
of title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, a local educational agency shall--
(A) serve low achieving students as measured by low
graduation rates or low scores on assessment exams;
(B) have a low teacher retention rate in the schools served
by the local educational agency;
(C) have a high rate of out-of-field placement of teachers
in the schools served by the local educational agency; and
(D) have a shortage of teachers of mathematics or physical
science in the schools served by the local educational
agency.
(b) Geographic Requirements.--The Secretary shall
promulgate regulations to ensure that a balanced amount of
funding under titles III, VII, and VIII of this Act, section
602 of this Act, part I of title X, and parts E and F of
title XIII, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, and subpart 9 of part A of title IV, and section 428K,
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, is made available to
rural and urban areas.
(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds appropriated under this
Act shall be used to supplement and not supplant other
Federal, State, and local public funds expended to carry out
activities assisted under this Act.

TITLE I--VOLUNTARY STATE REFORM INCENTIVE GRANTS

SEC. 101. DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOVATIVE PRACTICES.

(a) Provision of Funds.--From amounts appropriated under
subsection (f), the Secretary, acting through the authority
provided under section 1502 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6492), shall award grants to
State educational agencies to enable the States to provide
for comprehensive school reforms.
(b) State Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under subsection (a), a State educational agency shall
prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require, including--
(1) a description of the process and selection criteria
that the State educational agency will utilize to award
competitive grants to local educational agencies;
(2) a description of the manner in which the State
educational agency will ensure that only high quality
comprehensive school reform proposals will be funded by the
State under this section;
(3) a description of the manner in which the State
educational agency will distribute information concerning the
comprehensive reform program to local educational agencies
and individual schools;
(4) a description of the methods to be used by the State
educational agency to evaluate the results of the activities
carried out by local educational agencies under the grant;
and
(5) assurances that the State educational agency will use
funds received under the grant to supplement, not supplant,
other Federal, State and local resources provided for
educational reforms.
(c) Use of Funds.--
(1) Grants to local educational agencies.--
(A) In general.--Subject to section 3(a)(1), a State
educational agency shall use amounts received under a grant
under this section to award competitive grants to local
educational agencies to enable such local educational
agencies to provide funds to schools to carry out activities
relating to comprehensive school reform. Such activities may
include--
(i) activities relating to the professional development and
training of teachers, administrators, staff and parents;
(ii) the acquisition of expert technical assistance in
carrying out school reform;
(iii) developing or acquiring instructional materials; and
(iv) implementing parent and community outreach programs.
(B) Distribution.--In awarding grants to local educational
agencies under this subsection, the State educational agency
shall ensure that grants are awarded to agencies where
reforms will be implemented at schools with different grade
levels.
(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
paragraph (1), a local educational agency shall prepare and
submit to the State educational agency an application at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
State educational agency may require, including--
(A) a description of the schools to which the local
educational agency will provide funds under the grant;
(B) a description of the comprehensive school reform
program that will be implemented by the local educational
agency, including the manner in which the local educational
agency will provide technical assistance and support for
school implementation efforts; and

[[Page S3802]]

(C) a description of the manner in which the local
educational agency will evaluate and measure the results
achieved by schools implementing comprehensive school
reforms.
(3) Requirements.--A comprehensive school reform program
shall--
(A) utilize innovative strategies and proven methods for
student learning, teaching, and school management that are
based on reliable and effective practices and that have been
replicated successfully in schools with diverse
characteristics;
(B) be based on a comprehensive design to achieve effective
school functioning, including instruction, assessment,
classroom management, professional development, parental
involvement, and school management, that aligns the
curriculum, technology, and professional development of the
school into a schoolwide reform plan that is designed to
enable all students to meet challenging State content and
student performance standards and address needs identified
through school needs assessments;
(C) provide a high-quality and continuous teacher and staff
professional development and training program;
(D) have measurable goals for student performance and
benchmarks for meeting such goals;
(E) be supported by school faculty, administrators and
staff;
(F) provide for the meaningful involvement of parents and
the local community in planning and implementing school
improvement activities;
(G) utilize high-quality external technical support and
assistance from a comprehensive school reform entity (which
may be an institution of higher education) with experience or
expertise in schoolwide reform and improvement;
(H) include a plan for the evaluation of the implementation
of school reforms and the student results achieved; and
(I) identify how other resources that are available to the
school will be utilized to coordinate services to support and
sustain the school reform effort.
(d) Matching Requirement.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive funds under this
section, a State educational agency shall provide assurances
satisfactory to the Secretary that non-Federal funds will be
made available to carry out activities under this section in
an amount equal to 20 percent of the amount that is provided
to the State under this section.
(2) Non-federal contributions.--Non-Federal funds required
under paragraph (1) may be in cash or in kind, fairly
evaluated, including plant, equipment, or services. Amounts
provided by the Federal Government, and any portion of any
service subsidized by the Federal Government, may not be
included in determining the amount of such non-Federal
contributions.
(3) Reduction of non-federal contributions.--The Secretary
shall promulgate regulations to reduce the non-Federal funds
required under paragraph (1) for State educational agencies
that serve the highest percentages of low-income children.
(e) Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated,
and there are appropriated, to carry out this section,
$250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $500,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001, $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $1,000,000,000
for fiscal year 2003, and $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year
2004.
(2) Reservation of funds.--From the amounts appropriated
under paragraph (1) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
reserve 1 percent of such amounts to provide funds to schools
that receive funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

SEC. 102. FULLY FUNDING TITLE I OF ESEA.

Section 1002(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6302(a)) is amended by striking
``$7,400,000,000 for fiscal year 1995'' and all that follows
through the period and inserting ``$7,400,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $7,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2001,
$8,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $8,400,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003, and $11,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2004''.

TITLE II--ENSURING THAT CHILDREN BEGIN SCHOOL READY TO LEARN

SEC. 201. 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
202(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 203(b).

SEC. 202. 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 203 for young child
assistance activities.
(b) Allotment.--
(1) In general.--From the funds appropriated under section
204 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
State Early Learning Coordinating Board, which shall receive
the allotment and make the grants described in section 203.
(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 to 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 203(e)(2)(F)(iii) that
describes the results referred to in section 203(e)(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

[[Page S3803]]

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 204 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 203,
relating to the functions of the local collaboratives under
this title.

SEC. 203. GRANTS TO LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.

(a) In General.--A State board that receives an allotment
under section 202 shall use the funds made available through
the allotment, and the State contribution made under section
202(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) Multiyear 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;
(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;
(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 202(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 not less than 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. 204. APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are
appropriated, to carry out this title $100,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $300,000,000
for fiscal year 2002, $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and
$1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.

TITLE III--EXCELLENT PRINCIPALS CHALLENGE GRANT

SEC. 301. GRANTS TO STATES FOR THE TRAINING OF PRINCIPALS.

(a) Grants.--
(1) In general.--From the sums appropriated under
subsection (g) and not reserved under subsection (f) for any
fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants to eligible
State educational agencies or consortia of

[[Page S3804]]

State educational agencies to enable such State educational
agencies or consortia to award grants to local educational
agencies for the provision of professional development
services for public elementary school and secondary school
principals to enhance the leadership skills of such
principals.
(2) Award basis.--The Secretary shall award grants under
this section to eligible State educational agencies or
consortia on the basis of criteria that includes--
(A) the quality of the proposed use of the grant funds; and
(B) the educational need of the State or States.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), a State educational agency or consortium
shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require, including an assurance that--
(1) matching funds will be provided in accordance with
subsection (e); and
(2) principals were involved in developing the application
and the proposed use of the grant funds.
(c) Use of Funds.--Subject to section 3(a)(1), a State
educational agency or consortium that receives a grant under
this section shall use amounts received under the grant to
provide assistance to local educational agencies to enable
such local educational agencies to provide training and other
activities to increase the leadership and other skills of
principals in public elementary schools and secondary
schools. Such activities may include activities--
(1) to enhance and develop school management and business
skills;
(2) to provide principals with knowledge of--
(A) effective instructional skills and practices; and
(B) comprehensive whole-school approaches and programs;
(3) to improve understanding of the effective uses of
educational technology;
(4) to provide training in effective, fair evaluation of
school staff; and
(5) to improve knowledge of State content and performance
standards.
(d) Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant awarded to a
State educational agency or consortium under this section
shall be determined by the Secretary.
(e) Matching Requirement.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive funds under this
section, a State educational agency or consortium shall
provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that non-
Federal funds will be made available to carry out activities
under this title in an amount equal to 25 percent of the
amount that is provided to the State educational agency or
consortium under this section.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to
waive the matching requirement of paragraph (1) with respect
to State educational agencies or consortia that the Secretary
determines serve low-income areas.
(3) Non-federal contributions.--Non-Federal funds required
under paragraph (1) may be provided in cash or in kind,
fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or services.
Amounts provided by the Federal Government, and any portion
of any service subsidized by the Federal Government, may not
be included in determining the amount of such non-Federal
funds.
(f) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve not more than 2
percent of the amount appropriated under subsection (g) for
each fiscal year to develop model national programs to
provide the activities described in subsection (c) to
principals. In carrying out the preceding sentence the
Secretary shall appoint a commission, consisting of
representatives of local educational agencies, State
educational agencies, departments of education within
institutions of higher education, principals, education
organizations, community groups, business, and labor, to
examine existing professional development programs and to
produce a report on the best practices to help principals in
multiple education environments across our Nation. The report
shall be produced not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(g) Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, and there are appropriated, $100,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to carry out this
section.

TITLE IV--SECOND CHANCE PROGRAMS FOR DISRUPTIVE OR VIOLENT STUDENTS

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF SECOND CHANCE GRANT PROGRAM.

