[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 69 (Thursday, May 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5265-S5281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1028. A bill to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts 
for injured parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the United 
States Constitution, have been deprived by final actions of Federal 
agencies, or other government officials or entities acting under color 
of State law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                 citizens access to justice act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
``Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999,'' or CAJA. More precisely, I 
am reintroducing the same bill that was voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee last Congress, but was a victim of a filibuster by the left.
  Why am I doing this? Some may say that it is fruitless. But even 
though Senator Landrieu, other supporters of the bill, and myself, were 
unsuccessful last Congress in passing this much needed bill, property 
owners of Utah, and, indeed, of all of our States, still feel the heavy 
hand of the government erode their right to hold and enjoy private 
property. To make matters worse, many of these property owners often 
are unable to safeguard their rights because they effectively are 
denied access to federal courts. Our bill was designed to rectify this 
problem. Let me explain.
  In a society based upon the ``rule of law,'' the ability to protect 
property and other rights is of paramount importance. Indeed, it was 
Chief Justice John Marshall, who in the seminal 1803 case of Marbury v. 
Madison, observed that the ``government of the United States has been 
emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will cease 
to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the 
violation of a vested right.''
  Despite this core belief of John Marshall and other Founders, the 
ability of property owners to vindicate their rights in court today is 
being frustrated by localities which sometimes create labyrinths of 
administrative hurdles that property owners must jump through before 
being able to bring a claim in Federal court to vindicate their federal 
constitutional rights. They are also hampered by the overlapping and 
confusing jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the federal 
district courts over Fifth Amendment property rights claims. CAJA seeks 
to remedy these situations.
  The purpose of the bill is, therefore, at its root, primarily one of 
fostering fundamental fairness and simple justice for the many millions 
of Americans who possess or own property. Many citizens who attempt to 
protect their property rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the 
Constitution are barred from the doors of the federal courthouse.
  In situations where other than Fifth Amendment property rights are 
sought to be enforced--such as First Amendment rights, for example--
aggrieved parties generally file in a single federal forum to obtain 
the full range of remedies available to litigants to make them whole. 
In property rights cases, property owners may have to file in different 
courts for different types of remedies. This is expensive and wasteful.
  Moreover, unlike situations where other constitutional rights are 
sought to be enforced, property owners seeking to enforce their Fifth 
Amendment rights must first exhaust all state remedies with the result 
that they may have to wait for over a decade before their rights are 
allowed to be vindicated in federal court--if they get there at all. 
CAJA addresses this problem of providing property owners fair access to 
federal courts to vindicate their federal constitutional rights.
  Let me be more specific. The bill has two main provisions to 
accomplish this end. The first is to provide private property owners 
claiming a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause some 
certainty as to when they may file the claim in federal court. This is 
accomplished by addressing the procedural hurdles of the ripeness and 
abstention doctrines which currently prevent them from having fair and 
equal access to federal court. The bill defines when a final agency 
decision has occurred for purposes of meeting the ripeness requirement 
and prohibits a federal judge from abstaining from or relinquishing 
jurisdiction when the case does not allege any violation of a state 
law, right, or privilege. Thus, the bill serves as a vehicle for 
overcoming federal judicial reluctance to review takings claims based 
on the ripeness and abstention doctrines.
  The second provision clarifies the jurisdiction between the Court of 
Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., and the regional federal district 
courts over federal Fifth Amendment takings claims. The ``Tucker Act,'' 
which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States by granting 
the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain monetary claims 
against the United States, actually complicates the ability of a 
property owner to vindicate the right to just compensation for a 
government action that has caused a taking. The law currently forces a 
property owner to elect between equitable relief in the federal 
district court and monetary relief in the Court of Federal Claims. 
Further difficulty arises when the law is used by the government to 
urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that the plaintiff 
should seek just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, and is 
used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on the ground 
that plaintiff should first seek equitable relief in the district 
court.
  This division between law and equity is archaic and results in 
burdensome delays as property owners who seek both types of relief are 
``shuffled'' from one court to the other to determine which court is 
the proper forum for review. The bill resolves this matter by simply 
giving both courts concurrent jurisdiction over takings claims, thus 
allowing both legal and equitable relief to be granted in a single 
forum.
  I must emphasize that the bill does not create any substantive 
rights. The definition of property, as well as what constitutes a 
taking under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, is 
left to the courts to define. The bill would not change existing case 
law's ad hoc, case-by-case definition of regulatory takings. Instead, 
it would provide a procedural fix to the litigation muddle that delays 
and increases the cost of litigating a Fifth Amendment taking case. All 
the bill does is to provide for fair procedures to allow property 
owners the means to safeguard their rights by having their day in 
court.
  Mr. President, I am very well aware that this bill has been opposed 
by the

[[Page S5266]]

Department of Justice, many localities, some interstate governmental 
associations, and certain environmental groups. I believe that there 
concerns that the bill would hinder local prerogatives and 
significantly increase the amount of federal litigation are highly 
overstated. The bill is carefully drafted to ensure that aggrieved 
property owners must first seek solutions on the local or state level 
before filing a federal claim. It just sets a limit on how many 
procedures localities may interpose.

  Moreover, I seriously doubt that there will be a rush of new 
litigation, as some have contended, flooding federal courts. That there 
will be no significant increase was the conclusion of the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office in its study of last year's bill.
  It is extremely difficult to prove a takings claim, and this bill 
does not in any way redefine what constitutes a taking. These claims 
are also expensive to bring. Paradoxically, localities' need to defend 
federal actions may be lessened by the bill because localities already 
must litigate property rights claims on federal ripeness grounds, which 
take years to resolve.
  Let me restate this. By providing certainty on the ripeness issue, 
the bill may very well reduce litigation costs to localities. 
Substantive takings claims, unless they are likely to prevail on the 
merits, are simply too hard to prove and too expensive to bring in 
federal court. And the issue of ripeness will have been removed by the 
bill from the already crowded court dockets.
  Mr. President, it is interesting to note that once many state 
officials, localities, and state and trade organizations really examine 
the measure, many become the bill's supporters. Those supporting the 
bill and increased vigilance in the property rights arena include the 
Governors of Tennessee, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and North Dakota.
  They also include the American Legislative Exchange Council, which 
represents over 3000 state legislators, and trade groups such as 
America's Community Bankers, the National Mortgage Association of 
America, the National Association of Home Builders, the National 
Association of Realtors, and the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses, the organ of small business in the United States. They also 
include agricultural interests such as the American Farm Bureau, the 
American Forest and Paper Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association, and the National Grange.
  Just as important, let me point out that 133 House sponsors of the 
last year's House passed bill were former state and local 
officeholders. I do not believe that they would have voted for the bill 
if the bill would conflict with local sovereignty.
  Mr. President, we have bent over backwards trying to accommodate 
those expressing concerns about the bill which passed out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee last year. We met with city mayors, representatives 
of local governmental organizations, attorneys generals, and religious 
groups, to name just a few.
  We held group meetings and asked for suggestions and changes to the 
bill which would alleviate opposition and concerns. These changes are 
incorporated in the present bill. These changes by and large alleviate 
municipalities' concerns that the bill would become a vehicle for 
frivolous and novel suits. They remove any incentive the bill may have 
for property owners to file specious suits against localities. They 
foster negotiations to resolve problems. And, they recognize the right 
of the states and localities to abate nuisances without having to pay 
compensation.
  But I am under no illusion. I understand that many localities still 
oppose the bill. The process that we so fruitfully began last year 
should be continued. It is my hope that groups supporting property 
rights and those localities and governmental entities that oppose the 
bill should meet as soon as practicable. Let each side discuss their 
problems and concerns. I believe--in the best tradition of American 
pragmatic know how--that a solution to this problem can be worked out.
  The bill I introduce today is a model. But it is a model that can be 
improved. I assure all those concerned that we will consider all 
reasonable suggested changes to the bill. After all, it is not pride of 
authorship that is important. What is important, instead, is a viable 
solution to a vexing and unfair problem.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the 
bill be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1028

       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 ``Citizens Access to Justice 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) property rights have been abrogated by the application 
     of laws, regulations, and other actions by all levels of 
     government that adversely affect the value and the ability to 
     make reasonable use of private property;
       (2) certain provisions of sections 1346 and 1402 and 
     chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as 
     the Tucker Act), that delineate the jurisdiction of courts 
     hearing property rights claims, frustrate the ability of a 
     property owner to obtain full relief for violation founded 
     upon the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States 
     Constitution;
       (3) current law--
       (A) has no sound basis for splitting jurisdiction between 
     two courts in cases where constitutionally protected property 
     rights are at stake;
       (B) adds to the complexity and cost of takings and 
     litigation, adversely affecting taxpayers and property 
     owners;
       (C) forces a property owner, who seeks just compensation 
     from the Federal Government, to elect between equitable 
     relief in the district court and monetary relief (the value 
     of the property taken) in the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims;
       (D) is used to urge dismissal in the district court in 
     complaints against the Federal Government, on the ground that 
     the plaintiff should seek just compensation in the Court of 
     Federal Claims;
       (E) is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal 
     Claims in complaints against the Federal Government, on the 
     ground that the plaintiff should seek equitable relief in 
     district court; and
       (F) forces a property owner to first pay to litigate an 
     action in a State court, before a Federal judge can decide 
     whether local government has denied property rights 
     safeguarded by the United States Constitution;
       (4) property owners cannot fully vindicate property rights 
     in one lawsuit and their claims may be time barred in a 
     subsequent action;
       (5) property owners should be able to fully recover for a 
     taking of their private property in one court;
       (6) certain provisions of section 1346 and 1402 and chapter 
     91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     Tucker Act) should be amended, giving both the district 
     courts of the United States and the Court of Federal Claims 
     jurisdiction to hear all claims relating to property rights 
     in complaints against the Federal Government;
       (7) section 1500 of title 28, United States Code, which 
     denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain 
     a suit which is pending in another court and made by the same 
     plaintiff, should be repealed;
       (8) Federal and local authorities, through complex, costly, 
     repetitive and unconstitutional permitting, variance, and 
     licensing procedures, have denied property owners their fifth 
     and fourteenth amendment rights under the United States 
     Constitution to the use, enjoyment, and disposition of, and 
     exclusion of others from, their property, and to safeguard 
     those rights, there is a need to determine what constitutes a 
     final decision of an agency in order to allow claimants the 
     ability to protect their property rights in a court of law;
       (9) a Federal judge should decide the merits of cases where 
     a property owner seeks redress solely for infringements of 
     rights safeguarded by the United States Constitution, and 
     where no claim of a violation of State law is alleged; and
       (10) certain provisions of sections 1343, 1346, and 1491 of 
     title 28, United States Code, should be amended to clarify 
     when a claim for redress of constitutionally protected 
     property rights is sufficiently ripe so a Federal judge may 
     decide the merits of the allegations.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) establish a clear, uniform, and efficient judicial 
     process whereby aggrieved property owners can obtain 
     vindication of property rights guaranteed by the fifth and 
     fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and 
     this Act;
       (2) amend the Tucker Act, including the repeal of section 
     1500 of title 28, United States Code;
       (3) rectify the unduly onerous and expensive requirement 
     that an owner of real property, seeking redress under section 
     1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 
     1983) for the infringement of property rights protected by 
     the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States 
     Constitution, is required to first litigate Federal 
     constitutional issues in a State court before obtaining 
     access to the Federal courts;

[[Page S5267]]

       (4) provide for uniformity in the application of the 
     ripeness doctrine in cases where constitutional rights to use 
     and enjoy real property are allegedly infringed, by providing 
     that a final agency decision may be adjudicated by a Federal 
     court on the merits after--
       (A) the pertinent government body denies a meaningful 
     application to develop the land in question; and
       (B)(i) the property owner seeks available waivers and 
     administrative appeals from such denial; and
       (ii) such waiver or appeal is not approved; and
       (5) confirm the proper role of a State or territory to 
     prevent land uses that are a nuisance under applicable law.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the term--
       (1) ``agency action'' means any action, inaction, or 
     decision taken by a Federal agency or other government agency 
     that at the time of such action, inaction, or decision 
     adversely affects private property rights;
       (2) ``district court''--
       (A) means a district court of the United States with 
     appropriate jurisdiction; and
       (B) includes the United States District Court of Guam, the 
     United States District Court of the Virgin Islands, or the 
     District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands;
       (3) ``Federal agency'' means a department, agency, 
     independent agency, or instrumentality of the United States, 
     including any military department, Government corporation, 
     Government-controlled corporation, or other establishment in 
     the executive branch of the United States Government;
       (4) ``owner'' means the owner or possessor of property or 
     rights in property at the time the taking occurs, including 
     when--
       (A) the statute, regulation, rule, order, guideline, 
     policy, or action is passed or promulgated; or
       (B) the permit, license, authorization, or governmental 
     permission is denied or suspended;
       (5) ``private property'' or ``property'' means all 
     interests constituting property, as defined by Federal or 
     State law, protected under the fifth and fourteenth 
     amendments to the United States Constitution; and
       (6) ``taking of private property'', ``taking'', or ``take'' 
     means any action whereby restricting the ownership, 
     alienability, possession, or use of private property is an 
     object of that action and is taken so as to require 
     compensation under the fifth amendment to the United States 
     Constitution, including by physical invasion, regulation, 
     exaction, condition, or other means.

