[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 21, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1512-S1524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. 
        Lincoln, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Graham, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2254. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, to reauthorize and make improvements to that Act, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions.


   public education reinvestment, reinvention, and responsibility act

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a new plan for 
Federal education spending to refocus our national education policy on 
helping states and local school districts raise academic achievement 
for all children, putting the priority for federal programs on 
performance instead of process, and on delivering results instead of 
developing rules.
  In broad terms, the public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and 
Responsibility Act--better known as the ``Three R's''--calls on states 
and local districts to enter into a new compact with the federal 
government to work together to strengthen standards and improve 
educational opportunities, particularly for America's poorest children. 
It would provide states and local educators with significantly more 
federal funding and significantly more flexibility in targeting aid to 
meet their specific needs. In exchange, it would demand real 
accountability, and for the first time consequences on schools that 
continually fail to show progress.
  From my visits with parents, teachers, and principals over this past 
year, it is clear that we as a nation still share a common love for the 
common school, for its egalitarian mission, for its democratizing 
force, and for its unmatched role in helping generation

[[Page S1513]]

after generation rise and shine. Unfortunately, we are asking schools 
to do more than they were designed to do, to compensate for disengaged 
parents and divided communities--for instructing teenage girls on how 
to raise their children while they try to raise the GPAs, to nourishing 
the bodies and psyches of grade-schoolers who often begin the day 
without breakfast or affection, to policing school halls for guns and 
narcotics.
  At the same that schools are trying to cope with these new and 
complex stresses and strains, we are demanding that they teach more 
than that have ever taught before in our history. The reality is that 
in this high-tech, highly-competitive era, there are fewer low-skilled 
industrial jobs available, and a premium on knowledge and critical 
thinking, meaning it is no longer enough to provide some kids with just 
a rudimentary understanding of the basics. Employers and parents alike 
with better teachers, stronger standards, and higher test scores for 
all students, as well as state-of the art technology and the 
Information Age skills to match.
  It is a tribute to the many dedicated men and women who are 
responsible for teaching our children that the bulk of our schools are 
as good as they are, in light of these intensifying pressures. But the 
strain is nevertheless building, and with it serious doubts about our 
public schools and their capability to meet these challenges. Just this 
fall the Democratic Leadership Council, of which I am proud to serve as 
chairman, released a national survey showing that two-thirds of the 
American people believe our public schools are in crisis.
  I was surprised by that high percentage, which may be skewed somewhat 
by lingering shock over the growing incidents of school shootings. But 
we must admit that our public schools are not working for a lot of our 
kids. And, as a result, I believe that our public education system is 
facing an enormously consequential test, which will go a long way 
toward determining our future strength as a nation. It is a test of our 
time whether we can reform and in some ways reinvent our public 
education system to meet these new demands, without compromising the 
old ideals that have sustained the common school for generations.
  For us to pass this test, we have to first recognize that there are 
serious problems with the performance of many public schools, and that 
public confidence in public education will continue to erode if we do 
not acknowledge and address those problems soon. While student 
achievement is up, we must realize the alarming achievement gap that 
separates minorities from Whites and low-income students from their 
more affluent counterparts. According to the state-by-state reading 
scores of fourth-graders on the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress, the achievement gap between African American and White 
students grew in 16 states between 1992 and 1998. The gap between 
Hispanic and White students grew in nine states over the same period of 
time. We must also question whether our schools are adequately 
preparing our youth to enter the global economy when, in international 
students, U.S. 12th graders score below the international average in 
mathematics and science compared to 21 other nations.
  We also have to acknowledge that we have not done a very good job in 
recent years in providing every child with a well-qualified teacher, a 
critical component to higher student achievement. We are failing to 
attract enough good minds in the teaching profession--one survey of 
college students in 21 different fields of study found that education 
majors ranked 17th in their performance on the SAT. We are failing to 
adequately train enough of these aspiring teachers at education 
schools--in Massachusetts last year, to cite one particularly egregious 
example, 59 percent of the 1,800 candidates who took the state's first-
ever certification exam flunked a literacy test that the state board of 
education chairman rated as at ``about the eighth-grade level.'' And, 
we are failing to deliver teachers to the classroom who truly know 
their subject matter--our national survey found that one-fourth of all 
secondary school teachers did not major in the core area of 
instruction, and that in the school districts with the highest 
concentration of minorities, students have less than a 50 percent 
chance of getting a math or science teacher who has a license or a 
degree in their field.
  With that said, we also have to acknowledge that while more money 
alone wont solve our problems, we cannot honesty expect to reinvent our 
schools without it either. The reality is that there is a tremendous 
need for additional investment in our public schools, not just in urban 
areas but in every kind of community. Thousands of crumbling and 
overcrowded schools to modernize. Two million new teachers to hire and 
train. Billions in spiraling special education costs to meet.

  We also have to recognize the basic math of trying to raise standards 
at a time of profound social turbulence that we will need to expend new 
sums to reach and teach children who in the past we never asked to 
excel, and who in the present will have to overcome enormous hurdles to 
do so. I believe any child can learn--any child--and that has been 
proven over and over again in the best schools in both my home state of 
Connecticut and in many of America's cities.
  There are in fact plenty of positives to highlight in public 
education today, which is something else that we have to acknowledge, 
yet too often don't. I have made a concerted effort over the last few 
years to visit a broad range of schools and programs in Connecticut, 
and I can tell you that there is much happening in our public schools 
that we can be heartened by, proud of, and learn from.
  There is the John Barry Elementary School in Meriden, Connecticut, 
which was singled out by the U.S. Department of Education as a 
Distinguished title I School for its work with disadvantaged students. 
Like many urban schools, Barry has to contend with a high-poverty, 
high-mobility student population, but through Reading Recovery and 
other interventions, Barry has had real success improving the reading 
skills of many of its students.
  There is the Side by Side Charter School in Norwalk, one of 17 
charter schools in Connecticut, which has created an exemplary 
multiracial program in response to the challenge of Sheff v. O'Neill to 
diminish racial isolation. With the freedom that goes with its charter, 
Side by Side is experimenting with a different approach to classroom 
assignments, having students stay with teachers for two consecutive 
years to take advantage of the relationships that develop, and by all 
indications it is working quite well for those kids.
  And there is the BEST program, which, building on previous efforts to 
raise teacher skills and salaries, is now targeting additional state 
aid, training, and mentoring support to help local districts nurture 
new teachers and prepare them to excel. In this regard Connecticut is 
far ahead of most of the country in adapting its teacher quality 
programs to meet today's challenges--setting high performance standards 
both for teachers and those who train them, helping novices meet those 
standards, and holding the ones who don't accountable. The result is 
that Connecticut's blueprint is touted by some, including the National 
Commission on Teaching and America's Future, as a national model for 
others to follow.
  A number of other states, led by Texas and North Carolina, are moving 
in this same direction--refocusing their education systems not on 
process but on performance, not on prescriptive rules and regulations 
but on results. More and more of them are in fact adopting what might 
be called a ``reinvest, reinvent, and responsibility'' strategy, by (1) 
infusing new resources into their public education systems; (2) giving 
local districts more flexibility; and (3) demanding new measures and 
mechanisms of accountability, to increase the chances that these 
investments will yield the intended return, meaning improved academic 
achievement for all students.
  This move to trade flexibility for accountability, and to focus on 
performance instead of process, is not the definitive answer to passing 
the test I outlined earlier, of adapting our public schools to the 
rapidly-changing environment around us. There are obviously other parts 
of the equation, none more important that parental involvement. 
Everything we know from research indicates that an engaged parent makes 
a crucial difference in student achievement, particularly in terms of 
reading, and we have to do

[[Page S1514]]

more to get parents to play a more active role in their children's 
learning. But when it comes to improving the delivery of public 
education, the reinvestment and reinvention approach is the best 
solution I have heard yet, and probably our best hope for extending the 
promise of equal opportunity into the new century.
  In Congress, our opportunity now is with the upcoming reauthorization 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Today, nearly $15 
billion in Federal aid flows through ESEA programs to states and local 
education authorities, and other educational entities annually. While 
this constitutes a minute fraction of all the money spent on public 
education each year, it is still a lot of money, and past experience 
shows that Federal money has a habit of influencing local behavior. If 
we can reformulate the way we distribute those additional dollars, and 
peg our national programs to performance instead of process, we can go 
a long way toward encouraging more states and local school districts to 
reinvest and reinvent public education, while taking more 
responsibility for its outcomes.
  Unfortunately, Congress seems more interested in being an agent of 
recrimination. We spend most of our time positioning ourselves for 
partisan advantage rather than trying to fix serious problems. We 
reduce a complicated issue to a simplistic multiple choice test, 
forcing a false choice between more spending and programs, or block 
grants and vouchers. And, the answer we are left with is none of the 
above.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Bayh, 
Breaux, Graham, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Robb in introducing this 
groundbreaking legislation that signifies that there is a better way, a 
third way to address education reform. It builds on the progress many 
states have already made through the standards movements. It calls for 
streamlining and consolidating the maze of programs under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act into five goal-oriented titles, 
each with more money and fewer strings attached, and all of them geared 
toward encouraging innovation, promoting what works, and ultimately 
raising academic achievement for all students.
  We would concentrate our efforts on closing the achievement gap 
between the haves and have-nots, fostering English proficiency for 
immigrant children, improving the quality of teaching for all children, 
promoting choice and competition within the public system, and 
stimulating innovative and high performance educational initiatives. We 
would ask the states to set performance standards in each of these 
areas, and in exchange for the new funding and flexibility we provide, 
we would hold states accountable for delivering demonstrable results. 
We would reward success and, for the first time in the history of ESEA, 
punish chronic failure.
  We agree with our Democratic colleagues that we need to invest more 
resources if we want to meet the new challenges of the new century, and 
prepare every student to succeed in the classroom. That is why we would 
boost ESEA funding by $35 billion over the next five years. But we also 
believe that the impact of this funding will be severely diluted if it 
is not better targeted to the worst-performing schools and if it is not 
coupled with a demand for results. That is why we not only increase 
Title I funding by 50 percent, but use a more targeted formula for 
distributing these new dollars to schools with the highest 
concentrations of poverty. And that is why we develop a new 
accountability system that strips federal funding from states that 
continually fail to meet their performance goals.
  We also agree with our Republican colleagues that federal education 
programs are too numerous and too bureaucratic. That is why we 
eliminate dozens of federally microtargeted, micromanaged programs that 
are redundant or incidental to our core mission of raising 
academic achievement. But we also believe that we have a great national 
interest in promoting broad national educational goals, chief among 
them delivering on the promise of equal opportunity. It is not only 
foolish, however, but irresponsible to hand out federal dollars with no 
questions asked and no thought of national priorities. That is why we 
carve out separate titles in those areas that we think are critical to 
helping local districts elevate the performance of their schools.