Title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``PART E--SECOND CHANCE PROGRAMS FOR DISRUPTIVE OR VIOLENT STUDENTS

``SEC. 13501. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

``It is the purpose of this part to provide financial
assistance to State educational agencies and local
educational agencies to initiate a program of demonstration
projects, personnel training, and similar activities designed
to build a nationwide capability in public elementary schools
and secondary schools to meet the educational needs of
violent or disruptive students.

``SEC. 13502. AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS.

``(a) Establishment of Program.--From the sums appropriated
under section 13505 for any fiscal year, the Secretary (after
consultation with experts in the field of the education of
disruptive or violent students) shall make grants to State
educational agencies to enable such State educational
agencies to provide financial assistance to local educational
agencies to assist such local educational agencies in
carrying out programs or projects that are designed to meet
the educational needs of violent or disruptive students,
including the training of school personnel in the education
of violent or disruptive students.
``(b) Application.--Each State educational agency desiring
assistance under this part shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(c) Uses of Funds.--Subject to section 3(a)(1) of the
Comprehensive School Improvement and Accountability Act of
1999, amounts provided under a grant under this section shall
be used by the State educational agency to provide financial
assistance to local educational agencies. Such local
educational agencies shall use such assistance to--
``(1) promote effective classroom management;
``(2) provide training for school staff and administrators
in enforcement of the discipline code described in subsection
(d)(2), which may include training on violence prevention;
``(3) implement programs to modify student behavior,
including hiring pupil services personnel (including school
counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, and
other professionals);
``(4) establish high quality alternative placements for
chronically disruptive or violent students that include a
continuum of alternatives such as--
``(A) meeting with behavior management specialists;
``(B) establishing short term in-school crisis centers;
``(C) providing medium duration in-school suspension rooms;
and
``(D) facilitating off-campus alternatives for such
students; or
``(5) carry out other activities determined appropriate by
the Secretary.
``(d) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive financial
assistance from a State educational agency under this part a
local educational agency shall--
``(1) prepare and submit to the State educational agency an
application that contains an assurance that the local
educational agency will use the assistance to carry out
activities described in subsection (c);
``(2) have enacted and implemented a discipline code that--
``(A) is applied on a school district-wide basis;
``(B) makes use of clear, understandable language,
including specific examples of behaviors that will result in
disciplinary actions; and
``(C) is subject to signature by all students and their
parents or guardians; and
``(3) comply with any other requirements determined
appropriate by the State.

``SEC. 13503. FUNDING.

``Each State educational agency having an application
approved under this part shall receive a grant for a fiscal
year in an amount that bears the same relation to the total
amount appropriated under section 13505 for the fiscal year
as the amount the State educational agency is eligible to
receive under part A of title I for the fiscal year bears to
the amount received by all State educational agencies under
part A of title I for the fiscal year.

``SEC. 13504. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

``(a) Service of Students.--Nothing in this part shall be
construed to prohibit a recipient of funds under this part
from serving disruptive or violent students simultaneously
with students with similar educational needs, in the same
educational settings where appropriate.
``(b) Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.--Nothing
in this part shall be construed to restrict or eliminate any
protection provided for in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) with respect to
students with disabilities.

``SEC. 13505. APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are
appropriated, $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000
through 2004 to carry out this part.''.

TITLE V--TEACHER QUALITY AND TRAINING

SEC. 501. GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME AREAS.

Title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.), as amended by section 401, is
further amended by adding at the end the following:

``PART F--INCREASING SALARIES FOR TEACHERS

``SEC. 13601. GRANTS FOR STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to
eligible State educational agencies to enable such agencies
to increase the salaries of teachers in elementary schools
and secondary schools.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), a State educational agency shall prepare and
submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
``(c) Use of Funds.--A State educational agency that
receives a grant under this section shall use amounts
received under the

[[Page S3805]]

grant to increase the salaries of teachers in elementary
schools and secondary schools.

``SEC. 13602. GRANTS TO STATES FOR SIGNING BONUSES TO
TEACHERS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to
eligible States to enable the States to provide incentives to
encourage individuals to accept employment as teachers in
certain elementary schools and secondary schools in the
States.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
``(c) Use of Funds.--A State that receives a grant under
this section shall use amounts received under the grant to
provide incentives to encourage individuals to accept
employment in an elementary school or secondary school that
is served by a local educational agency that meets the
eligibility requirements described in section 3(a)(2) of the
Comprehensive School Improvement and Accountability Act of
1999.
``(d) Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant to be awarded
to a State under this section shall be determined by the
Secretary.
``(e) Limitation.--The Secretary shall use not more than
$10,000,000 of the amount appropriated under section 13603
for each fiscal year to carry out this section.

``SEC. 13603. APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are
appropriated, $500,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000
and 2001, $1,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002
and 2003, and $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 to carry
out this part.''.

SEC. 502. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR FUTURE TEACHERS.

Part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Subpart 9--Scholarships for Future Teachers

``SEC. 420L. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

``It is the purpose of this subpart to establish a
scholarship program to promote student excellence and
achievement and to encourage students to make a commitment to
teaching.

``SEC. 420M. SCHOLARSHIPS AUTHORIZED.

``(a) Program Authority.--The Secretary is authorized, in
accordance with the provisions of this subpart, to make
grants to States to enable the States to award scholarships
to individuals who have demonstrated outstanding academic
achievement and who make a commitment to become State
certified teachers in elementary schools or secondary schools
that are served by local educational agencies that meet the
eligibility requirements described in section 3(a)(2) of the
Comprehensive School Improvement and Accountability Act of
1999.
``(b) Period of Award.--Scholarships under this section
shall be awarded for a period of not less than 1 and not more
than 4 years during the first 4 years of study at any
institution of higher education eligible to participate in
any program assisted under this title. The State educational
agency administering the scholarship program in a State shall
have discretion to determine the period of the award (within
the limits specified in the preceding sentence).
``(c) Use at Any Institution Permitted.--A student awarded
a scholarship under this subpart may attend any institution
of higher education.

``SEC. 420N. ALLOCATION AMONG STATES.

``(a) Allocation Formula.--From the sums appropriated under
section 420U for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall
allocate to each State that has an agreement under section
420O an amount that bears the same relation to the sums as
the amount the State received under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 bears to the
amount received under such part A by all States.
``(b) Amount of Scholarships.--The Secretary shall
promulgate regulations setting forth the amount of
scholarships awarded under this subpart.

``SEC. 420O. AGREEMENTS.

``The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with each
State desiring to participate in the scholarship program
authorized by this subpart. Each such agreement shall include
provisions designed to ensure that--
``(1) the State educational agency will administer the
scholarship program authorized by this subpart in the State;
``(2) the State educational agency will comply with the
eligibility and selection provisions of this subpart;
``(3) the State educational agency will conduct outreach
activities to publicize the availability of scholarships
under this subpart to all eligible students in the State,
with particular emphasis on activities designed to assure
that students from low-income and moderate-income families
have access to the information on the opportunity for full
participation in the scholarship program authorized by this
subpart; and
``(4) the State educational agency will pay to each
individual in the State who is awarded a scholarship under
this subpart an amount determined in accordance with
regulations promulgated under section 420N(b).

``SEC. 420P. ELIGIBILITY OF SCHOLARS.

``(a) Secondary School Graduation or Equivalent and
Admission to Institution Required.--Each student awarded a
scholarship under this subpart shall--
``(1) have a secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent;
``(2) have a score on a nationally recognized college
entrance exam, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or
the American College Testing Program (ACT), that is in the
top 20 percent of all scores achieved by individuals in the
secondary school graduating class of the student, or have a
grade point average that is in the top 20 percent of all
students in the secondary school graduating class of the
student;
``(3) have been admitted for enrollment at an institution
of higher education; and
``(4) make a commitment to become a State certified
elementary school or secondary school teacher for a period of
5 years.
``(b) Selection Based on Commitment to Teaching.--Each
student awarded a scholarship under this subpart shall
demonstrate outstanding academic achievement and show promise
of continued academic achievement.

``SEC. 420Q. SELECTION OF SCHOLARS.

``(a) Establishment of Criteria.--The State educational
agency is authorized to establish the criteria for the
selection of scholars under this subpart.
``(b) Adoption of Procedures.--The State educational agency
shall adopt selection procedures designed to ensure an
equitable geographic distribution of scholarship awards
within the State.
``(c) Consultation Requirement.--In carrying out its
responsibilities under subsections (a) and (b), the State
educational agency shall consult with school administrators,
local educational agencies, teachers, counselors, and
parents.
``(d) Timing of Selection.--The selection process shall be
completed, and the awards made, prior to the end of each
secondary school academic year.

``SEC. 420R. SCHOLARSHIP CONDITION.

``The State educational agency shall establish procedures
to assure that a scholar awarded a scholarship under this
subpart pursues a course of study at an institution of higher
education that is related to a career in teaching.

``SEC. 420S. RECRUITMENT.

``In carrying out a scholarship program under this section,
a State may use not less than 5 percent of the amount awarded
to the State under this subpart to carry out recruitment
programs through local educational agencies. Such programs
shall target liberal arts, education and technical
institutions of higher education in the State.

``SEC. 420T. INFORMATION.

``The Secretary shall develop additional programs or
strengthen existing programs to publicize information
regarding the programs assisted under this title and teaching
careers in general.

``SEC. 420U. APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are
appropriated, to carry out this subpart $10,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004, of which not more than
0.5 percent shall be used by the Secretary in any fiscal year
to carry out section 420T.''.

SEC. 503. TEACHER QUALITY.