     SEC. 5. PRIVATE PROPERTY ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--An owner may file a civil action under 
     this section to challenge the validity of any Federal agency 
     action as a violation of the fifth amendment to the United 
     States Constitution in a district court or the United States 
     Court of Federal Claims.
       (b) Concurrent Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law and notwithstanding the issues involved, the 
     relief sought, or the amount in controversy, the district 
     court and the United States Court of Federal Claims shall 
     each have concurrent jurisdiction over both claims for 
     monetary relief and claims seeking invalidation of any Act of 
     Congress or any regulation of a Federal agency affecting 
     private property rights.
       (c) Election.--The plaintiff may elect to file an action 
     under this section in a district court or the United States 
     Court of Federal Claims.
       (d) Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--This section constitutes 
     express waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States 
     with respect to an action filed under this section.
       (e) Appeals.--The United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any 
     action filed under this section, regardless of whether the 
     jurisdiction of such action is based in whole or part under 
     this section.
       (f) Statute of Limitations.--The statute of limitations for 
     any action filed under this section shall be 6 years after 
     the date of the taking of private property.
       (g) Attorneys' Fees and Costs.--In issuing any final order 
     in any action filed under this section, the court may award 
     costs of litigation (including reasonable attorneys' fees) to 
     any prevailing plaintiff.

     SEC. 6. JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 
                   AND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

       (a) United States Court of Federal Claims.--
       (1) Jurisdiction.--Section 1491(a) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by amending the first sentence to read 
     as follows: ``The United States Court of Federal Claims shall 
     have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against 
     the United States for monetary relief founded either upon the 
     Constitution or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an 
     executive department or upon any express or implied contract 
     with the United States, in cases not sounding in tort, or for 
     invalidation of any Act of Congress or any regulation of an 
     executive department under section 5 of the Citizens Access 
     to Justice Act of 1999.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the first sentence 
     the following: ``In any case within its jurisdiction, the 
     Court of Federal Claims shall have the power to grant 
     injunctive and declaratory relief when appropriate.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) In cases otherwise within its jurisdiction, the Court 
     of Federal Claims shall also have supplemental jurisdiction, 
     concurrent with the courts designated under section 1346(b), 
     to render judgment upon any related tort claim authorized 
     under section 2674.
       ``(4) In proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court 
     of Federal Claims which constitute judicial review of agency 
     action (rather than de novo proceedings), the provisions of 
     section 706 of title 5 shall apply.
       ``(5)(A) Any claim brought under this subsection to redress 
     the deprivation of a right or privilege to use and enjoy real 
     property as secured by the Constitution, shall be ripe for 
     adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United 
     States, that causes actual and concrete injury to the party 
     seeking redress.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, a final decision 
     exists if--
       ``(i) the United States makes a definitive decision 
     regarding the extent of permissible uses on real property 
     that has been allegedly infringed or taken; and
       ``(ii) one meaningful application as defined by applicable 
     law to use the property has been submitted but has not been 
     approved within a reasonable time, and the party seeking 
     redress has applied for one appeal and one waiver which has 
     not been approved within a reasonable time, where the 
     applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism for 
     appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency.
       ``(C)(i) The party seeking redress shall not be required to 
     submit any application or apply for any appeal or waiver 
     required under this section, if the district court determines 
     that such action would be futile.
       ``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `futile' means the 
     inability of an owner of real property to seek or obtain 
     approvals to use such real property, and the hardship endured 
     by such inability, as defined under applicable land use, 
     zoning, and planning law.
       ``(D) Nothing in this paragraph alters the substantive law 
     of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne 
     by the plaintiff.''.
       (2) Pendency of claims in other courts.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1500 of title 28, United States 
     Code is repealed.
       (B) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking out the item relating to section 1500.
       (b) District Court Jurisdiction.--
       (1) Citizen access to justice action.--Section 1346(a) of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after 
     paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Any civil action filed under section 5 of the 
     Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999.''.
       (2) United states as defendant.--Section 1346 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h)(1) Any claim brought under subsection (a) to redress 
     the deprivation of a right or privilege to use and enjoy real 
     property as secured by the Constitution shall be ripe for 
     adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United 
     States, that causes actual and concrete injury to the party 
     seeking redress.
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision 
     exists if--
       ``(i) the United States makes a definitive decision 
     regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that 
     has been allegedly infringed or taken; and
       ``(ii) one meaningful application as defined by applicable 
     law to use the property has been submitted but has not been 
     approved within a reasonable time, and the party seeking 
     redress has applied for one appeal and one waiver which has 
     not been approved within a reasonable time, where the 
     applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism for 
     appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency.
       ``(B)(i) The party seeking redress shall not be required to 
     submit any application or apply for any appeal or waiver 
     required under this section, if the district court determines 
     that such action would be futile.
       ``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `futile' means the 
     inability of an owner of real property to seek or obtain 
     approvals to use such real property, and the hardship endured 
     by such inability, as defined under applicable land use, 
     zoning, and planning law.
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection alters the substantive law 
     of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne 
     by the plaintiff.''.
       (c) District Court Civil Rights Jurisdiction; Abstention.--
     Section 1343 of title 28, United States Code, is amending by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Whenever a district court exercises jurisdiction 
     under subsection (a), the court shall not abstain from or 
     relinquish jurisdiction to a State court in an action if--
       ``(1) no claim of a violation of a State law or privilege 
     is alleged; and
       ``(2) a parallel proceeding in State court arising out of 
     the same core of operative facts as the district court 
     proceeding is not pending.
       ``(d) A district court that exercises jurisdiction under 
     subsection (a) in an action in which the operative facts 
     concern the uses of real property may abstain where the party 
     seeking redress--
       ``(1) has not submitted a meaningful application, as 
     defined by applicable law, to use such real property; and
       ``(2) challenges whether an action of the applicable 
     locality exceeds the authority

[[Page S5268]]

     conferred upon the locality under the applicable zoning or 
     planning enabling statute of the State or territory.
       ``(e)(1) Where the district court has jurisdiction over an 
     action under subsection (a) in which the operative facts 
     concern the uses of real property and which cannot be decided 
     without resolution of an unsettled question of State law, the 
     district court may certify the question of State law to the 
     highest appellate court of that State. After the State 
     appellate court resolves the question certified to it, the 
     district court shall proceed with resolving the merits.
       ``(2) In making a decision whether to certify a question of 
     State law under this subsection, the district court may 
     consider whether the question of State law--
       ``(A) will significantly affect the merits of the injured 
     party's Federal claim; and
       ``(B) is patently unclear.
       ``(f)(1) Any claim or action brought under section 1979 of 
     the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) to 
     redress the deprivation of a right or privilege to use and 
     enjoy real property as secured by the Constitution shall be 
     ripe for adjudication by the district courts upon a final 
     decision rendered by any person acting under color of any 
     statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any 
     State or territory of the United States, that causes actual 
     and concrete injury to the party seeking redress.
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision 
     exists if--
       ``(i) any person acting under color of any statute, 
     ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or 
     territory of the United States, makes a definitive decision 
     regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that 
     has been allegedly infringed or taken;
       ``(ii)(I) one meaningful application, as defined by 
     applicable law to use the property has been submitted but has 
     not been approved within a reasonable time, and the party 
     seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver which 
     has not been approved within a reasonable time, where the 
     applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or usage provides a 
     mechanism for appeal to or waiver by an administrative 
     agency; or
       ``(II) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable 
     law, to use the property has been submitted but has not been 
     approved within a reasonable time, and the disapproval at a 
     minimum specifies in writing the range of use, density, or 
     intensity of development of the property that would be 
     approved, with any conditions therefor, and the party seeking 
     redress has resubmitted another meaningful application taking 
     into account the terms of the disapproval, except that--
       ``(aa) if no such reapplication is submitted, then a final 
     decision shall not have been reached for purposes of this 
     subsection, except as provided in subparagraph (B); and
       ``(bb) if the reapplication is not approved within a 
     reasonable time, or if the reapplication is not required 
     under subparagraph (B), then a final decision exists for 
     purposes of this subsection if the party seeking redress has 
     applied for one appeal or waiver with respect to the 
     disapproval, which has not been approved within a reasonable 
     time, where the applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or 
     usage provides a mechanism of appeal or waiver by an 
     administrative agency; and
       ``(iii) in a case involving the uses of real property, 
     where the applicable statute or ordinance provides for review 
     of the case by elected officials, the party seeking redress 
     has applied for but is denied such review.
       ``(B)(i) The party seeking redress shall not be required to 
     submit any application or reapplication, or apply for any 
     appeal or waiver as required under this subsection, upon 
     determination by the district court that such action would be 
     futile.
       ``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `futile' means the 
     inability of an owner of real property to seek or obtain 
     approvals to use such real property, and the hardship endured 
     by such inability, as defined under applicable land use, 
     zoning, and planning law.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision 
     shall not require the party seeking redress to exhaust 
     judicial remedies provided by any State or territory of the 
     United States.
       ``(g) Nothing in subsection (c), (d), (e), or (f) alters 
     the substantive law of takings of property, including the 
     burden of proof borne by the plaintiff.''.

     SEC. 7. ATTORNEYS FEES FOR LOCALITIES.

       Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In any action'' and inserting ``(1) 
     Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in any action''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In an action arising under section 1979 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983), where the taking of real 
     property is alleged, a district court, in its discretion, may 
     hold the party seeking redress liable for a reasonable 
     attorney's fee and costs where the takings claim is not 
     substantially justified, unless special circumstances make an 
     award of such fees unjust. Whether or not the position of the 
     party seeking redress was substantially justified shall be 
     determined on the basis of any administrative and judicial 
     record, as a whole, which is made in the district court 
     adjudication for which fees and other expenses are sought.
       ``(3) In an action arising under section 1979 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) where the taking of real 
     property is alleged, the district court shall decide any 
     motion to dismiss such claim on an expedited basis. Where 
     such a motion is granted and the takings claim is dismissed 
     with prejudice, the non-moving party may be liable for a 
     reasonable attorney's fee and costs at the discretion of the 
     district court, unless special circumstances make an award of 
     such fees unjust.''.

     SEC. 8. DUTY OF NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS.

       Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Every person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) A party seeking redress under this section for a 
     taking of real property without the payment of compensation 
     shall not commence an action in district court before 60 days 
     after the date on which written notice has been given to any 
     potential defendant.''.

     SEC. 9. DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS.

       Whenever a Federal agency takes an agency action limiting 
     the use of private property that may be affected by this Act 
     (including the amendments made by this Act), the agency shall 
     give notice to the owners of that property explaining their 
     rights under this Act and the procedures for obtaining any 
     compensation that may be due to them under this Act.

     SEC. 10. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with 
     the authority of any State to create additional property 
     rights.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act and shall apply to any agency action that occurs on or 
     after such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)
  S. 1029. A bill to amend title III of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 to provide for digital education partnerships; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.


                     digital education act of 1999

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Digital 
Education Act, a bill to amend title III of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, joins me in introducing this 
legislation to address some critical technology issues and the role of 
public broadcasting in education.
  This bill expands Ready to Learn, a program of combined successful 
efforts in early childhood education. It expands MATHLINE, a proven 
model of teacher professional development, and it supports production 
of new digital educational material. The Digital Education Act includes 
innovative applications of progressive technology to promote the best 
practices in teaching and bring up to date information to classrooms 
throughout the country.
  The Federal Government, State departments of education, local 
community businesses, and public television stations have made major 
investments in educational technology in recent years. These 
investments have focused on network infrastructure and computer 
hardware. It is time to invest in instructional resources that will 
make these new networks relevant and ensure that students and teachers 
are prepared to benefit fully from the new technology.
  The Ready To Learn Television program, first authorized in 1994, has 
made a unique contribution to ensure that American children start 
school ``ready to learn.'' The program has funded an unprecedented 
blending of services, including quality children's educational 
television programming broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service, 
and a variety of outreach services for parents, teachers and other care 
givers.
  Ready to Learn outreach programs have had tremendous success. Local 
public television stations that subscribe to Ready to Learn provide 
training and other services to parents and care givers of 
preschoolchildren. Ready to Learn has grown from 10 public television 
stations to 130, reaching approximately 94 percent of the country. Each 
month Ready to Learn distributes over 35,000 books to children and over 
900,000 copies of a custom parent/care giver magazine, specifically 
designed to integrate programming with reading. Ready to Learn is 
providing the opportunities for children and parents to build that 
foundation for success. Over 330,000 parents and child care 
professionals have been trained in using television to encourage 
reading. Using Ready to Learn techniques, these adults have nurtured 
the reading of 4,331,829 children.
  The Mississippi Educational Network in my home State, targets 
outreach services to high poverty populations who are particularly 
disadvantaged.