  The first would enhance our longstanding commitment to providing 
extra help to disadvantaged children through the Title I program, while 
better targeting $12 billion in aid--a 50 percent increase in funding--
to schools with the highest concentrations of poor students. The second 
would combine various teacher training and professional development 
programs into a single teacher quality grant, increase funding by 100 
percent to $1.6 billion annually, and challenge each state to pursue 
the kind of bold, performance-based reforms that my own state of 
Connecticut has undertaken with great success.
  The third would reform the Federal bilingual education program and 
hopefully defuse the ongoing controversy surrounding it by making 
absolutely clear that our national mission is to help immigrant 
children learn and master English, as well as achieve high levels of 
achievement in all subjects. We must be willing to back this commitment 
with essential resources required to help ensure that all limited 
English proficient students are served.
  Under our approach, funding for LEP programs would be more than 
doubled to $1 billion a year, and for the first time be distributed to 
states and local districts through a reliable formula, based on their 
LEP student population. As a result, school districts serving large LEP 
and high poverty student populations would be guaranteed federal 
funding, and would not be penalized because of their inability to hire 
savvy proposal writers for competitive grants.
  The fourth would respond to the public demands for greater choice 
within the public school framework, by providing additional resources 
for charter school start-ups and new incentives for expanding local, 
intradistrict choice programs. And the fifth would radically 
restructure the remaining ESEA and ensure that funds are much better 
targeted while giving local districts greater flexibility in addressing 
specific needs. We consolidate more than 20 different programs into a 
single High Performance Initiatives title, with a focus on supporting 
bold new ideas, expanding access to summer school and after school 
programs, improving school safety, and building technological literacy. 
We increase overall funding by more than $200 million, and distribute 
this aid through a formula that targets more resources to the highest 
poverty areas.
  The boldest change we are proposing is to create a new accountability 
title. As of today, we have plenty of rules and requirements on inputs, 
on how funding is to be allocated and who must be served, but little if 
any attention to outcomes, on how schools ultimately perform in 
educating children. This bill would reverse that imbalance by linking 
Federal funding to the progress states and local districts make in 
raising academic achievement. It would call on state and local leaders 
to set specific performance standards and adopt rigorous assessments 
for measuring how each district is faring in meeting those goals. In 
turn, states that exceed those goals would be rewarded with additional 
funds, and those that fail repeatedly to show progress would be 
penalized. In other words, for the first time, there would be 
consequences for poor performance.
  In discussing how exactly to impose those consequences, we have run 
into understandable concerns about whether you can penalize failing 
schools without also penalizing children. The truth is that we are 
punishing many children right now, especially the most vulnerable of 
them, by forcing them to attend chronically troubled schools that are 
accountable to no one, a situation that is just not acceptable anymore. 
This bill minimizes the potential negative impact of these consequences 
on students. It provides the states with three years to set their 
performance-based goals and put in place a monitoring system for 
gauging how local districts are progressing, and also provides 
additional resources for states to help school districts identify and 
improve low-performing schools. If after those three years a state is 
still failing to meet its goals, the state would be penalized by 
cutting its administrative funding by 50 percent. Only after four

[[Page S1515]]

years of under performance would dollars targeted for the classroom be 
put in jeopardy. At that point, protecting kids by continuing to 
subsidize bad schools becomes more like punishing them.
  I must address another concern that may be raised that this is a 
block grant in sheep's clothing. There are substantial differences 
between a straight block-grant approach and this streamlined structure. 
First, in most block-grant proposals the accountability mechanisms are 
vague, weak and often non-existent, which is one reason why I have 
opposed them in the Senate. Our bill would have tangible consequences, 
pegged not just to raising test scores in the more affluent suburban 
areas, but to closing the troubling achievement gap between students in 
poor, largely minority districts and their better-off peers.
  This leads me to another way this bill is different. Unlike many 
block-grant supporters, I strongly believe that we have a great 
national interest and a national obligation to promote specific 
educational goals, chief among them delivering on the promise of equal 
opportunity, and that is reflected in our legislation. While it makes 
sense to streamline and eliminate as many strings as possible on 
Federal aid, to spur innovation and also to maximize the bang for our 
Federal buck, it does not make sense to hand over those Federal bucks 
with no questions asked, and thus eliminate the Federal role in setting 
national priorities. That is why, in the restructuring we have 
developed, we have maintained separate titles for disadvantaged 
students, limited English proficient students, teacher quality, public 
school choice, and high quality education initiatives, all of which, I 
would argue, are critical to raising academic achievement and promoting 
equal opportunity. And that is why of the more than $6 billion increase 
in annual funding I am proposing, $4 billion would be devoted to title 
I and those students most in need of our help.
  It is a fairly common-sense strategy--reinvest in our public schools, 
reinvent the way we administer them, and restore a sense of 
responsibility to the children we are supposed to be serving. Hence the 
title of our bill: the Public Education Reinvention, Reinvestment, and 
Responsibility Act, or the Three R's for short. Our approach is humble 
enough to recognize there are no easy answers to turning around low-
performing schools, to lifting teaching standards, to closing the 
debilitating achievement gap, and that most of those answers won't be 
found here in Washington anyway. But it is ambitious enough to try to 
harness our unique ability to set the national agenda and recast the 
federal government as an active catalyst for success instead of a 
passive enabler of failure.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of great 
importance and urgency to me. We are at a crossroads in American 
education and that is why I join with my colleagues Senators Lieberman, 
Landrieu, Kohl, Lincoln, Breaux, Graham, and Robb in offering the 
Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act.
  Since the middle of the 1800s, when Horace Mann and a group of others 
dedicated our country to the principle that every child should have 
access to a good public education, we have held that out as an ideal 
for our country. In the middle 1960s, there was growing recognition 
that for too many of our children, this principle was really a hollow 
dream. And so, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was 
born. We introduce our version of ESEA today in recognition of the fact 
that for too many millions of American children the dream of a quality 
public education is still sorely lacking.
  The consequences of any of our children not receiving a quality 
education are far greater than ever before. For the first time in our 
nation's history, the growing gap between the educational ``haves'' and 
``have nots'' threatens to create a permanent underclass. If we do not 
address these shortcomings, the knowledge and information gap will lock 
many of our citizens out of the marketplace and prevent them from 
accessing opportunity in the New Economy. We stand here today in 
recognition of the fact that the solutions of the 1960s are inadequate 
to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and the years beyond. We 
stand here today to say the status quo is not good enough; that we must 
do better.
  Our legislation proposes dramatic change in a significant rethinking 
of business as usual when it comes to education policy here in 
Washington, D.C. We propose a substantial increase in our nation's 
investment in education, because we recognize that we can't expect our 
schools, particularly our poorer schools, to get the job done if we 
don't give them the tools to get the job done. We propose an increase 
of $35 billion over five years in Federal education spending, a 50 
percent increase for Title I funding, 90 percent increase for 
professional development funding for teachers, over a 30 percent 
increase for innovative programs, and nearly a doubling in funding for 
Charter schools and Magnet Schools so as to give parents greater public 
school choice. This is a significant investment of public dollars.
  But we do more than just throw money at the problem, because we know 
that taxpayers, parents, and most of all our children, have a right to 
expect more from us. Instead, we focus on accountability. In return for 
increased investment, we insist upon results. We focus on outcomes, not 
incomes. No longer will we define success only in terms of how much 
money is spent, but instead of how much our children know. Can they 
read and write, add and subtract, know basic science?
  No longer will we define accountability in terms of ordering local 
school districts to spend dollars in particular ways, but instead in 
terms of whether our children are getting the skills they need to make 
a successful life for themselves. This is a significant rethinking from 
the things that have prevailed here in Washington for several decades.
  Our proposal also provides a substantial amount of flexibility. We 
don't agree with our colleagues on the far right in block grants which 
would allow money to be diverted from public education or to allow 
dollars to be diverted from focusing on our poorest students. But we do 
allow for local principals and superintendents to have a much greater 
say in determining how best to spend those dollars, because we believe 
that those at the local level who labor in the classrooms and the 
schools every day, can make those decisions far better than those of us 
who now work on the banks of the Potomac.
  It was Thomas Jefferson who said that a society that expects to be 
both ignorant and free is expecting something that never has been and 
never shall be. So we put forward this proposal because we know that 
the cause of improving public education is critically important to our 
economy, critically important to the kind of society that we will be, 
and essential to the vibrancy of our democracy itself.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the 
Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act of 
2000--better known as ``Three R's.'' I have been pleased to work with 
the education community in Wisconsin, as well as Senator Lieberman and 
our other cosponsors, on this important piece of legislation. I believe 
that this bill represents a realistic, effective approach to improving 
public education--where 90 percent of students are educated.
  We have made great strides in the past six years toward improving 
public education. Nearly all States now have academic standards in 
place. More students are taking more challenging courses. Test scores 
have risen slightly. Dropout rates have decreased.
  In Wisconsin, educators have worked hard to help students achieve. 
Fourth-graders and eighth-graders are showing continued improvement on 
State tests in nearly every subject, particularly in science and math. 
Third-graders are scoring higher on reading tests. Test results show 
some improvement across all groups, including African American, 
disabled, and economically disadvantaged groups.
  Unfortunately, despite all of our best efforts, we still face huge 
challenges in improving public schools. The most recent TIMSS study of 
students from 41 different countries found that many American students 
score far behind those in other countries. In Wisconsin, scores in 
math, science and writing are