Section 210 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1030) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $435,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through
2004, of which--
``(1) 62 percent shall be available for each fiscal year to
award grants under section 202;
``(2) 31 percent shall be available for each fiscal year to
award grants under section 203; and
``(3) 7 percent shall be available for each fiscal year to
award grants under section 204.''.

SEC. 504. LOAN FORGIVENESS AND CANCELLATION FOR TEACHERS.

(a) Federal Stafford Loans.--Section 428J of Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of subsection
(b)(1), by striking ``for 5 consecutive complete school
years'';
(2) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (c) to read as
follows:
``(1) Amount.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall repay--
``(i) not more than $5,000 in the aggregate of the loan
obligation on a loan made under section 428 or 428H that is
outstanding after the completion of the second complete
school year of teaching described in subsection (b)(1); and
``(ii) not more than $5,000 in the aggregate of such loan
obligation that is outstanding after the fifth complete
school year of teaching described in subsection (b)(1).
``(B) Special rule.--No borrower may receive a reduction of
loan obligations under both this section and section 460.'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated, to
carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2000 through 2004.''.
(b) Direct Loans.--Section 460 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087j) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i) of subsection
(b)(1)(A), by striking ``for 5 consecutive complete school
years'';
(2) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (c) to read as
follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall repay--

[[Page S3806]]

``(A) not more than $5,000 in the aggregate of the loan
obligation on a Federal Direct Stafford Loan or a Federal
Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loan that is outstanding after
the completion of the second complete school year of teaching
described in subsection (b)(1)(A); and
``(B) not more than $5,000 in the aggregate of such loan
obligation that is outstanding after the fifth complete
school year of teaching described in subsection (b)(1)(A).'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, and there are appropriated, to carry out this
section $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through
2004.''.

SEC. 505. TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS.

(a) States.--Section 202(d) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1022(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(8) Mentoring.--Promoting mentoring programs that pair
veteran teachers with novice teachers in order to--
``(A) increase the skill level of the novice teacher;
``(B) assist in the classroom effectiveness of the novice
teacher; and
``(C) help promote the retention of the novice teacher in
the school.''.
(b) Partnerships.--Section 203(e) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1023(e)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(5) Mentoring.--Promoting mentoring programs that pair
veteran teachers with novice teachers in order to--
``(A) increase the skill level of the novice teacher;
``(B) assist in the classroom effectiveness of the novice
teacher; and
``(C) help promote the retention of the novice teacher in
the school.''.

SEC. 506. IMPROVING TEACHER TECHNOLOGY TRAINING.

(a) Statement of Purpose for Title I.--Section 1001(d)(4)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6301(d)(4)) is amended by inserting ``, giving
particular attention to the role technology can play in
professional development and improved teaching and learning''
before the semicolon.
(b) School Improvement.--Section 1116(c)(3) of such Act (20
U.S.C. 6317(c)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) In carrying out professional development under this
paragraph a school shall give particular attention to
professional development that incorporates technology used to
improve teaching and learning.''.
(c) Professional Development.--Section 1119(b) of such Act
(20 U.S.C. 6320(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) include instruction in the use of technology.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (D); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (I) as
subparagraphs (D) through (H), respectively.
(d) Purposes for Title II.--Section 2002(2) of such Act (20
U.S.C. 6602(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) uses technology to enhance the teaching and learning
process.''.
(e) National Teacher Training Project.--Section 2103(b)(2)
of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6623(b)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(J) Technology.''.
(f) Local Plan for Improving Teaching and Learning.--
Section 2208(d)(1)(F) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6648(d)(1)(F))
is amended by inserting ``, technologies,'' after
``strategies''.
(g) Authorized Activities.--Section 2210(b)(2)(C) of such
Act (20 U.S.C. 6650(b)(2)(C)) is amended by inserting ``, and
in particular technology,'' after ``practices''.
(h) Higher Education Activities.--Section 2211(a)(1)(C) of
such Act (20 U.S.C. 6651(a)(1)(C)) is amended by inserting
``, including technological innovation,'' after
``innovation''.

TITLE VI--INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY-BASED SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

SEC. 601. 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS.

Part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8241 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 10905, by adding at the end the following:
``(14) Mentoring programs.
``(15) Academic assistance.
``(16) Drug, alcohol, and gang prevention activities.'';
and
(2) in section 10907, by striking ``$20,000,000 for fiscal
year 1995'' and all that follows through the period and
inserting ``$600,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000
through 2004, to carry out this part.''.

SEC. 602. GRANTS FOR PROGRAMS REQUIRING COMMUNITY SERVICE.

(a) In General.--From sums appropriated under subsection
(f) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants to
State educational agencies to enable such State educational
agencies to create and carry out programs to help students
meet State secondary school graduation requirements relating
to community service.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section a State educational agency shall prepare and
submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
(c) Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the amount of a
grant awarded to a State educational agency under this
section.
(d) Use of Funds.--A State educational agency shall use
amounts received under a grant under this section to
establish or expand a Statewide program, or school district-
wide programs, that help secondary school students to perform
community service in order to receive their secondary school
diplomas. In carrying out such programs the State educational
agency shall determine the type of community service
required, the hours required, and whether to exempt low-
income students who are employed before or after school, or
during summer months.
(e) Matching Requirement.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive funds under this
section, a State educational agency shall provide assurances
satisfactory to the Secretary that non-Federal funds will be
made available to carry out activities under this section in
an amount equal to the amount that is provided to the State
educational agency under this section, of which--
(A) 50 percent of such non-Federal funds shall be provided
by the State educational agency or local educational agencies
in the State; and
(B) 50 percent of such non-Federal funds shall be provided
from the private sector.
(2) Contributions.--Non-Federal contributions required in
paragraph (1) may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly
evaluated, including plant, equipment, or services.
(f) Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, and there are appropriated, $10,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to carry out this
section.

TITLE VII--EXPANDING NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR TEACHERS

SEC. 701. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this title to assist 105,000
elementary school or secondary school teachers in becoming
board certified by the year 2006.

SEC. 702. GRANTS TO EXPAND PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL
BOARD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under subsection
(e), the Secretary shall award grants to States to enable
such States to provide subsidies to elementary school and
secondary school teachers who enroll in the certification
program of the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
(c) Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant awarded to a
State under subsection (a) shall be determined by the
Secretary.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use amounts received under a
grant under this section to provide a subsidy to an eligible
teacher who enrolls and completes the teaching certification
program of the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards.
(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a subsidy under
this section an individual shall--
(A) be a teacher in an elementary school or secondary
school, served by a local educational agency that meets the
eligibility requirements described in section 3(a)(2), in the
State involved;
(B) prepare and submit to the State an application at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
State may require; and
(C) certify to the State that the individual intends to
enroll and complete the teaching certification program of the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
(3) Amount of subsidy.--Subject to the availability of
funds, a State shall provide to a teacher with an application
approved under paragraph (2) a subsidy in an amount equal to
90 percent of the cost of enrollment in the program described
in paragraph (2)(C).
(e) Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, and there are appropriated, to carry out this
section $37,800,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through
2004.

TITLE VIII--ENCOURAGING PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE

SEC. 801. GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE.

(a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under subsection
(f), the Secretary shall award grants to States to enable
such States to implement public school choice programs.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
(c) Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the amount of a
grant awarded to a State under this section.
(d) Use of Funds.--Subject to section 3(a)(1), a State
shall use amounts received

[[Page S3807]]