[[Page S5269]]

 The services include basic lessons in parenting, developmental 
benchmarks, health and nutrition, nurturing literacy in the home, and 
using the television programs children watch most to reinforce the 
lessons.
  The families in these communities often have no reading material in 
their house. The first book given to a child by Mississippi Ready to 
Learn is quite likely to be the first book the child has ever owned. 
And, while Ready to Learn is designed for prekindergarten children, 
these families may have older children who may be equally in need. The 
local design of Ready to Learn allows the Mississippi director, 
Cassandra Washington, to tailor her workshops and even have a few older 
child books on hand for these families. Ms. Washington has been very 
resourceful in her outreach, finding non-traditional places for 
education, such as the Women Infants and Children Distribution Centers 
throughout Mississippi where families in need come regularly.
  The International Reading Association stated recently, ``By the time 
children are exposed to beginning reading instruction in kindergarten 
and first grade, they should have a foundation that assures them early 
success. Recent studies indicate just how critical those positive early 
experiences are to cognitive development and lifelong reading.''
  Congressionally authorized and Federally funded research at the 
National Institutes of Health found that when parents read to their 
young children, it literally stimulates the brain development of the 
children. A recent University of Alabama study found that Ready to 
Learn families: watch 40 percent less television, watch more education-
oriented programming, read more often with their children, read longer 
at each sitting, read for more educational and informational purposes, 
and took their children to libraries and bookstores more often than 
others.
  Using the best research tested information available, Ready To Learn 
has driven the development of two major, commercial-free broadcast 
series for young children. The first, ``Dragon Tales,'' will begin 
airing this fall and will be integrated with carefully designed home 
and school resources to develop reading skills in young children.
  The Digital Education Act will build on the early successes of Ready 
to Learn. It will authorize funding to increase station grants, produce 
new outreach and training activities, and generate more services for 
parents and care givers, so that more children start school truly ready 
to learn.
  The Digital Education Act provides for the demonstration of early 
childhood education digital applications with public television 
stations that are technologically ready. Currently, there are digital 
broadcast public television stations in Mississippi, Massachusetts, 
Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington. 
These stations can transmit several programming services 
simultaneously. New applications include a dedicated channel for early 
childhood education and transmission of Internet accessible 
supplementary information text and video.
  Today, children's programs produced by PBS and individual public 
broadcasting stations are among the television shows most watched by 
children and most used in classrooms. Many teachers and parents credit 
these programs for stimulating curiosity, educating, and encouraging 
continued learning through reading and other resources. The increased 
funding authorized in this bill will continue the investment of Ready 
to Learn resources in producing commercial-free children's programming 
of the highest educational quality.
  Thirty years ago, Federal funding seeded the creation of Sesame 
Street. This carved out a meaningful place for educational children's 
programming as analog public television developed. The Digital 
Education Act stakes a new claim in the technological frontier for 
children and educational broadcasting and will ensure that this 
reinvention of television includes a major education component for 
children from the beginning.
  The second element of the Digital Education Act concerns teacher 
professional development. In 1994, Congress authorized the 
``Telecommunications Demonstration Project for Mathematics,'' which has 
supported a project called MATHLINE. Through MATHLINE, PBS has 
pioneered a new model of teacher professional development, utilizing a 
blend of technologies, including online communications and video, to 
provide quality resources and services to teachers of mathematics.
  Through public and private funding, PBS MATHLINE developed The 
Elementary School Math Project for teachers, grades K-5; The Middle 
School Math Project for teachers, grades 5-8; The High School Math 
Project: Focus on Algebra for teachers, grades 7-12; and The Algebraic 
Thinking Math Project for teachers, grades 3-8.
  Over 5,000 math teachers in 40 States and the District of Columbia 
have participated in MATHLINE. These innovative teaching techniques 
have taught more than 1.3 million students.
  Three separate external evaluators have certified that MATHLINE is 
making a positive impact on the way teachers teach. For example, an 
evaluation of the Middle School Math Project by Rockman, et al. found, 
``The impact of PBS MATHLINE is clear. It has influenced how teachers 
see themselves and helped them create a powerful and enriching 
mathematics environment in their classrooms * * * The gap between 
belief and performance is narrowing * * * The combination of viewing, 
communicating, and doing seems to have resulted in substantive changes 
in teaching.''
  The International Reading Association stated in February, ``The most 
effective professional development programs are those planned by 
teachers themselves, based on their assessments of their needs as 
educators and their students' needs as learners.'' MATHLINE does just 
that. It is real teachers, teaching real students, and passing success 
on to more teachers. The MATHLINE demonstration has worked.
  Our legislation would authorize the New Century Program for 
Distributed Teacher Professional Development. Under this new program, 
the successful MATHLINE model will expand to other core curriculum 
areas, such as literature, science and social studies. It will also 
connect the digitized public broadcasting infrastructure with digital 
education networks at schools, colleges and universities throughout the 
nation. Nearly every teacher in the United States will have access to 
the New Century Program.
  The third element of our legislation would authorize the Digital 
Education Content Collaborative. As a nation, we have made tremendous 
progress in the last decade bringing our schools from the 19th Century 
to 21st Century technologically. However, there is still one major 
element that needs to be in place to make it all work. That is world-
class educational content that rivals video games for students' 
attention, is tied to state standards, which teachers seamlessly 
integrate into daily learning activities.
  Programs distributed by public broadcast stations are used by more 
classroom teachers than any other because of their high quality and 
relevance to the curriculum. A survey commissioned by the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting in 1997, found that 92 percent of teachers use 
videos to improve their lessons and public broadcasting programs were 
the highest rated. However, single channel analog distribution limited 
station services to a few hours per day of linear video broadcasts.
  Digital broadcasting will dramatically increase and improve the types 
of services local public broadcasting stations can offer schools. One 
of the most exciting is the ability to broadcast multiple video 
channels and data information simultaneously. A vast library of 
instructional video materials could be distributed on full time, 
continuous channels and it could be available on demand, when teachers 
and students need it. Digitally produced programs will allow local 
stations broadcast flexibility and new interactive content that matches 
state standards and fits local curriculums.
  As Members of the United States Senate, working to reauthorize the 
programs our elementary and secondary schools depend upon, we are also 
looking for successful models that lead to true educational reform and 
improvement.

[[Page S5270]]

  The Digital Education Act takes the best of educational technology 
programing; improves those proven to work; and places renewed 
confidence in education's most trusted and successful content 
development partners.
  Mr. President, I am proud to be associated with the public 
broadcasting community, and I am proud of their commitment to our 
earliest learners. I hope more Senators will join us in supporting this 
important education legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1029

       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 ``Digital Education Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF PART C OF TITLE III.

       Part C of title III of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) is amended to 
     read as follows:

              ``PART C--READY-TO-LEARN DIGITAL TELEVISION

     ``SEC. 3301. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) In 1994, Congress and the Department collaborated to 
     make a long-term, meaningful and public investment in the 
     principle that high-quality preschool television programming 
     will help children be ready to learn by the time the children 
     entered first grade.
       ``(2) The Ready to Learn Television Program through the 
     Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and local public television 
     stations has proven to be an extremely cost-effective 
     national response to improving early childhood development 
     and helping parents, caregivers, and professional child care 
     providers learn how to use television as a means to help 
     children learn, develop, and play creatively.
       ``(3) Independent research shows that parents who 
     participate in Ready to Learn workshops are more critical 
     consumers of television and their children are more active 
     viewers. A University of Alabama study showed that parents 
     who had attended a Ready to Learn workshop read more books 
     and stories to their children and read more minutes each time 
     than nonattendees. The parents did more hands-on activities 
     related to reading with their children. The parents engaged 
     in more word activities and for more minutes each time. The 
     parents read less for entertainment and more for education. 
     The parents took their children to libraries and bookstores 
     more than nonattendees. For parents, participating in a Ready 
     to Learn workshop increases their awareness of and interest 
     in educational dimensions of television programming and is 
     instrumental in having their children gain exposure to more 
     educational programming. Moreover, 6 months after 
     participating in Ready to Learn workshops, parents who 
     attended generally had set rules for television viewing by 
     their children. These rules related to the amount of time the 
     children were allowed to watch television daily, the hours 
     the children were allowed to watch television, and the tasks 
     or chores the children must have accomplished before the 
     children were allowed to watch television.
       ``(4) The Ready to Learn (RTL) Television Program is 
     supporting and creating commercial-free broadcast programs 
     for young children that are of the highest possible 
     educational quality. Program funding has also been used to 
     create hundreds of valuable interstitial program elements 
     that appear between national and local public television 
     programs to provide developmentally appropriate messages to 
     children and caregiving advice to parents.
       ``(5) Through the Nation's 350 local public television 
     stations, these programs and programming elements reach tens 
     of millions of children, their parents, and caregivers 
     without regard to their economic circumstances, location, or 
     access to cable. In this way, public television is a partner 
     with Federal policy to make television an instrument, not an 
     enemy, of preschool children's education and early 
     development.
       ``(6) The Ready to Learn Television Program extends beyond 
     the television screen. Funds from the Ready to Learn 
     Television Program have funded thousands of local workshops 
     organized and run by local public television stations, almost 
     always in association with local child care training agencies 
     or early childhood development professionals, to help child 
     care professionals and parents learn more about how to use 
     television effectively as a developmental tool. These 
     workshops have trained more than 320,000 parents and 
     professionals who, in turn, serve and support over 4,000,000 
     children across the Nation.
       ``(7)(A) The Ready to Learn Television Program has 
     published and distributed millions of copies of a quarterly 
     magazine entitled `PBS Families' that contains--
       ``(i) developmentally appropriate games and activities 
     based on Ready to Learn Television programming;
       ``(ii) parenting advice;
       ``(iii) news about regional and national activities related 
     to early childhood development; and
       ``(iv) information about upcoming Ready to Learn Television 
     activities and programs.
       ``(B) The magazine described in subparagraph (A) is 
     published 4 times a year and distributed free of charge by 
     local public television stations in English and in Spanish 
     (PBS para la familia).
       ``(8) Because reading and literacy are central to the ready 
     to learn principle Ready to Learn Television stations also 
     have received and distributed millions of free age-
     appropriate books in their communities as part of the Ready 
     to Learn Television Program. Each station receives a minimum 
     of 200 books each month for free local distribution. Some 
     stations are now distributing more than 1,000 books per 
     month. Nationwide, more than 300,000 books are distributed 
     each year in low-income and disadvantaged neighborhoods free 
     of charge.
       ``(9) In 1998, the Public Broadcasting Service, in 
     association with local colleges and local public television 
     stations, as well as the Annenberg Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting Project housed at the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting, began a pilot program to test the formal 
     awarding of a Certificate in Early Childhood Development 
     through distance learning. The pilot is based on the local 
     distribution of a 13-part video courseware series developed 
     by Annenberg Corporation for Public Broadcasting and WTVS 
     Detroit entitled `The Whole Child'. Louisiana Public 
     Broadcasting, Kentucky Educational Television, Maine Public 
     Broadcasting, and WLJT Martin, Tennessee, working with local 
     and State regulatory agencies in the childcare field, have 
     participated in the pilot program with a high level of 
     success. The certificate program is ready for nationwide 
     application using the Public Broadcasting Service's Adult 
     Learning Service.
       ``(10) Demand for Ready To Learn Television Program 
     outreach and training has increased dramatically, with the 
     base of participating Public Broadcasting Service member 
     stations growing from a pilot of 10 stations to nearly 130 
     stations in 5 years.
       ``(11) Federal policy played a crucial role in the 
     evolution of analog television by funding the television 
     program entitled `Sesame Street' in the 1960's. Federal 
     policy should continue to play an equally crucial role for 
     children in the digital television age.

     ``SEC. 3302. READY-TO-LEARN.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants to or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with eligible entities described in section 3303(b) to 
     develop, produce, and distribute educational and 
     instructional video programming for preschool and elementary 
     school children and their parents in order to facilitate the 
     achievement of the National Education Goals.
       ``(b) Availability.--In making such grants, contracts, or 
     cooperative agreements, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     eligible entities make programming widely available, with 
     support materials as appropriate, to young children, their 
     parents, childcare workers, and Head Start providers to 
     increase the effective use of such programming.

     ``SEC. 3303. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING.

       ``(a) Awards.--The Secretary shall award grants, contracts, 
     or cooperative agreements under section 3302 to eligible 
     entities to--
       ``(1) facilitate the development directly, or through 
     contracts with producers of children and family educational 
     television programming, of--
       ``(A) educational programming for preschool and elementary 
     school children; and
       ``(B) accompanying support materials and services that 
     promote the effective use of such programming;
       ``(2) facilitate the development of programming and digital 
     content especially designed for nationwide distribution over 
     public television stations' digital broadcasting channels and 
     the Internet, containing Ready to Learn-based children's 
     programming and resources for parents and caregivers; and
       ``(3) enable eligible entities to contract with entities 
     (such as public telecommunications entities and those funded 
     under the Star Schools Act) so that programs developed under 
     this section are disseminated and distributed--
       (A) to the widest possible audience appropriate to be 
     served by the programming; and
       (B) by the most appropriate distribution technologies.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under subsection 
     (a), an entity shall be--
       ``(1) a public telecommunications entity that is able to 
     demonstrate a capacity for the development and national 
     distribution of educational and instructional television 
     programming of high quality for preschool and elementary 
     school children; and
       ``(2) able to demonstrate a capacity to contract with the 
     producers of children's television programming for the 
     purpose of developing educational television programming of 
     high quality for preschool and elementary school children.
       ``(c) Cultural Experiences.--Programming developed under 
     this section shall reflect the recognition of diverse 
     cultural experiences and the needs and experiences of both 
     boys and girls in engaging and preparing young children for 
     schooling.

     ``SEC. 3304. DUTIES OF SECRETARY.

