Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1596-S1610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Conrad, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeWine,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Feingold,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Robb, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Roth, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thurmond,
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, Mr. Wellstone, and
Mr. Wyden):
S. 2266. A bill to provide for the minting of commemorative coins to
support the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Winter Games and the programs of the
United States Olympic Committee; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.

the 2002 salt lake olympic winter games commemorative coin act

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that
would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins commemorating
the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Winter Games.
The first modern Winter Olympic Games were held in Chamonix, France
in 1924. Since then, the Winter Olympics has been held every four years
to recognize outstanding accomplishments of athletes throughout the
world. Salt Lake City, Utah is proud to be hosting the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games, the first Olympic Winter Games of the new Millennium.
While it is a great honor for us to host the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games, our state will have a tremendous financial burden placed upon
us. The proceeds from these commemorative coins are greatly needed to
help us support these events and train future Olympic athletes. I would
like to stress that minting these commemorative coins will have no net
cost to the Federal Government, and that the proceeds will be
distributed equally to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the
Olympic Winter Games of 2002 and the United States Olympic Committee.
Mr. President, this is the smallest Olympic coin program ever,
containing

[[Page S1597]]

only two coins. Additionally, the program has been developed in
consultation with the Mint and the numismatic community to address
concerns over previous commemorative coin programs.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
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. 2266

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 ``2002 Winter Olympic
Commemorative Coin Act''.

SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

(a) Denominations.--The Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue the following coins:
(1) Five dollar gold coins.--Not more than 80,000 $5 coins,
which shall weigh 8.359 grams, have a diameter of 0.850
inches, and contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy.
(2) One dollar silver coins.--Not more than 400,000 $1
coins, which shall weigh 26.73 grams, have a diameter of
1.500 inches, and contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent
copper.
(b) Design.--The design of the coins minted under this Act
shall be emblematic of the participation of American athletes
in the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. On each coin there shall be
a designation of the value of the coin, an inscription of the
year ``2002'', and inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'',
``In God We Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E
Pluribus Unum''.
(c) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(d) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of
title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act
shall be considered to be numismatic items.

SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.

(a) Gold.--The Secretary shall obtain gold for minting
coins under this Act pursuant to the authority of the
Secretary under other provisions of law.
(b) Silver.--The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting
coins under this Act from any available source, including
from stockpiles established under the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act.

SEC. 4. SELECTION OF DESIGN.

The design for the coins minted under this Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with--
(A) the Commission of Fine Arts;
(B) the United States Olympic Committee; and
(C) Olympic Properties of the United States--Salt Lake
2002, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company created
and owned by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the
Olympic Winter Games of 2002 (hereafter in this Act referred
to as the ``Olympic Properties of the United States''); and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.

SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Commencement of Issuance.--The Secretary may issue
coins minted under this Act beginning January 1, 2002, except
that the Secretary may initiate sales of such coins, without
issuance, before such date.
(c) Termination of Minting Authority.--No coins shall be
minted under this Act after December 31, 2002.

SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.

(a) Sale Price.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the coins issued under this Act shall be sold by the
Secretary at a price equal to the face value, plus the cost
of designing and issuing such coins (including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and
marketing).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders at a Discount.--The Secretary shall
accept prepaid orders for the coins minted under this Act
before the issuance of such coins. Sales under this
subsection shall be at a reasonable discount.
(d) Marketing.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Olympic Properties of the United States, shall develop and
implement a marketing program to promote and sell the coins
issued under this Act both within the United States and
internationally.

SEC. 7. SURCHARGE.

(a) Surcharge Required.--All sales of coins issued under
this Act shall include a surcharge of $35 per coin for the $5
coins and $10 per coin for the $1 coins.
(b) Distribution.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31,
United States Code, all surcharges received by the Secretary
from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be
promptly paid by the Secretary as follows:
(1) Salt lake organizing committee for the olympic winter
games of 2002.--One half to the Salt Lake Organizing
Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002 for use in
staging and promoting the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Winter
Games.
(2) United states olympic committee.--One half to the
United States Olympic Committee for use by the Committee for
the objects and purposes of the Committee, as established in
the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.
(c) Audits.--Each organization that receives any payment
from the Secretary under this section shall be subject to the
audit requirements of section 5134(f)(2) of title 31, United
States Code.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 2269. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
ban soft money donations, increase individual contribution limits to
candidates, and increase disclosure for issue advocacy; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.