under a grant under this section to establish a statewide
public school choice program under which elementary school
and secondary school students, who attend a school served by
a local educational agency that meets the eligibility
requirements described in section 3(a)(2), may enroll in any
public school of their choice. Amounts provided under such
grant may also be used--
(1) to improve low performing school districts that lose
students as a result of the program; and
(2) for any other activities determined appropriate by the
State.
(e) Limitation.--A State may use not more than 10 percent
of the amount received under a grant under this section to
carry out activities under subsection (d)(2).
(f) Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, and there are appropriated, to carry out this
section, $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000
through 2004.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in an effort of
bipartisanship with Senator Kerry, to present our plan to improve the
quality of education for the children of this country. The legislation
that we are introducing with Senators Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Bayh,
Cleland, Kennedy, Levin, Edwards, Bryan, and Murray, combines the best
ideas from the Republicans with the best ideas from the Democrats--it
is a way of reaching across the aisle to accomplish education reform.
Our shared goal is legislation that empowers educators, parents, and
principals to initiate positive change in the local school districts
without burdensome Federal mandates. The Kerry-Smith Plan to Educate
America's Children acts upon that goal and incorporates what the
President proposed in his State of the Union Address--that our Federal
dollars must be invested in programs that work. I couldn't agree more.
We need to ensure that we're getting the biggest bang out of our
education buck--not only for the Federal Government--but for the
taxpayers who deserve it, and who expect it. The taxpayers are not only
the watchdogs of how we spend our money, they are the stockholders and
have the right to determine the direction and quality of our
investment. This legislation turns the taxpayers into stockholders by
directing the Federal dollars to State and local education agencies and
allows them to manage the money locally--in local school districts and
for local students--to enhance and improve the quality of public
education in our nation.
Our proposal provides local education agencies, parents, principals,
and teachers the resources to build upon reform models that have been
proven to work, such as the Modern Red Schoolhouse and Success For All
programs. For example, the Success For All program focuses on raising
the achievement levels of K-12 students in low-performing schools by
providing a wide range of assistance, including one-on-one tutoring and
family support programs. To ensure that progress is being made,
students in the Success For All program are assessed every eight weeks.
If a student needs assistance in a specific area such as reading, a
tutor is provided to help that student improve his or her reading
skills.
Mr. President, this is exactly what every school in America should be
doing. In addition, the Modern Red Schoolhouse program goes back to the
basics and focuses on the core subject areas of math, science, and
reading. Students learn to master these subject areas at their own pace
in order to fulfill individual learning contracts. Importantly, this
program combines parental and community involvement with flexible daily
and yearly schedules for students in order to meet their individual
goals.
It is clear that any education reform proposal must be comprehensive
in order to be successful. That is why the Kerry-Smith bill focuses on
the needs of children and parents before the school day begins, and
after the school day ends.
First, our legislation strives to ensure that every child begins
school ready to learn by providing the resources to expand existing
programs such as EvenStart or HeadStart.
Second, our legislation provides the resources for the development
and training of excellent principals--and the retraining of current
principals to improve the way they manage our schools. This program can
be an opportunity to encourage and recruit second-career principals
from the business community.
Third, we provide the needed support for communities to develop
alternative schools for students who need further academic or
psychological counseling. One of the concerns I hear in my state is
that there aren't enough counselors in each school district. In fact,
one particular school district in my state, has one counselor for every
800 students. It is my hope we can greatly increase the number of
counselors. Too many children need extra support, and it benefits us
all to help ensure they get that support.
In this world-wide web generation where everything is changing and
growing at such a rapid rate, we're not always able to keep up with the
pace and progress of our children. Thomas Jefferson once said something
to the effect that each generation is its own nation--and I think that
is true to some extent--and it is our responsibility to prepare the
next generation as they face the challenges of the next century.
So as we begin debating education reform, I will support those
policies that fulfill our commitment. We can achieve our commitment by
providing comprehensive programs to meet the needs of all of our
children throughout the entire school day and after school.
We can achieve our commitment by investing in education programs that
have proven to work--based on research and real results. And we can
achieve our commitment by directing the resources for mentoring and
training of our teachers and principals and rewarding local districts
that display excellence in education.
The Kerry-Smith bill is an aggressive approach and puts these
principles to work--not in Washington, D.C., but in our states and
local school districts. We realize that there are many education reform
proposals that will be introduced in the Senate this year. And despite
the differing views of our respective parties on education in previous
years, Senator Kerry and I intended to work with our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to find a workable solution based on the combined
strength of various bills.
In closing, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Kerry, for
his foresight and leadership on this issue and encourage my colleagues'
cosponsorship and support. The education of our children is, and must
continue to be, a bipartisan commitment to excellence.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the Education Improvement Act
of 1999, introduced today by Senator Smith and Senator Kerry, and I am
proud to be a sponsor. It is a major initiative to improve the nation's
public schools and address the serious problems they face, such as the
shortage of teachers and the lack of after-school programs. These are
real problems that deserve real solutions.
Education must continue to be a top priority for this Congress. Few
other issues are as important to the nation as ensuring that every
child has the opportunity for a good education.
Last year, with broad bipartisan support, Congress made substantial
investments in the nation's public schools to reduce class size, expand
after-school programs and improve the initial training of teachers. But
more needs to be done. States and local communities are making
significant progress toward improving their public schools, but they
can't do it alone. The federal government must lend a helping hand.
We must do more to meet the needs of public schools, families, and
children. We need to expand early childhood education programs, and
meet our commitment to reducing class size, modernizing school
buildings, improving the quality of the nation's teachers, and provide
more opportunities for after-school programs.
The bill addresses these important issues in innovative and very
promising ways. The proposed ``Excellent Principals Challenge Grants''
will give school principal the support they need to be effective school
leaders. Principals are the bridge between the school and the school
boards, and the children and families in the community. More needs to
be done to make sure that principals receive the training they need to
become effective school administrators. Every child should have the
opportunity to attend a school with a well-trained teacher and a well-
trained principal.
When it comes to education, the nation's children deserve the best
help we

[[Page S3808]]

can give them. I commend Senator Kerry and Senator Smith for making
this strong commitment to improving the nation's public schools.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 825. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
small business employers a credit against income tax for employee
health insurance expenses paid or incurred by the employer; to the
Committee on Finance.

small business tax credit for health insurance for low-income workers

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today on tax day to introduce a new
legislative proposal to help small businesses afford quality health
insurance for their low-income workers. The number of uninsured is at
an all-time high. More than 43 million people, including 11 million
children, lack health insurance coverage. Workers in small firms are
significantly more likely to be uninsured than workers in larger firms.
Nationally, 34 percent of workers in small businesses with less than 10
employees are uninsured. This compares to the national average for all
workers which is 18.2 percent. In Illinois, 183,781 workers in a small
business in 1997 went without health insurance. For low-income workers
the situation was even worse. Nationally, 41.3 percent of workers
earning less than $16,000 were uninsured. Again in Illinois, 112,770
working for less than $16,000 in small businesses were uninsured.
This situation is deteriorating. Recent studies show that the number
of small businesses offering health insurance has been declining. In
1996, 52 percent of small businesses offered their employees health
insurance benefits. This level had fallen to 47 percent by 1998. For
the smallest firms, those with 3-9 workers, the percentage of employees
covered by employer-sponsored health insurance fell from 36 percent in
1996 to 31 percent in 1998.
Only 39 percent of small businesses with a significant percentage of
low-income employees offer employer-sponsored health insurance--such
companies are half as likely to offer health benefits as are companies
that have only a small proportion of low-income employees.
One of the main reasons for this decline in employer-sponsored health
insurance is cost. Small businesses pay on average 30 percent more for
health insurance than larger firms and costs are increasing more
rapidly for small businesses causing them to drop health insurance
benefits.
Health insurance coverage is also related to income. High income
workers have the highest rates of insurance. The very poor are
generally covered by public sources of health care. It is most often
the working poor who have the lowest incidence of insurance. Thirty-
seven percent of those with family incomes between 100 percent and 125
percent of poverty are uninsured. In contrast, 92.2 percent of
individuals in families with incomes over $50,000 have insurance.
Bearing all this in mind, I am introducing a bill that recognizes
that the most concentrated pool of Americans without health insurance
are low-income workers in small businesses (0-9 employees). The bill
provides tax credits to small businesses when they provide health
insurance to those low-income workers. The bill provides a tax credit
of up to $600 for an individual policy for a worker making up to
$16,000/yr. and a tax credit of up to $1,200 for a family policy for a
worker making up to $16,000/yr. The tax credit is valued at 60 percent
of what the employer contributes for the individual's health insurance,
or 70 percent of what the employer contributes for a family policy, to
the maximum of $600 and $1,200 for self-only and family policies
respectively.
The proposal does not undermine the employer-based health insurance
market, and does not undermine the protections and advantages that are
available to group purchasers. Instead it is designed to help small
businesses to provide quality health insurance benefits for their
employees.
______

By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Helms, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Murkowski,
Mr. Abraham, Mr. Craig, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire,
Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. DeWine):
S.J. Res. 19. A joint resolution requesting the President to advance
the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel on the retired list of the Navy
to the highest grade held as Commander in Chief, United States Fleet,
during World War II, and to advance the late Major General Walter C.
Short on the retired list of the Army to the highest grade held as
Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, during World War II, as was
done under the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 for all other senior
officers who served in positions of command during World War II, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

advancement of rear adm. kimmel and maj. gen. short on retired lists

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Delaware, Senator Biden, and on behalf of Senator Thurmond, Senator
Helms, Senator Domenici, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and 15 other
of our colleagues, to reintroduce a resolution whose intent to redress
a grave injustice, one that haunts us from the tribulations of World
War II.
The matter of which I speak concerns the reputations of two of the
most accomplished officers who served in Pacific theater during that
war: Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short.
They were the two senior commanders of U.S. military forces deployed
in the Pacific at the time of the disastrous surprise December 7, 1941
attack on Pearl Harbor. In the immediate aftermath of the attack they
were unfairly and publicly charged with dereliction of duty and blamed
as singularly responsible for the success of that attack. In short, as
we all know today, they were scapegoated.
What is most unforgivable is that after the end of World War II, this
scapegoating was given a near permanent veneer when the President of
the United States declined to advance Admiral Kimmel and General Short
on the retired list to their highest ranks of wartime command--an honor
that was given to every other senior commander who served in wartime
positions above his regular grade.
That decision to exclude only these two officers was made despite the
fact that wartime investigations had already exonerated those
commanders of the dereliction of duty charge and criticized the War and
Navy Departments for failings that contributed to the success of the
attack on Pearl Harbor.
Mr. President, let me repeat this fact: Admiral Kimmel and General
Short were the only two flag and general rank officers from World War
II excluded from advancement on the military's retired list. That fact
alone perpetuates the myth that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were
derelict in their duty and singularly responsible for the success of
the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short was one of the
great injustices that occurred within our own ranks during World War
II. The motivation behind our resolution today is to recognize and
correct this injustice.
Our resolution calls upon the President of the United States
posthumously to advance on the retirement lists Admiral Kimmel and
General Short to the grades of this highest wartime commands. In
adopting this resolution, the Senate would communicate its recognition
of the injustice done to them and call upon the President to take
corrective action. Such a statement by the Senate would do much to
remove the stigma of blame that so unfairly burdens the reputations of
these two officers. It is a correction consistent with our military's
tradition of honor, and it is one long overdue.
Mr. President, the facts that constitute the case of Admiral Kimmel
and General Short have been remarkably documented. Since the 1941
attack on Pearl Harbor, there have been no less than nine official
governmental investigations and reports, and one inquiry conducted by a
special Joint Congressional Committee.