       ``The Secretary is authorized--
       ``(1) to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements 
     to eligible entities described

[[Page S5271]]

     in section 3303(b), local public television stations, or such 
     public television stations that are part of a consortium with 
     1 or more State educational agencies, local educational 
     agencies, local schools, institutions of higher education, or 
     community-based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness, 
     for the purpose of--
       ``(A) addressing the learning needs of young children in 
     limited English proficient households, and developing 
     appropriate educational and instructional television 
     programming to foster the school readiness of such children;
       ``(B) developing programming and support materials to 
     increase family literacy skills among parents to assist 
     parents in teaching their children and utilizing educational 
     television programming to promote school readiness; and
       ``(C) identifying, supporting, and enhancing the effective 
     use and outreach of innovative programs that promote school 
     readiness; and
       ``(D) developing and disseminating training materials, 
     including--
       ``(i) interactive programs and programs adaptable to 
     distance learning technologies that are designed to enhance 
     knowledge of children's social and cognitive skill 
     development and positive adult-child interactions; and
       ``(ii) support materials to promote the effective use of 
     materials developed under subparagraph (B) among parents, 
     Head Start providers, in-home and center-based daycare 
     providers, early childhood development personnel, elementary 
     school teachers, public libraries, and after- school program 
     personnel caring for preschool and elementary school 
     children;
       ``(2) to establish within the Department a clearinghouse to 
     compile and provide information, referrals, and model program 
     materials and programming obtained or developed under this 
     part to parents, child care providers, and other appropriate 
     individuals or entities to assist such individuals and 
     entities in accessing programs and projects under this part; 
     and
       ``(3) to coordinate activities assisted under this part 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services in order to--
       ``(A) maximize the utilization of quality educational 
     programming by preschool and elementary school children, and 
     make such programming widely available to federally funded 
     programs serving such populations; and
       ``(B) provide information to recipients of funds under 
     Federal programs that have major training components for 
     early childhood development, including programs under the 
     Head Start Act and Even Start, and State training activities 
     funded under the Child Care Development Block Grant Act of 
     1990, regarding the availability and utilization of materials 
     developed under paragraph (1)(D) to enhance parent and child 
     care provider skills in early childhood development and 
     education.

     ``SEC. 3305. APPLICATIONS.

       ``Each entity desiring a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement under section 3302 or 3304 shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 3306. REPORTS AND EVALUATION.

       ``(a) Annual Report to Secretary.--An eligible entity 
     receiving funds under section 3302 shall prepare and submit 
     to the Secretary an annual report which contains such 
     information as the Secretary may require. At a minimum, the 
     report shall describe the program activities undertaken with 
     funds received under section 3302, including--
       ``(1) the programming that has been developed directly or 
     indirectly by the eligible entity, and the target population 
     of the programs developed;
       ``(2) the support materials that have been developed to 
     accompany the programming, and the method by which such 
     materials are distributed to consumers and users of the 
     programming;
       ``(3) the means by which programming developed under this 
     section has been distributed, including the distance learning 
     technologies that have been utilized to make programming 
     available and the geographic distribution achieved through 
     such technologies; and
       ``(4) the initiatives undertaken by the eligible entity to 
     develop public-private partnerships to secure non-Federal 
     support for the development, distribution and broadcast of 
     educational and instructional programming.
       ``(b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall prepare and 
     submit to the relevant committees of Congress a biannual 
     report which includes--
       ``(1) a summary of activities assisted under section 
     3303(a); and
       ``(2) a description of the training materials made 
     available under section 3304(1)(D), the manner in which 
     outreach has been conducted to inform parents and childcare 
     providers of the availability of such materials, and the 
     manner in which such materials have been distributed in 
     accordance with such section.

     ``SEC. 3307. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       ``With respect to the implementation of section 3303, 
     eligible entities receiving a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement from the Secretary may use not more than 5 percent 
     of the amounts received under such section for the normal and 
     customary expenses of administering the grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement.

     ``SEC. 3308. DEFINITION.

       ``For the purposes of this part, the term `distance 
     learning' means the transmission of educational or 
     instructional programming to geographically dispersed 
     individuals and groups via telecommunications.

     ``SEC. 3309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this part, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding 
     fiscal years.
       ``(b) Funding Rule.--Not less than 60 percent of the 
     amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal 
     year shall be used to carry out section 3303.''.

     SEC. 3. REVISION OF PART D OF TITLE III.

        Part D of title III of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6951 et seq.) is amended to 
     read as follows:

``PART D--THE NEW CENTURY PROGRAM FOR DISTRIBUTED TEACHER PROFESSIONAL 
                              DEVELOPMENT

     ``SEC. 3401. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Since 1995, the Telecommunications Demonstration 
     Project for Mathematics (as established under this part 
     pursuant to the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994) (in 
     this section referred to as `MATHLINE') has allowed the 
     Public Broadcasting Service to pioneer and refine a new model 
     of teacher professional development for kindergarten through 
     grade 12 teachers. MATHLINE uses video modeling of standards-
     based lessons, combined with professionally facilitated 
     online learning communities of teachers, to help mathematics 
     teachers from elementary school through secondary school 
     adopt and implement standards-based practices in their 
     classrooms. This approach allows teachers to update their 
     skills on their own schedules through video, while providing 
     online interaction with peers and master teachers to 
     reinforce that learning. This integrated, self-paced approach 
     breaks down the isolation of classroom teaching while making 
     standards-based best practices available to all participants.
       ``(2) MATHLINE was developed specifically to disseminate 
     the first national voluntary standards for teaching and 
     learning as developed by the National Council of Teachers of 
     Mathematics (NCTM). During 3 years of actual deployment, more 
     than 5,800 teachers have participated for at least a full 
     year in the demonstration. These teachers, in turn, have 
     taught more than 1,500,000 students cumulatively.
       ``(3)(A) In the first 3 years of the MATHLINE project, the 
     Public Broadcasting Service used the largest portion of the 
     funds provided under this part--
       ``(i) to produce video-based models of classroom teaching;
       ``(ii) to produce and disseminate extensive accompanying 
     print materials;
       ``(iii) to organize and host professionally moderated, 
     year-long, online learning communities; and
       ``(iv) to train the Public Broadcasting Service stations to 
     deploy MATHLINE in their local communities. In fiscal year 
     1998, the Public Broadcasting Service added an extensive 
     Internet-based set of learning tools for teachers' use with 
     the video modules and printed materials, and the Public 
     Broadcasting Service expanded the online resources available 
     to teachers through Internet-based discussion groups and a 
     national listserv.
       ``(B) To extend Federal funds, the Public Broadcasting 
     Service has experimented with various fee models for teacher 
     participation, with varying results. Using fiscal year 1998 
     Federal funds and private money, participation in MATHLINE 
     will increase by 10,000 MATHLINE scholarships to preservice 
     and inservice teachers. The Public Broadcasting Service and 
     its participating member stations will distribute 
     scholarships in each congressional district in the United 
     States, with teachers serving disadvantaged populations given 
     priority for the scholarships.
       ``(4) Independent evaluations indicate that teaching 
     improves and students benefit as a result of the MATHLINE 
     program.
       ``(5) The MATHLINE program is ready to be expanded to reach 
     many more teachers in more subject areas. The New Century 
     Program for Distributed Teacher Professional Development will 
     link the digitized public broadcasting infrastructure with 
     education networks by working with the program's digital 
     membership, and Federal and State agencies, to expand the 
     successful MATHLINE model. Tens of thousands of teachers will 
     have access to the New Century Program for Distributed 
     Teacher Professional Development, to advance their teaching 
     skills and their ability to integrate technology into 
     teaching and learning. The New Century Program for 
     Distributed Teacher Professional Development also will 
     leverage the Public Broadcasting Service's historic 
     relationships with higher education to improve preservice 
     teacher training.

     ``SEC. 3402. PROJECT AUTHORIZED.

       ``The Secretary is authorized to make grants to a nonprofit 
     telecommunications entity, or partnership of such entities, 
     for the purpose of carrying out a national 
     telecommunications-based program to improve teaching in core 
     curriculum areas. The program authorized by this part shall 
     be designed to assist elementary school and secondary school 
     teachers in preparing all students for achieving State 
     content standards.

[[Page S5272]]

     ``SEC. 3403. APPLICATION REQUIRED.

       ``(a) In General.--Each nonprofit telecommunications 
     entity, or partnership of such entities, desiring a grant 
     under this part shall submit an application to the Secretary. 
     Each such application shall--
       ``(1) demonstrate that the applicant will use the public 
     broadcasting infrastructure and school digital networks, 
     where available, to deliver video and data in an integrated 
     service to train teachers in the use of standards-based 
     curricula materials and learning technologies;
       ``(2) assure that the project for which assistance is 
     sought will be conducted in cooperation with appropriate 
     State educational agencies, local educational agencies, 
     national, State or local nonprofit public telecommunications 
     entities, and national education professional associations 
     that have developed content standards in the subject areas;
       ``(3) assure that a significant portion of the benefits 
     available for elementary schools and secondary schools from 
     the project for which assistance is sought will be available 
     to schools of local educational agencies which have a high 
     percentage of children counted for the purpose of part A of 
     title I; and
       ``(4) contain such additional assurances as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Approval of Applications; Number of Sites.--In 
     approving applications under this section, the Secretary 
     shall assure that the program authorized by this part is 
     conducted at elementary school and secondary school sites in 
     at least 15 States.

     ``SEC. 3404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part, $20,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.

     SEC. 4. ADDITION OF PART F TO TITLE III.

       Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

           ``PART F--DIGITAL EDUCATION CONTENT COLLABORATIVE

     ``SEC. 3701. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Over the past several years, both the Federal and 
     State governments have made significant investments in 
     computer technology and telecommunications in the Nation's 
     schools. Tremendous progress has been made in wiring 
     classrooms, equipping the classrooms with multimedia 
     computers, and connecting the classrooms to the Internet.
       ``(2) There is a great need for aggregating high quality, 
     curriculum-based digital content for teachers and students to 
     easily access and use in order to meet the State standards 
     for student performance.
       ``(3) Under Federal Communications Commission policy, 
     public television stations and State networks are mandated to 
     convert from analog broadcasting to digital broadcasting by 
     2003.
       ``(4) Most local public television stations and State 
     networks provide high quality video programs, and teacher 
     professional development, as a part of their mission to serve 
     local schools. Programs distributed by public broadcast 
     stations are used by more classroom teachers than any other 
     because of their high quality and relevance to the 
     curriculum. However analog distribution has limited 
     kindergarten through grade 12 services to a few hours per day 
     of linear video broadcasts on a single channel.
       ``(5) The new capacity of digital broadcasting, can 
     dramatically increase and improve the types of services 
     public broadcasting stations can offer kindergarten through 
     grade 12 schools.
       ``(6) Digital broadcasting can contribute to the 
     improvement of schools and student performance as follows:
       ``(A) Broadcast of multiple video channels and data 
     information simultaneously.
       ``(B) Data can be transmitted along with the video content 
     enabling students to interact, access additional information, 
     communicate with featured experts, and contribute their own 
     knowledge to the subject.
       ``(C) Both the video and data can be stored on servers and 
     made available on demand to teachers and students.
       ``(7) Teachers depend on public television stations as a 
     primary source of high quality video material. The material 
     has not always been as accessible or adaptable to the 
     curriculum as teachers would prefer. Moreover, direct student 
     interaction with the material was difficult.
       ``(8) Public television stations and State networks will 
     soon have the capability of creating and distributing 
     interactive digital content that can be directly matched to 
     State standards and available to teachers and students on 
     demand to fit their local curriculum.
       ``(9) Interactive digital education content will be an 
     important component of Federal support for States in setting 
     high standards and increasing student performance.

     ``SEC. 3702. DIGITAL EDUCATION CONTENT COLLABORATIVE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants to or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with eligible entities described in section 3703(b) to 
     develop, produce, and distribute educational and 
     instructional video programming that is designed for use by 
     kindergarten through grade 12 schools and based on State 
     standards.
       ``(b) Availability.--In making the grants, contracts, or 
     cooperative agreements, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     eligible entities enter into multiyear content development 
     collaborative arrangements with State educational agencies, 
     local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, 
     businesses, or other agencies and organizations.

     ``SEC. 3703. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING.

       ``(a) Awards.--The Secretary shall award grants, contracts, 
     or cooperative agreements under this part to eligible 
     entities to--
       ``(1) facilitate the development of educational programming 
     that shall--
       ``(A) include student assessment tools to give feedback on 
     student performance;
       ``(B) include built-in teacher utilization and support 
     components to ensure that teachers understand and can easily 
     use the content of the programming with group instruction or 
     for individual student use;
       ``(C) be created for, or adaptable to, State content 
     standards; and
       ``(D) be capable of distribution through digital 
     broadcasting and school digital networks.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under subsection 
     (a), an entity shall be a local public telecommunications 
     entity as defined by section 397(12) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 that is able to demonstrate a capacity for the 
     development and distribution of educational and instructional 
     television programming of high quality.
       ``(c) Competitive Basis.--Grants under this part shall be 
     awarded on a competitive basis as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Duration.--Each grant under this part shall be 
     awarded for a period of 3 years in order to allow time for 
     the creation of a substantial body of significant content.

     ``SEC. 3704. APPLICATIONS.

       ``Each eligible entity desiring a grant under this part 
     shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in 
     such manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 3705. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

       ``An eligible entity receiving a grant under this part 
     shall contribute to the activities assisted under this part 
     non-Federal matching funds equal to not less than 100 percent 
     of the amount of the grant. Matching funds may include funds 
     provided for the transition to digital broadcasting, as well 
     as in-kind contributions.

     ``SEC. 3706. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       ``With respect to the implementation of this part, entities 
     receiving a grant under this part from the Secretary may use 
     not more than 5 percent of the amounts received under the 
     grant for the normal and customary expenses of administering 
     the grant.