[[Page S1516]]

getting better but still need improvement. And test scores of students 
from low-income families, while showing some improvement, are still too 
low.
  Mr. President, I strongly support the notion that the Federal 
government must continue to be a partner with States and local 
educators as we strive to improve public schools. As a nation, it is in 
all of our best interests to ensure that our children receive the best 
education possible. It is vital to their future success, and the 
success of our country.
  However, addressing problems in education is going to take more than 
cosmetic reform. We are going to have to take a fresh look at the 
structure of Federal education programs. We need to let go of the tired 
partisan fighting over more spending versus block grants and take a 
middle ground approach that will truly help our States, school 
districts--and most importantly, our students.
  Our ``Three R's'' bill does just that. It makes raising student 
achievement for all students--and eliminating the achievement gap 
between low-income and more affluent students--our top priorities. To 
accomplish this, our bill centers around three principles.
  First, we believe that we must continue to make a stronger investment 
in education, and that Federal dollars must be targeted to the neediest 
students. A recent GAO study found that Federal education dollars are 
significantly more targeted to poor districts than money spent by 
States. Although Federal funds make up only 6-7 percent of all money 
spent on education, it is essential that we target those funds where 
they are needed the most.
  Second, we believe that States and local school districts are in the 
best position to know what their educational needs are. They should be 
given more flexibility to determine how they will use Federal dollars 
to meet those needs.
  Finally--and I believe this is the key component of our approach--we 
believe that in exchange for this increased flexibility, there must 
also be accountability for results. These principles are a pyramid, 
with accountability being the base that supports the federal 
government's grant of flexibility and funds.
  For too long, we have seen a steady stream of Federal dollars flow to 
States and school districts--regardless of how well they educated their 
students. This has to stop. We need to reward schools that do a good 
job. We need to provide assistance and support to schools that are 
struggling to do a better job. And we need to stop subsidizing failure. 
Our highest priority must be educating children--not perpetuating 
broken systems.
  Mr. President, I believe the ``Three R's'' bill is a strong starting 
point for taking a fresh look at public education. We need to build 
upon all the progress we've made, and work to address the problems we 
still face. This bill--by using the concepts of increased funding, 
targeting, flexibility--and most importantly, accountability--
demonstrates how we can work with our State and local partners to make 
sure every child receives the highest quality education--a chance to 
live a successful productive life. I look forward to working with all 
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as education 
groups in my State, as Congress debates ESEA in the coming months.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 2255. A bill to amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to extend the 
moratorium through calendar year 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                  the internet tax freedom act of 2000

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes through 2006. This 
will ensure that Internet commerce remains free from burdensome, 
anticonsumer taxation while we discuss a fair and equitable tax 
structure for our new economy. This bill simply extends the law passed 
by Congress and signed by the President in October 1998.
  The 1998 legislation imposed a moratorium and provided for a 
commission to report to Congress. While the Commission has not yet 
reported its recommendations, it is clear from published reports of 
their deliberations and from interviews with their members that a clear 
consensus is not imminent. More discussions and more time is necessary 
to arrive at a fair conclusion. Although I feel strongly that in the 
end a permanent moratorium is the best policy, which is why I 
introduced legislation to impose a permanent ban on Internet taxes, I 
also have become convinced that we need more time to determine how 
state and local governments will be affected. We need to consider 
whether the macroeconomic benefits of the new economy will outweigh the 
potential losses in direct revenues, how to ensure a level playing 
field for all venues of commerce, and how to simplify the overwhelming 
morass of tax rules, regulations and paperwork so that opportunities 
for new or small businesses are not lost in complex and archaic 
bureaucracy.
  The compromises being discussed by the Commission are a good start to 
the debate, but more time is necessary to pursue these and other 
possible options. It is becoming increasingly clear that the answer to 
taxation of the internet must affect taxation of other commerce media, 
such as catalog sales, as well. We need to reexamine the level of 
services which the public wants to be provided by government and 
determine how to provide necessary revenue to accomplish the people's 
will. We need to ensure that taxation is not simply imposed to increase 
government bureaucracy.
  Recent studies indicate that state and local governments will not 
suffer during this interim period. A June 1999 report by the well-known 
and respected auditing and business consulting firm or Ernst & Young 
concludes that total sales and use taxes not collected by state and 
local governments from Internet e-commerce transactions in 1998 
amounted to only ``one-tenth of one percent of total state and local 
sales and use tax collections.'' Another May 1999 analysis of Internet 
commerce transactions through 2003 by Austan Goolsvee and Jonathan 
Zittrain, published in the National Tax Journal, predicts ``even with a 
70 percent rate of growth in retail e-commerce transactions, a revenue 
loss of less than 2 percent of sales tax revenue.''
  There are multiple reasons for this very marginal impact on state and 
local revenues. First, most of the e-commerce transactions are wither 
business-to-business transactions, or for services, such as financial 
services and travel, which are exempt from sales and use taxes in most 
states. Ernst & Young estimated only 13 percent of the total e-commerce 
sales transactions were of a type which would be subject to sales and 
use taxes if conducted in person.
  Second, as pointed out by Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Zittrain, the 
Internet is a ``trade creator''--that is, many transactions which occur 
through e-commerce would not take place at all without the internet.
  Third, the Internet does not divert sales only from brick and mortar 
retailers, but also from mail order catalogs. Those sales are also 
subject to sales and use tax only where a nexus, a physical presence, 
in the taxing state.
  We are currently seeing a continued rise in state and local revenues. 
Many states are currently debating how to refund money to their 
citizens, whether to cut sales taxes or income taxes. Thus, this 
moratorium should not negatively impact their ability to provide 
services during the interim.
  It is important to look at the full picture here. The Internet is 
filled with web sites of small businesses which are expanding in ways 
which would never have before been economically feasible. For example, 
a small store in a small town which has historically had a limited 
market for its good now has a website that allows it to market and sell 
to people all over the country--all over the world. It increases its 
business and needs to hire more employees, and pays taxes on its 
increased revenues. The states and local governments benefits, not only 
from the additional taxes paid on the revenues, but in the economic 
benefits of additional jobs.
  The potential burden of complying with tax regulations and the 
paperwork involved under current law for as many as 7,500 estimated 
taxing units in this country would ovrwhelm many businesses, especially 
small businesses. An example in the March 13, 2000 edition of 
Interactive Week is instructive. ``If you're a raw peanut, five states 
would require that sales taxes are paid

[[Page S1517]]

on your purchase. If you're roasted, 11 states charge a sales tax. Add 
some honey to that roasting, and now 21 states say you're taxable. Get 
drenched in caramel and mixed with caramel-coated popcorn and suddenly 
you're a snack, and 31 states will call the tax man.''
  While I hope that the debate will conclude with a decision to leave 
the Internet as a ``tax-free-zone,'' I believe that it is important to 
continue the discussion and to move all stakeholders toward a 
consensus. This temporary extension of the moratorium already approved 
by Congress and the President will allow us to do that. This is a good 
compromise which will serve as a catalyst for consideration of the 
broader tax policy issues which need to enter into this discussion to 
ensure a fair and equitable tax system in this country.
  I intend to move this bill through committee expeditiously and look 
forward to debating it on the Senate floor.
  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. 2255

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

     SECTION 1. INTERNET TAX MORATORIUM EXTENDED THROUGH 2006.

       Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 
     151 nt) is amended by striking ``3 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act--'' and inserting ``on December 31, 
     2006:'',
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 2256. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide standards and procedures to guide 
both State and local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement 
officers during internal investigations, interrogation of law 
enforcement officers, and administrative disciplinary hearings, to 
ensure accountability of law enforcement officers, to guarantee the due 
process rights of law enforcement officers, and to require States to 
enact law enforcement discipline, accountability, and due process laws; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


THE STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DUE 
                          PROCESS ACT OF 2000

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Biden to 
introduce the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline, 
Accountability and Due Process Act of 2000. American families can turn 
on the news every night and see the reality of the war against crime 
and drugs. No one understands the dangers of this battle better than 
the men and women on the front lines. I'm talking about our nation's 
police officers.
  We have entrusted the difficult work of protecting society to police 
officers. They know the stress and the strain of walking the daily 
beat, of being caught in the crossfire in a world of gangs and drugs. 
They do a very difficult job, and with few exceptions, they do it with 
honor and skill.
  We should always remember that the vast majority of police officers 
work responsibly and risk their lives for all of us. In the words of 
one officer, `the ultimate sacrifice could occur at any time. * * * 
[The] gangs and criminals have rewritten the rule book.'
  To make matters worse, the pressure of crime and drugs--of gangs and 
thugs--is multiplied by the fear of unjust disciplinary actions. Our 
law enforcement officers face intrusive investigations into their 
professional and personal lives--oftentimes at the behest of some 
recently arrested criminal looking for a payback.
  Unfortunately, many police officers are denied the same basic 
procedural and due process rights that the rest of us enjoy and take 
for granted. As a result, our officers live in the fear of: being 
investigated without notice; being interrogated without an attorney; 
and, being dismissed without a hearing.
  We insist that police officers respect the constitutional rights of 
the citizens they serve. We insist that they adhere to the letter and 
spirit of our laws. We insist that they respect due process in their 
work. It is past time for us to give them the same kind of legal rights 
that every other citizen has come to enjoy. That is why Senator Biden 
and I have introduced this bill.
  This bill strikes an important balance: it makes sure every police 
officer has basic fundamental procedural rights, while at the same time 
ensuring that citizens have the opportunity to raise legitimate 
complaints and concerns about police officer accountability.
  For example, the bill guarantees due process rights to every police 
officer subject to investigation for noncriminal disciplinary action. 
Some of these rights include: the right to be informed of the 
administrative charges prior to being questioned; the right to be 
advised of the results of an investigation; the right to a hearing and 
an opportunity to respond; and the right to be represented by counsel 
or other representative.
  At the same time the bill ensures that legitimate citizen complaints 
against police officers will be actively investigated, and that 
citizens will be informed of the progress and outcome of those 
investigations.
  Finally, I must conclude by explaining that this bill is a product of 
years of input from the men and women who have experienced the daily 
pressures of police service, and continue to endure them. This 
legislation has benefitted from the thoughtful ideas and past support 
of many law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
  In particular, I am grateful to the contribution made by the 
Fraternal Order of Police. Over the past 8 years, I have worked closely 
with the Kentucky FOP to develop and promote this legislation.
  The time has come to protect those who protect us. We must give our 
law enforcement officers the basic and fundamental rights that they 
desperately need and richly deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 2259. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to divide New 
Jersey into two judicial districts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