[[Page S3809]]

Perhaps the most flawed, and unfortunately most influential
investigation, was that of the Roberts Commission. Less than 6 weeks
after the Pearl Harbor attack, in a hastily prepared report to the
President, the commission accused Kimmel and Short of dereliction of
duty--a charge that was immediately and highly publicized.
Adm. William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of this
Commission, later disavowed its report, stating that Admiral Kimmel and
General Short were ``martyred'' and ``if they had been brought to
trial, they would have been cleared of the charge.''
Later, Adm. J.O. Richardson, who was Admiral Kimmel's predecessor as
Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, wrote:

In the impression that the Roberts Commission created in
the minds of the American people, and in the way it was drawn
up for that specific purpose, I believe that the report of
the Roberts Commission was the most unfair, unjust, and
deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government
Printing Office.

Subsequent investigations provided clear evidence that Admiral Kimmel
and General Short were unfairly singled out for blame. These reports
include those presented by a 1944 Navy Court of Inquiry, the 1944 Army
Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation, a 1946 Joint Congressional
Committee, and more recently a 1991 Army Board for the Correction of
Military Records and report prepared by the Department of Defense in
1995. The findings of these official reports can be summarized as four
principal points.
First, there is ample evidence that the Hawaiian commanders were not
provided vital intelligence that they needed, and that was available in
Washington prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Their senior commanders
had critical information about Japanese intentions, plans, and actions,
but neighter passed this on nor took issue nor attempted to correct the
disposition of forces under Kimmel's and Short's commands in response
to the information they attained.
Second, the disposition of forces in Hawaii were proper and
consistent with the information made available to Admiral Kimmel and
General Short.
In my review of this case, I was most struck by the honor and
integrity demonstrated by Gen. George Marshall who was Army Chief of
Staff at the time of the attack. On November 27, 1941, General Short
interpreted a vaguely written war warning message sent from the high
command in Washington as suggesting the need to defend against
sabotage. Consequently, he concentrated his aircraft away from
perimeter roads to protect them, thus inadvertently increasing their
vulnerability to air attack. When he reported his preparations to the
General Staff in Washington, the General Staff took no steps to clarify
the reality of the situation.
In 1946 before a Joint Congressional Committee investigating the
Pearl Harbor disaster General Marshall testified that he was
responsible for ensuring the proper disposition of General Short's
forces. He acknowledged that he must have received General Short's
report, which would have been his opportunity to issue a corrective
message, and that he failed to do so.
Mr. President, General Marshall's integrity and sense of
responsibility is a model for all of us. I only wish it had been able
to have greater influence over the case of Admiral Kimmel and General
Short.
A third theme of these investigations concerned the failure of the
Department of War and the Department of the Navy to properly manage the
flow of intelligence. The Dorn Report completed in 1995 for the Deputy
Secretary of Defense at the request of Senator Thurmond, stated that
the handling of intelligence in Washington during the time leading up
to the attack on Pearl Harbor was characterized by, among other faults,
ineptitude, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of
clarification and followup.
The bottom line is that poor command decisions and inefficient
management structures and procedures blocked the flow of essential
intelligence from Washington to the Hawaiian commanders.
The fourth and most important theme that permeates the aforementioned
reports is that blame for the disaster at Pearl Harbor cannot be placed
only upon the Hawaiian commanders. Some of these reports completely
absolved these two officers. While others found them to have made
errors in judgment, all the reports subsequent to the Roberts
Commission cleared Admiral Kimmel and General Short of the charge of
dereliction of duty and underscored the rollout of a broad failure by
the entire chain of command.
And, Mr. President, all those reports identified significant failures
and shortcomings of the senior authorities in Washington that
contributed significantly--if not predominantly--to the success of the
surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Dorn Report put it best, stating that ``responsibility for the
Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of
Admiral Kimmel and General Short; it should be broadly shared.''
Mr. President, let me add one poignant fact about two of these
investigations. The conclusions of the 1944 Naval Court of Inquiry and
the Army Pearl Harbor Board--that Kimmel's and Short's forces had been
properly disposed according to the information available to them and
that their superiors had failed to share important intelligence--were
kept secret on the grounds that citing the existence of this
intelligence would have been detrimental to the war effort.
Be that as it may, there is no longer any reason to perpetuate the
cruel myth that Kimmel and Short were singularly responsible for the
disaster at Pearl Harbor. To do so is not only unfair, it tarnishes our
Nation's military honor. For reasons unexplainable to me, this
scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short has survived the
cleansing tides of history.
This issue of fairness and justice has been raised not only by
General Short and Admiral Kimmel and their surviving families today,
but also by numerous senior officers and public organizations around
the country.
Mr. President, allow me to submit for the Record a letter endorsing
our resolution from five living former naval officers who served at the
very pinnacle of military responsibility. They are former Chairmen of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Thomas H. Moorer and Adm. William J.
Crowe; and former Chiefs of Naval Operations Adm. J.L. Holloway III,
Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt, and Adm. Carlisle A.H. Trost.
I also submit a similar letter from Senator Robert Dole, one of our
most distinguished colleagues, who as we all know served heroically in
World War II.
The efforts of these and other officers have been complemented by the
initiatives of many public organizations who have called for posthumous
advancement of Kimmel and Short.
I submit for the Record a copy of the VFW's Resolution Number 441
passed last August calling for the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and
General Short.
Mr. President, Admiral Kimmel and General Short remain unjustly
stigmatized by our Nation's failure to treat them in the same manner
with which we treated their peers. To redress this wrong would be fully
consistent with this Nation's sense of justice. As I said earlier,
after 58 years, this correction is long overdue.
The message of our joint resolution is about justice, equity, and
honor. Its purpose is to redress an historic wrong, to ensure that
these two officers are treated fairly and with the dignity and honor
they deserve, and to ensure that justice and fairness fully permeate
the memory and lessons learned from the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor. In
the largest sense, passage of this resolution will restore the honor of
the United States in this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the joint resolution and the documents to which I have referred.
There being no objection, the materials was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Whereas Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, formerly the
Commander in Chief of the United States Fleet and the
Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, had an
excellent and unassailable record throughout his career in
the United States Navy prior to the December 7, 1941 attack
on Pearl Harbor;
Whereas Major General Walter C. Short, formerly the
Commander of the United States Army Hawaiian Department, had
an excellent and unassailable record throughout

[[Page S3810]]

his career in the United States Army prior to the December 7,
1941 attack on Pearl Harbor;
Whereas numerous investigations following the attack on
Pearl Harbor have documented that Admiral Kimmel and
Lieutenant General Short were not provided necessary and
critical intelligence that was available, that foretold of
war with Japan, that warned of imminent attack, and that
would have alerted them to prepare for the attack, including
such essential communiques as the Japanese Pearl Harbor Bomb
Plot message of September 24, 1941, and the message sent from
the Imperial Japanese Foreign Ministry to the Japanese
Ambassador in the United States from December 6-7, 1941,
known as the Fourteen-Part Message;
Whereas on December 16, 1941, Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant
General Short were relieved of their commands and returned to
their permanent ranks of rear admiral and major general;
Whereas Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a
member of the investigating commission known as the Roberts
Commission that accused Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General
Short of ``dereliction of duty'' only six weeks after the
attack on Pearl Harbor, later disavowed the report
maintaining that ``these two officers were martyred'' and
``if they had been brought to trial, both would have been
cleared of the charge'';
Whereas on October 19, 1944, a Naval Court of Inquiry
exonerated Admiral Kimmel on the grounds that his military
decisions and the disposition of his forces at the time of
the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor were proper ``by
virtue of the information that Admiral Kimmel had at hand
which indicated neither the probability nor the imminence of
an air attack on Pearl Harbor''; criticized the higher
command for not sharing with Admiral Kimmel ``during the very
critical period of 26 November to 7 December 1941, important
information . . . regarding the Japanese situation''; and,
concluded that the Japanese attack and its outcome was
attributable to no serious fault on the part of anyone in the
naval service;
Whereas on June 15, 1944, an investigation conducted by
Admiral T. C. Hart at the direction of the Secretary of the
Navy produced evidence, subsequently confirmed, that
essential intelligence concerning Japanese intentions and war
plans was available in Washington but was not shared with
Admiral Kimmel;
Whereas on October 20, 1944, the Army Pearl Harbor Board of
Investigation determined that Lieutenant General Short had
not been kept ``fully advised of the growing tenseness of the
Japanese situation which indicated an increasing necessity
for better preparation for war''; detailed information and
intelligence about Japanese intentions and war plans were
available in ``abundance'' but were not shared with the
General Short's Hawaii command; and General Short was not
provided ``on the evening of December 6th and the early
morning of December 7th, the critical information indicating
an almost immediate break with Japan, though there was ample
time to have accomplished this'';
Whereas the reports by both the Naval Court of Inquiry and
the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation were kept
secret, and Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short were
denied their requests to defend themselves through trial by
court-martial;
Whereas the joint committee of Congress that was
established to investigate the conduct of Admiral Kimmel and
Lieutenant General Short completed, on May 31, 1946, a 1,075-
page report which included the conclusions of the committee
that the two officers had not been guilty of dereliction of
duty;
Whereas the then Chief of Naval Personnel, Admiral J. L.
Holloway, Jr., on April 27, 1954, recommended that Admiral
Kimmel be advanced in rank in accordance with the provisions
of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947;
Whereas on November 13, 1991, a majority of the members of
the Board for the Correction of Military Records of the
Department of the Army found that Lieutenant General Short
``was unjustly held responsible for the Pearl Harbor
disaster'' and that ``it would be equitable and just'' to
advance him to the rank of lieutenant general on the retired
list'';
Whereas in October 1994, the then Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Carlisle Trost, withdrew his 1988
recommendation against the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and
recommended that the case of Admiral Kimmel be reopened;
Whereas the Dorn Report, a report on the results of a
Department of Defense study that was issued on December 15,
1995, did not provide support for an advancement of Rear
Admiral Kimmel or Major General Short in grade, it did set
forth as a conclusion of the study that ``responsibility for
the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the
shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short, it
should be broadly shared'';
Whereas the Dorn Report found that ``Army and Navy
officials in Washington were privy to intercepted Japanese
diplomatic communications . . . which provided crucial
confirmation of the imminence of war''; that ``the evidence
of the handling of these messages in Washington reveals some
ineptitude, some unwarranted assumptions and misestimations,
limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of
clarification and follow-up at higher levels''; and, that
``together, these characteristics resulted in failure . . .
to appreciate fully and to convey to the commanders in Hawaii
the sense of focus and urgency that these intercepts should
have engendered'';
Whereas, on July 21, 1997, Vice Admiral David C. Richardson
(United States Navy, retired) responded to the Dorn Report
with his own study which confirmed findings of the Naval
Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board of
Investigation and established, among other facts, that the
war effort in 1941 was undermined by a restrictive
intelligence distribution policy, and the degree to which the
commanders of the United States forces in Hawaii were not
alerted about the impending attack on Hawaii was directly
attributable to the withholding of intelligence from Admiral
Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short;
Whereas the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, in establishing
a promotion system for the Navy and the Army, provided a
legal basis for the President to honor any officer of the
Armed Forces of the United States who served his country as a
senior commander during World War II with a placement of that
officer, with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the
retired list with the highest grade held while on the active
duty list;
Whereas Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short are the
only two eligible officers from World War II who were
excluded from the list of retired officers presented for
advancement on the retired lists to their highest wartime
ranks under the terms of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947;
Whereas this singular exclusion from advancement on the
retired list serves only to perpetuate the myth that the
senior commanders in Hawaii were derelict in their duty and
responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a
distinct and unacceptable expression of dishonor toward two
of the finest officers who have served in the Armed Forces of
the United States;
Whereas Major General Walter Short died on September 23,
1949, and Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel died on May 14, 1968,
without the honor of having been returned to their wartime
ranks as were their fellow veterans of World War II; and
Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Pearl Harbor
Survivors Association, the Admiral Nimitz Foundation, the
Naval Academy Alumni Association, the Retired Officers
Association, and the Pearl Harbor Commemorative Committee,
and other associations and numerous retired military officers
have called for the rehabilitation of the reputations and
honor of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short through
their posthumous advancement on the retired lists to their
highest wartime grades: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADVANCEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL KIMMEL AND MAJOR
GENERAL SHORT ON RETIRED LISTS.