     ``SEC. 3707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Cochran 
in sponsoring the ``Digital Education Act of 1999.'' I commend him for 
his leadership in improving technology for children and families, so 
that more children come to school ready to learn.
  In the early 1990's, Dr. Ernest Boyer, the distinguished former 
leader of the Carnegie Foundation, gave compelling testimony to the 
Senate Labor Committee about the appallingly high number of children 
who enter school without the skills to prepare them for learning. Their 
lack of preparation presented enormous obstacles to their ability to 
learn effectively in school, and seriously impaired their long-term 
achievement.
  In response, Congress enacted the Ready-to-Learn program in 1992, and 
two years later its promise was so great that we extended it for five 
years. Because of the Department of Education and the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, the Ready-to-Learn initiative became an innovative 
and effective program. By linking the power of television to the world 
of books, many more children have been enabled to become good readers 
much more quickly.
  Many children who enter school without the necessary basic skills are 
soon placed in a remedial program, which is costly for school systems. 
It is even more costly, however, for the students who face a bleaker 
future.
  Today, by the time they enter school, the average child will have 
watched 4,000 hours of television. That is roughly the equivalent of 
four years of school.
  For far too many youngsters, this is wasted time--time consuming 
``empty calories'' for the brain. Instead, that time could be spent 
reading, writing, and learning. Through Ready-to-Learn television 
programming, children can obtain substantial education benefits that 
turn T.V. time into learning time.
  As a result of Ready-to-Learn television, millions of children and 
families have access to high-quality television produced by public 
television

[[Page S5273]]

stations across the country. Tens of thousands of parents and child-
care providers have learned how to be better role models, to reinforce 
learning, and to be more active participants in children's learning 
from programs funded through Ready-to-Learn.
  For many low-income families, the workshops, books, and television 
shows funded through this program are a vital factor in preparing 
children to read. These programs help parents and child-care providers 
teach children the basics, preparing them to enter school ready to 
learn and ready to succeed.
  Ready-to-Learn provides 6.5 hours of non-violent educational 
programming a day. These hours include some of the best programs 
available to children, including Arthur, Barney & Friends, Mister 
Rogers' Neighborhood, The Puzzle Place, Reading Rainbow, and Sesame 
Street.
  One of the most successful aspects of Ready-to-Learn is that it helps 
parents work more effectively with their children. Parents who 
participate in Ready-to-Learn workshops are more thoughtful consumers 
of television, and their children are more active viewers. These 
parents have more hands-on activities with their children, and they 
read more often with their children. They read less often for 
entertainment, and more often for education. They take their children 
more often to libraries and bookstores.
  The workshops provided by the Ready-to-Learn program are considered 
the best of their kind. It also brings needed literacy services to 
parents and children at food distribution centers, homeless shelters, 
employment centers, and supermarkets.
  Many of the innovations under Ready-to-Learn have come from local 
stations. WGBH in Boston is one of the nation's leaders in public 
broadcasting. It created the Reading Rainbow, and Where in the World is 
Carmen San Diego, which are leaders in educational programming across 
the country.
  Last year, WGBH hosted 34 Ready-to-Learn workshops in Massachusetts. 
1,100 parents and 265 child-care providers and teachers attended. These 
parents and providers in turn worked with 3,400 children, who are now 
better prepared to succeed in their schools.
  WGBY of Springfield is the mainstay of literacy services for Western 
Massachusetts. This station trained 250 home day-care providers, who 
serve 2,500 children. A video lending library makes PBS materials 
available to teachers to use in their classroom.
  Workshop participants receive training on using children's programs 
as the starting point for educational activities. Participants receive 
free books. For some, these are the only books they have ever owned. 
They receive the PBS Families magazine, in English or Spanish, and they 
also receive the broadcasting schedules. Each of these resources builds 
on the learning that begins with viewing the PBS programs.
  Through partnerships with the Massachusetts Office of Child Care 
Services and community-based organizations such as Head Start, Even 
Start, and the Reach Out & Read Program at Boston Medical Center, 
Ready-to-Learn trainers are reaching many low-income families with 
media and literacy information.
  In Worcester, the Clark Street Developmental Learning School offers a 
family literacy program that uses Reading Rainbow or Arthur in every 
session with families. In addition, the school has now expanded its 
efforts to create an adult literacy center in the school. Many of the 
parents involved in the Ready-to-Learn project now attend the adult 
education program there.
  Similar successes are happening across the nation. Since 1994, the 
sponsors of Ready-to-Learn workshops have given away 1.5 million books. 
Their program has grown from 10 television stations in 1994 to 130 
television stations today. They have conducted over 8,500 workshops 
reaching 186,000 parents and 146,000 child care providers, who have in 
turn affected the lives of over four million children.
  The ``Digital Education Act of 1999'' we are introducing today will 
continue this high-quality children's television programming. Equally 
important, it will take this valuable service into the next century 
through digital television, a powerful resource for delivering 
additional information through television programs.
  The Digital Education Act will also increase the authorization of 
funds for Ready-to-Learn programs from $30 million to $50 million a 
year, enabling these programs to reach even more families and children 
with these needed services.
  The Digital Education Act also authorizes $20 million for high-
quality teacher professional development. Building on the success of 
the MATHLINE program, the bill will expand the program to include 
materials for helping teachers to teach to high state standards in core 
subject areas.
  Participating stations make the teachers workshops available through 
districts, schools, and even on the teachers' own television sets. In 
this way, at their own pace, and in their own time, teachers can review 
the materials, observe other teachers at work, and reflect on their own 
practices. They can consider ways to improve their teaching, and make 
adjustments to their own practices. Teachers will also receive 
essential help in integrating technology into their teaching.
  Teachers themselves are very supportive of the contribution that 
television can make to their classrooms. 88% of teachers surveyed in 
1997 by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting said that quality 
television used in the classroom helped them be more creative, 92% said 
that it helped them be more effective in the classroom.
  Finally, the Act will create a new ``Digital Education Content 
Collaborative,'' with an authorization of $25 million. Its goal is to 
stimulate quality content and curriculum through video and digital 
programs that will enable students to meet high state standards. Local 
public telecommunications agencies will create the programs, so that 
teachers can teach more effectively to the state standards and assess 
how well children are learning.
  Again, I commend Senator Cochran for his leadership, and I urge my 
colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation, so that 
many more children can come to school ready to learn.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Burns, Mr. Roberts, 
        Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 1032. A bill to permit ships built in foreign countries to engage 
in coastwise trade in the transport of certain products; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    freedom to transport act of 1999

 Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing 
legislation that will expand capacity and increase competition within 
the domestic transportation system. This legislation, which will allow 
foreign built ships to transport bulk commodities, forest products, and 
livestock between U.S. ports, will help to expand the overall capacity 
by allowing ship operators to expand their fleets through obtaining 
affordable ships.
  Currently, Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly 
referred to as the Jones Act, requires that merchandise being 
transported on water between U.S. ports travel on U.S. built, U.S. 
flagged, and U.S. citizen owned vessels that are documented by the 
Coast Guard for such carriage. The bill I am introducing today, The 
Freedom to Transport Act of 1999, does not seek to repeal the Jones 
Act. Rather, it provides very targeted modification--to allow foreign 
built ships to carry bulk cargo in domestic trade. These ships would 
have to register in the United States and comply with all U.S. laws, 
including Jones Act ownership and crewing requirements.
  The current law makes it infeasible for domestic coastwise shipments 
of agricultural commodities to occur on bulk shipping vessels. This is 
largely because the cost of purchasing a ship in the United States is 
as much as three times higher than it can be obtained on the world 
market. As a result, there has been little capital infusion into the 
domestic Jones Act fleet for many years. As a consequence, the cost of 
transport on bulk Jones Act vessels, if they are available at all, is 
prohibitively high.
  Agriculture is a pillar to the Kansas economy, and an efficient 
transportation is critical to American agriculture. Laws that raise the 
cost of conducting business and impede efficient means for transporting 
product have a negative impact on farmers around the country, including 
Kansas. Moreover, the cost of transporting

[[Page S5274]]

goods is always a proportionately high cost of the delivered product 
for bulk commodities, but especially now as grain prices are at the 
lowest levels seen in years. Having means to the most cost-effective 
and efficient means for transporting product is now, more than ever, 
critical to American farmers.
  If ocean transportation between U.S. ports were more efficient, more 
product might be delivered to its destination by ocean rather than by 
rail. For example, the poultry and pork producers in the grain deficit 
southeastern United States could bring in grain by ocean through the 
Great Lakes rather than by across the country by railroad. Since little 
of this type of trade currently occurs, this could have the effect of 
increasing the overall capacity of the domestic 
transportation infrastructure. That would make more railcars available 
for transport in places like Kansas, particularly during the harvest 
season when there is often a shortage of available cars. Furthermore, 
more efficient coastwise transportation would bring down prices for 
trade to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska, which oftentimes find it less 
expensive to purchase products from other countries than to pay the 
inflated costs of shipping from the mainland U.S.

  I am aware that the maritime industry has supported the Jones Act as 
a protection of domestic industry for many years, and resists any 
change to the current law. However, despite the ``protective'' nature 
of the Jones Act, it has protected very little. In the last 50 years 
the merchant marine has lost 40,000 jobs and over 60 shipyards have 
closed since 1987. In my view this legislation would not only benefit 
the customers of transportation services, but would also inject new 
life into an industry that has missed out on the unprecedented growth 
that the rest of the economy has enjoyed in the last generation. I want 
to work with the maritime industry to address their concerns and look 
forward to their eventual support of this legislation, which I envision 
will help them as much as it will help agricultural shippers.
  I would like to point out that the legislation as introduced enjoys 
broad support not only in the agriculture industry, but also among many 
industries that ship bulk commodities--including oil, coal, clay, and 
steel. Additionally, those engaged in commerce with the non-contiguous 
U.S. are supportive, including the Puerto Rico Manufacturers 
Association, the Hawaii Shippers Council, and the Alaska Jones Act 
Reform Coalition. Finally, the National Taxpayers Union and Americans 
for Tax Reform support this as a measure that would save consumers over 
$14 billion annually.
  A healthy maritime industry increases competitiveness, lowers costs, 
and improves service for customers of transportation. It creates jobs 
in the U.S. not only for the people who crew the ships, but for those 
who repair them, who own them, and who are employed by industries who 
buy transportation services. It is a win-win-win-win proposal.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in reducing stifling government 
regulation and support this important bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1033. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to 
coordinate the penalty for the failure of a State to operate a State 
child support disbursement unit with the alternative penalty procedure 
for failures to meet data processing requirements; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                   child support penalty fairness act

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Child 
Support Penalty Fairness Act. This important legislation will remedy a 
flaw in federal child support laws that could cost California $4 
billion annually.
  On April 30, the Department of Health and Human Services announced 
its intent to reject the State of California's plan for child and 
spousal support because California does not have a centralized ``State 
Disbursement Unit'' that distributes child support collections to 
families. The mandatory penalty for this failure is loss of all federal 
child support administrative funding, which amounts to $300 million a 
year.
  In addition, because the 1996 welfare reform law requires states to 
have an approved child support plan in order to receive the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families block grant, California could lose its 
entire TANF block grant of $3.7 billion a year.
  In other words, California faces a $4 billion annual penalty for its 
failure to operate a State Disbursement Unit.
  This so-called ``nuclear penalty'' is completely unjust and out of 
proportion. It will devastate the State of California's ability to 
serve low-income children and families--both families on welfare, and 
families who need child support so that they can stay off welfare. The 
penalty also will cripple the State's budget, seriously harming the 
largest economy in this nation.
  I am not questioning the value of a State Disbursement Unit, or 
California's need to develop one. On the contrary, I am urging Governor 
Davis and the State legislature to come up with a plan to develop a 
State Disbursement Unit as quickly as possible. But I do not believe 
that poor families should be severely punished because the State has 
not gotten its act together.
  Moreover, California's failure to develop a State Disbursement Unit 
is a direct result of its failure to develop a statewide computer 
system that tracks child support cases--and California is already 
paying a penalty for the computer failure.
  The computer system penalty, which Congress established just last 
year, is fair and proportionate. More importantly, it rises over time, 
giving California a powerful incentive to get a computer system up and 
running. If California does not have a computer system in place by 
2002, it will lose over $109 million annually in federal funds.
  It is simply unfair to levy a $4 billion penalty against California 
for not having a State Disbursement Unit, when the State's failure to 
establish the unit is a direct result of a computer failure for which 
the State is already being penalized.
  The Child Support Penalty Fairness Act would provide that States 
could not be penalized for failure to develop centralized disbursement 
units, if they are already paying a penalty for computer-related 
problems.
  Under this bill, California would still have to pay a significant 
penalty for its computer-related troubles. Moreover, if California gets 
a statewide computer system in place, but still fails to operate a 
centralized disbursement unit, the State would be subject to additional 
severe penalties. This provides powerful incentive for the State to 
develop both a computer system, and a central disbursement unit, 
quickly.
  I believe that this bill is proportionate and fair. It will prompt 
the State of California to develop a State Disbursement Unit in a 
timely fashion, without placing aid to low income children and families 
at risk. It is simply the right thing to do. I hope that my colleagues 
will take up and pass the Child Support Penalty Fairness Act as quickly 
as possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1033

       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 ``Child Support Penalty 
     Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURE FOR FAILURE TO OPERATE 
                   STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 455(a)(4) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 655(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(E) The Secretary may not disapprove a State plan under 
     section 454 against a State with respect to a failure to 
     comply with section 454(27) for a fiscal year as long as the 
     State is receiving a penalty under this paragraph with 
     respect to a failure to comply with either section 454(24)(A) 
     or 454(24)(B) for the fiscal year.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 101 of the Child Support Performance and Incentive 
     Act of 1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 1034. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
increase the amount of payment under the Medicare program for pap smear 
laboratory tests; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S5275]]