        creating a northern and southern district of new jersey

 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a 
bill that will help bring more criminals to justice and create a better 
federal judicial system in New Jersey. This legislation will divide the 
federal District of New Jersey into the Southern and Northern Districts 
of New Jersey which will enable the federal courts and federal agencies 
to better serve the approximately 8 million residents of the state. It 
will also bring much needed federal law enforcement resources to the 
state, particularly southern New Jersey.
  Under the bill, the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would 
include 8 of the 21 counties in New Jersey and the Northern District of 
New Jersey would include the remaining 13. The federal courthouses 
would be located in Camden and Trenton for the Southern District and in 
Newark for the Northern District. All federal cases arising in the 
eight-county Southern District would be heard in the federal court in 
Camden or Trenton and cases from the 13-county Northern District would 
be heard in Newark. The bill would also result in the creation of 
several new federal positions for the Southern District including a 
Clerk of the Court, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and a Federal Public 
Defender, among others.
  By creating a new Southern District of New Jersey, more federal 
crime-fighting resources will be brought to a region which crime 
statistics reveal is besieged by violent crime. In 1998, southern New 
Jersey accounted for 25 percent of the state's urban murders, 32 
percent of the state's murder arrests and 33 percent of the state's 
arrests for violent crimes. This initiative will also ensure that 
crime-fighting decisions are made locally instead of by officials who 
are based elsewhere in the state and that law enforcement officials in 
the region will get the resources needed to prosecute crimes 
effectively and expeditiously.
  The creation of two districts will also provide relief from the crush 
of cases that have crowded the dockets of the federal courts in 
southern New Jersey and caused a severe backlog in the system. In 1998 
alone, 281 federal criminal

[[Page S1518]]

cases were filed in federal courts in southern New Jersey and 161 
criminal cases were still pending at the end of the year. In that same 
year, 2,116 civil cases were filed and 1,318 civil cases were pending 
at the end of the year. Moreover, of the 95 federal judicial districts 
across the nation, more than half generated fewer criminal and civil 
cases than southern New Jersey and in some cases with far more federal 
judicial and law enforcement resources. Currently, only 10 percent of 
the FBI agents, 15 percent of the United States Marshals and 18 percent 
of the Drug Enforcement Administration agents in New Jersey are 
assigned to the region. Of the 119 Assistant United States Attorneys in 
the state, only 12 are assigned to South Jersey.
  Finally, the creation of a new Northern and Southern Districts of New 
Jersey is warranted based on the sheer size of the state. The current 
District of New Jersey is the third most populous federal judicial 
district in the nation. Of the 25 states that have a single federal 
judicial district, New Jersey has the largest population and more than 
a dozen states with smaller populations have multiple judicial 
districts. In fact, with more than 2 million residents in the southern 
counties, the population of the proposed Southern District of New 
Jersey would exceed that of almost half of the current judicial 
districts and the proposed Northern District would rank even higher.
  This initiative enjoys broad bipartisan political support in New 
Jersey, and a similar bill has been introduced and cosponsored in the 
U.S. House of Representatives by the entire southern New Jersey 
Congressional delegation. The measure also has strong support in the 
southern counties and is backed by all eight southern county bar 
associations, the South Jersey Police Chief's Association, the Chamber 
of Commerce of Southern New Jersey and various former county 
prosecutors and former federal law enforcement officials.
  While the process of reviewing and deliberating the merits of this 
legislation will be lengthy and time consuming, this is an idea which 
is long overdue. The citizens of New Jersey deserve a better federal 
judicial system and their fair share of federal crime-fighting 
resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure 
passage of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation appear in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2259

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 1978, the Judicial Conference of the United States 
     established a procedure for creating new Federal judicial 
     districts, which is still in force. According to the 
     ``Proceedings of the Judicial Conference, September 21-22, 
     1978'', this procedure requires that 4 principal criteria be 
     taken into consideration in evaluating the establishment of a 
     new Federal judicial district: caseload, judicial 
     administration, geography, and community convenience.
       (2) The criterion of ``caseload'' is found to include the 
     total number of Federal court cases and the number of cases 
     per Federal judge, for both civil and criminal Federal cases.
       (3)(A) The substantial criminal caseload concentrated in 
     the southern counties of New Jersey requires the creation of 
     a separate judicial district.
       (B) 281 Federal criminal cases originated in the 8 southern 
     New Jersey counties in 1998 and were handled by the 5 judges 
     of the Camden vicinage and the 3 judges of the Trenton 
     vicinage.
       (C) The criminal caseload in the southern region of New 
     Jersey exceeds that of 51 of the current Federal judicial 
     districts. Only 44 of the 95 Federal district courts have 
     more criminal cases filed than the southern region of New 
     Jersey.
       (D) For example, in the Eastern District of Virginia (9 
     judges), 110 criminal cases were filed in 1998. In the 
     District of Connecticut (8 judges), only 221 criminal cases 
     were filed in 1998.
       (4)(A) The substantial civil caseload concentrated in the 
     southern counties of New Jersey requires the creation of a 
     separate judicial district.
       (B) 2,116 Federal civil cases originated in the 8 southern 
     New Jersey counties in 1998 and were handled by the 5 judges 
     of the Camden vicinage and the 3 judges of the Trenton 
     vicinage.
       (C) The civil caseload in the southern region of New Jersey 
     exceeds that of 52 of the current Federal judicial districts. 
     Only 43 out of the 95 Federal districts have more civil cases 
     filed than this region of the New Jersey District.
       (D) For example, in the Southern District of West Virginia, 
     a separate judicial district with 5 judges, only 1,315 civil 
     cases were filed in 1998. The Western District of Tennessee, 
     similarly, with 5 judges, had only 1,581 civil cases filed in 
     1998.
       (5) The criterion of ``judicial administration'' is found 
     to include the backlog of pending cases in a Federal judicial 
     district, which hinders the effective resolution of pending 
     business before the court.
       (6)(A) The size of the backlog of pending cases 
     concentrated in the southern counties of New Jersey requires 
     the creation of a separate judicial district.
       (B) The number of pending cases in the Camden vicinage of 
     New Jersey exceeds the number of cases pending before entire 
     judicial districts with similar numbers of judges, clearly 
     indicating that southern New Jersey merits a separate Federal 
     judicial district. For example, there are 1,431 civil cases 
     pending before the Camden vicinage, and only 113 of those 
     were commenced in 1999. The Western District of Tennessee, 
     with 5 judges, had only 1,104 civil cases pending in 1998. 
     The Western District of Oklahoma had only 1,359 civil cases 
     pending in 1998 before 6 judges. Finally, there are 161 
     criminal cases pending before the Camden vicinage, while the 
     entire Southern District of Indiana, with 5 judges, had only 
     116 criminal cases pending in 1998.
       (7) The criterion of ``geography'' is found to mean the 
     accessibility of the central administration of the Federal 
     judicial district to officers of the court, parties with 
     business before the court, and other citizens living within 
     the Federal judicial district.
       (8)(A) The distance between the northern and southern 
     regions of New Jersey creates a substantial barrier to the 
     efficient administration of justice.
       (B) The distance from Newark, New Jersey to Camden, New 
     Jersey is more than 85 miles.
       (C) When a new Federal court district was created in 
     Louisiana in 1971, the distance between New Orleans and Baton 
     Rouge (nearly 80 miles) was cited as a major factor in 
     creating a new district court, as travel difficulties were 
     impeding the timely administration of justice.
       (9) The criterion of ``community convenience'' is found to 
     mean the extent to which creating a new Federal judicial 
     district will allow the court to better serve the population 
     and diverse communities of the area.
       (10)(A) New Jersey's culturally and regionally diverse 
     population of 8,000,000 citizens, widely distributed across a 
     large State, is inconvenienced by having only 1 judicial 
     district.
       (B) Of the 25 States that have only a single Federal 
     judicial district (including Puerto Rico, the United States 
     territories, and the District of Columbia), New Jersey has 
     the highest population.
       (C) More than a dozen States have smaller populations than 
     New Jersey, yet they have multiple Federal judicial 
     districts, including Washington, Oklahoma, Iowa, Georgia, 
     West Virginia, and Missouri.
       (11) In evaluating the creation of a new Southern District 
     of New Jersey, the Judicial Conference should seek the views 
     of the chief judge of the affected district, the judicial 
     council for the affected circuit court, and the affected 
     United States Attorney as representative of the views of the 
     Department of Justice, as required in the procedure 
     established by the ``Proceedings of the Judicial Conference, 
     September 21-22, 1978''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF 2 DISTRICTS IN NEW JERSEY.

       (a) Creation.--Section 110 of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 110. New Jersey

       ``New Jersey is divided into 2 judicial districts to be 
     known as the Northern and Southern Districts of New Jersey.