(a) Request.--The President is requested--
(1) to advance the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to
the grade of admiral on the retired list of the Navy; and
(2) to advance the late Major General Walter C. Short to
the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list of the
Army.
(b) Additional Benefits Not To Accrue.--Any advancement in
grade on a retired list requested under subsection (a) shall
not increase or change the compensation or benefits from the
United States to which any person is now or may in the future
be entitled based upon the military service of the officer
advanced.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE OF ADMIRAL KIMMEL AND LIEUTENANT
GENERAL SHORT.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel performed his
duties as Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet,
competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses
incurred by the United States in the attacks on the naval
base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and other targets on the island
of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not a result of
dereliction in the performance of those duties by the then
Admiral Kimmel; and
(2) the late Major General Walter C. Short performed his
duties as Commanding General, Hawaiian Department,
competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses
incurred by the United States in the attacks on Hickam Army
Air Field and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and other targets
on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not
a result of dereliction in the performance of those duties by
the then Lieutenant General Short.
____

The following is a partial listing of high-ranking retired
military personnel who advocate in support of the posthumous
advancement on the retired lists of Rear Admiral Husband
Kimmel and Major General Walter Short to Four-Star Admiral
and Three-Star General respectively:
Admirals: Thomas H. Moorer; Carlisle A.H. Trost; William J.
Crowe, Jr., Elmo R. Zumwalt; J.L. Hollaway III; Ronald J.
Hays; T.B. Hayward; Horatio Rivero; Worth H. Bargley; Noel
A.M. Gayler; Kinnaird R. McKee; Robert L.J. Long; William N.
Small; Maurice F. Weisner; U.S.G. Sharp, Jr.; H. Hardisty;
Wesley McDonald; Lee Baggett, Jr.; and Donald C. Davis.
Vice Admirals: David C. Richardson and William P. Lawrence.
Rear Admirals: D.M. Showers and Kemp Tolley.

[[Page S3811]]

____
To: Honorable Members of the United States Senate
From:
Thomas H. Moorer, Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Former Chief of Naval Operations.
J.L. Holloway III, Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Chief of
Naval Operations.
William J. Crowe, Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Elmo R. Zumwalt, Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Chief of
Naval Operations.
Carlisle A.H. Trost, Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Chief
of Naval Operations.
Re the honor and reputations of Admiral Husband Kimmel and
General Walter Short.

Dear Senator: We ask that the honor and reputations of two
fine officers who dedicated themselves to the service of
their country be restored. Admiral Husband Kimmel and General
Walter Short were singularly scapegoated as responsible for
the success of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December
7, 1941. The time is long overdue to reverse this inequity
and treat Admiral Kimmel and General Short fairly and justly.
The appropriate vehicle for that is the current Roth-Biden
Resolution.
The Resoltuion calls for the posthumous advancement on the
retirement list of Admiral Kimmel and General Short to their
highest WWII wartime ranks of four-star admiral and three-
star general as provided by the Officer Personnel Act of
1947. They are the only two eligible officers who have been
singled out for exclusion from that privilege; all other
eligible officers have been so privileged.
We urge you to support this Resolution.
We are career military officers who have served over a
period of several decades and through several wartime eras in
the capacities of Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and/or
Chief of Naval Operations. Each of us is familiar with the
circumstances leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
We are unanimous in our conviction that Admiral Husband
Kimmel and General Walter Short were not responsible for the
success of that attack, and that the fault lay with the
command structure at the seat of government in Washington.
The Roth-Biden Resolution details specifics of this case and
requests the President of the United States to nominate
Kimmel and Short for the appropriate advancement in rank.
As many of you know, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were
the Hawaiian Commanders in charge of naval and ground forces
on Hawaii at the time of the Japanese attack. After a hurried
investigation in January, 1942 they were charged with having
been ``derelict in their duty'' and given no opportunity to
refute that charge which was publicized throughout the
country.
As a result, many today believe the ``dereliction'' charge
to be true despite the fact that a Naval Court of Inquiry
exonerated Admiral Kimmel of blame; a Joint Congressional
Committee specifically found that neither had been derelict
in his duty; a four-to-one majority of the members of a Board
for the Correction of Military Records in the Department of
the Army found that General Short had been ``unjustly held
responsible'' and recommended his advancement to the rank of
lieutenant general on the retired list.
This injustice has been perpetuated for more than half a
century by their sole exclusion from the privilege of the Act
mentioned above.
As professional military officers we support in the
strongest terms the concept of holding commanders accountable
for the performance of their forces. We are equally strong in
our belief in the fundamental American principle of justice
for all Americans, regardless of creed, color, status or
rank. In other words, we believe strongly in fairness.
These two principles must be applied to the specific facts
of a given situation. History as well as innumerable
investigations have proven beyond any question that Admiral
Kimmel and General Short were not responsible for the Pearl
Harbor disaster. And we submit that where there is no
responsibility there can be no accountability.
But as a military principle--both practical and moral--the
dynamic of accountability works in both directions along the
vertical line known as the chain of command. In view of the
facts presented in the Roth-Biden Resolution and below--with
special reference to the fact that essential and critical
intelligence information was withheld from the Hawaiian
Commanders despite the commitment of the command structure to
provide that information to them--we submit that while the
Hawaiian Commanders were responsible and accountable as
anyone could have been given the circumstances, their
superiors in Washington were sadly and tragically lacking in
both of these leadership commitments.
A review of the historical facts available on the subject
of the attack on Pearl Harbor demonstrates that these
officers were not treated fairly.
1. They accomplished all that anyone could have with the
support provided by their superiors in terms of operating
forces (ships and aircraft) and information (instructions and
intelligence). Their disposition of forces, in view of the
information made available to them by the command structure
in Washington, was reasonable and appropriate.
2. Admiral Kimmel was told of the capabilities of U.S.
intelligence (MAGIC, the code-breaking capability of PURPLE
and other Japanese codes) and he was promised he could rely
on adequate warning of any attack based on this special
intelligence capability. Both Commanders rightfully operated
under the impression, and with the assurance, that they were
receiving the necessary intelligence information to fulfill
their responsibilities.
3. Historical information now available in the public
domain through declassified files, and post-war statements of
many officers involved, clearly demonstrate that vital
information was routinely withheld from both commanders. For
example, the ``Bomb Plot'' message and subsequent reporting
orders from Tokyo to Japanese agents in Hawaii as to
location, types and number of warships, and their replies to
Tokyo.
4. The code-breaking intelligence of PURPLE did provide
warning of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but the Hawaiian
Commanders were not informed. Whether deliberate or for some
other reason should make no difference, have no bearing.
These officers did not get the support and warnings they were
promised.
5. The fault was not theirs. It lay in Washington.
We urge you, as Members of the United States Senate, to
take a leadership role in assuring justice for two military
careerists who were willing to fight and die for their
country, but not to be humiliated by its government. We
believe that the American people--with their national
characteristic of fair play--would want the record set
straight. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (USN, Ret.).
Admiral William J. Crowe (USN, Ret.).
Admiral J.L. Holloway III (USN, Ret.).
Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt (USN, Ret.).
Admiral Carlisle A.H. Trost (USN, Ret.).
____