                INVESTMENT in WOMEN's HEALTH act of 1999

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today marks the 116th birthday of Dr. 
George Papanicolaou, who developed one of the most effective cancer 
screening tests in medical history--the Pap smear. Cervical cancer was 
one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in women in the United 
States 50 years ago and it is still a major killer of women worldwide. 
I rise today to introduce the Investment in Women's Health Care Act, a 
bipartisan bill to increase the reimbursement for Pap smear laboratory 
tests under the Medicare program. I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues--Senators Snowe, Murray and Collins.
  The inadequacy of current lab test reimbursement was brought to my 
attention by pathologists who alerted me to the significant cost-
payment differential for Pap smear testing in Hawaii. According to the 
American Pathology Foundation, Hawaii is one of the 23 States where the 
cost of performing the test greatly exceeds the Medicare payment. In 
Hawaii, the cost ranges between $13.04 and $15.80. Yet the Medicare 
reimbursement rate is only $7.15.
  The large disparity between the reimbursement level and the actual 
cost of performing the test may force labs in Hawaii and around the 
Nation to discontinue Pap smear testing. The below-cost reimbursement 
may compel some labs to process tests faster and in higher volume to 
improve cost efficiency. This situation increases the risk of 
inaccurate results and can severely handicap patient outcomes.
  This bill would increase the a reimbursement rate for Pap smear 
labwork from its current $7.15 to $14.60--the national average cost of 
the test. This rate is important because it establishes a benchmark for 
many private insurers.
  Last year, we were successful in having language included in the 
omnibus appropriations conference report recognizing the large 
disparity between the costs incurred to provide the screening tests and 
the amount paid by Medicare. The conferees noted that data from 
laboratories nationwide indicates that the cost of providing the test 
averages $13.00 to $17.00, with the costs in some areas being higher. 
Accordingly, conferees urged the Health Care Financing Administration 
to increase Medicare reimbursement for Pap smear screening. Although 
HCFA has indicated a willingness to increase this payment, I am 
concerned that the adjustment the agency is considering may be 
significantly less than the costs incurred by most laboratories in 
providing this service. Therefore, my colleagues and I are compelled to 
reintroduce legislation that would implement what we believe to be an 
appropriate increase.
  Mr. President, no other cancer screening procedure is as effective 
for early detection of cancer as the Pap smear. Over the last 50 years, 
the incidence of cervical cancer deaths has declined by 70 percent due 
in large part to the use of this cancer detection measure. Evidence 
shows that the likelihood of survival when cervical cancer is detected 
in its earliest stage is almost 100 percent, if treatment and follow-up 
is timely. If the Pap smear is to continue as an effective cancer 
screening tool, it must remain widely available and reasonably priced 
for all women. Adequate payment is necessary to ensure women's 
continued access to quality Pap smears.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan 
legislation. Mr. President, I also ask consent the text of my bill be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

                                S. 1034

       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 ``Investment in Women's Health 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR PAP SMEAR LABORATORY 
                   TESTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(h) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 13951(h)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) In no case shall payment under the fee schedule 
     established under paragraph (1) for the laboratory test 
     component of a diagnostic or screening pap smear be less than 
     $14.60.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to laboratory tests furnished on or 
     after January 1, 2000.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from 
Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in introducing the Investment in Women's Health 
Act.
  Today we celebrate the 116th birthday of Dr. George Papanicolaou, the 
physician who developed the Pap smear. In the 50 years since Dr. 
Papanicolaou first began using this test, the cervical cancer mortality 
rate has declined by an astonishing 70 percent. There is no question 
that this test is the most effective cancer screening tool yet 
developed. The Pap smear can detect abnormalities before they develop 
into cancer. Having an annual Pap smear is one of the most important 
things a woman can do to help prevent cervical cancer.
  Congress has recognized the incomparable contribution of the Pap 
smear in preventing cervical cancer and nine years ago directed 
Medicare to begin covering preventive Pap smears. Medicare 
beneficiaries are eligible for one test every three years, although a 
more frequent interval is allowed for women at high risk of developing 
cervical cancer. And through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress 
expanded the Pap smear benefit to also include a screening pelvic exam 
once every 3 years.
  But the Medicare reimbursement rate is artificially low and does not 
accurately reflect the true cost of providing this vital test. The 
current Medicare rate of reimbursement is $7.15, though the mean 
national cost of the test is twice that amount: $14.60 per test. The 
bill we introduce today, The Investment in Women's Health Act, will 
raise the Medicare reimbursement rate for Pap smears to at least $14.60 
per test.
  Women understand the usefulness and life-saving benefit of the Pap 
smear. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 
last year that 95 percent of women age 18 years old and over have 
received a Pap smear at some point in their lives. And 85 percent of 
women age 18 years and older across the country have received a Pap 
smear within the last 3 years.
  Unfortunately, the artificially low reimbursement rate threatens both 
our country's local clinical laboratories and the health of women 
across the country. Pathologists are increasingly concerned that low 
Medicare reimbursement for Pap smears will force them to stop providing 
the service and to ship the slides to large out-of-state laboratories. 
Shipping the slides to non-local, large-scale laboratories--``Pap 
mills''--reduces quality control, brings up continuity of care issues, 
and puts women at risk of higher rates of ``false positives'' or 
``false negatives.''
  Providing Pap smears locally facilitates the likelihood of follow-up 
by a pathologist, comparison of a patient's Pap smear to cervical 
biopsy, and facilitates better communication and consultation between 
the patient's pathologist and attending physician or clinician. When 
Pap smears are shipped out of the local community these vital 
comparisons are much more difficult to complete and are more prone to 
inconsistencies and error.
  Inadequate reimbursement for Pap smears provided through Medicare 
threatens not only a woman's health but the financial stability of the 
laboratory as well. If a lab is forced to continue to subsidize 
Medicare Pap smears they will eventually either stop providing the 
Medicare service or go out of business--and neither option is 
acceptable. Finally, local laboratories have a proven track record of 
providing better service for the patients. A Pap smear is less likely 
to get lost in a local lab than among the tens of thousands of other 
tests in a ``Pap mill'' and cytotechnicians have better supervision by 
a pathologist in smaller laboratories than in large volume operations.
  The Pap test has contributed immeasurably to the fight against 
cervical cancer. We cannot risk erasing our advancements in this fight 
because of low Medicare reimbursement. I urge my colleagues to join us.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1035. A bill to establish a program to provide grants to expand 
the availability of public health dentistry programs in medically 
underserved areas, health professional shortage areas, and other 
Federally-defined areas that lack

[[Page S5276]]

primary dental services; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


                   DENTAL HEALTH ACCESS EXPANSION ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
address a troubling--but little recognized--public health problem in 
this country, and that's access to dental health.
  Unlike many public health problems, there are clinically proven 
techniques to prevent or delay the progression of dental health 
problems. These proven techniques are not only more cost-effective, but 
also are relatively simple if done early. I'm specifically referring to 
the use of fluoride and dental sealants. The combination of fluoride 
and sealants is so effective against tooth decay that it has been 
likened to a ``magic potion.'' In fact, an article in Public Health 
Reports called the ``one-two combination of fluoride and sealants . . . 
similar to that of vaccinations.''
  With such an effective prevention method in place, one might assume 
that dental disease is becoming increasingly rare in this country. But 
that's not the case, Mr. President, because, in order to receive these 
preventive treatments--this ``magic potion'' against dental disease--
you need to see a dentist, and there simply are not enough dentists to 
provide these basic services to everyone who needs them. As of 
September 30 of last year, the United States had 1,116 dental health 
professions shortage areas, or Dental HPSA's according to the Health 
Resources and Services Administration. The chart I have here shows the 
counties in Wisconsin that have areas designated as shortage areas, but 
every single state in our Nation has a portion designated as a dental 
shortage area.
  There are proven methods for preventing dental disease, yet 1,116 
communities across our country--particularly underserved rural and 
inner-city communties--do not have enough dentists to provide simple 
preventive services. Barriers to dental care are particularly acute 
among lower income families, Medicaid enrollees, and the uninsured. 
Studies indicate that the prevalence of dental disease increases as 
income decreases. In many areas, there simply are not enough dentists 
to provide basic treatment to all who need them, and although there is 
a federal method for designating such areas as dental health 
professional shortage areas (DHPSA's) to become eligible for additional 
funding, the designation process can be so tedious that State dental 
directors simply lack the resources to complete the necessary 
documentation.
  To illustrate this problem of undercounting shortage areas, as of 
September 30 of last year, only eight counties in Wisconsin had 
portions designated as DHPSA's according to the Health Resources and 
Services Administration (HRSA), but statewide only 23 percent of 
Medicaid enrollees had received dental care. As you can see from this 
chart, in 13 Wisconsin counties, fewer than 10 percent of Medicaid 
enrollees received dental care. According to Wisconsin's state dental 
director, Dr. Warren LeMay, 80 percent of tooth decay is found in the 
poorest 25 percent of children. Given the effectiveness of dental 
health care in preventing dental disease--particularly the combination 
of check-ups, fluoride, and sealants--the access problems are simply 
unacceptable.
  And the impact of so many people going without dental care is 
devastating. Those of us who have ever had a toothache remember how 
excruciating that pain can be, making it difficult if not impossible to 
work, go to school or otherwise go about our business. For those 
Americans who lack access to dental services, however, the toothache is 
more than a bad memory--it is the here and now.
  Mr. President, imagine you had a child, a daughter, in need of dental 
services. But you lack insurance, and cannot afford to pay out-of-
pocket to see a dentist. Or you may have Medicaid, but the nearest 
dentist is more than 2 hours away, and you don't own a car. Since your 
child hasn't received the preventive care treatments, she has a lot of 
untreated tooth decay--decay that leads to infection, fevers, stomach 
aches, and, worst of all, debilitating pain, making it almost 
impossible for her to concentrate in school. She may also develop 
speech difficulties, since she may lack the teeth necessary to form 
certain words and sounds. When you try to get her emergency dental 
services, you find that the few dentists in the area have waiting lists 
of two months or more.

  Mr. President, one mother, from Rhinelander, WI--which is in Oneida 
County in the northern part of my state--called me to tell me about her 
8-year-old daughter in just that situation. He daughter was in 
excruciating pain because of a severe toothache, but the one dental 
provider in the area had a waiting list of several weeks, so that 
mother had no choice but to take her child to the nearest hospital 
emergency room, where the child was given painkillers to use until she 
could be seen by a dentist. Whereas routine primary dental care could 
have prevented this decay altogether, this mother had to take her young 
child to the hospital emergency room for prescription painkillers in 
order to make the wait before seeing the dentist bearable.
  Mr. President, the unfortunate reality is that I hear such stories 
from my constituents on a regular basis, and I have heard enough to 
know that it's time to stop this needless suffering from dental disease 
by increasing access to dental care.
  The legislation I am introducing today, the Dental Health Access 
Expansion Act, will establish take three important steps to promote 
access to dental health services:
  First, the bill creates a federal grant program to be administered by 
the Health Resources and Services Administration through which 
community health centers and local health departments in designated 
dental health professionals shortage areas can apply for funding to 
assist in the hiring of primary care dentists. Strengthening locally 
run dental access programs ensures a safety net for these vitally 
important services.
  The bill also creates a grant program to give bonus payments to 
dentists in shortage areas who devote at least 25 percent of their 
practice to Medicaid patients. More than 90 percent of America's 
dentists are in private practice, and incentive payments for dentists 
to increase their Medicaid practice helps to bring needy patients into 
the dental care mainstream.
  Finally, the bill requires that HRSA work with the Association of 
State and Territorial Dental Directors and other organizations 
interested in expanding dental health access to simplify the process 
for designating dental shortage areas. Right now the system is so 
complicated that states simply don't have the resources to fill out the 
paperwork needed to get the designation.
  Mr. President, the Dental Health Access Expansion Act is meant to 
complement existing initiatives--such as Health Professions Training 
Program expansions of general dentistry residencies, and the National 
Health Service Corps scholarship program--to increase access to primary 
care dental services in underserved communities. I have supported these 
and other programs in the past, and will continue to do so. My 
legislation is also meant to complement the excellent oral health 
initiatives proposed by my colleague, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. I 
am thankful for the good work he has done in increasing awareness about 
this issue, and look forward to working with him to increase access to 
dental health services.
  Through the legislation I am proposing, we can increase the number of 
dentists providing care to underserved communities, and in doing so 
strengthen our nation's existing network of Community Health Centers 
and local health departments.
  Advances in dentistry have given us the tools to eradicate most 
dental diseases--what we need now is to provide people with access to 
dental care so that they can receive the simple preventive treatments 
they need, and that's what my legislation can help us achieve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 1036. A bill to amend parts A and D of title IV of the Social 
Security Act to give States the option to pass through directly to a 
family receiving assistance under the temporary assistance to needy 
families program all child support collected by the State and the 
option to disregard any child support that the family receives in 
determining a family's eligibility for, or

[[Page S5277]]

amount of, assistance under that program; to the Committee on Finance.


