[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 16, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7127-S7138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 1224. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to encourage students, including young women, to pursue 
demanding careers and higher education degrees in mathematics, science, 
engineering and technology; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will ensure our nation's students, and young women in 
particular, are encouraged to pursue degrees and careers in math, 
science, engineering, and technology.
  Mr. President, if our children are to be prepared for the globally 
competitive economy of the next century, they must not only have access 
to the technologies that will dominate the workforce and job market 
that they will enter--but they should also be encouraged to pursue 
degrees in the fields that underlie these technologies.
  We simply cannot ignore that six out of ten new jobs require 
technological skills--skills that are seriously lacking in our 
workforce today. The impact of this technological illiteracy is 
devastating for our nation's businesses, with an estimated loss in 
productivity of $30 billion every year, and the inability of companies 
across the nation to fill an estimated 190,000 technology jobs in mid- 
to large-sized companies. In fact, these very job vacancies led to 
Congress passing legislation last year that increased the number of H1-
B visas that could be issued to foreign workers to enter the United 
States.
  Furthermore, according to a 1994 report by the American School 
Counselors Association, 65 percent of all jobs will require technical 
skills in the year 2000, with 20 percent being professional and only 15 
percent relying on unskilled labor. In addition, between 1996 and 2006, 
all occupations expect a 14 percent increase in jobs, but Information 
Technology occupations should jump by 75 percent. As this data implies, 
today's students must gain a different knowledge base than past 
generations of students if they are to be prepared for, and competitive 
in, the global job market of the 21st Century.
  Mr. President, even as we should seek to increase student access and 
exposure

[[Page S7128]]

to advanced technologies in our nation's schools and classrooms through 
the E-rate and other programs, we should also seek to increase the 
interest of our students in the fields that are the backbone of these 
technologies: namely, math, science, engineering, and other technology-
related fields. Clearly, if technology will be the cornerstone of the 
job market of the future, then it is vital that our nation's students--
who will be tomorrow's workers--be the architects that build that 
cornerstone.
  Accordingly, the legislation I am offering today is designed to 
ensure that our nation's students are encouraged to pursue degrees in 
these demanding fields. In particular, my legislation will ensure that 
young girls--who are currently less likely to enter these fields than 
their male counterparts--be encouraged to enter these fields of study.
  Mr. President, as was highlighted in the American Association of 
University Women report, ``Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our 
Children,'' when compared to boys, girls might be at a significant 
disadvantage as technology is increasingly incorporated into the 
classroom. Not only do girls tend to come into the classroom with less 
exposure to computers and other technology, but they also tend to 
believe that they are less adept at using technology than boys.
  In light of these findings, it should come as no surprise that girls 
are dramatically underrepresented in advanced computer science courses 
after graduation from high school. Furthermore, it should come as no 
surprise that girls tend to gravitate toward the fields of social 
sciences, health services, and education, while boys disproportionately 
gravitate toward the fields of engineering and business.
  In fact, data gathered in 1997 on the intended majors of college-
bound students found that a larger proportion of female than male SAT 
test-takers intended to major in visual and performing arts, biological 
sciences, education, foreign or classical languages, health and allied 
services, language and lierature, and the social sciences. In contrast, 
a larger portion of boys than girls intended to major in agriculture 
and natural resources, business and commerce, engineering, mathematics, 
and physical sciences.
  While all of these fields are invaluable--and students should always 
be encouraged to choose the fields of study and careers that interest 
them most--I believe it is critical that we ensure students do not balk 
at entering a particular field of study or career simply because it has 
typically been associated with ``males'' or ``females.'' Instead, all 
students should be aware of the multitude of opportunities that are 
available to them, and encouraged to enter those fields that they find 
of interest.
  Mr. President, young women should not shy away from technical careers 
simply because they are more often associated with men--and they should 
not avoid higher education courses that would give them the knowledge 
and skills they need for these jobs simply because they are more 
typically taken by young men. Accordingly, my legislation will ensure 
that fields relying on skills in math, science, engineering, and 
technology will be promoted to all students--and especially girls--to 
ensure that the numerous opportunities and demands of the job market in 
the 21st Century are met.
  Specifically, the ``High Technology for Girls Act'' will expand the 
possible uses of monies provided under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 to ensure young women are encouraged to 
pursue demanding careers and higher education degrees in mathematics, 
science, engineering, and technology. As a result, monies provided for 
Professional Development Activities, the National Teacher Training 
Project, and the Technology for Education programs can be used by 
schools to ensure these fields of study and careers are presented in a 
favorable manner to all students.

  Of critical importance, schools will be able to use these monies for 
the development of mentoring programs, model programs, or other 
appropriate programs in partnership with local businesses or 
institutions of higher education. As a result, programs will be created 
that meld the best ideas from educators and the private sector, thereby 
improving the manner in which these fields are presented and taught--
and ultimately putting a positive ``face'' on fields that may otherwise 
be shunned by young women.
  Mr. President, as Congress moves forward in its effort to reauthorize 
the ESEA, I believe the provisions contained in this legislation would 
be a positive and much-needed step toward preparing our students for 
the jobs of the 21st Century. We cannot afford to let any of our 
nation's students overlook the fields of study that will be the 
cornerstone of the global job market of the future, and my legislation 
will help ensure that does not happen.
  Accordingly, I urge that my colleagues support the ``High Technology 
for Girls Act,'' and look forward to working for its adoption during 
the consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Hutchinson):
  S. 1225. A bill to provide for a rural education initiative, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                     rural education initiative act

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural 
Education Initiative Act. I am very pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues Senators Gregg, Conrad, Kerrey, Burns, Hutchinson, and Hagel 
as original cosponsors of this commonsense, bipartisan proposal to help 
rural schools make better use of Federal education dollars. I also want 
to acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by the American 
Association of School Administrators in the drafting of this 
legislation.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorizes formula and 
competitive grants that allow many of our local school districts to 
improve the education of their students. These Federal grants support 
efforts to promote such laudable goals as the professional development 
of teachers, the incorporation of technology into the classroom, gifted 
and talented programs and class-size reduction. Schools receive several 
categorical grants supporting these programs, each with its own 
authorized activities and regulations and each with its own redtape and 
paperwork. Unfortunately, as valuable as these programs may be for 
thousands of predominantly urban and suburban school districts, they 
simply do not work well in rural areas.
  The Rural Education Initiative Act will make these Federal grant 
programs more flexible in order to help school districts in rural 
communities with fewer than 600 students. Six hundred may not sound 
like many students to some of my colleagues from more populous or urban 
States, but they may be surprised to learn that more than 35 percent of 
all school districts in the United States have 600 or fewer students. 
In my State of Maine, 56 percent, or 158 of its 284 school districts, 
have fewer than 600 students. The two education initiatives contained 
in our legislation will overcome some of the most challenging obstacles 
that these districts face in participating in Federal education 
programs.
  The first rural education initiative deals with four formula grants. 
Formula-driven grants from some education programs simply do not reach 
small rural schools in amounts that are sufficient to improve 
curriculum and teaching in the same way that they do for larger 
suburban or urban schools.
  This is because the grants are based on school district enrollment. 
Unfortunately, these individual grants confront smaller schools with a 
dilemma; namely, they simply may not receive enough funding from any 
single grant to carry out meaningful activity. Our legislation will 
allow a district to combine the funds from four categorical programs.
  Under the Rural Education Initiative Act, rural districts will be 
permitted to combine the funds from these programs and use the money to 
support reform efforts of their own choice to improve the achievement 
of their students and the quality of the instruction. Instead of 
receiving grants from four independent programs, each insufficient to 
accomplish the program's objectives, these rural districts will have 
the flexibility to combine the grants and the