Washington, DC, March 11, 1999.
Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: I will join my voice with yours in support of
the Kimmel-Short Resolution of 1999.
The responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should be
shared by many. In light of the more recent disclosures of
withheld information Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General
Short should have had, I agree these two commanders have been
unjustly stigmatized.
Please keep me informed of the progress of this resolution.
Sincerely,
Bob Dole.
____

Resolution No. 441

restore pre-attack ranks to admiral husband e. kimmel and general
walter c. short

Whereas, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General C. Short
were the Commanders of Record for the Navy and Army Forces at
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese
Imperial Navy launched its attack; and
Whereas, following the attack, President D. Roosevelt
appointed Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts to a
commission to investigate such incident to determine if there
had been any dereliction to duty; and
Whereas, the Roberts Commission conducted a rushed
investigation in only five weeks. It charged Admiral Kimmel
and General Short with dereliction of their duty. The
findings were made public to the world; and
Whereas, the dereliction of duty charge destroyed the honor
and reputations of both Admiral Kimmel and General Short, and
due to the urgency neither man was given the opportunity to
defend himself against the accusation of dereliction of duty;
and
Whereas, other investigations showed that there was no
basis for the dereliction of duty charges, and a
Congressional investigation in 1946 made specific findings
that neither Admiral Kimmel nor General Short had been
``derelict in his duty'' at the time of the bombing of Pearl
Harbor; and
Whereas, it has been documented that the United States
military had broken the Japanese codes in 1941. With the use
of a cryptic machine known as ``Magic,'' the military was
able to decipher the Japanese diplomatic code known as
``Purple'' and the military code known as JN-25. The final
part of the diplomatic message that told of the attack on
Pearl Harbor was received on December 6, 1941. With this
vital information in hand, no warning was dispatched to
Admiral Kimmel or General Short to provide sufficient time to
defend Pearl Harbor in the proper manner; and
Whereas, it was not until after the tenth investigation of
the attack on Pearl Harbor was completed in December of 1995
that the United States Government acknowledge in the report
of Under Secretary of Defense Edwin S. Dorn that Admiral
Kimmel and General Short were not solely responsible for the
disaster, but that responsibility must be broadly shared; and
Whereas, at this time the American public had been deceived
for the past fifty-six years regarding the unfound charge of
dereliction of duty against two fine military officers whose
reputations and honor have been tarnished; Now, therefore, be
it

[[Page S3812]]

Resolved, by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States, That we urge the President of the United States to
restore the honor and reputations of Admiral Husband E.
Kimmel and General Walter C. Short; and be it further
Resolved, That we urge the President of the United States
to take necessary steps to posthumously advance Admiral
Kimmel and General Short to their highest wartime rank of
four-star admiral and lieutenant general. Such action would
be appreciated greatly to restore the honor of these two
great American servicemen.
Adopted by the 99th National Convention of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States held in San Antonio, Texas,
August 29-September 4, 1998.

Delaware VFW Resolution Passed by Delaware State Conference, June 1998

Resolution to the President of the United States with
respect to offering an apology on behalf of the Government of
the United States to Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General
Walter C. Short. The Naval and Army Commanders at Hawaii at
the time of the Japanese attack December 7, 1941 and urging
the President to take such steps as are necessary to advance
these two officers posthumously on the list of retired Navy
and Army officers to their pre-attack ranks of Four-Star
Admiral and Three-Star General.
Whereas, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter C.
Short were the Commanders of record for the Navy and Army
forces at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941 when the
Japanese Imperial Navy launched its attack; and
Whereas, Following the attack, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt appointed Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts to
a Commission to investigate such incident to determine if
there has been any dereliction of duty; and
Whereas, The Roberts Commission conducted a rush
investigation in only five weeks. It charged Admiral Kimmel
and General Short with dereliction of their duty. These
findings were made public to the world; and
Whereas, The dereliction of duty charge destroyed the honor
and reputations of both Admiral Kimmel and General Short, and
due to the urgency of the war neither man was given the
opportunity to defend himself against the accusation of
dereliction of duty; and
Whereas, Other investigations showed that there was no
basis for the dereliction of duty charges, and a
Congressional Investigation in 1946 made specific findings
that neither Admiral Kimmel nor General Short had been
``derelict in his duty'' a the time of the bombing of Pearl
Harbor; and
Whereas, It has been documented that the United States
Military had broken the Japanese codes in 1941. With the use
of a cryptic machine known as ``Magic,'' the Military was
able to decipher the Japanese diplomatic code known as
``Purple'' and the military code known as JN-25. The final
part of the diplomatic message that told of the attack on
Pearl Harbor was received on December 6, 1941. With this
vital information in hand, no warning was dispatched to
Admiral Kimmel or General Short to provide sufficient time to
defend Pearl Harbor in the proper manner; and
Whereas, It was not until after the tenth investigation of
the attack on pearl Harbor was completed in December of 1995,
that the United States Government acknowledged in the report
of Under Secretary of Defense Edwin S. Dorn, that Admiral
Kimmel and General Short were not soley responsible for the
disaster but that responsibility must be broadly shared; and
Whereas, as this time the American public have been
deceived for the past fifty-six years regarding the unfounded
charge of dereliction of duty against two fine military
officers whose reputations and honor have been tarnished;
now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the Veterans of Foreign Wars urges the
President of the United States to restore the honor and
reputations of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter
C. Short by making a public apology to them and their
families for the wrongful actions of past administrations for
allowing these unfounded charges of dereliction of duty to
stand.
Be It Resolved, That the Veterans of Foreign Wars urges the
President of the United States to take the necessary steps to
posthumously advance Admiral Kimmel and General Short to
their highest wartime ranks of Four-Star Admiral and Three-
Star General. Such action would correct the injustice
suffered by them and their families for the past fifty-six
years.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I and my colleagues--Senators Roth,
Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry, Hollings, Landrieu, Helms, Stevens, Specter,
Thurmond, Domenici, Kyl, Murkowski, Cochran, Craig, Enzi, Abraham,
Smith, Collins, Voinovich, and DeWine--are introducing a resolution
that seeks long overdue justice for the two commanders at Pearl Harbor
fifty-eight years ago, Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short.
Some will ask, ``why now?'' After all, fifty-eight years have passed.
I believe it is more important than ever to take this action now. It is
not just the simple truth--that there can be no statute of limitations
for restoring honor and dignity to men who spent their lives dedicated
to serving America and yet, were unfairly treated. It is also because
we have brave men and women in the military today who are fighting one
of the most professional and precise battles ever seen against a
brutal, genocidal dictator in Kosovo. They know that their cause is
just. What too many people do not know is the sacrifice and dedication
it takes to be able to do their jobs.
The tremendous ability of our pilots, our maintainers, and our
support crews is a direct result of their commitment to professional
excellence and service and their willingness to defend the values
Americans cherish. We owe it to them to defend those same values here
at home. When it comes to serving truth and justice, the time must
always be ``now.'' When it comes to treating people with fairness and
honoring their service, the time must always be ``now.''
This is the second year we are bringing a resolution before our
colleagues. We cannot give up because it is important that the Senate
understand and act to end the injustice done to these fine officers.
Ultimately, it is the President who must take action, but it is
important that we send the message that the historical truth matters.
At Pearl Harbor, these two officers should not bear all of the blame.
If they continue to do so, both our nation and our military lose.
Today's military is a testament to our ability to confront and learn
from our mistakes, but that can only happen if the record is accurate.
Admiral Kimmel and General Short served with selfless dedication and
honor. They were in command during a devastating surprise attack. They
deserved to be treated as officers who used their best judgement to
follow the orders they were given and to meet their command
responsibilities. Instead, they were made singular scapegoats for that
tragedy for fifty-eight years, without full consideration of the
circumstances and options available to them.
I hope that most of my colleagues will read this resolution. The
majority of the text details the historic case on behalf of Admiral
Kimmel and General Short and expresses Congress's opinion that both
officers performed their duty competently. Most importantly, it
requests that the President submit the names of Kimmel and Short to the
Senate for posthumous advancement on the retirement lists to their
highest held wartime rank.
This action would not require any form of compensation. Instead, it
would acknowledge, once and for all, that these two officers were not
treated fairly by the U.S. government and it would uphold the military
tradition that responsible officers take the blame for their failures,
not for the failures of others.
Before I go into a more detailed review of the historical case, I
also want my colleagues to know that this resolution has the support of
various veterans groups, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
and the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. The Delaware VFW passed a
resolution in support last June and the national VFW passed a
resolution in support in last September.
Now, let me review what happened. First, I want to discuss the
treatment of Kimmel and Short. Like most Americans, Admiral Kimmel and
General Short requested a fair and open hearing of their case, a court
martial. They were denied their request. After lifetimes of honorable
service to this nation and the defense of its values, they were denied
the most basic form of justice--a hearing by their peers.
Here are some of the historic facts. On December 18, 1941, a mere 11
days after Pearl Harbor, the Roberts Commission was formed to determine
whether derelictions of duty or errors of judgement by Kimmel and Short
contributed to the success of the Japanese attack. This commission
concluded that both commanders had been derelict in their duty and the
President ordered the immediate public release of these findings. The
Roberts Commission was the only investigative body that found these two
officers derelict in their duty.
Several facts about the Roberts Commission force us to question its
conclusions.

[[Page S3813]]

First, Kimmel and Short were denied the right to counsel and were not
allowed to be present when witnesses were questioned. They were then
explicitly told that the Commission was a fact-finding body and would
not be passing judgement on their performance. When the findings
accusing them of a serious offense were released, they immediately
requested a court-martial. That request was refused. It is difficult to
imagine a fair review of the evidence given the rules of procedure
followed by the Commission.