                          ``Northern District

       ``(a) The Northern District comprises the counties of 
     Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, 
     Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren.
     ``Court for the Northern District shall be held at Newark.

                          ``Southern District

       ``(b) The Southern District comprises the counties of 
     Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, 
     Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem.ER
     ``Court for the Southern District shall be held at Camden and 
     Trenton.''.
       (b) Judgeships.--The item relating to New Jersey in the 
     table set forth in section 133(a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

``New Jersey:
  ``Northern.........................................................9 
  ``Southern.......................................................8''.
       (c) Bankruptcy Judgeships.--The item relating to New Jersey 
     in the table set forth in section 152(a)(1) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``New Jersey:
  ``Northern.........................................................4 
  ``Southern.......................................................4''.

     SEC. 3. DISTRICT JUDGES, BANKRUPTCY JUDGES, MAGISTRATE 
                   JUDGES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, UNITED STATES 
                   MARSHAL, AND FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER.

       (a) Transfer of District Judges.--(1) Any district judge of 
     the District Court of New

[[Page S1519]]

     Jersey who is holding office on the day before the effective 
     date of this Act and whose official duty station is in 
     Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, 
     Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, or Warren 
     County shall, on or after such effective date, be a district 
     judge for the Northern District of New Jersey. Any district 
     judge of the District Court of New Jersey who is holding 
     office on the day before the effective date of this Act and 
     whose official duty station is in Atlantic, Burlington, 
     Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, or Salem 
     County shall, on and after such effective date, be a district 
     judge of the Southern District of New Jersey.
       (2) Whenever a vacancy occurs in a judgeship in either 
     judicial district of New Jersey, the vacancy shall first be 
     offered to those judges appointed before the enactment of 
     this Act and in active service in the other judicial district 
     of New Jersey at the time of the vacancy, and of those judges 
     wishing to fill the vacancy, the judge most senior in service 
     shall fill that vacancy. In such a case, the President shall 
     appoint a judge to fill the vacancy resulting in the district 
     of New Jersey from which such judge left office.
       (b) Transfer of Bankruptcy and Magistrate Judges.--Any 
     bankruptcy judge or magistrate judge of the District Court of 
     New Jersey who is holding office on the day before the 
     effective date of this Act and whose official duty station is 
     in Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, 
     Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, or Warren 
     County shall, on or after such effective date, be a 
     bankruptcy judge or magistrate judge, as the case may be, for 
     the Northern District of New Jersey. Any bankruptcy judge or 
     magistrate judge of the District Court of New Jersey who is 
     holding office on the day before the effective date of this 
     Act and whose official duty station is in Atlantic, 
     Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, 
     or Salem County shall, on and after such effective date, be a 
     bankruptcy judge or magistrate judge, as the case may be, of 
     the Southern District of New Jersey.
       (c) United States Attorney, United States Marshal, and 
     Federal Public Defender.--
       (1) Those in office.--This Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall not affect the tenure of office of the United 
     States attorney, the United States marshal, and the Federal 
     Public Defender, for the District of New Jersey who are in 
     office on the effective date of this Act, except that such 
     individuals shall be the United States attorney, the United 
     States marshal, and the Federal Public Defender, 
     respectively, for the Northern District of New Jersey as of 
     such effective date.
       (2) Appointments.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States 
     attorney and a United States marshal for the Southern 
     District of New Jersey. The Court of Appeals for the Third 
     Circuit shall appoint a Federal Public Defender for the 
     Southern District of New Jersey.
       (d) Pending Cases Not Affected.--This Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall not affect any action 
     commenced before the effective date of this Act and pending 
     in the United States District Court for the District of New 
     Jersey on such date.
       (e) Juries Not Affected.--This Act and the amendments made 
     by this Act shall not affect the composition, or preclude the 
     service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, empaneled, or 
     actually serving in the Judicial District of New Jersey on 
     the effective date of this Act.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Appointments.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the 
     President and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may 
     make the appointments under section 3(c)(2) at any time after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL:
  S. 2260. A bill to allow property owners to maintain existing 
structures designed for human habitation at Lake Sidney, Georgia; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


              THE LAKE SIDNEY LANIER HOME PRESERVATION ACT

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
that is of the utmost importance to a group of homeowners in my state. 
They face one of the most chilling scenarios that could confront a 
property owner--the condemnation and destruction of their home by the 
federal government without compensation.
  The series of events that led to this unfortunate situation began 
nearly fifty years ago. In 1957, Lake Sidney Lanier was completed by 
the United States Army Corps of Engineers to serve as a reservoir for 
Atlanta and as a flood management project for northeast Georgia. Over 
the years this lake, located near the head of the Chattahoochee and 
Chestatee Rivers, developed into one of the great landmarks in my 
state. More importantly, many families have chosen to build homes on 
property adjacent to the lake.
  When the lake is full, water rises to 1,071 feet above sea level. 
When the lake was completed in 1957, the Corps established a flood 
control easement, or ``flood line,'' of 1,085 feet above sea level. The 
Corps decreed that no structures could be built below this line. 
Unfortunately, the Corps did not make an accurate initial survey of 
this easement. Between 1967 and 1972, a second survey of the lake was 
made by foot, and beginning in 1983, yet another survey was begun to 
determine if private structures were violating the Corps easement. This 
survey is about halfway complete.
  In the meantime, properties which were based upon the early surveys 
were sold to families looking to build a home along the lake. Many, if 
not all, of these home owners were unaware of this easement when they 
purchased property along the lake. Therefore, I believe many homes, 
which were believed to be compliant with all Corps property lines when 
constructed, in fact encroach upon the easement. No one is entirely 
sure how many of the thousands of homes along the lake accidentally 
encroach on the Corps' easement.
  Last year, the Corps began enforcing the easement in some areas. They 
decreed that homes which violate the easement must be brought into 
compliance or be destroyed. Now, Mr. President, you and I know very 
well that it is very difficult to move a house. Therefore, destruction 
is often the only option for most home owners.
  To make matters worse, property owners lack legal recourse. Because 
they were unaware of the easement requirement, means for dealing with 
it were not built into their property deeds. In short, numerous home 
owners face a dire situation should the Corps decide to enforce the 
easement all around the lake.
  To solve this problem, today I introduce the Lake Sidney Lanier Home 
Preservation Act. It is both simple and fair. My legislation allows 
home owners who accidentally violated the easement to sign a release 
exempting them from the Corps requirement. In exchange for this, the 
home owner surrenders all rights to legal recourse against the United 
States if the Corps is forced to flood the lake to the easement level. 
At this point, I would like to point out that Lake Lanier has never 
approached the 1,085 foot easement line--its historic high was a full 
seven feet below the flood line, which was recorded in spring 1964. In 
recent years, the lake has been below full pool almost year round.
  Upon enactment of this bill a home owner will have one year to 
request that the Corps survey their property and determine if they need 
to seek a waiver. The home owner not the Corps, pays for the survey. If 
a home is found to be in violation of the easement, the home owner has 
90 days to decide whether to seek a release from the easement, or to 
bring the structure into compliance.
  My bill also applies only to homes built or begun prior to January 1, 
2000. This will provide closure to this issue and discourage any more 
homes from being built below the flood line.
  Mr. President, I wish there were a simple answer to the dilemma 
facing home owners along Lake Lanier. While the Corps has a 
responsibility to fulfill its responsibility to protect citizens in the 
event of a flood, we simply cannot allow hard working families to lose 
their homes in response to a hypothetical situation that could never 
arise.
  My colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr. Deal, introduced 
companion legislation. It is my hope that we can move the Lake Sidney 
Lanier Home Preservation Act forward as quickly as possible, and bring 
peace of mind to home owners caught in a situation beyond their 
control.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Robb, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bayh, 
        and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2261. A bill to encourage the formation of industry-led training 
consortia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                    industry training consortia act

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, along with several of my 
colleagues, I am introducing the Industry

[[Page S1520]]

Training Consortia Act to provide our nation's workforce with the 
information technology and computer skills it needs to meet the 
emerging and rapidly changing requirements of our various technology 
sectors. The purpose of this legislation is to assist our business 
sector in establishing a national technology training infrastructure to 
provide our workforce with the skills it requires to remain competitive 
in the global, high technology marketplace.

  The United States is currently the world's science and technology 
leader. We have achieved this status largely because we have had the 
most skilled, innovative, and competitive workforce in the world. 
Indeed, technical innovation, according to a report by the President's 
Council of Economic Advisers, has been responsible for more than half 
of America's productivity growth over the past fifty years. But 
technology is evolving so rapidly that some of our workers are being 
left behind. If we fail to keep them honed and highly skilled we risk 
losing our competitive edge.
  Having the appropriate information technology skills is becoming more 
and more important in all sectors of our economy, not only in the high 
and biotech industries and the manufacturing sector, but also in the 
so-called low-tech industries. More than half of the new jobs created 
between 1984 and 2005 require or will require some education beyond 
high school. The percentage of workers who use computers at work has 
risen from 25% to 46% between 1984 and 1993. Moreover, firms today are 
not only using more technology, but are also reorganizing production 
processes in new ways, such as cellular production, use of teams, and 
other high performance structures and methods requiring higher levels 
and new kinds of skills.
  A growing number of industries throughout the country are reporting 
serious difficulties in hiring workers with appropriate computer and 
information technology skills. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has 
estimated that between 1998 and 2008 we will need 2 million more newly 
trained and skilled Information Technology workers. That's an average 
of 200,000 additional workers a year.
  In my own State of Maryland, we currently face an estimated shortfall 
of 10-12,000 workers with appropriate technology skills. A Maryland 
Department of Business and Economic Development survey indicates that 
80% of firms which hire manufacturing or skilled trade workers, 
reported significant difficulty in finding applicants with the required 
skills for technology intensive jobs. The same survey indicates that 
more than two-thirds of businesses hiring computer technicians, 
engineers, analysts, or other technical or laboratory personnel 
experienced difficulty finding qualified workers. It also mentions that 
fifty-five percent of firms that hire college-level scientists or 
technical program graduates reported the same difficulty and that 62% 
of these firms reported that their need for hiring these types of 
graduates is expected to increase over the next five years.
  While well intentioned, many existing training programs across the 
country are not structured to address this problem head on, from the 
perspective of industry. And while some post-secondary training 
institutions have reached out to industry and become more customer-
focused, more still must identify ways to respond directly to the 
changing skills needs of our employers. Our community colleges, and 
even four-year colleges and universities, cannot shoulder the entire 
burden of continually reassessing skill needs and providing up-to-date 
training and equipment with which to train workers in relevant 
knowledge and skills. Some colleges and universities have been able to 
establish partnerships with larger firms that have human resource 
departments, but building partnerships with small and medium-sized 
firms has proven more difficult.