[[Page S7129]]

dollars to support locally chosen educational goals.
  I want to emphasize that the rural initiative I have just described 
does not change the level of funding a district receives under these 
formula grant programs. It simply gives these rural districts the 
flexibility they need to use the funds far more effectively.
  The second rural initiative in our legislation involves several 
competitive grant programs that present small rural schools with a 
different problem. Because many rural school districts simply do not 
have the resources required to hire grant writers and to manage a 
grant, they are essentially shut out of those programs where grants are 
competitively awarded.
  The Rural Education Initiative Act will give small, rural districts a 
formula grant in lieu of eligibility for the competitive programs of 
the ESEA. A district will be able to combine this new formula grant 
with the funds from the regular formula grants and use the combined 
moneys for any purpose that will improve student achievement or 
teaching quality.
  Districts might use these funds, for example, to hire a new reading 
or math teacher, to fund important professional development, to offer a 
program for gifted and talented students, to purchase high technology, 
or to upgrade a science lab, or to pay for any other activity that 
meets the district's priorities and needs.
  Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives will 
mean for one Maine school district, School Administrative District 33. 
This district serves two northern Maine communities, Frenchville and 
St. Agatha. Each of these communities has about 200 school-age 
children. SAD 33 receives four separate formula grants ranging from 
about $1,900 from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program to $9,500 
under the Class Size Reduction Act.
  You can see the problem right there. The amounts of the grants under 
these programs are so small that they really are not useful in 
accomplishing the goals of the program. The total received by this 
small school district for all four of the programs is just under 
$16,000. But each grant must be applied for separately, used for 
different--and federally mandated--purposes, and accounted for 
independently.
  Under our legislation, this school district will be freed from the 
multiple applications and reports, and it will have $16,000 to use for 
locally identified education priorities. In addition, since SAD 33 does 
not have the resources needed to apply for the current competitively 
awarded grant programs, our legislation will allow this school district 
to receive a supplemental formula grant of $34,000. The bottom line is, 
under my legislation this district will have about $50,000 and the 
flexibility to use these Federal funds to address its most pressing 
educational needs.

  But with this flexibility and additional funding comes 
responsibility. In return for the advantages and flexibility that our 
legislation provides, participating districts will be held accountable 
for demonstrating improved student performance. Each participating 
school district will be required to administer the same test of its 
choice annually during the 5-year period of this program. Based on the 
results of this test, a district will have to show that student 
achievement has improved in order to continue its participation beyond 
the 5-year period.
  Since Maine and many other States already administer annual education 
assessments, districts will not incur any significant administrative 
burden in accounting and complying with this accountability provision. 
More important, the schools will be held responsible for what is really 
important, and that is improved student achievement, rather than for 
time-consuming paperwork in the form of applications and reports.
  As one rural Maine superintendent told me: ``Give me the resources I 
need plus the flexibility to use them, and I am happy to be held 
accountable for improved student performance. It will happen.''
  The Federal Government has an important role to play in improving 
education in our schools. But it has a supporting role, whereas States 
and communities have the lead role. We must improve our education 
system, we must enhance student achievement, without requiring every 
school in this Nation to adopt a plan designed in Washington and 
without imposing burdensome and costly regulations in return for 
Federal assistance.
  The two initiatives contained in our bill will accomplish those 
goals. They will allow rural schools to use their own strategies for 
improvement without the encumbrance of onerous regulations and 
unnecessary paperwork. It is my hope that we will be able to enact this 
important and bipartisan legislation this year.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I join my esteemed colleagues 
Senator Collins and Conrad in introducing the Rural Education 
Initiative Act (REA). This Act represents a bipartisan approach to 
address the unique needs of 35% of school districts in the United 
States, specifically small, rural school districts. It does not 
authorize any new money. Rather, REA amends the Rural Education 
Demonstration Grants under Part J, of Title X, of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and retains the current ESEA 
authorization of up to $125 million for rural education programs.
  Rural school districts are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes 
to both receiving and using federal education funds. They either don't 
receive enough federal funds to run the program for which the funds are 
allocated or don't receive federal funds for programs for which they 
have to fill out applications. Small rural school districts rarely 
apply for federal competitive grants because they lack the resources 
and expertise required to fill out complicated and time intensive 
applications for federal education grants, which means that rural 
school districts lose out on millions of federal education dollars each 
year.
  The Rural Education Initiative Act addresses both the problem of 
rural school districts' inability to generate enough money under 
federal formula grants to run a program and the problem of rural school 
districts' inability to compete for federal discretionary grants.
  With regard to federal education formula grants, REA permits rural 
school districts to merge funds from the President's 100,000 New 
Teachers program and several Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
programs, specifically Eisenhower Professional Development, Safe and 
Drug Free Schools, Innovative Education Program Strategies. Under REA, 
school districts can pool funds from these federal education programs 
and use the money for a variety of activities that the district 
believes will contribute to improved student achievement.
  With regard to federal discretionary grants for which rural grants 
have to compete, the bill stipulates that small rural school districts 
who decline to apply for federal discretionary grants are eligible to 
receive money under a rural education formula grant. As a result, 
school districts would no longer have to go through the application 
process to receive federal funds. School districts that had to forgo 
applying for discretionary grants simply because they did not have the 
resources to do so, would no longer be penalized. As with their other 
federal grant money, a school district would have broad flexibility on 
how to use funds provided under this new grant to improve student 
achievement and the quality of instruction.
  A local school district can combine their other formula grant money 
with this new direct grant to create a large flexible grant at the 
school district level to: hire a new teacher, purchase a computer, 
provide professional development, offer advanced placement or 
vocational education courses or just about any other activity that 
would contribute to increased student achievement and higher quality of 
instruction.
  In addition to the aforementioned changes, REA has a strong 
accountability piece. The bill stipulates that rural school districts 
may only continue to receive the rural education initiative grant and 
have enormous flexibility over other federal education dollars if in 
fact they can show a marked improvement in student achievement.
  In conclusion, this bill not only builds momentum for driving more 
federal dollars directly down to rural school districts but marks an 
important sea change in federal education

[[Page S7130]]