campaign finance reform legislation

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which I hope might move the Senate closer to the passage of meaningful
campaign finance reform. I have voted for versions of the McCain-
Feingold reform legislation at least six times in the past 4 years. I
continue to support passage of that bill, and I will vote for it in the
future.
I am concerned, however, that this legislation might not come up for
a vote again in this Congress. Earlier this morning, the Rules
Committee, of which I am a member and which Senator McConnell chairs,
began a series of hearings on the constitutionality of campaign finance
reform. At that time, I indicated that what I wished to do was submit a
bill which might have an opportunity to break the gridlock surrounding
campaign finance reform, and develop some kind of consensus.
So if I may, on behalf of Senator Torricelli and myself, I send a
bill to the desk and ask for its submission to committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the bill will be received
and referred.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this bill has three simple provisions.
First of all, it bans soft money. Second, it raises hard money
contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. Third, it requires
the disclosure of those parties who pay for the so-called issue ads,
who contribute to the soft money which at present is undisclosed. So it
would require disclosure of any expenditure of $10,000 or more of an
independent campaign within 48 hours, and it would require disclosure
of any individual who contributes more than $3,000 to an independent
campaign. That is all this bill would do.
I think, any way you look at it, looking at campaign spending reform,
one has to look at the unregulated nature of soft money and the
appearance--and I use the word ``appearance''--of corruption that it
brings to campaigns.
Clearly, when in the same session of Congress you have tobacco
legislation in front of this body and you have a tobacco company that
contributes $1 million in soft money at the same time, you can draw a
conclusion--perhaps falsely, but nonetheless draw it--that that money
is contributed in large amounts with hopes of gaining votes in support
of the company.
I think the numbers, the size of soft money contributions, really,
are what ought to concern this body. The Republican Party raised $131
million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 150-
percent increase over the last midterm election, in 1994. So from 1994
to 1998, 4 years, there has been a 150-percent increase in the amount
of soft money. The Democratic Party raised $91.5 million during this
same period. That is an 86-percent increase over 4 years.
At this rate, you can see the amount of soft money is going to, by
far, dominate anything individual candidates can raise or do during an
election.
A recent analysis found that national political party committees
together raised $107 million just during 1999 alone. That is 81 percent
more than the $59 million they raised during the last comparable
Presidential election period in 1995. Congressional campaign committees
of the national parties raised more than three times as much soft money
during 1999 as they raised during 1995--$62 million compared to $19
million.
We clearly have a trendline going. I think the decision one has to
make is, is this trendline going to be healthy for the American
political process? Those who think it is will be for soft money. But I
think most of us believe, truly, that it is not.

[[Page S1598]]