  Many firms, but particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, have 
limited capacity to engage in significant and sustained workforce 
development efforts. Managers and owners of most firms are simply too 
busy running their business to develop training systems, especially for 
new or dislocated workers. Firms also often lack information on what 
kind of training they need and where they can get it. As a result, most 
forego training initiatives and instead try to hire workers away from 
other companies in related fields.
  And because workers are so mobile, individual employers are reluctant 
to bear the burden of training employees, whether they are new or 
incumbent workers, simply due to the likelihood that they will leave to 
work for a competitor. Without an adequate return on the investment for 
paying to train their employees, coupled with an increasingly 
competitive global marketplace, many larger companies have begun to cut 
back on their in-house training programs.
  A unique approach, one flexible enough to address the fluctuations, 
transitions and emerging needs of our high technology economy is 
required. In order to train and educate new entrants to the workforce, 
workers dislocated by economic change, and workers already in the 
workplace facing increased demands for higher levels of technology 
related skills, we need an industry driven training infrastructure.
  The legislation I am introducing would establish working groups 
across the country in which employers, public agencies, schools, and 
workers can pool resources and expertise to train workers for emerging 
job opportunities and jobs threatened by economic and technological 
transition. It will help develop targeted consortia of industry, 
workers and training entities across the country to assess where and 
what gaps exist and provide the skills that industry and workers 
require to remain competitive and on the cutting edge.
  Specifically, it would authorize a grants program--to be overseen by 
the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of 
Labor,--and provide up to a $1 million federal match, for every dollar 
invested by state and local governments and the private sector for 
these working groups. The Department of Commerce would be authorized to 
budget $50 million annually for this purpose and funds would be 
allocated through a competitive grants process, with each consortia of 
firms as applicants.
  This legislation will allow industries to identify their own skills 
needs and build these consortia around their common requirements. 
Alliances would serve to harness the expertise of state and local 
officials, educational leaders, regional chapters of trade associations 
and union officials and pool the resources available among these 
entities. But each group would be predominantly made up of industry, 
and would be industry driven. Indeed, if we are going to address what 
is becoming a skills crisis in this country, our businesses must have a 
leadership role in establishing the means by which we continue to build 
and upgrade the skills of workers in technology related fields.
  Smaller scale versions of the types of skills alliances which my 
legislation proposes to develop have already shown promise. In 
Wisconsin, metal-working firms have banded together with the AFL-CIO in 
a publicly sponsored effort that used an abandoned mill building as a 
teaching facility, teaching workers essential skills on state-of-the-
art manufacturing equipment. Rhode Island helped develop a skills 
alliance among plastics firms, who then worked with a local community 
college to create a polymer training laboratory linked to an 
apprenticeship program that guarantees jobs for graduates. In 
Washington, DC telecommunications firms donated computers, and helped 
to set up a program to train public high school students to be computer 
network administrators and are now hiring graduates of the program at 
an entry-level salary of $25,000-30,000.
  With these grants, this approach can grow and flourish. Each of these 
initiatives is an investment in our workforce for the 21st Century. If 
we are to truly transition the U.S. worker to a technology based 
economy, we must ensure that these best practice examples become 
standard practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring the 
swift enactment of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S1521]]

                                S. 2261

       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 ``Industry Training Consortia 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       In this Act:
       (1) Employer.--The term ``employer'' includes a business.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.

                         TITLE I--SKILL GRANTS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     and coordination with the Secretary of Labor and the 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration, shall 
     provide grants to eligible entities described in subsection 
     (b). The Secretary shall provide the grants to encourage 
     employers to form consortia to share the cost of providing, 
     and reduce the risk of investing in, employer-led education 
     and training programs for employees that meet employer needs 
     and market demand in specific occupations, for purposes of 
     strengthening United States competitiveness.
       (b) Eligible Entities Described.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible entity described in this 
     subsection is a consortium that--
       (A) shall consist of representatives from not fewer than 10 
     employers (or nonprofit organizations that represent 
     employers) who are in a common industry or who have common 
     skill needs; and
       (B) may consist of representatives from 1 or more of the 
     following:
       (i) Labor organizations.
       (ii) State and local government agencies.
       (iii) Education organizations.
       (2) Majority of representatives.--A majority of the 
     representatives comprising the consortium shall be 
     representatives described in paragraph (1)(A).
       (c) Priority for Small Businesses.--In providing grants 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to an 
     eligible entity if a majority of representatives forming the 
     entity represent small-business concerns, as described in 
     section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
       (d) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant 
     provided to an eligible entity under subsection (a) may not 
     exceed $1,000,000 for any fiscal year.

     SEC. 102. APPLICATION.

       To be eligible to receive a grant under section 101, an 
     eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 
     as the Secretary may reasonably require.

     SEC. 103. USE OF AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not provide a grant 
     under section 101 to an eligible entity unless such entity 
     agrees to use amounts received from such grant to develop an 
     employer-led education and training program (which may be 
     focused on developing skills related to computer technology, 
     computer-based manufacturing technology, telecommunications, 
     and other information technologies) necessary to meet 
     employer needs and market demand in specific occupations.
       (b) Conduct of Program.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program described in 
     subsection (a), the eligible entity may provide for--
       (A) an assessment of training and job skill needs for 
     industry and other employers;
       (B) development of a sequence of skill standards that are 
     correlated with advanced industry or occupational practices;
       (C) development of curriculum and training methods;
       (D) purchase or receipt of donations of training equipment;
       (E) identification of education and training providers;
       (F) development of apprenticeship programs;
       (G) development of education and training programs for 
     incumbent and dislocated workers and new workers;
       (H) development of the membership of the entity;
       (I) development of internship, field, and technical project 
     experiences; and
       (J) provision of assistance to member employers in their 
     human resource development planning.
       (2) Additional requirement.--In carrying out the program 
     described in subsection (a), the eligible entity shall--
       (A) provide for development and tracking of performance 
     outcome measures for the program and the education and 
     training providers involved in the program; and
       (B) prepare and submit to the Secretary such reports as the 
     Secretary may require on best practices developed by the 
     entity through the education and training program.
       (c) Administrative Costs.--The eligible entity may use not 
     more than 10 percent of the amount of such a grant to pay for 
     administrative costs associated with the program described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 104. REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.

       The Secretary may not provide a grant under section 101 to 
     an eligible entity unless such entity agrees that--
       (1) the entity will make available non-Federal 
     contributions toward the costs of carrying out activities 
     under section 103 in an amount that is not less than $2 for 
     each $1 of Federal funds provided under a grant under section 
     101; and
       (2) of such non-Federal contributions, not less than $1 of 
     each such $2 shall be from employers with representatives 
     serving on the eligible entity.

     SEC. 105. LIMIT ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       The Secretary may use not more than 5 percent of the funds 
     made available to carry out this title--
       (1) to pay for Federal administrative costs associated with 
     making grants under this title, including carrying out 
     activities described in section 106; and
       (2) to develop and maintain an electronic clearinghouse of 
     information on industry-led training consortia programs.

     SEC. 106. INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary shall distribute information and provide 
     technical assistance to eligible entities on best practices 
     developed through the education and training programs.

     SEC. 107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, 
     and 2003.

                       TITLE II--PLANNING GRANTS

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Labor, shall provide grants to States 
     to enable the States to assist employers, organizations, and 
     agencies described in section 101(b) in conducting planning 
     to form consortia described in such section.
       (b) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant 
     provided to a State under subsection (a) may not exceed 
     $500,000 for any fiscal year.

     SEC. 202. APPLICATION.

       To be eligible to receive a grant under section 201, a 
     State shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.

     SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.

       The Secretary may not provide a grant under section 201 to 
     a State unless such State agrees that the State will make 
     available non-Federal contributions toward the costs of 
     carrying out activities under this title in an amount that is 
     not less than $1 for each $1 of Federal funds provided under 
     a grant under section 201.

     SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mrs. 
        Hutchison):
  S. 2264. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish 
within the Veterans Health Administration the position of Advisor on 
Physician Assistants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.


   recognition of physician assistants in the department of veterans 
                          affairs act of 2000

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today 
the ``Recognition of Physician Assistants in the Department of Veterans 
Affairs Act of 2000,'' which I am delighted to cosponsor with Senators 
Jeffords and Hutchison. The bill before us would establish within the 
Veterans Health Administration an advisory position on physician 
assistants--an action long overdue.
  It is baffling to me that the VA--the largest single employer of 
physician assistants in the country--does not provide direct 
representation for physician assistants. VA has nearly 1,200 physician 
assistants working in hospitals and clinics, yet VA is the only federal 
health care agency that does not have a physician assistant in a 
leadership role. Skimming through the VA phone directory, we find much 
needed representation for social workers, dentists, audiologists and 
speech pathologists, nutritionists, recreational therapists, and 
nurses. Physician assistants, however, are hidden within the bailiwick 
of the Chief Consultant for Primary and Ambulatory Care.
  This lack of physician assistant leadership has translated into a 
lack of knowledge about the profession at the national level--which, in 
turn, has filtered down to the local level. For example, the scope of 
practice for physician assistants is not uniformly understood in all VA 
medical facilities and clinics. Practitioners in the field also report 
confusion regarding such issues as privileging, supervision, and 
physician countersignature. Some facilities unnecessarily restrict the 
ability of physician assistants to provide medical care, while others 
will not hire physician assistants. The unfortunate consequence of 
these restrictions is to limit veterans' access to quality medical 
care.
  In June 1997, the final report of a work group to explore internal 
practice barriers for Advanced Practice Nurses,

[[Page S1522]]

Clinical Pharmacy Specialists, and Physician Assistants was issued. To 
date, we have seen no response regarding what VA plans to do to 
implement the recommendations contained in the report.
  Although the work group's report does not contain a specific 
recommendation for an advisory position, the report clearly states that 
``many times unnecessary, inappropriate restrictions have been placed 
on their [PAs] practice.'' An advisor would be especially helpful in 
clarifying all issues associated with the profession, including 
education, qualifications, clinical privileges, and scope of practice. 
I firmly believe that such an advisor is the key to removing barriers 
to greater use of these valued health care professionals. I also 
encourage VA to move ahead with the other recommendations contained in 
the work group report.
  I personally understand the huge importance of physician assistants. 
My own state of West Virginia is highly dependent upon their expertise. 
We count on them to provide quality health care in a cost-effective 
way.
  In closing, I thank the Veterans Affairs Physician Assistants 
Association, which has always provided me with the most up-to-date 
information about the state of the physician assistant profession. I 
hope the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will work expeditiously to pass 
this bill out of committee. Physician assistants--and their patients--
are depending upon it.
  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. 2264

       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 ``Recognition of Physician 
     Assistants in the Department of Veterans Affairs Act of 
     2000''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION OF ADVISOR ON PHYSICIAN 
                   ASSISTANTS WITHIN OFFICE OF UNDERSECRETARY FOR 
                   HEALTH.

       (a) Establishment.--Subsection (a) of section 7306 of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new 
     paragraph (9):
       ``(9) The Advisor on Physician Assistants, who shall carry 
     out the responsibilities set forth in subsection (f).''.
       (b) Responsibilities.--That section is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection (f):
       ``(f) The Advisor on Physician Assistants under subsection 
     (a)(9) shall--
       ``(1) advise the Under Secretary for Health on matters 
     regarding the optimal utilization of physician assistants by 
     the Veterans Health Administration;
       ``(2) advise the Under Secretary for Health on the 
     feasibility and desirability of establishing clinical 
     privileges and practice areas for physician assistants in the 
     Administration;
       ``(3) develop initiatives to facilitate the utilization of 
     the full range of clinical capabilities of the physician 
     assistants employed by the Administration;
       ``(4) provide advice on policies affecting the employment 
     of physician assistants by the Administration, including 
     policies on educational requirements, national certification, 
     recruitment and retention, staff development, and the 
     availability of educational assistance (including 
     scholarship, tuition reimbursement, and loan repayment 
     assistance); and
       ``(5) carry out such other responsibilities as the Under 
     Secretary for Health shall specify.''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators 
Rockefeller and Hutchison in the introduction of the Recognition of 
Physician Assistants in the Department of Veterans Affairs Act of 2000. 
This legislation will establish a position of advisor on physician 
assistants within the office of the Undersecretary of Health for 
Veterans Affairs.
  Physician assistant are very valuable members of the VA health care 
delivery team. But unlike most components of the team, physician 
assistants have no representative within the VA's Office of the 
Undersecretary for Health. As the largest employer of physician 
assistants in the country, the VA will be establishing important 
precedents as the role of physician assistants evolves over the coming 
decade. Physician assistants must be part of the discussion and 
represented at the level where key health care delivery decisions are 
made.
  An advisory position would be established by this legislation to 
inform the Undersecretary for Health on such matters as optimal 
utilization of physician assistants by the VA, the advisability of 
establishing clinical privileges and practice areas, the development of 
appropriate educational requirements and certification criteria, and 
other matters.
  This representation is critically important at this time. As the VA 
moves toward Medicare Subvention and the requisite billing expertise, 
questions will continually arise surrounding the role of physician 
assistants. There must be consistent input on these matters directly 
from physician assistants.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this legislation and I 
hope it is quickly enacted into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. 
        Inhofe):
  S. 2265. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
preserve marginal domestic oil and natural gas well production, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 MARGINAL WELL PRESERVATION ACT OF 2000

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with 
my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, and the other cosponsors 
of the bill, the Marginal Well Preservation Act of 2000. This bill 
represents a necessary and workable proposal to ensure that the United 
States does not lose even more of its domestic energy production and to 
help prevent the further escalation of gasoline, diesel, and home 
heating oil prices for consumers.
  Mr. President, just a few days ago, on March 18, President Clinton 
announced his support of a number of provisions to respond to the 
recent spike in oil and gasoline prices in America. Among the issues to 
which he referred, I was most pleased and surprised to hear the 
president express his support for, quote, `tax incentives . . . for 
domestic oil production,' enquote.
  Well I for one welcome the President's long overdue endorsement of an 
issue that I and many other Senators have been promoting, discussing, 
and introducing legislation on for years. It is unfortunate that the 
President's newfound support for domestic oil production comes now, 
rather than a year ago when our domestic producers were being wiped-out 
by record low oil prices and when communities across Texas and other 
states were having their economic and tax base decimated. Nevertheless, 
I do welcome the president's comments, and I urge him to now turn those 
comments into action.
  I publicly urge him and the Treasury Department to pledge to sign 
into law, and to urge Congress to pass, the bill we are introducing 
today. Called the Marginal Well Preservation Act of 2000, this bill 
borrows from legislation I introduced earlier this year to create 
incentives to keep marginal wells (those producing fewer than 15 
barrels per day--and a corresponding level for natural gas) in 
production during times when oil and gas prices fall below break-even. 
The bill also contains provisions that the Administration explicitly 
endorsed over the weekend: the same-year deduction of geological and 
geophysical (exploratory) and delay rental costs associated with lease 
development. Taken together, these two provisions will help ensure a 
minimal level of protection for our nation's independent oil and gas 
producers and will help prevent America from becoming even more 
dangerously dependent on foreign oil.
  Mr. President, in addition to the President's recent round of 
proposals, tt seems as if everyone these days has their own ``quick 
fix'' to address the recent spike in oil and gas prices. But regardless 
of what short term solutions may be proposed, as America slips further 
and further into dependence on foreign oil the volatility of oil and 
gasoline prices is almost certain to get worse. The only logical 
response to this crisis is to increase our domestic supply of oil and 
gas.
  Much of the estimated 350 billion barrels of our domestic oil reserve 
lies not on public lands, but on private property where oil and gas 
production already occurs. Why isn't that oil and

[[Page S1523]]

gas being produced? The answer is that much of it is in small pockets 
and is relatively difficult to retrieve. Such ``marginal well'' 
production accounts for roughly 20 percent of our domestic oil 
production, or about as much as we import from Saudi Arabia.
  But while these wells are critical to our energy security, they are 
the most susceptible to oil price crashes, like we saw during 1998 when 
oil fell below $10 per barrel. During this time we lost over 65,000 
American jobs and over 150,000 marginal oil and gas wells. And despite 
the high price of oil today, the small, independent producers that own 
the majority of marginal wells cannot assume the economic risk of re-
opening them because there is no assurance that the price of oil will 
not again fall in the near future (see enclosed article).
  The Marginal Well Preservation Act will provide a tax credit of $3 
per barrel for the first three barrels of production when oil falls to 
between $17 and $14 per barrel for oil, and a corresponding price for 
natural gas. This represents the average break-even price for these 
wells. In states like Texas, where marginal well tax incentives have 
been enacted, the result has been to keep thousands of wells open that 
would have been closed, and thousands of American jobs here that would 
have moved overseas. Such a tax credit at the federal level would 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help us meet our growing 
demand for natural gas.
  If we were to enact the marginal well tax credit today, we would not 
only ensure a long-term safety net for producers, but we would also 
create an incentive today to re-open those shut-in wells. In fact, a 
reasonable estimate is that, within a reasonably short period of time, 
we could bring half, or 75,000 of those shut-in wells back into 
production. This would mean an addition of about 250,000 barrels of 
daily production. Given that America uses 19 million barrels of oil per 
day this may not seem like much, but when one considers just how tight 
the supply of oil is today, this relatively small increase in 
production could have a significant impact in the price of crude oil 
and oil products like gasoline and diesel fuel.
  In addition, Mr. President, this bill brings the U.S. Tax Code in 
line with the present-day realities of the oil and gas industry by 
allowing oil and gas exploration (geological and geophysical) costs to 
be expensed rather than capitalized, and by allowing delay rental lease 
payments to be deducted in the year in which they are paid, rather than 
when the oil is actually pumped. The Administration's own endorsement 
of this measure, which I and others have been promoting for years, 
should mean it's quick enactment into law, and I hope that it does.
  In fact, the Administration estimates that allowing the expensing of 
exploration costs alone could spur an additional daily production of 
126,000 barrels, on top of the roughly quarter million barrels that the 
marginal well provision would bring back in the near-term. For those 
keeping score, that totals almost 400,000 barrels of added daily 
production that can conservatively be expected to result from the 
passage of this bill. But it must be done soon. We are quickly 
approaching a $2 per gallon nationwide price for gasoline, and we have 
not even entered the peak vacation driving season. Americans need 
relief now, and this bill will give it to them.
  Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue, and I appreciate the 
support of Senator Breaux and my other colleagues who are cosponsoring 
the bill. Most importantly, I urge the President and my other 
colleagues in the Senate, particularly those from non-energy producing 
states, to join with us in supporting this effort. High prices and low 
prices are two sides of the same coin, and it is high time we realize 
that. Price dives are as detrimental to producers as price spikes are 
to consumers.
  We can break this cycle, and we can do it now by passing the Marginal 
Well Preservation Act.
  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. 2265