policy in that it cedes unprecedented authority to school districts to 
use federal funds as they see fit, not as the federal government 
prescribes and it links increased flexibility and increased federal 
funds directly to student achievement.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished 
colleagues from Maine, New Hampshire, and Nebraska in introducing the 
Rural Education Initiative Act. Over the past five years, Congress and 
the Administration have significantly increased education funding for 
States and local school districts. They have also undertaken a number 
of new initiatives in response to educational concerns including Class 
Size Reduction and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.
  Unfortunately, rural schools are not benefiting from these new 
initiatives or from funding increases to the same degree as many urban 
and suburban schools. In fact, on the basis of discussions with 
educators in North Dakota, Federal education laws are discouraging many 
rural schools from making the best use of funds that are currently 
allocated by formula from the Department of Education.
  The formulas developed to allocate education funding, formulas which 
take into consideration a number of factors including student 
enrollment, in many cases do not result in sufficient funding to permit 
the smaller school to most effectively use the funds for local 
educational priorities.
  Many small, rural schools, for example, don't have the enrollment 
numbers or special categories of students that result in sufficient 
revenue under the education formulas to hire a new teacher under the 
Class Size Reduction initiative, or to participate in a more 
specialized education program like the 21st Century Community Learning 
Centers Program.
  Additionally, these schools are not able to compete as effectively as 
larger districts for funding under some Department of Education 
competitive grant programs. Limited resources do not permit smaller 
districts to hire specialists to prepare and submit grant applications. 
In some cases, the only option for a smaller school district is to form 
a consortium with other rural districts to qualify for sufficient 
funding.
  No more clearly are the concerns of rural school educators expressed 
than in a letter that I received from ElRoy Burkle, Superintendent for 
the Starkweather Public School District, in Starkweather, North Dakota, 
a school district with 131 students. In his letter, ElRoy expressed the 
difficulty that smaller, rural schools are having in accessing Federal 
education funds.
  ElRoy remarked, ``. . . school districts have lost their ability to 
access funds directly, and as a result of forming these consortiums in 
order to access these monies, it is my opinion, we have lost our 
individual ability to utilize these monies in an effective manner that 
would be conducive to promoting the educational needs of our individual 
schools.''
  Mr. President, the Rural Education Initiative Act responds to the 
unique needs of rural school districts by enabling these districts to 
more fully participate in Department of Education formula and 
competitive grant programs.
  Under Section 4 of the proposed legislation, school districts with 
less than 600 students would be eligible to pool resources from four 
DOE formula programs, and use the funding for quality of instruction or 
student achievement priorities determined by the local school district.
  These programs include the DOE's Class-Size Reduction, Eisenhower 
Professional Development, Title VI (Innovative Education Strategies), 
and Safe and Drug Free Schools, Title I GOALS 2000, Individuals With 
Disabilities Education, and Impact Aid are not included in this 
legislation.
  Additionally, to qualify for funding under the Rural Education 
Initiative Act, a school district would elect not to apply for 
competitive grant funding from seven programs including Gifted and 
Talented Children Grants; State and Local Programs for Technology 
Resources; 21st Century Community Learning Centers; Grants under the 
Fund for the Improvement of Education; Bilingual Education Professional 
Development Grants; Bilingual Education Capacity and Demonstration 
Grants; and Bilingual Education Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination 
Grants.
  In opting out of these competitive grant programs, the rural school 
district would be entitled to a formula grant, based on student 
enrollment, to use for education reform efforts to improve class 
instruction and student achievements. The grant amount would be reduced 
by the level of funding received by the School district under the 
formula grant programs outlined in Section 4.
  To remain in the Rural Education Initiative, school districts, after 
five years, would be required to assess the academic achievement of 
students using a statewide test, or in the case where there is no 
statewide test, a test selected by the local education agency.
  Additionally, the Rural Education Initiative Act will not abolish or 
reduce funding for any DOE education program including the eleven grant 
programs discussed in this initiative.
  Mr. President, It's very important that we consider the Rural 
Education Initiative Act as part of the re-authorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act during the 106th Congress. No 
issue is more important for rural America than the future of our 
schools. In North Dakota 86 percent of school districts, 198 schools, 
have less than 600 students.
  Additionally, many of these school districts are facing declining 
enrollments. According to the Report Card for North Dakota's Future 
(1998) prepared by the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, 
over the past two decades school districts in the State have declined 
from 364 to 214, almost 40 percent.
  This decline in student population is not unique to North Dakota. 
Many other states have a significant percentage of rural school 
districts, and many are also experiencing a decline in rural student 
population. While the quality of education, including smaller classes, 
in many of these smaller communities remains excellent, the more 
limited resources of smaller, rural schools, coupled with the declining 
student enrollments, pose extraordinarily challenges for rural schools 
across America.
  These factors along with current Federal education formulas have 
limited the ability of smaller districts to take full advantage of 
federal education grants. In some instances, they have limited 
educational opportunities for students such as distance learning, or 
advanced academic and vocational courses. Rural schools are unique and 
have educational needs that are not being met.
  Mr. President, I want to commend the American Association of School 
Administrators (AASA) for the key role they have played in the 
development of this rural schools initiative. AASA has a remarkable 
record of achievement on behalf of the education community, parents, 
and students. For several years, they have been examining the 
difficulties that rural schools were experiencing in applying and 
qualifying for Federal education funding. The proposal developed by 
AASA would have a significant impact on almost 200 school districts in 
North Dakota.
  I also want to commend the Organizations Concerned About Rural 
Education for their efforts on behalf of this initiative, and the 
exemplary work on behalf of other educational issues for rural America.
  Again, I congratulate Senator Collins for taking the lead on this 
important education initiative, and I strongly urge the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to carefully consider this 
legislation and the educational needs of rural schools during the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. 
Burkle, a summary of the bill, and a description of the rural schools 
formula under the Rural Education Initiative Act, prepared by the 
American Association of School Administrators be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Rural Education Initiative Act


                          qualifying districts

       A district eligible to elect to receive its funding through 
     this initiative must have 599 students or fewer and have a 
     Beale Code rating of 6, 7, 8, or 9. The Beale Codes are used

[[Page S7131]]

     by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine how 
     relatively rural or urban a county is. Beale Codes range from 
     0 to 9, with 0 being most urban and 9 being most rural. A 
     county-by-county listing may be found at: http://
www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/other/typolog/index.html.


                     flexible use of formula grants

       If a district qualifies and elects to participate in this 
     initiative, it will have flexibility with regard to Titles II 
     (Eisenhower professional development), IV (Safe and Drug-Free 
     Schools), and VI (Innovative Education Program Strategies) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Class Size 
     Reduction Act. Districts would be able to combine the funds 
     from these programs and use the money to support reform 
     efforts intended to improve the achievement of students and 
     the quality of instruction provided.


               alternative to competitive grant programs

       If an eligible district elects not to compete the 
     discretionary grants programs listed below, it will receive a 
     formula grant based on student enrollment (see following 
     table), less the amount they received from the formula grant 
     programs included in the flexible use of formula grants 
     program (Titles II, IV and Vi of ESEA and the Class Size 
     Reduction Act). This alternative formula grant may be 
     combined with the funds from the flexible formula grant 
     program and used for the same purposes.
       State and Local Programs for School Technology Resources 
     (Subpart 2 of part A of title III of ESEA);
       Bilingual Education Capacity and Demonstration Grants 
     (Subpart 1 of part A of title VII of ESEA);
       Bilingual Education Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination 
     Grants (Subpart 2 of part A of title VII of ESEA);
       Bilingual Education Professional Development Grants 
     (Subpart 3, Section 7142 of part A of title VII of ESEA);
       Fund for the Improvement of Education (Part A of Title X of 
     ESEA);
       Gifted and Talented Grants (Part B of Title X of ESEA);


  21st Century Community Learning Centers (Part I of title X of ESEA)


        Number of K-12 Students                                  Amount
        in District:                                           of grant
1 to 49.....................................................\1\ $20,000
50 to 149....................................................\1\ 30,000
150 to 299...................................................\1\ 40,000
300 to 449...................................................\1\ 50,000
450 to 599...................................................\1\ 60,000
\1\ Reduced by the amount the district receives from the listed formula 
grants.


                             accountability

       School districts participating in this initiative would 
     have to meet high accountability standards. They would have 
     to show significant statistical improvement in assessment 
     test scores based on state and/or local assessments. Schools 
     failing to show demonstrable progress will not be eligible 
     for continued participation in the initiative.
                                  ____