            children first child support reform act of 1999

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along 
with my colleagues Senator Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Rockefeller 
of West Virginia, to provide more resources to America's children and 
families by encouraging more parents to live up to their child support 
obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform 
Act, would enhance the options and incentives available to states to 
allow more child support to be paid directly to the families to whom it 
is owed and not be counted against public assistance benefits. My 
legislation will help assure more noncustodial parents that the child 
support they pay will actually contribute to the wellbeing of their 
child, rather than the government, and also help reduce administrative 
burdens on the state.
  As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State 
Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child 
support for families receiving public assistance and other families 
that request help in enforcing child support. Toward this end, the 
program works to establish paternity and legally binding support 
orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so 
that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy, 
nurturing surroundings.
  But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on 
behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, actually works 
against families.
  Under current law, if a family is not on public assistance, support 
collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program is generally sent 
directly to the family. However, and this is the crux of the problem, 
support collected on behalf of families receiving public assistance is 
kept by the State and Federal Governments as reimbursement for welfare 
expenditures. Thus, for families on public assistance, the child 
support program ends up benefiting the financial interests of the 
government, rather than their children.
  The research shows that many noncustodial parents are discouraged 
from paying child support because they realize and resent the fact that 
their payments go to the government rather than benefiting their 
children directly. In addition, some custodial parents are skeptical 
about working with the child support agency to secure payments since 
the funds are generally not forwarded to them. Obviously, these builtin 
program obstacles to reliable, timely child support payments serve to 
undermine the program's intended goals of promoting self-sufficiency 
and personal responsibility.
  Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not 
need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to 
them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than 
$43 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of 
child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true 
today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it 
has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is 
not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider 
this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures.
  But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not be cast off 
entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform 
law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work 
requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families 
to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended, 
unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and 
responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give 
families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and 
ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance.
  We fundamentally changed welfare, now we fundamentally reexamine the 
central role of child support in helping families as they struggle to 
become and remain self-sufficient. To this end, we've made some, but 
not nearly enough, progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will 
eventually be required to distribute state-collected child support 
arrears owed to the family before paying off arrears owed to the state 
and Federal governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states 
were provided with some ability to continue or expand the $50 
passthrough that had been required under previous law. But only one 
state--my homestate of Wisconsin--has opted to let families retain all 
support paid. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national 
model in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program, 
child support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for 
welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child 
support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other 
words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial 
parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their 
child support payments go to their children. And both parents are 
presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the 
life of their child.
  I worked with Wisconsin to secure the waivers necessary to pursue 
this innovative policy and want to provide the other states with 
additional flexibility and options so that they can follow Wisconsin's 
example.
  In addition to helping families, the expanded passthrough and 
disregard approach also has significant benefits on the administrative 
side. The current distribution requirements place significant 
accounting and paperwork burdens on the states. They are also costly. 
Data from the Federal Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly 
20 percent of program expenditures are spent simply processing 
payments. States are required to maintain a complicated set of accounts 
to determine whether support collected should be paid to the family or 
kept by the government. These complex accounting rules depend on 
whether the family ever received public assistance, the date a family 
begins and ends assistance, whether the non-custodial parent is current 
on payments or owes arrears, the method of collection and other 
factors.
  We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of 
automation, systems integration and welfare law child support 
enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will 
lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and 
improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a 
distribution system in which child support collected would 
automatically be delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A 
distribution system in which child support agencies would distribute 
current support and arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in 
exactly the same way?
  Mr. President, child support financing must be addressed in the near 
future. First, our current distribution scheme is out of step with the 
philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the child support 
program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all families. 
Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable. TANF 
caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child support 
caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs additional 
resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those resources is 
decreasing. We must put the child support program on a sound financial 
footing that confirms a strong Federal and state commitment to the 
program and gives states additional flexibility to put more resources 
into the hands of children and let families keep more of their own 
money.

  Let me strongly affirm that by advocating an expanded passthrough and 
disregard approach, I am absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in 
our child support system by either the Federal government or the 
states. Our commitment to this program must remain strong and 
steadfast. I am working to expand the passthrough for the reasons that 
I've explained, but I am also committed to paying for it in a 
responsible way. Not knowing what the proposal will cost today 
necessarily requires that we keep ourselves open to adjustments as the 
debate proceeds.
  That said, it is time for us to envision a child support program that 
truly serves families and works to advance, not undermine, the TANF 
policy goals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility with which 
it is inextricably

[[Page S5278]]

combined. Because assistance is now time-limited, we must give families 
the tools to survive in a world without public help, a world where they 
must rely on their own resources. In that equation, we all know that 
child support is fundamental. Letting as many as 5 years go by with 
child support payments either not being or accuring to the state rather 
than the family does nothing to advance those goals.
  Mr. President, it's time to put our children first and envision a 
child support program that truly serves families. We can do that by 
passing this legislation to improve the public system, let families 
keep more of their own money, and make child support truly meaningful 
in the everyday lives of children on public assistance.
  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. 1036

       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 ``Children First Child Support 
     Reform Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTED 
                   BY THE STATE.

       (a) State Option to Pass All Child Support Collected 
     Directly to the Family.--
       (1) In general.--Section 457 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 657) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``(e) and (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(e), (f), and (g)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) State Option to Pass Through All Support Collected to 
     the Family.--
       ``(1) In general.--At State option, subject to paragraph 
     (2), and subsections (a)(4), (b), (e), (d), and (f), this 
     section shall not apply to any amount collected on behalf of 
     a family as support by the State and any amount so collected 
     shall be distributed to the family.
       ``(2) Income protection requirement.--A State may not elect 
     the option described in paragraph (1) unless the State also 
     elects (through an amendment to the State plan submitted 
     under section 402(a)) to disregard any amount so collected 
     and distributed for purposes of determining the amount of 
     assistance that the State will provide to the family under 
     the State program funded under part A pursuant to section 
     408(a)(12)(B).
       ``(3) Option to pass through amounts collected pursuant to 
     a continued assignment.--At State option, any amount 
     collected pursuant to an assignment continued under 
     subsection (b) may be distributed to the family in accordance 
     with paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Release of obligation to pay federal share.--If a 
     State that elects the option described in paragraph (1) also 
     elects to disregard under section 408(a)(12)(B) at least 50 
     percent (determined, at the option of the State, in the 
     aggregate or on a case-by-case basis) of the total amount 
     annually collected and distributed to all families in 
     accordance with paragraph (1) for purposes of determining the 
     amount of assistance for such families under the State 
     program funded under part A, the State is released from--
       ``(A) calculating the Federal share of the amounts so 
     distributed and disregarded; and
       ``(B) paying such share to the Federal Government.''.
       (2) Authority to claim passed through amount for purposes 
     of tanf maintenance of effort requirements.--Section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by inserting ``, and, in 
     the case of a State that elects under section 457(g) to 
     distribute any amount so collected directly to the family, 
     any amount so distributed (regardless of whether the State 
     also disregards that amount under section 408(a)(12) in 
     determining the eligibility of the family for, or the amount 
     of, such assistance)'' before the period.
       (b) State Option to Disregard Child Support Collected For 
     Purposes of Determining Eligibility For, or Amount of, TANF 
     Assistance.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) State option to disregard child support in 
     determining eligibility for, or amount of, assistance.--
       ``(A) Option to disregard child support for purposes of 
     determining eligibility.--A State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 may disregard any part of any amount 
     received by a family as a result of a child support 
     obligation in determining the family's income for purposes of 
     determining the family's eligibility for assistance under the 
     State program funded under this part.
       ``(B) Option to disregard child support in determining 
     amount of assistance.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 may disregard any part of any amount received by 
     a family as a result of a child support obligation in 
     determining the amount of assistance that the State will 
     provide to the family under the State program funded under 
     this part.''.
       (c) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Section 454 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (32), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (33), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(34) provide that, if the State elects to distribute 
     support directly to a family in accordance with section 
     457(g), the State share of expenditures under this part for a 
     fiscal year shall not be less than an amount equal to the 
     highest amount of such share expended for fiscal year 1995, 
     1996, 1997, or 1998 (determined without regard to any amount 
     expended that was eligible for payment under section 
     455(a)(3)).''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 457(f) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 657(f)) is amended by striking 
     ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Amounts Collected On 
     Behalf of Children in Foster Care.--Notwithstanding''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1037. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to provide 
for a gradual reduction in the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation to nationally phase-out the use of the fuel oxygenate 
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). My bill provides for a priority 
phase-out schedule designed to immediately prohibit MTBE use in areas 
where it is leaking into ground and surface waters, to prevent the 
spread of MTBE to areas where its use is currently limited or 
nonexistent, and to set us on a course to removing MTBE in all other 
areas of the nation.
  MTBE has been used in the blending of gasoline since the 1970s, but 
its use increased dramatically following the passage of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990. In regions of the country with particularly 
poor air quality, including Southern California and Sacramento, the Act 
required the use of reformulated gasoline.
  Under the Act, reformulated gasoline must contain 2% oxygenate by 
weight.
  Today, about 70% of the gasoline sold in California contains 2% 
oxygen by weight due to this requirement. While other oxygenates like 
ethanol may be used to meet this 2% requirement, the ready availability 
of MTBE and its chemical properties made it the oxygenate of choice 
among most oil companies.
  While the oxygenate of choice, however, MTBE is also classified as a 
possible human carcinogen. Moreover, when MTBE enters groundwater, it 
moves through the water very fast and very far. Once there, MTBE 
resists degrading in the environment. We know very little about how 
long it takes to break down to the point that it becomes harmless. We 
do know that at even very low levels, MTBE causes water to take on the 
taste and odor of turpentine--rendering it undrinkable.
  That is, it makes water smell and taste so bad that people won't 
drink it.
  I first became aware of the significance of the threat MTBE posed to 
drinking water following the discovery that MTBE had contaminated 
drinking water wells in Santa Monica. Ultimately, Santa Monica was 
forced to close drinking water wells that supplied approximately half 
of its drinking water due to that contamination. Clean up of Santa 
Monica's drinking water supply continues today under the oversight of 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at significant cost.
  Following that discovery, I held a California field hearing of the 
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am a 
member, on the issue of MTBE contamination. Based upon the testimony I 
received at that hearing, I became convinced that MTBE posed a 
significant threat to drinking water not only in California, but 
nationwide. Shortly after the hearing, I wrote what would be one of 
many letters to the Administrator of EPA urging her to take action to 
remove this threat to the nation's drinking water supply.
  While EPA has taken many laudable actions to speed the remediation of 
MTBE contaminated drinking water, it has been slow to respond to my 
calls for a nationwide MTBE phase-out. EPA maintains that it lacks the 
legal authority to phase-out the use of this harmful gasoline additive.
  In the face of this federal inaction, and since the discovery of MTBE 
contamination in Santa Monica and my

[[Page S5279]]

hearing in California, revelations of MTBE contamination in California 
and the nation have proliferated. In June 1998, the Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory estimated that MTBE is leaking from over 10,000 
underground storage tanks in California alone. Potential clean up costs 
associated with MTBE contamination in my state range between $1 to $2 
billion. Reports of MTBE contamination in the northeastern United 
States are also now becoming more common, and several state 
legislatures have introduced legislation to phase-out or ban MTBE use.
  This flurry of activity in the northeastern states follows upon the 
first state action to prohibit the use of MTBE. Specifically, on March 
26, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis provided that MTBE use in 
California will be prohibited after December 31, 2002.
  While the action in California and several other states to begin to 
address the MTBE problem is certainly to be commended, I believe it 
demonstrates a failure of federal policymakers to design a national 
solution to what is clearly a national problem.
  The legislation I introduce today would provide that solution.
  First, my bill empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
immediately prohibit MTBE use in areas where the additive is leaking 
into ground or surface waters. In my view, we must swiftly stop the use 
of MTBE in areas where we know we've got leaking underground storage 
tanks. That's just common sense.
  Second, my bill prohibits the use of MTBE after January 1, 2000 in 
areas around the nation where the use of oxygenates like MTBE is not 
required by law. It has been recently revealed that oil companies have 
been adding significant quantities of MTBE to gasoline in the San 
Francisco area even though oxygenates like MTBE are not required to be 
used in that area. Notwithstanding California's MTBE phase-out, such 
MTBE use may legally continue throughout California until the state 
phase-out deadline of December 31, 2002.
  As we face an estimated $1 to $2 billion in MTBE clean up costs in 
California alone, I believe we must swiftly take steps to prevent the 
spread of MTBE contamination to areas where its use is currently 
limited and is in no sense required under the law.
  Third, the bill prohibits MTBE use nationwide after January 1, 2003, 
and provides for specific binding percentage reductions of MTBE use in 
the interim. Finally, the bill requires EPA to conduct an environmental 
and health effects study of ethanol use as a fuel additive.
  I am hopeful that my House and Senate colleagues can act quickly to 
ensure the passage of my legislation to provide a nationwide solution 
to the nationwide problem of MTBE contamination.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1037

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

     SECTION 1. USE OF METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER.

       Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2605) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on use in specified nonattainment 
     areas.--Effective beginning January 1, 2000, a person shall 
     not use methyl tertiary butyl ether in an area of the United 
     States that is not a specified nonattainment area that is 
     required to meet the oxygen content requirement for 
     reformulated gasoline established under section 211(k) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k)).
       ``(2) Prohibition on use in areas of leakage.--If the 
     Administrator finds that methyl tertiary butyl ether is 
     leaking into ground water or surface water in an area, the 
     Administrator may immediately prohibit the use of methyl 
     tertiary butyl ether in the area.
       ``(3) Upgrading of underground storage tanks.--In enforcing 
     the requirement that underground storage tanks be upgraded in 
     accordance with section 280.21 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, the Administrator shall focus enforcement of the 
     requirement on areas described in paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Use of methyl tertiary butyl ether in gasoline.--
       ``(A) Interim period.--
       ``(i) Phased reduction.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations to require--

       ``(aa) by January 1, 2001, a \1/3\ reduction in the 
     quantity of methyl tertiary butyl ether that may be used in 
     gasoline; and
       ``(bb) by January 1, 2002, a \2/3\ reduction in the 
     quantity of methyl tertiary butyl ether that may be used in 
     gasoline.

       ``(II) Basis for reductions.--Reductions under subclause 
     (I) shall be based on the quantity of methyl tertiary butyl 
     ether in use in gasoline in the United States as of the date 
     of enactment of this subsection.