       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 ``Marginal 
     Well Preservation Act of 2000.''
       (b) Amendment of 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. TAX CREDIT FOR MARGINAL DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS 
                   WELL PRODUCTION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to prevent the 
     abandonment of marginal oil and gas wells responsible for 
     half of the domestic production of oil and gas in the United 
     States.
       (b) Credit for Producing Oil and Gas From Marginal Wells.--
     Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating 
     to business credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 45D. CREDIT FOR PRODUCING OIL AND GAS FROM MARGINAL 
                   WELLS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the 
     marginal well production credit for any taxable year is an 
     amount equal to the product of--
       ``(1) the credit amount, and
       ``(2) the qualified crude oil production and the qualified 
     natural gas production which is attributable to the taxpayer.
       ``(b) Credit Amount.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The credit amount is--
       ``(A) $3 per barrel of qualified crude oil production, and
       ``(B) 50 cents per 1,000 cubic feet of qualified natural 
     gas production.
       ``(2) Reduction as oil and gas prices increase.--
       ``(A) In general.--The $3 and 50 cents amounts under 
     paragraph (1) shall each be reduced (but not below zero) by 
     an amount which bears the same ratio to such amount 
     (determined without regard to this paragraph) as--
       ``(i) the excess (if any) of the applicable reference price 
     over $14 ($1.56 for qualified natural gas production), bears 
     to
       ``(ii) $3 ($0.33 for qualified natural gas production).

     The applicable reference price for a taxable year is the 
     reference price for the calendar year preceding the calendar 
     year in which the taxable year begins.
       ``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2000, each of the 
     dollar amounts contained in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     increased to an amount equal to such dollar amount multiplied 
     by the inflation adjustment factor for such calendar year 
     (determined under section 43(b)(3)(B) by substituting `1999' 
     for `1990').
       ``(C) Reference price.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     term `reference price' means, with respect to any calendar 
     year--
       ``(i) in the case of qualified crude oil production, the 
     reference price determined under section 29(d)(2)(C), and
       ``(ii) in the case of qualified natural gas production, the 
     Secretary's estimate of the annual average wellhead price per 
     1,000 cubic feet for all domestic natural gas.
       ``(c) Qualified Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production.--For 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The terms `qualified crude oil 
     production' and `qualified natural gas production' mean 
     domestic crude oil or natural gas which is produced from a 
     marginal well.
       ``(2) Limitation on amount of production which may 
     qualify.--
       ``(A) In general.--Crude oil or natural gas produced during 
     any taxable year from any well shall not be treated as 
     qualified crude oil production or qualified natural gas 
     production to the extent production from the well during the 
     taxable year exceeds 1,095 barrels or barrel equivalents.
       ``(B) Proportionate reductions.--
       ``(i) Short taxable years.--In the case of a short taxable 
     year, the limitations under this paragraph shall be 
     proportionately reduced to reflect the ratio which the number 
     of days in such taxable year bears to 365.
       ``(ii) Wells not in production entire year.--In the case of 
     a well which is not capable of production during each day of 
     a taxable year, the limitations under this paragraph 
     applicable to the well shall be proportionately reduced to 
     reflect the ratio which the number of days of production 
     bears to the total number of days in the taxable year.
       ``(3) Definitions.--
       ``(A) Marginal well.--The term `marginal well' means a 
     domestic well--
       ``(i) the production from which during the taxable year is 
     treated as marginal production under section 613A(c)(6), or
       ``(ii) which, during the taxable year--

       ``(I) has average daily production of not more than 25 
     barrel equivalents, and
       ``(II) produces water at a rate not less than 95 percent of 
     total well effluent.

       ``(B) Crude oil, etc.--The terms `crude oil', `natural 
     gas', `domestic', and `barrel' have the meanings given such 
     terms by section 613A(e).
       ``(C) Barrel equivalent.--The term `barrel equivalent' 
     means, with respect to natural gas, a conversion ratio of 
     6,000 cubic feet of natural gas to 1 barrel of crude oil.
       ``(d) Other Rules.--

[[Page S1524]]

       ``(1) Production attributable to the taxpayer.--In the case 
     of a marginal well in which there is more than one owner of 
     operating interests in the well and the crude oil or natural 
     gas production exceeds the limitation under subsection 
     (c)(2), qualifying crude oil production or qualifying natural 
     gas production attributable to the taxpayer shall be 
     determined on the basis of the ratio which taxpayer's revenue 
     interest in the production bears to the aggregate of the 
     revenue interests of all operating interest owners in the 
     production.
       ``(2) Operating interest required.--Any credit under this 
     section may be claimed only on production which is 
     attributable to the holder of an operating interest.
       ``(3) Production from nonconventional sources excluded.--In 
     the case of production from a marginal well which is eligible 
     for the credit allowed under section 29 for the taxable year, 
     no credit shall be allowable under this section unless the 
     taxpayer elects not to claim the credit under section 29 with 
     respect to the well.''
       ``(c) Credit Treated as Business Credit.--Section 38(b) is 
     amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11), by 
     striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and 
     inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(13) the marginal oil and gas well production credit 
     determined under section 45D(a).''
       (d) Credit Allowed Against Regular and Minimum Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 38 (relating to 
     limitation based on amount of tax) is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting 
     after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rules for marginal oil and gas well 
     production credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of the marginal oil and gas 
     well production credit--
       ``(i) this section and section 39 shall be applied 
     separately with respect to the credit, and
       ``(ii) in applying paragraph (1) to the credit--

       ``(I) subparagraphs (A) and (B) thereof shall not apply, 
     and
       ``(II) the limitation under paragraph (1) (as modified by 
     subclause (I)) shall be reduced by the credit allowed under 
     subsection (a) for the taxable year (other than the marginal 
     oil and gas well production credit).

       ``(B) Marginal oil and gas well production credit.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `marginal oil and gas 
     well production credit' means the credit allowable under 
     subsection (a) by reason of section 45D(a).''
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subclause (II) of section 
     38(c)(2)(A)(ii) is amended by inserting ``or the marginal oil 
     and gas well production credit'' after ``employment credit''.
       (e) Carryback.--Subsection (a) of section 39 (relating to 
     carryback and carryforward of unused credits generally) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) 10-year carryback for marginal oil and gas well 
     production credit.--In the case of the marginal oil and gas 
     well production credit--
       ``(A) this section shall be applied separately from the 
     business credit (other than the marginal oil and gas well 
     production credit),
       ``(B) paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `10 
     taxable years' for `1 taxable years' in subparagraph (A) 
     thereof, and
       ``(C) paragraph (2) shall be applied--
       ``(i) by substituting `31 taxable years' for `21 taxable 
     years' in subparagraph (A) thereof, and
       ``(ii) by substituting `30 taxable years' for `20 taxable 
     years' in subparagraph (B) thereof.''
       (f) Coordination With Section 29.--Section 29(a) is amended 
     by striking ``There'' and inserting ``At the election of the 
     taxpayer, there''.
       (g) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following item:

``Sec. 45D. Credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells.''

       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to production in taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 1999.

     SEC. 3. ELECTION TO EXPENSE GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL 
                   EXPENDITURES AND DELAY RENTAL PAYMENTS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to recognize 
     that geological and geophysical expenditures and delay 
     rentals are ordinary and necessary business expenses that 
     should be deducted in the year the expense is incurred.
       (b) Election To Expense Geological and Geophysical 
     Expenditures.--
       (1) In general.--Section 263 (relating to capital 
     expenditures) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(j) Geological and Geophysical Expenditures for Oil and 
     Gas Wells.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a taxpayer may 
     elect to treat geological and geophysical expenses incurred 
     in connection with the exploration for, or development of, 
     oil or gas as expenses which are not chargeable to capital 
     account. Any expenses so treated shall be allowed as a 
     deduction in the taxable year in which paid or incurred.''
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 263A(c)(3) is amended by 
     inserting ``263(j),'' after ``263(i),''.
       (3) Effective date.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to expenses paid or incurred after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Transition rule.--In the case of any expenses described 
     in section 263(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     added by this subsection, which were paid or incurred on or 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act, the taxpayer 
     may elect, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     of the Treasury may prescribe, to amortize the suspended 
     portion of such expenses over the 36-month period beginning 
     with the month in which the date of the enactment of this Act 
     occurs. For purposes of this subparagraph, the suspended 
     portion of any expense is that portion of such expense which, 
     as of the first day of the 36-month period, has not been 
     included in the cost of a property or otherwise deducted.
       (c) Election To Expense Delay Rental Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 263 (relating to capital 
     expenditures), as amended by subsection (b)(1), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Delay Rental Payments for Domestic Oil and Gas 
     Wells.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a 
     taxpayer may elect to treat delay rental payments incurred in 
     connection with the development of oil or gas within the 
     United States (as defined in section 638) as payments which 
     are not chargeable to capital account. Any payments so 
     treated shall be allowed as a deduction in the taxable year 
     in which paid or incurred.
       ``(2) Delay rental payments.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the term `delay rental payment' means an amount paid for 
     the privilege of deferring the drilling of an oil or gas well 
     under an oil or gas lease.''
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 263A(c)(3), as amended 
     by subsection (b)(2), is amended by inserting ``263(k),'' 
     after ``263(j),''.
       (3) Effective date.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to payments made or incurred after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Transition rule.--In the case of any payments described 
     in section 263(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     added by this subsection, which were made or incurred on or 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act, the taxpayer 
     may elect, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     of the Treasury may prescribe, to amortize the suspended 
     portion of such payments over the 36-month period beginning 
     with the month in which the date of the enactment of this Act 
     occurs. For purposes of this subparagraph, the suspended 
     portion of any payment is that portion of such payment which, 
     as of the first day of the 36-month period, has not been 
     included in the cost of a property or otherwise deducted.

                          ____________________