                                        Starkweather Public School


                                              District No. 44,

                                 Starkweather, ND, April 15, 1999.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The purpose of this letter is to voice 
     several concerns that are facing rural districts in North 
     Dakota and ask for your assistance as the reauthorization 
     process for various educational legislation is currently 
     being addressed by congress. I currently serve as a shared 
     superintendent for both the Starkweather and Munich Public 
     School Districts. At this particular time these two districts 
     are two independent districts, with the Starkweather District 
     serving 131 students and Munich serving 154 students. Each 
     district covers in excess of 200 square miles.
       The first issue that I have deals with the recently 
     approved Class-Size Reduction Program. I support the primary 
     legislative intent of this legislation, however, this office 
     disagrees with the way in which the funds can be accessed. 
     Please allow me to explain.
       This office received information at a recent regional 
     meeting that the allocation for the Starkweather District is 
     $5,003, and $6,020 for Munich. It was also shared that in 
     order to access these funds our individual district 
     allocations must be equal to or greater than the cost of 
     hiring a first-year teacher at our schools. This equates to 
     approximately $23,000. If a school allocation is less than 
     that, the school district can create or join a consortium to 
     access these dollars, so long as the aggregate amount equals 
     or exceeds that cost of a first-year teacher. Therefore, as 
     you can see, the two school districts that I serve would be 
     forced to enter into another consortium in order to obtain 
     these allocated funds through this program.
       Currently, both the Munich and Starkweather School 
     Districts are members of various consortiums in order to 
     access our federal allocated monies. These consortiums 
     include Title II, Lake Area Carl-Perkins, and Goals 2000. 
     This is in addition to having consortiums for special 
     education and school improvement. My point is that each of my 
     respective school districts have lost their individual 
     ability to access funds directly, and as a direct result of 
     forming these consortiums in order to access our entitled 
     monies, it is of my opinion, we have lost our individual 
     ability to utilize these monies in an effective manner that 
     would be conducive to promoting the educational needs of our 
     individual schools. Let me cite an example of how this loss 
     of effectiveness has occurred for my districts.
       3. Legislation for rural school districts. Something needs 
     to be done for us. Rural districts with low student 
     enrollments and high square miles have to form consortiums to 
     access federal funds. If legislation were created as cited 
     above, my two districts could better utilize allocated funds 
     and still be in-line with federal education goals.
       In closing, I understand that it is difficult to write 
     legislation to meet everyone's needs. However, I do believe 
     that we need to address our educational needs as our children 
     deserve the same opportunity as those in larger districts. 
     Our issues may be different, but we all hold the common 
     thread of providing the best education for each child.
       Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the 
     issues shared. Your office has my permission to share this 
     letter with any individual who may need to review the 
     concerns voiced. Your office may feel free to contact me at 
     the address and telephone provided, or e-mail messages to me 
     at [email protected] (work) or my home e-mail 
     [email protected].
           Respectfully,
                                                     ElRoy Burkle,
                                                   Superintendent.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Rural Education 
Initiative introduced by Senator Collins today, and I am pleased to be 
a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation.
  The Rural Education Initiative takes a significant step toward 
ensuring that all young people have a shot at the American Dream. It 
addresses an important problem that many rural schools face: Often they 
receive small amounts of funding for a variety of programs, but they 
don't have the budget and personnel to develop and sustain multiple 
programs. Yet they still have students who need our help to raise their 
achievement levels and become productive, successful citizens.
  The Rural Education Initiative asks us to make a $125 million 
investment in rural schools. And it allows small rural districts to 
pool funds from a handful of federal programs and target funding in 
those areas where they see the greatest need and where the funding will 
have the greatest impact.
  But this legislation also ensures that districts remain accountable--
in exchange for increased flexibility, they must demonstrate improved 
performance.
  Over 70 percent of Nebraska's school districts are small, rural 
districts, as defined by this legislation. Currently Nebraska receives 
approximately $92 million in federal funds for elementary and secondary 
education. The Rural Education Initiative would increase that 
contribution by more than $10 million.
  Mr. President, recently I contacted Jim Havelka, superintendent of 
both Dodge and Howells Public Schools in Nebraska. Dodge has 175 
students K-12, and Howells has 225 students K-12. I said, ``Jim, what 
do you need to do a better job of educating your kids?''
  Jim said, ``You know, it's awfully hard to start a new initiative on 
$900. But if I could pool funds from a few programs, I could hire an 
experienced instructional technology teacher to help us make even 
better use of computer hardware and software that is so crucial in 
improving learning opportunities for our students. And I could share 
that instructor with 2 or 3 other schools. Keep Title I, special 
education, and other major programs intact, but give me a little 
flexibility with a few other programs, and I'll give you results.''
  Mr. President, I intend to do what I can to help Jim and his students 
produce results. I believe that in addition to this initiative, we 
should increase our investment in Title I and in education technology, 
both of which are especially important to rural schools. I look forward 
to working with Senator Collins and the other cosponsors of this 
legislation to accomplish these goals as we move this legislation 
through Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK:
  S. 1226. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that interest on indebtedness used to finance the furnishing or sale of 
rate-regulated electric energy or natural gas in the United States 
shall be allocated solely to sources within the United States; to the 
Committee on Finance.

[[Page S7132]]

 ALLOCATION TO SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF INTEREST EXPENSE ON 
 INDEBTEDNESS FINANCING RATE-REGULATED ELECTRIC ENERGY OR NATURAL GAS 
                       INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to remedy 
a problem in the way the U.S. taxes the foreign operations of U.S. 
electric and gas utilities. With the 1992 passage of the National 
Energy Policy Act, Congress gave a green light to U.S. utilities 
wishing to do business abroad, lifting a long-standing prohibition. 
U.S. utilities were allowed to compete for the foreign business 
opportunities created by the privatization of national utilities and 
the need for the construction of facilities to meet increased energy 
demands abroad.
  Since 1992, U.S. utility companies have made significant investments 
in utility operations in the United Kingdom, Australia, Eastern Europe, 
the Far East and South America. These investments in foreign utilities 
have created domestic jobs in the fields of design, architecture, 
engineering, construction, and heavy equipment manufacturing. They also 
allow U.S. utilities an opportunity to diversify and grow.
  Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code penalizes these investments 
by subjecting them to double-taxation. U.S. companies with foreign 
operations receive tax credits for a portion of the taxes they pay to 
foreign countries, to reduce the double-taxation that would otherwise 
result from the U.S. policy of taxing worldwide income. The size of 
these foreign tax credits are affected by a number of factors, as U.S. 
tax laws recalculate the amount of foreign income that is recognized 
for tax credit purposes.
  Section 864 of the tax code allocates deductible interest expenses 
between the U.S. and foreign operations based on the relative book 
values of assets located in the U.S. and abroad. By ignoring business 
realities and the peculiar circumstances of U.S. utilities, this 
allocation rule overtaxes them. Because U.S. utilities were until 
recently prevented from operating abroad, their foreign plants and 
equipment have been recently-acquired and consequently have not been 
much depreciated, in contrast to their domestic assets which are in 
most cases fully-depreciated. Thus, a disproportionate amount of 
interest expenses are allocated to foreign income, reducing the foreign 
income base that is recognized for U.S. tax purposes thus the size of 
the corresponding foreign tax credits.
  The allocation rules increase the double-taxation of foreign income 
by reducing foreign tax credits, thereby increasing domestic taxation. 
The unfairness of this result is magnified by the fact that the 
interest expenses--which are the reason the foreign tax credit 
shrinks--are usually associated with domestically-regulated debt, which 
is tied to domestic production and is not as fungible as the tax code 
assumes.
  The result of this economically-irrational taxation scheme is a very 
high effective tax rate on certain foreign investment and a loss of 
U.S. foreign tax credits. Rather than face this double-tax penalty, 
some U.S. utilities have actually chosen not to invest overseas and 
others have pulled back from their initial investments.
  One solution to this problem is found in the legislation that I am 
introducing today. This remedy is to exempt from the interest 
allocation rules of Section 864 the debt associated with a U.S. 
utility's furnishing and sale of electricity or natural gas in the 
United States. This proposed rule is similar to the rule governing 
``non-recourse'' debt, which is not subjected to foreign allocation. In 
both cases, lenders look to specific cash flows for repayment and 
specific assets as collateral. These loans are thus distinguishable 
from the typical risks of general credit lending transactions.
  The specific cash flow aspect of non-recourse financing is a critical 
element of the non-recourse debt exception, and logic requires that the 
same tax treatment should be given to analogous utility debt. Thus, my 
bill would exempt from allocation to foreign source income the interest 
on debt incurred in the trade or business of furnishing or selling 
electricity or natural gas in the United States. The current situation 
is a very real problem that must be remedied, and I urge my colleagues 
to support the solution I am proposing.
  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. 1226

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

     SECTION 1. ALLOCATION TO SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF 
                   INTEREST EXPENSE ON INDEBTEDNESS FINANCING 
                   RATE-REGULATED ELECTRIC ENERGY OR NATURAL GAS 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 864 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rules for 
     allocating interest, etc.) is amended by redesignating 
     paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (7) and (8), 
     respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (5) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Treatment of certain interest expense relating to 
     qualified infrastructure indebtedness.--
       ``(A) In general.--Interest on any qualified infrastructure 
     indebtedness shall be allocated and apportioned solely to 
     sources within the United States, and such indebtedness shall 
     not be taken into account in allocating and apportioning 
     other interest expense.
       ``(B) Qualified infrastructure indebtedness.--For purposes 
     of this paragraph, the term `qualified infrastructure 
     indebtedness' means any indebtedness incurred--
       ``(i) to carry on the trade or business of the furnishing 
     or sale of electric energy or natural gas in the United 
     States, or
       ``(ii) to acquire, construct, or otherwise finance property 
     used predominantly in such trade or business.
       ``(C) Rate regulation.--
       ``(i) In general.--If only a portion of the furnishing or 
     sale referred to in subparagraph (B)(i) in a trade or 
     business is rate regulated, the term `qualified 
     infrastructure indebtedness' shall not include nonqualified 
     indebtedness.
       ``(ii) Nonqualified indebtedness.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), the term `nonqualified indebtedness' means so much of 
     the indebtedness which would (but for clause (i)) be 
     qualified infrastructure indebtedness as exceeds the amount 
     which bears the same ratio to the aggregate indebtedness of 
     the taxpayer as the value of the assets used in the 
     furnishing or sale referred to in subparagraph (B)(i) which 
     is rate-regulated bears to the value of the total assets of 
     the taxpayer.
       ``(iii) Rate-regulated defined.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, furnishing or sale is rate-regulated if the 
     rates for the furnishing or sale, as the case may be, have 
     been established or approved by a State or political 
     subdivision thereof, by an agency or instrumentality of the 
     United States, or by a public service or public utility 
     commission or other similar body of the District of Columbia 
     or of any State or political subdivision thereof.
       ``(iv) Asset values.--For purposes of clause (ii), assets 
     shall be treated as having a value equal to their adjusted 
     bases (within the meaning of section 1016) unless the 
     taxpayer elects to use fair market value for all assets. Such 
     an election, once made, shall be irrevocable.
       ``(v) Time for making determination.--The determination of 
     whether indebtedness is qualified infrastructure indebtedness 
     or nonqualified indebtedness shall be made at the time the 
     indebtedness is incurred.
       ``(vi) Separate application to electric energy and natural 
     gas.--This subparagraph shall be applied separately to 
     electric energy and natural gas.''
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall 
     apply to indebtedness incurred in taxable years beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Outstanding debt.--In the case of indebtedness 
     outstanding as of the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     determination of whether such indebtedness constitutes 
     qualified infrastructure indebtedness shall be made by 
     applying the rules of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 
     864(e)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by 
     this section, on the date such indebtedness was incurred.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Graham, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
        Moynihan, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1227. A bill to amend title IV of the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide States with the 
option to allow legal immigrant pregnant women and children to be 
eligible for medical assistance under the medical program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