It is also important to note the timing here. It would be difficult
to provide a fair hearing in the charged atmosphere immediately
following America's entry into the war in the Pacific. In fact, Kimmel
and Short were the objects of public vilification. The Commission was
not immune to this pressure. One Commission member, for example,
Admiral Standley, expressed strong reservations about the Commission's
findings, later characterizing them as a ``travesty of justice''. He
did sign the Report, however, because of concerns that doing otherwise
might adversely affect the war effort. As you will see, the war effort
played an important role in how Kimmel and Short were treated.
In 1944, an Army Board investigated General Short's actions at Pearl
Harbor. The conclusions of that investigation placed blame of General
Marshall, the Chief of Staff of the Army at the time of Pearl Harbor
and in 1944. This report was sequestered and kept secret from the
public on the groups that it would be detrimental to the war effort.
That same year, a Naval Court of Inquiry investigated Admiral
Kimmel's actions at Pearl Harbor. The Naval Court's conclusions were
divided into two sections in order to protect information indicating
that America had the ability to decode and intercept Japanese messages.
The first and longer, section therefore, was classified ``top secret''.
The second section, was written to be unclassified and completely
exonerated Admiral Kimmel and recognized the Admiral Stark bore some of
the blame for Pearl Harbor because of his failure to provide Kimmel
with critical information available in Washington. Then Secretary of
the Navy James Forrestal instructed the Court that it had to classify
both sections ``secret'' and not release any findings to the public.
The historic record is not flattering to our government. A hastily
convened and procedurally flawed Commission released condemning
findings to the public, while two thorough military reviews which had
opposite conclusions were kept secret.
I hope that I have made my point that these officers were not treated
fairly and that there is good reason to question where the blame for
Pearl Harbor should lie.
The whole story was re-evaluated in 1995 at the request of Senator
Thurmond by Under Secretary for Defense Edwin Dorn. In his report, Dorn
concluded that responsibility for the disaster at Pearl Harbor should
be broadly shared. I agree.
Where Dorn's conclusions differ from mine and my co-sponsors, is that
he also found that he also found that ``the official treatment of
Admiral Kimmel and General Short was substantively temperate and
procedurally proper.'' I disagree.
These officers were publicly vilified and never given a chance to
clear their names. If we lived in a closed society, fearful of the
truth, then there would be no need for the President to take any action
today. But we don't. We live in an open society. Eventually, we are
able to declassify documents and evaluate our past based on at least a
good portion of the whole story. I believe sincerely that one of our
greatest strengths as a nation comes from our ability to honor truth
and the lessons of our past.
Like many, I accept that there was a real need to protect our
intelligence capabilities during the war. What I can not accept,
however, is that there is a reason for continuing to deny the
culpability of others in Washington at the expense of these two
office's reputations fifty-seven years later. Continuing to falsely
scapegoat two dedicated and competent officers dishonors the military
tradition of taking responsibility for failure. The message that is
sent is a travesty to American tradition and honor--that the truth will
be suppressed to protect some responsible parties and distorted to
sacrifice others.
This is not to say that the sponsors of this resolution want to place
blame. We are not seeking to place blame in a new quarter. This is not
a witch-hunt aimed at those superior officers who were advanced in rank
and continued to serve, despite being implicated in the losses at Pearl
Harbor. I think the historic record has become quite clear that blame
should be shared.
The unfortunate reality is that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were
blamed entirely and forced into early retirement.
After the war, in 1947, they were singled out as the only eligible
officers from World War II not advanced to their highest held wartime
ranks on the retirement lists, under the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.
By failing to advance them, the government and the Departments of the
Navy and Army perpetuate the myth that these two officers bear a unique
and disproportionate part of the blame.
The government that denied these officers a fair hearing and
suppressed findings favorable to their case while releasing hostile
information owes them an official apology. That's what this resolution
calls for.
The last point that I want to make deals with the military situation
at Pearl Harbor. It is legitimate to ask whether Admiral Kimmel and
General Short, as commanding officers, properly deployed their forces.
I think reasonable people may disagree on this point.
I have been struck by the number of qualified individuals who believe
the commanders properly deployed their assets based on the intelligence
available to them. I am including this partial list of flag officers
into the Record following my statement for my colleagues to review.
Among those listed is Vice Admiral Richardson, a distinguished naval
commander, who wrote an entire report refuting the conclusions of the
Dorn Report. My colleagues will also see the names of four Chiefs of
Naval Operations and the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Thomas Moorer. It was Admiral Moorer who observed that, ``If
Nelson and Napoleon had been in command at Pearl Harbor, the results
would have been the same.''
In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe this case is unique and
demands our attention. As we honor those who served in World War II and
who serve today in Kosovo, we must also honor the ideals for which they
fought. High among those American ideals is upholding truth and
justice. Those ideals give us the strength to admit and, where
possible, correct our errors.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and move one step
closer to justice for Admiral Kimmel and General Short.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this resolution, which
will at long last restore the reputations of two distinguished military
officers in World War II--Admiral Husband E. Kimmel of the United
States Navy and General Walter C. Short of the United States Army.
This resolution gives us an opportunity to correct a grave injustice
in the history of that war. Despite their loyal and distinguished
service to the nation, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were unfairly
singled out for blame as scapegoats after the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor on December 7, 1941, which caught America unprepared.
In fact, wartime investigations of the attack on Pearl Harbor
concluded that our fleet in Hawaii under the command of Admiral Kimmel
and our forces under the command of General Short had been properly
positioned, given the information they had received. However, as the
investigations found, their superior officers had not given them vital
intelligence that could have made a difference, perhaps all the
difference, in their preparedness for the attack. These conclusions of
the wartime investigations were kept secret, in order to protect the
war effort. Clearly, there is no longer any justification to ignore
these facts.
I learned more about this injustice from Edward B. Hanify, a close
friend who is a distinguished attorney in Boston and who was assigned
in 1944 as a young Navy lieutenant to be one of the lawyers for Admiral
Kimmel. I believe

[[Page S3814]]

that members of the Senate will be very interested in Mr. Hanify's
perspective, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter he wrote to me
last September may be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. KENNEDY. No action by the Senate can ever fully atone for the
injustice suffered by these two officers. But we can correct the
historical record, and restore the distinguished reputations of Admiral
Kimmel and General Short.
I commend Senator Biden and Senator Roth for their leadership in
sponsoring this measure, and I urge the Senate to act expeditiously on
this long-overdue resolution.

Exhibit 1

September 3, 1998.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am advised that a Resolution known
as the Roth/Biden Resolution has been introduced in the
Senate and that it has presently the support of the following
Senators: Roth; Biden; Helms; Thurmond; Inouye; Stevens;
Specter; Hollings; Faircloth; Cochran and McCain. The
substance of the Resolution is to request the President to
advance the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade
of Admiral on the retired list of the Navy and to advance the
late Major General Walter C. Short to the grade of Lieutenant
General on the retired list of the Army.
Admiral Kimmel at the time of Pearl Harbor was Commander in
Chief of the Pacific Fleet then based in Pearl Harbor and
General Short was the Commanding General of the Hawaiian
Department of the Army.
The reason for my interest in this Resolution is as
follows: IN early 1944 when I was a Lieutenant j.g.
(U.S.N.R.) the Navy Department gave me orders which assigned
me as one of counsel to the defense of Admiral Kimmel in the
event of his promised court martial. As a consequence, I am
probably one of the few living persons who heard the
testimony before the Naval Court of Inquiry, accompanied
Admiral Kimmel when he testified before the Army Board of
Investigation and later heard substantially all the testimony
before the members of Congress who carried on the lengthy
Congressional investigation of Pearl Harbor. In the
intervening fifty years I have followed very carefully all
subsequent developments dealing the the Pearl Harbor
catastrophe and the allocation of responsibility for that
disaster.
On the basis of this experience and further studies over a
fifty year period I feel strongly:
(1) That the odious charge of ``dereliction of duty'' made
by the Roberts Commission was the cause of almost irreparable
damage to the reputation of Admiral Kimmel despite the fact
that the finding was later repudiated and found groundless;
(2) I am satisfied that Admiral Kimmel was subject to
callous and cruel treatment by his superiors who were
attempting to deflect the blame ultimately ascribed to them,
particularly on account of their strange behavior on the
evening of December 6th and morning of December 7th in
failing to warn the Pacific Fleet and the Hawaiian Army
Department that a Japanese attack on the United States was
scheduled for December 7th at 1:00 p.m. Washington time (dawn
at Pearl Harbor) and that intercepted intelligence indicated
that Pearl Harbor was a most probable point of attack;
(Washington had this intelligence and knew that the Navy and
Army in Hawaii did not have it or any means of obtaining it)
(3) Subsequent investigations by both services repudiated
the ``dereliction of duty'' charge and in the case of Admiral
Kimmel the Naval Court of Inquiry found that his plans and
dispositions were adequate and competent in light of the
information which he had from Washington.
The proposed legislaiton provides some measure of remedial
Justice to a conscientious officer who for years unjustly
bore the odium and disgrace associated with the Pearl Harbor
catastrophe. You may be interested to know that a Senator
from Massachusetts, Honorable David I. Walsh then Chairman of
the Naval Affairs Committee, was most effective in securing
legislaiton by Congress which ordered the Army and Navy
Departments to investigate the Pearl Harbor disaster--an
investigation conducted with all the ``due process''
safeguards for all interested parties not observed in other
investigations or inquiries.
I sincerely hope that you will support the Roth/Biden
Resolution.
Sincerely,
Edward B. Hanify,
Ropes & Gray.

____________________