       ``(ii) Labeling.--During the period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this subsection and ending December 31, 2002, 
     the Administrator shall require any person selling gasoline 
     that contains methyl tertiary butyl ether at retail to 
     prominently label the fuel dispensing system for the gasoline 
     with a notice that the gasoline contains methyl tertiary 
     butyl ether.
       ``(B) Prohibition.--Effective beginning January 1, 2003, a 
     person shall not use methyl tertiary butyl ether in 
     gasoline.''.

     SEC. 2. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF FUEL COMPONENTS.

       Not later than July 31, 2000, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall--
       (1) conduct a study of the behavior, toxicity, 
     carcinogenicity, health effects, and biodegradability, in air 
     and water, of ethanol, olefins, aromatics, benzene, and 
     alkylate; and
       (2) report the results of the study to Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 1041. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to permit 
certain members of the Armed Forces not currently participating in the 
Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program to participate in 
that program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans 
Affairs.


                  gi education opportunity act of 1999

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation 
that will assist the men and women serving in our armed forces in 
attaining an education. The GI Education Opportunity Act is targeted at 
a group serving in our military that has been forgotten since the 
passage of the Montgomery GI Bill. Before the GI Bill was enacted in 
1985, new servicemen were invited to participate in a program called 
the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program, or VEAP. This program 
offered only a modest return on the service member's investment and, as 
a consequence, provided little assistance to men and women in the armed 
services who wanted to pursue additional education. It was and is 
inferior to the Montgomery GI Bill that every new serviceman is offered 
today.
  The GI Education Opportunity Act would allow active duty members of 
the armed services who entered the service after December 31, 1976 and 
before July 1, 1985 and who are or were otherwise eligible for the 
Veterans' Educational Assistance Program to participate in the 
Montgomery GI Bill. This group of military professionals largely 
consists of the mid-career and senior noncommissioned officer ranks of 
our services--the exact group that new recruits have as mentors and 
leaders. If we really believe in the importance of providing our 
servicemen and women with the education opportunities afforded by the 
Montgomery GI Bill, it is critical that we offer all service members 
the opportunity to participate of they choose.
  It is important to remember that much of the impetus for the creation 
of the Montgomery GI Bill was that the Veterans' Educational Assistance 
Program was not doing the job. It was not providing sufficient 
assistance for young men and women to go to college. It was expensive 
for them to participate, and provided little incentive for young men 
and women to enter the military. The Montgomery GI Bill offers those 
serving in the military a significant increase in benefits over its 
predecessor and has been one of the most important recruiting tools 
over the last decade. It is essential that active military still 
covered under VEAP but not by the Montgomery GI Bill be brought into 
the fold.
  The injustice that my bill attempts to address is that new recruits 
are eligible for a better education program than the noncommissioned 
officers responsible for their training and well-being. Expanding 
Montgomery Bill eligibility to those currently eligible for VEAP would, 
in many cases, help mid-career and senior noncommissioned officers, who 
are the backbone of our force and set the example for younger troops, 
become better educated. This legislation is modest in its scope and 
approach, but is enormously important

[[Page S5280]]

for the individual attempting to better himself through education. 
Moreover, this legislation sends a meaningful message to those serving 
to protect the American interest that Congress cares. S. 4, the 
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines Bill of Rights Act which I was 
proud to cosponsor was an enormous step in this direction, and my 
legislation complements that effort.
  Some of the common sense provisions of The GI Education Opportunity 
Act are: 1. Regardless of previous enrollment or disenrollment in the 
VEAP, active military personnel may choose to participate in the GI 
Bill. 2. Participation for VEAP-eligible members in the GI Bill is to 
be based on the same ``buy in requirements'' as are currently 
applicable to any new GI Bill participant. For example, an active duty 
member is required to pay $100 a month for twelve months in order to be 
eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill. The same would be required of 
someone previously eligible for VEAP. 3. Any active duty member who has 
previously declined participation in the GI bill may also participate. 
4. There will be a one year period of eligibility for enrollment.
  I believe that if we are to maintain the best trained, and most 
capable military force in the world, we must be committed to allowing 
the people that comprise our armed forces to pursue further education 
opportunities. I believe that this modest legislation will have a 
positive effect on morale and give our noncommissioned officers 
additional opportunities for self-improvement and life-long learning. I 
ask for my colleagues support in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Lott, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
        Brownback, and Mr. Gramm):
  S. 1042. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage domestic oil and gas production, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


       DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION SECURITY AND STABILIZATION ACT

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce 
with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, the Domestic Energy 
Production Security and Stabilization Act. This bill represents a 
necessary and workable proposal to ensure that the United States does 
not lose even more of its energy independence.
  Mr. President, the oil and gas industry in this country is in a state 
of unprecedented crisis. Over the last year-and-a-half, oil and gas 
prices have been a historic lows. This has led to the closing of over 
200,000 domestic oil and gas wells, has brought new exploration to a 
virtual standstill, and has cost an estimated quarter of a million 
American jobs.
  Not only is this an economic issue, it is also a national security 
issue. We are importing more oil than we produce. This is not a healthy 
situation for shaping our foreign policy agenda. If our domestic 
industry is to survive, then Congress needs to act now to provide tax 
incentives to encourage energy production in America.
  To reverse these trends and increase our energy independence, I have 
worked on a bipartisan basis to develop the Domestic Energy Production 
Security and Stabilization Act. The bill provides tax incentives in our 
significant areas to ensure that our domestic energy infrastructure is 
not decimated during prolonged periods of low energy prices.
  First, the legislation would provide a $3 dollar a barrel tax credit, 
on the first three barrels that can offset the cost of keeping marginal 
wells operating during periods of critically low oil and gas prices. 
Marginal wells are those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. There 
are close to 500,000 such wells across the U.S. that collectively 
produce 20 percent of America's oil, more oil than we import from Saudi 
Arabia.
  Second, the bill would provide some relief from the alternative 
minimum tax (AMT), again during prolonged periods of low energy prices. 
In a time of financial crisis for the oil and gas industry, this tax 
has had the effect of exacerbating the impact of low commodity prices 
and driving even more producers out of business. The AMT was enacted to 
ensure that companies reporting large financial income paid at least 
some level of taxes. Unfortunately, for the oil and gas industry, the 
AMT has only served to make a bad situation worse.
  Third, Mr. President, this legislation would change the net income 
limitation on percentage depletion by eliminating the 65 percent 
taxable income limitation. Carried-over percentage depletion could also 
be carried back ten years. This would enable companies to fully utilize 
their percentage depletion allowance, which many have not been able to 
do since the onset of the oil and gas crisis.
  Finally, Mr. President, this bill brings the U.S. Tax Code in line 
with the present-day realities of the oil and gas industry by allowing 
oil and gas exploration (geological and geophysical) costs to be 
expensed rather than capitalized, and by allowing delay rental lease 
payments to be deducted in the year in which they are paid, rather than 
when the oil is actually pumped. Even the Treasury Department has 
tacitly endorsed these proposed changes as making for sound economic 
and tax policy.
  Taken together, these four major tax provisions will help the job-
creating oil and gas sector of the economy to withstand the volatility 
of the international oil and gas markets. We simply must not allow our 
nation to become even more dependent on foreign oil. Nor can we afford 
to shut-down our domestic gas production capability, particularly since 
natural gas consumption is expected to grow rapidly in the near future, 
and, unlike oil, natural gas is not imported.
  Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue, and I appreciate the 
support of Senator Breaux and my other colleagues who are cosponsoring 
the bill. Most importantly, I urge my other colleagues, particularly 
those from non-energy producing states, to join with us in supporting 
this effort. America simply has too much at stake to stand by and let 
our domestic oil and gas industry jobs and infrastructure be lost to 
the whims of the world markets.
 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the 
distinguished Senator from the State of Texas. Senator Hutchinson, in 
introducing the Domestic Energy Production Security and Stabilization 
Act. I believe it is legislation all of our colleagues should support.
  First, I'd like to outline the problem and then discuss how this 
legislation helps address it. Oil prices may be in the early stages of 
recovery, but over the last 17 months, a glut in the world market 
forced crude oil prices down to their lowest inflation-adjusted levels 
in 50 years. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates 
that, since November 1997, when the price of oil began to decline, more 
than 136,000 crude oil wells and more than 57,000 natural gas wells 
have been shut down.
  The U.S. petroleum industry last year lost almost 30,000 jobs because 
of falling crude prices, according to the American Petroleum 
Institute's annual report. Despite the recent rise in oil prices, job 
losses continue. Another 3,600 jobs were lost between February and 
March. This brings the loss since December 1997 to about 54,400 jobs, a 
decline of 16 percent. In the first three months of 1999, losses 
amounted to about 24,000 jobs, or a drop of almost 8 percent.
  Mr. President, independent producers account for almost a third of 
Gulf of Mexico oil production on the outer continental shelf (OCS), and 
almost half of natural gas production. According to the Minerals 
Management Service, on a per-day basis, the OCS accounts for 27 percent 
of the nation's natural gas production and 20 percent of the nation's 
crude oil production. In 1997, production on the federal OCS off 
Louisiana resulted in $2.9 billion or 83 percent of the $3.5 billion 
royalties received for all of the OCS. It is not difficult to see that 
as domestic production falls, so will federal royalty receipts.
  And, let's not forget the thousands of jobs created in non-energy 
sectors to service the energy industry: computers, steel and other 
metals, transportation, financial and other service industries. When 
domestic oil and gas production increases, so does the number of jobs 
created in all these sectors.
  This legislation will provide marginal well tax credits, alternative 
minimum tax relief, expensing of geological and geophysical costs and 
delay

[[Page S5281]]

rental payments and other measures to encourage domestic oil and gas 
production. It is a safety net. The bill's provisions phase in and out 
as oil prices fall and rise between $17 and $14 per barrel and natural 
gas prices fall and rise between $1.86 and $1.56 per thousand cubic 
feet. It will provide a permanent mechanism to help our domestic 
producers cope with substantial and unexpected declines in world energy 
prices.

  Let's examine how one aspect of this bill--marginal well production--
affects this nation. A marginal well is one that producers 15 barrels 
of oil per day or 60,000 cubic feet of natural gas or less. Low prices 
hit marginal wells especially hard because they typically have low 
profit margins. While each well produces only a small amount, marginal 
wells account for almost 25 percent of the oil and 8 percent of the 
natural gas produced in the continental United States. The United 
States has more than 500,000 marginal wells that collectively produce 
nearly 700 million barrels of oil each year. These marginal wells 
contribute nearly $14 billion a year in economic activity. The marginal 
well industry is responsible for more than 38,000 jobs and supports 
thousands of jobs outside the industry.
  The National Petroleum Council is a federal advisory committee to the 
Secretary of Energy. Its sole purpose is to advise, inform, and make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on any matter requested by 
the Secretary with relating to oil and natural gas or to the oil and 
natural gas industries. The National Petroleum Council's 1994 Marginal 
Well Report said that:

       Preseving marginal wells is central to our energy security. 
     Neither government nor the industry can set the global market 
     price of crude oil. Therefore, the nation's internal cost 
     structure must be relied upon for preserving marginal well 
     contributions.

The 1994 Marginal Well Report went on to recommend a series of tax code 
modifications including a marginal well tax credit and expensing key 
capital expenditures. The Independent Petroleum Association of America 
estimates that as many of half the estimated 140,000 marginal wells 
closed in the last 17 months could be lost for good.
  Mr. President, the facts speak for themselves. The U.S. share of 
total world crude oil production fell from 52 percent in 1950 to just 
10 percent in 1997. At the same time, U.S. dependence on foreign oil 
has grown from 36 percent in 1973 (the time of the Arab oil embargo) to 
about 56 percent today. That makes the U.S. more vulnerable than ever--
economically and militarily--to disruptions in foreign oil supplies. 
This legislation will provide a mechanism to help prevent a further 
decline in domestic energy production and preserve a vital domestic 
industry.
 Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison and a number of other colleagues in the introduction 
of legislation which we believe will provide critically needed relief 
and assistance to our beleaguered domestic oil industry.
  Our bill contains a number of incentives designed to increase 
domestic production of oil and gas. The decline in domestic oil 
production has resulted in the estimated loss of more than 40,000 jobs 
in the oil and gas industry since the crash of oil prices at the end of 
1997. Our legislation will not only put people back to work, it will 
revitalize domestic energy production and decrease our dependence on 
imports.
  I have sought relief for the oil and gas industry from a number of 
sources this year. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I 
strongly opposed the $4 billion tax which the Clinton budget proposed 
to levy on the oil industry. As my colleagues know, that tax is now 
dead.
  Earlier this year I contacted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 
and urged her to conduct a thorough review of our current policy which 
permits Iraq to sell $5.25 billion worth of oil every six months. The 
revenue generated from such sales is supposed to be used to purchase 
food and medicine but reports make it clear that Saddam Hussein has 
diverted these funds from their intended use and that they are being 
used to prop up his murderous regime. The United States should not be a 
party to such a counterproductive policy.
  Senator Hutchison and I earlier this year introduced legislation 
which contained a series of tax law changes intended to spur marginal 
well production. The legislation which we introduce today contains 
those provisions as well as others, such as reducing the impact of the 
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) on the oil and gas industry and relaxing 
the existing constraints on use of the allowance for percentage 
depletion.
  I am looking forward to working with my colleagues in an effort to 
enact the legislation as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1043. A bill to provide freedom from regulation by the Federal 
Communications Commission for the Internet; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

                          ____________________