          immigrant children's health improvement act of 1999

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Immigrant 
Children's Health Improvement Act of 1999. I also want to thank 
Senators McCain, Graham, Mack, Moynihan, and Jeffords for their support 
and cosponsorship of this important legislation.

[[Page S7133]]

  In 1996, legal immigrants in this country lost critical public 
benefits because of changes made under welfare reform. While I 
supported the underlying goals of welfare reform--self sufficiency and 
individual responsibility--I continue to believe that the cuts made to 
immigrants' benefits as part of the 1996 reforms were unwarranted. 
While some of those cuts were reversed in 1997 and again in 1998, we 
still have a long way to improve the lives of the millions of 
immigrants who are legally in this country. The Immigrant Children's 
Health Improvement Act is one small but important step toward this 
goal.
  While cash benefits such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and 
food stamps are critical to the well-being of low-income immigrants, 
access to health care is their largest concern. Immigrants who were 
legally in the country before the enactment of the welfare reform 
legislation are still eligible for Medicaid. However, those 
immigrants--including children and pregnant women--who arrived after 
August 22, 1996, the enactment date of the welfare bill, are barred for 
five years from receiving health benefits under Medicaid or the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). While these individuals 
may still get emergency medical care, they are ineligible for the basic 
medical services that may reduce the need for such emergency care. This 
makes no sense.
  The legislation we are introducing today would fix this problem by 
giving states the option to lift the five-year bar for pregnant women 
and children, allowing this narrow group of legal immigrants to receive 
health care services under either SCHIP or Medicaid. I want to 
emphasize that this legislation does not require states to cover these 
immigrant children--it merely allows the state to do so if it chooses. 
This approach is consistent with Congress' shift toward more state 
flexibility and will provide needed relief to states, such as Rhode 
Island, with high immigrant populations.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important 
measure. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1227

       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 ``Immigrant Children's Health 
     Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. OPTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN ALIEN PREGNANT WOMEN 
                   AND CHILDREN FOR MEDICAID.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of title IV of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611-1614) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 405. OPTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN ALIENS FOR 
                   MEDICAID.

       ``(a) Optional Medicaid Eligibility for Certain Aliens.--A 
     State may elect to waive (through an amendment to its State 
     plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act) the 
     application of sections 401(a), 402(b), 403, and 421 with 
     respect to eligibility for medical assistance under the 
     program defined in section 402(b)(3)(C) (relating to the 
     medicaid program) of aliens who are lawfully residing in the 
     United States (including battered aliens described in section 
     431(c)), within any or all (or any combination) of the 
     following categories of individuals:
       ``(1) Pregnant women.--Women during pregnancy (and during 
     the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the 
     pregnancy).
       ``(2) Children.--Children (as defined under such plan), 
     including optional targeted low-income children described in 
     section 1905(u)(2)(B).''.
       (b) Applicability of Affidavits of Support.--Section 
     213A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1183a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Inapplicability to benefits provided under a state 
     waiver.--For purposes of this section, the term `means-tested 
     public benefits' does not include benefits provided pursuant 
     to a State election and waiver described in section 405 of 
     the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 401(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and section 405'' after ``subsection 
     (b)''.
       (2) Section 402(b)(1) of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1612(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``, section 405,'' after 
     ``403''.
       (3) Section 403(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1613(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``section 405 and'' after ``provided 
     in''.
       (4) Section 421(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1631(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``except as provided in section 405,'' 
     after ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,''.
       (5) Section 1903(v)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396b(v)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and except as 
     permitted under a waiver described in section 405(a) of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996,'' after ``paragraph (2),''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 3. OPTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF IMMIGRANT CHILDREN FOR SCHIP.

       (a) In General.--Section 405 of the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as added by 
     section 2(a), is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and SCHIP'' before the 
     period; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Optional SCHIP Eligibility for Certain Aliens.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State may 
     also elect to waive the application of sections 401(a), 
     402(b), 403, and 421 with respect to eligibility of children 
     for child health assistance under the State child health plan 
     of the State under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.), but only with respect to children who 
     are lawfully residing in the United States (including 
     children who are battered aliens described in section 
     431(c)).
       ``(2) Requirement for election.--A waiver under this 
     subsection may only be in effect for a period in which the 
     State has in effect an election under subsection (a) with 
     respect to the category of individuals described in 
     subsection (a)(2) (relating to children).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to child health assistance for coverage provided for 
     periods beginning on or after October 1, 1999.

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators 
Chafee, Mack, McCain, and Moynihan, to introduce the Immigrant Children 
Health Improvement Act of 1999. I believe that these efforts are 
necessary in order to guarantee a healthy generation of children.
  This legislation is simple. It provides states the option to provide 
health care coverage to legal immigrant children through Medicaid and 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--in essence 
eliminating the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996 as the cutoff 
date for benefits eligibility to children. The welfare reform 
legislation passed in 1996 prohibits states from covering these 
immigrant children during their first five years in the United States. 
This prohibition has serious consequences.
  Children without health insurance do not get important care for 
preventable diseases. Many uninsured children are hospitalized for 
acute asthma attacks that could have been prevented, or suffer from 
permanent hearing loss from untreated ear infections. Without adequate 
health care, common illnesses can turn into life-long crippling 
disease, whereas appropriate treatment and care can help children with 
diseases like diabetes live relatively normal lives. A lack of adequate 
medical care will also hinder the social and educational development of 
children, as children who are sick and left untreated are less ready to 
learn.
  In addition to allowing extended coverage of legal immigrant 
children, this initiative aims to provide Medicaid to legal immigrant 
pregnant women who are also barred from receiving services as a result 
of the 1996 welfare reform law.
  This legislation attempts to diminish the arbitrary cutoff date used 
in the 1996 welfare law to determine the eligibility of legal 
immigrants to benefits they desperately need. Our nation was built by 
people who came to our shores seeking opportunity and a better life, 
and America has greatly benefitted from the talent, resourcefulness, 
determination, and work ethic of many generations of legal immigrants. 
Time and time again, they have restored our faith in the American 
Dream. We should not discriminate between these important members of 
our community based on nothing more than an arbitrary date.
  As our nation enters what promises to be a dynamic century, the 
United States needs a prudent, fair immigration policy to ensure that 
avenues of refuge and opportunity remain open for those seeking 
freedom, justice, and a better life.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague Senator 
Chafee in introducing the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act 
of 1999. This legislation would help provide access to health care 
through the

[[Page S7134]]

