[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.

                          ____________________