Medicaid system for pregnant women and children who are legal 
immigrants.
  In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act making 
critical reforms to our nation's welfare system. This greatly needed 
piece of legislation is dramatically improving our nation's welfare 
system by requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work and 
encouraging individuals to become self-sufficient.
  As my colleagues know, the welfare reform law limits most means-
tested benefits for legal residents who are not citizens. The specific 
provision affecting these benefits is based on the principle that those 
who immigrate to this nation pledge to be self-sufficient, and should 
comply with that agreement. However, I have been concerned that this 
provision is having a negative impact on a vulnerable segment of our 
population, children and pregnant women.
  My concern is not new. While Congress was considering this 
legislation, I raised concerns regarding several provisions which could 
have negative impact on certain vulnerable populations including 
children, pregnant women, the elderly and disabled. I believe our 
nation has a responsibility to provide assistance, when necessary, to 
our most vulnerable citizens, regardless of whether they were born here 
or in another country. I am pleased that Congress has addressed many of 
these concerns and implemented a number of changes to the 1996 welfare 
reform law. However, my concern for the pregnant women and children who 
are legal immigrants but were not protected by the changes implemented 
since 1996 still remains.
  The consequences of lack of insurance are problematic for everyone, 
but they are particularly serious for children. Uninsured and low 
income children are less likely to receive vital primary and 
preventative care services. This is quite discouraging since it is 
repeatedly demonstrated that regular health care visits facilitate the 
continuity of care which plays a critical role in the development of a 
healthy child. For example, one analysis found that children living in 
families with incomes below the poverty line were more likely to go 
without a physician visit than those with Medicaid coverage or those 
with other insurance. The result is many uninsured, low-income children 
not seeking health care services until they are seriously sick. These 
dismal consequences of lack of access to quality health care also have 
disastrous impacts on pregnant women and their unborn children.
  Studies have further demonstrated that many of these children are 
more likely to be hospitalized or receive their care in emergency 
rooms, which means higher health care costs for conditions that could 
have been treated with appropriate outpatient services or prevented 
through regular checkups. Receiving the appropriate prenatal care is 
essential for the health delivery and development for the unborn child 
which can help stave off future, more costly health care needs.
  Under our bill, states would be given the option to allow legal 
immigrant children and pregnant women to have access to medical 
services under the Medicaid program. Again, let me reiterate--this is 
completely optional for the states and is not mandatory This bill would 
provide our states with the flexibility to address the health care 
needs of some of our most vulnerable--our children and pregnant women.
  I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to cosponsor the 
Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 1999, introduced by my 
good friend and colleague Senator Chafee. We are joined by our 
colleagues Senators McCain, Jeffords, and Mack, and by Senator Graham, 
who has long been a leader on this issue.
  This bill includes three provisions which are part of the Fairness 
for Legal Immigrants Act of 1999 (S. 792), which I introduced, along 
with Senator Graham, on April 14th of this year. They would restore 
health coverage to legal immigrants--mostly children--whose eligibility 
for benefits is denied to them by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. It is a crucial step we should 
take. I will continue to work to move forward the broader Fairness for 
Legal Immigrants Act as well because it contains important provisions 
to prevent hunger and help the elderly and disabled.
  The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act would: Permit states 
to provide Medicaid coverage to all eligible legal immigrant children; 
permit states to provide Medicaid coverage to all eligible legal 
immigrant pregnant women; and permit states to provide coverage under 
the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to all eligible legal 
immigrant children.
  Note that these provisions are optional. There are no mandates in 
this bill. It would merely allow states to take common sense steps to 
aid legal immigrant children.
  The problem is that under current law, states are not allowed to 
extend such health care coverage--which is so important for the 
development of healthy children--to families who have come to the U.S. 
after August 22, 1996, until the families have been here for five 
years. Five years is a very long time in the life of a child. Such a 
bar makes little sense for them, and is nonsensical for pregnant women. 
It is common knowledge that access to health care is essential for 
early childhood development. We should, at a minimum, permit states to 
extend coverage to all poor legal immigrant children, no matter when 
they have arrived here. Let me emphasize that under the 1996 law, 
states cannot use federal funds for this--and we are restoring this 
option to them. This builds upon our recent achievements in promoting 
health care for children--legal immigrant children should not be 
neglected in these efforts.
  The provisions of that 1996 law concerning legal immigrants were 
based on the false premise that immigrants are a financial burden to 
American taxpayers. On the contrary. A recent comprehensive study by 
the National Academy of Sciences concluded that immigration actually 
benefits the U.S. economy. In fact, the study found that the average 
legal immigrant contributes $1,800 more in taxes than he or she 
receives in government benefits.
  Many Americans may not realize this, but legal immigrants pay income 
and payroll taxes. And without continued legal immigration, the long-
term financial condition of Social Security and Medicare would be 
worsened. According to the most recent Social Security trustees report, 
a decline in net immigration of 150,000 per year will reduce payroll 
tax revenues and require a 0.1% payroll tax increase to replace.
  It is in our interest to see that these immigrant families have 
healthy children. And it is not merely wise, it is just. These 
immigrants have come here under the rules we have established and they 
have abided by those rules.
  The 1996 law did grevious harm to the safety net for immigrants. Some 
states have begun their own efforts--without federal funding--to assist 
immigrants to make up the difference. Yet a new Urban Institute study 
concluded that ``[d]espite the federal benefit restorations and the 
many states that have chosen to assist immigrants, the social safety 
net for immigrants remains weaker than before welfare reform and 
noncitizens generally have less access to assistance than citizens.'' 
The Urban study also notes that ``[b]y barring many immigrants from 
federal assistance, the federal government shifted costs to states, 
many of which already bore a fiscal burden for providing assistance to 
immigrants.'' We in Washington should do our fair share.
  Mr. President, simple decency requires us to continue to provide a 
measure of a safety net to legal immigrant families. I urge the 
enactment of this legislation to ensure that we do so.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lott, and Mr. 
        Conrad):
  S. 1228. A bill to provide for the development, use, and enforcement 
of a system for labeling violent content in audio and visual media 
products, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                  MEDIA VIOLENCE LABELING ACT OF 1999

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in 
introducing the 21st Century Media Responsibility Act. This bill would 
establish a uniform product labeling system for violent

[[Page S7135]]

content by requiring the manufacturers of motion pictures, video 
programs, interactive video games, and music recording products, 
provide plain-English labels on product packages and advertising so 
that parents can make informed purchasing decisions.
  The most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any 
culture--has, is raising its children. We are failing that 
responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in the 
deaths, and injuries of our kids in the schoolyard and on the streets 
of our neighborhoods and communities.
  Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not 
parenting our children. This is our job, our paramount responsibility, 
and most unfortunately, we are failing. We must get our priorities 
straight, and that means putting our kids first.
  However, parents need help, because our homes and our families--our 
children's minds, are being flooded by a tide of violence. this 
dehumanizing violence pervades our society: our movies depict graphic 
violence; our children are taught to kill and maim by interactive video 
games; much of the music that inundates our children's lives delivers 
messages of hate and violence. Our culture is dominated by media, and 
our children, more so than any generation before them, is vulnerable to 
the images of violence that, unfortunately, are dominant themes in so 
much of what they see, and hear.
  It is beyond debate that exposure to media violence is harmful to 
children. Study after scientific study, beginning with the Surgeon 
General's report in the early 1970's, has established this. Certainly, 
there is a hard consensus in our society that something must be done. 
What this bill makes clear is that the manufacturers and producers of 
these consumer products should have a legal responsibility to provide 
plain-english so that parents can make truly informed decisions about 
what their children consume.
  This is not a rating system. It is a labeling system. it is not 
censorship. We are not talking about limiting free speech. Rather, we 
are talking about providing content labels on highly sophisticated, 
highly targeted, and highly promoted consumer products. This is common 
sense.
 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my 
distinguished colleague and friend, the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator McCain, and my colleague from North Dakota, Senator 
Conrad, in introducing legislation that we believe will move us another 
step forward in ameliorating the culture of violence surrounding our 
children, and in helping parents protect their kids from harm.
  This is a problem that has been much on our minds in the wake of the 
school massacre in Littleton and the other tragic shootings that 
preceded it, a series of events which has continued to reverberate 
through the national consciousness, which has in particular heightened 
our awareness as a nation to the violent images and messages bombarding 
our children, and which has in turn spurred a renewed debate about the 
entertainment media's contributing role in the epidemic of youth 
violence we are experiencing across the nation, not just in suburban 
schools but on the streets and in homes in every community.
  We made an initial attempt to respond to this problem through the 
juvenile justice bill that the Senate recently passed, and I believe it 
was a good start. Senator McCain and I joined Senators Brownback and 
Hatch in cosponsoring a bipartisan amendment that would, among other 
things, authorize an investigation of the entertainment industry's 
marketing practices to determine the extent to which they are targeting 
the sale of ultraviolent, adult-rated products directly to kids.
  This amendment, which was approved unanimously, would also facilitate 
the development of stronger codes of conduct for the various 
entertainment media and thereby encourage them to accept greater 
responsibility for the products they distribute.
  The bill we are introducing today, the 21st Century Media 
Responsibility Act, would build on that initial response and 
significantly improve our efforts in the future to limit children's 
success to inappropriate and potentially harmful products.
  Specifically, it calls for the creation of a uniform labeling system 
for violent entertainment media products, to provide parents with 
clear, easy-to-understand warnings about the amount and degree of 
violence contained in the movies, music, television shows, and video 
games that are being mass-marketed today. Beyond that, it would require 
the businesses where these products are sold or distributed--the movie 
theaters, record and software stores, and rental outlets--to strictly 
enforce these new ratings, and thus prohibit children from buying or 
renting material that is meant for adults and may pose a risk to kids.
  This proposal is premised in many respects on our concerted efforts 
to keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors, and with good reason. As 
with tobacco, decades of research have shown definitively that media 
violence can be seriously harmful to children, that heavy, sustained 
exposure to violent images, particularly those that glamorize murder 
and mayhem and that fail to show any consequences, tends to desensitize 
young viewers and increase the potential they will become violent 
themselves. As with tobacco, and its mascot Joe Camel, we are beginning 
to see substantial evidence indicating that the entertainment industry 
is not satisfied with mass marketing mass murder, but that it is 
actually targeting products to children that the producers themselves 
admit are not appropriate for minors.
  And as with tobacco, we are seeking to change the behavior of a 
multi-billion dollar industry that too often seems locked in deep 
denial, that has shown little inclination to acknowledge there is a 
problem with its products, let alone work with us to find reasonable 
solutions to reduce the threat of media violence to children.
  Of course, there are differences between the tobacco and 
entertainment industries and the products they make. Cigarettes are 
filled with physical substances that have been proven to cause cancer 
in longtime smokers. Violent entertainment products have a less visible 
and physical effect on longtime viewers and listeners, and, more 
significantly, they are forms of speech that enjoy protection under the 
First Amendment.
  It is because of our devotion to the First Amendment that Senator 
McCain and I, along with many other concerned critics, have been 
reluctant to call for government restrictions on the content of movies, 
music, television and video games. All along, we have urged 
entertainment industry leaders to police themselves, to draw lines and 
set higher standards, to balance their right to free expression with 
their responsibilities to the larger community to which they belong. We 
repeated these pleas with a new sense of urgency in the days following 
the shooting at Columbine High School, asking the most influential 
media voices to attend the White House summit meeting the President 
convened and to engage in open dialogue about what all of us can do to 
reduce the likelihood of another Littleton.
  And there has been a smattering of encouraging responses emanating 
from the entertainment media. For example, the Interactive Digital 
Software Association, which represents the video game manufacturers, 
has acknowledged that the grotesque and perverse violence used in some 
advertisements crosses the line, and it is reexamining its marketing 
code to respond to some of the concerns we have raised. Disney for its 
part announced that it would no longer house violent coin-operated 
video games in its amusement parks. The National Association of Theater 
Owners pledged to tighten the enforcement of its policies restricting 
the access of children to R-rated movies. And several prominent 
screenwriters, speaking at a recent forum sponsored by the Writers 
Guild of America, raised concerns about the level of violence in 
today's movies and called on the industry to rethink its fascination 
with murder and mayhem.
  But overall the silence from the men and women who make the decisions 
that shape our culture has been deafening, their denials extremely 
disappointing. Not one CEO from the major entertainment conglomerates--
Sony, Disney, Seagram, Time Warner, Viacom, and Fox--accepted the 
President's invitation to attend the White House summit meeting. And 
since

[[Page S7136]]

then, not one has made a statement accepting some responsibility for 
the culture of violence surrounding our children, or indicating their 
willingness to address their part of the lethal mix that is turning 
kids into killers. What we have heard, from Seagram's Edgar Bronfman 
and Time Warner's Gerald Levin and Viacom's Sumner Redstone, are more 
shrill denials and diversions, along with attacks on those of us in 
Congress who are concerned about what they are doing to our country and 
our kids.
  This is the responsibility vacuum in which we are operating, and this 
is the vacuum we are trying to fill with the legislation we are 
introducing today. Ideally, our bill would be unnecessary. Ideally, the 
various segments of the entertainment industry would agree to adopt and 
implement a set of common-sense, uniform standards that would provide 
for clear and concise labeling of media products, that would prohibit 
the marketing and sales of adult-rated products to children, and that 
would hold producers or retail outlets that violate the code 
accountable for their irresponsibility. But there is no sign that is 
going to happen any time soon, which is why we feel compelled to go 
forward with this proposal today.
  We are not advocating censorship, or placing restrictions on the kind 
of entertainment products that can be made and sold commercially. What 
we are doing through this bill is treating violent media like tobacco 
and other products that pose risks to children, requiring producers to 
provide explicit warnings to parents about potentially harmful content, 
and requiring retailers to take reasonable steps to limit the 
availability of adult-rated products with high doses of violence to 
audiences for which they are designed. That is why we have chosen to 
amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, to accentuate 
the fact that we are not regulating artistic expression but the 
marketing and distribution of commercial products, and that we are not 
criminalizing speech, but demanding truth in labeling and enforcement.
  If a video game company is telling parents a game is not appropriate 
for children under 17, then parents should have a realistic expectation 
that this game will not be marketed or sold to that audience. 
Unfortunately, that is often not the case these days, and we would 
correct that by authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to investigate 
and punish retailers and rental outlets and movie theaters that in 
effect deceive parents about the products they are selling or renting 
to their kids. Specifically, it would authorize the FTC to levy fines 
of up to $10,000 per violation of the act's provisions prohibiting the 
sale or rental of adult-rated products to children.
  This bill does not just respond to concerns of today, but anticipates 
the media landscape of tomorrow. According to most experts, as 
technologies converge over the next few years, more and more of our 
entertainment is going to be delivered through a single wire into the 
home over the Internet. In this radically different universe, it only 
makes sense to modernize the ratings concept to fit the new contours of 
the Information Age, and develop a standard labeling system for the 
video, audio, and interactive games we will consume through a common 
portal. Our legislation will move us in that direction and prod the 
entertainment industry to help parents meet the new challenges of this 
new era, and hopefully usher in a new ethic of media responsibility, a 
goal that is reflected in the bill's title.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to make clear that I do not 
consider this legislation to be ``the'' answer to the threat of media 
violence or the solution to repairing our culture. It won't 
singlehandedly stop media standards from falling, or substitute for 
industry self-restraint. No one bill or combination of laws could 
replace the exercise of corporate citizenship, particularly given our 
respect for the First Amendment. We must continue to push the 
entertainment industry to embrace its responsibilities. But this bill 
is a common-sense, forward looking response that will in fact help 
reduce the harmful influences reaching our children and thereby reduce 
the risk of youth violence. That makes it more than worthwhile, and I 
ask my colleagues to join us in supporting it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 1229. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a foreign pesticide for 
distribution and use within that State; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud sponsor of this 
pesticide harmonization legislation. As many of you are aware, there 
are a number of trade imbalances facing the agricultural industry.
  In my home State of Montana and many other western and mid-western 
states, trade imbalances occur primarily between Canada and the United 
States. However, disparities occur between the United States and many 
foreign countries.
  One of those trade imbalances is pesticide harmonization, which is a 
serious issue for American farmers. There are numerous disparities 
between chemicals and pesticides that are allowed in foreign countries 
and those that are allowed here in the United States.
  In many cases a chemical will have the identical chemical structure 
in both countries but be named and priced differently. Why should an 
American producer be expected to pay twice the amount for an identical 
chemical available in a foreign country for less?
  In order for free trade to truly occur, this issue must be addressed. 
Farmers have dealt with several years of depressed prices with no 
immediate end in sight. To compound the economic crunch American 
farmers are feeling, American agricultural producers must pay nearly 
twice the amount that foreign producers pay in their country for nearly 
the same chemical.
  This leads to a huge disparity between the break-even price on crop 
production between foreign and American farmers, and gives foreign 
producers an unfair advantage. It is unfair for American producers to 
pay twice the amount for pesticides and chemicals as many of our 
trading partners.
  Furthermore, it is against the law for American producers to purchase 
an identical chemical in a foreign country and bring it across the 
border. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be held 
accountable to American producers and assure that producers have the 
same advantages in this country in regards to pesticides and chemicals 
that foreign producers enjoy.
  My bill assures that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will 
be held accountable to domestic agricultural producers. Primarily, it 
mandates that the EPA give mutual recognition to the same chemical 
structures, on both existing and new products, in the United States and 
competing foreign countries.
  It does this by several provisions. First, it permits any 
agricultural individual or group, within a state, to put forth a 
request through the State Ag Commissioner (Head of the Department of 
Agriculture) to the EPA to register chemicals with substantially 
similar make-up to those registered in a foreign country.
  Within 60 days of receiving that request the EPA would be held 
responsible to either accept or deny that request. They must then give 
the same recognition to American producers for chemical structures that 
are substantially similar to cheaper products available in competing 
foreign countries.
  Additionally, my bill will ensure that the Administrator of the EPA 
will take into account both NAFTA and the Canada/U.S. Trade Agreement, 
in making these determinations.
  These provisions will level the pricing structure by making sure that 
chemicals with the same (or substantially similar) structures are 
priced fairly in the United States.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue 
to American farmers and ranchers.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1230. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage the production and use of clean-fuel vehicles, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


        The Electric Vehicle Consumer Incentive Tax Act of 1999

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Electric 
Vehicle Consumer Incentive Tax Act of 1999'' to

[[Page S7137]]

provide new incentives and extend previous ones to spark the zero 
emission vehicle market. This legislation is similar to previous bills 
that I have introduced in the 104th and 105th Congresses.
  I am pleased to see that already the market for electric vehicles is 
emerging. All major domestic automakers and most of foreign automakers 
have zero emission vehicles in the market. However, we still need to 
provide tax incentives to help lower the cost of the new technology 
vehicles. Despite the what appears to be a new understanding from our 
automakers that they must begin to produce environmentally friendly 
vehicles, the costs of these new generation of vehicles are still steep 
for most Americans.
  The need to decrease automobile pollution is still critical. Since 
1970, total U.S. population increased 31 percent and vehicle miles 
traveled--that's our best measure of vehicle use--increased 127 
percent. During that time, emissions for most of the key pollutants 
have decreased from the introduction of new technologies. But we are 
still failing to meet air quality standards in many areas. In fact, the 
emissions of one key pollutant--nitrogen oxides--actually increased 11 
percent from 1970 to 1997. Nitrogen oxides, produced largely from 
automobile fuel combustion, is the building block for smog. About 107 
million Americans were residing in counties that did not meet the air 
quality standards for at least one of the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards pollutants in 1997.
  These emissions still produce profound and troubling impacts on the 
health of Americans, particularly the young.
  That is why I believe Congress should help and encourage Americans to 
purchase or lease zero emission vehicles. Electric vehicles, which 
produce no pollution from their engines, will not become the preferred 
automobile for all Americans, but for many it can become the preferred 
commuter vehicle or city car. Electric vehicles can also help state and 
local governments, and private fleet operators, meet new and future air 
quality requirements.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to say that previous provisions of my 
clean fuel vehicle legislation have become law. The lowering of the 
excise tax on liquified natural gas will help spur the market for that 
fuel for heavy duty vehicles. The repeal of the luxury tax on electric 
vehicles also helps remove or lessen market barriers. But more needs to 
be done. That is why I have introduced the ``Electric Vehicle Consumer 
Incentive Tax Act of 1999.'' U.S. Representative Mac Collins of Georgia 
has introduced the companion bill in the House, H.R. 1108.
  The bill provides four major incentives. First, it removes the 
governmental use restrictions for electric vehicles. At present, the 
Internal Revenue Code prohibits any tax credit taken for property (in 
this case electric vehicles) used by the United States or any state or 
local government. Removing this bar will encourage the leasing of 
electric vehicles for state and local use. By removing restriction on 
governmental use of electric vehicles, owners of electric vehicle 
fleets could ``pass on'' any cost savings from tax credits to the 
government.
  Second, the bill makes large electric trucks, vans, and buses 
eligible for the same tax deduction available now for other clean-fuel 
vehicles under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Large electric trucks, 
vans and buses currently are limited to the maximum tax credit of 
$4,000 under the Code. Other clean-fuel vehicles, however, may receive 
a $50,000 tax deduction. This section of the bill would remove the 
unfair distinction between large electric and other large clean-fuel 
vehicles. Each would qualify for the tax deduction incentive which 
would serve to promote the greatest use of clean-fuel vehicles. The 
bill would end the tax credit for large electric vehicles and provide a 
tax deduction instead.
  Third, the bill provides a flat $4,000 tax credit on the purchase of 
an electric vehicle. Under current law, electric vehicles are eligible 
under the Code for a 10 percent tax credit for the cost of qualified 
electric vehicles, up to a maximum of $4,000. The bill would modify 
that section to provide for a flat $4,000 tax credit (rather than 10 
percent of the purchase price up to $4,000) in order to maximize the 
tax incentive.
  Fourth, the bill extends the sunset period for the tax credit. 
Current law phases out the electric vehicle tax credit beginning in the 
year 2002. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 anticipated that electric 
vehicles would be available commercially in 1992. The first electric 
vehicles were not available to the public until 1997. All major 
automakers now have electric vehicles on the market. However, that 
market is still very small. Therefore, the bill extends the phase out 
for four years with the credit sunsetting December 31, 2008, instead of 
December 31, 2004. The phase out provisions are conformed by amending 
the Code to provide that the credit will be phased out, at a 25 percent 
annual cumulative rate, for each of the three years preceding 
termination.
  I believe these provisions can provide important market incentives 
for Americans to purchase automobiles that do not contribute to urban 
smog or other pollution and at a modest cost in reduced Federal taxes. 
I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation and 
making way for a clean fuel future in the 21st Century.
  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. 1230

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Electric 
     Vehicle Consumer Incentive Tax Act of 1999''.
       (b) Reference to 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. GOVERNMENTAL USE RESTRICTION MODIFIED FOR ELECTRIC 
                   VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 30(d) (relating 
     to special rules) is amended by inserting ``(without regard 
     to paragraph (4)(A)(i) thereof)'' after ``section 50(b)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (5) of section 179A(e) 
     (relating to other definitions and special rules) is amended 
     by inserting ``(without regard to paragraph (4)(A)(i) thereof 
     in the case of a qualified electric vehicle described in 
     subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii) of this 
     section)'' after ``section 50(b)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. LARGE ELECTRIC TRUCKS, VANS, AND BUSES ELIGIBLE FOR 
                   DEDUCTION FOR CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 179A(c) (defining 
     qualified clean-fuel vehicle property) is amended by 
     inserting ``, other than any vehicle described in subclause 
     (I) or (II) of subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii)'' after ``section 
     30(c))''.
       (b) Denial of Credit.--Subsection (c) of section 30 
     (relating to credit for qualified electric vehicles)is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Denial of credit for vehicles for which deduction 
     allowable.--The term `qualified electric vehicle' shall not 
     include any vehicle described in subclause (I) or (II) of 
     section 179A(b)(1)(A)(iii).''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CREDIT AMOUNT AND APPLICATION 
                   AGAINST ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 30 (relating to 
     credit for qualified electric vehicles) is amended by 
     striking ``10 percent of''.
       (b) Application Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--Section 
     30(b) (relating to limitations) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 30(e) (relating to the termination 
     of the credit) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2004'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 30(b)(2) (relating to 
     the phaseout of the credit) is amended by striking ``December 
     31, 2001'' and inserting ``December 31, 2005'' and by 
     striking ``2002'', ``2003'', and ``2004'' and inserting 
     ``2006'', ``2007'', and ``2008'', respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page S7138]]



                          ____________________