The problem comes because the contribution limit is so low for an
individual candidate. My bill says eliminate soft money, and the
tradeoff is to increase the hard money contribution for every
individual candidate from $1,000 to $3,000.
We heard that the 1971 contribution limit of $1,000 today in real
dollars is worth about $328. The limit was set 29 years ago and clearly
needs to be raised because the costs of campaign materials, consultant
services, television, radio, all of the necessary tools of any viable
campaign have clearly increased. So what was worth $1,000 in 1971 is
now worth $328. This would clearly be equalized to have a meaningful
parity with 1971 if the sum were raised to $3,000.
What my bill will do is move campaign contributions from under the
table to above the table. Instead of hundreds of thousands of
unregulated dollars flowing into the coffers of national political
parties, this legislation will increase the amount an individual might
contribute to a candidate under the existing rules of the Federal
Election Campaign Act. So what we would be doing is exchanging soft
money for increased limits, soft money being undisclosed and
unregulated and hard money being both disclosed and regulated.
It is not the small contributions to an individual's campaign, I
think, that Americans view as corrupting.
It is the large checks of $100,000, $250,000, and $1 million, or
more, to parties that creates this appearance. My bill would eliminate
this soft money while still allowing candidates to compete without the
influence of the national parties and these huge amounts of money.
The final component of the bill is the greater regulation of so-
called issues advocacy. A current campaign law loophole allows unions,
corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without
being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions.
Issue advocacy does not use the so-called ``magic words'', such as
``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``defeat'' or ``reelect'' that the Supreme
Court has identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not
subject to FEC regulation.
This bill would define ``electioneering communications'' as an
advertisement broadcast from television or radio that refers to a
candidate for Federal office and is made 60 days before a general
election or 30 days before a primary.
Any individual or organization that spends more than $10,000 on such
an ad must disclose the expenditure to the FEC within 48 hours. In
addition, all contributions greater than $3,000 to groups that engage
in electioneering communications must be disclosed to the FEC within 48
hours.
This takes that anonymous area of independent campaigns and clarifies
express advocacy and regulates and discloses all of the money.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center has studied the amount that
independent groups have spent on issue advocacy in each of the last two
election cycles: 1995-96 and 1997-98. The study estimates that the
amount spent on issue ads more than doubled, to some $340 million.
The Center's report indicates that as election day gets closer, issue
ads become more candidate-oriented and more negative. This kind of
unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and driving
voters, I believe, away from the polls.
With the passing of every election, it becomes increasingly clear
that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I think this reform
measure has a very real chance of being passed.
Once again, let me say, it bans soft money; it increases hard money
contribution limits to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000; it ties them
to inflation after 2001; it says simply that anyone engaging in
independent campaigns must, in effect, disclose, within 48 hours,
contributions greater than $3,000 or expenditures of more than $10,000.
I strongly believe that congressional action on meaningful campaign
finance reform is a very necessary first step in restoring the public's
confidence in our government. I hope that my colleagues will see this
as an attempt to reach across the partisan gap, and join me in
supporting this bill.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire):
S. 2270. A bill to prohibit civil or equitable actions from being
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the
misuse of their products by others, to protect gun owner privacy and
ownership rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

The right to bear arms protection and privacy act of 2000

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a very significant
bill--the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Protection and Privacy Act.
There is a gun control frenzy taking place in Washington. There are
about 1,070 bills either regulating or dealing with firearms pending in
the House and Senate. These range from imposing new Federal regulatory
standards on the manufacture of firearms to those requiring background
checks at gun shows. And President Clinton has written a letter
informing me that he will not sign long overdue, worthwhile and
comprehensive youth violence legislation unless it includes most of
this gun control agenda.
I have become convinced that, for conscientious and reasonable
defenders of the Second Amendment, it is not enough to simply oppose
the gun control communities legislative agenda. Instead, we just
redouble our efforts and set out to pass an affirmative legislative
agenda which safeguards the right to keep and bear arms.
Many gun control advocates claim that it is not their goal to
interfere with the rights of law abiding gun owners. Many question
sincerity. The bill I am introducing today will afford gun control
advocates the opportunity to prove their critics wrong. This important
bill is a first step in what I hope will become a bipartisan campaign
to safeguard the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Simply put, this plainly written bill would end burdensome and
frivolous suits against law abiding firearm manufacturers, dealers, and
owners, and preclude new ones, except in those cases where plaintiffs
could show that the manufacturer or seller knew that the firearm would
be used to commit a Federal or State crime. Thus, if it can be shown
that manufacturers and sellers knew that a specific product would be
used to a commit crime, then they will be subject to a civil action, if
not a criminal prosecution. The provision also has the beneficial
effect of striking a blow against ``legislation through litigation,''
which has enriched the trial lawyers while harming many of our nation's
law abiding citizens and businesses.
In addition, the bill also addresses the concerns of gun owners and
advocates of the Second Amendment that the federal regulatory process
will be misused by the government to abridge the constitutional right
to keep and bear arms. The bill thus contains the following provisions:
(1) a prohibition against the government charging a background check
fee in connection with the transfer of a firearm; (2) a gun owner
privacy protection component which requires immediate destruction of
background check records for approved firearms buyers; and (3)
establishes a civil remedy for private citizens aggrieved by government
violations of the background check fee or gun owner privacy provisions.
After all, if firearms manufacturers should be subjected to civil
liability for illegal acts, why shouldn't the government be liable if a
law abiding gun owner's privacy protections are violated?

As a Senior proudly representing the people of Utah, I take seriously
our oath of office to defend our Union's defining document--the
Constitution of the United States. I truly concur with the remarks of
the great British Prime Minister William Gladstone when he wrote in
1878 that the ``American Constitution is * * * the most wonderful work
ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.''
So too, I am an avid supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe,
following the teachings of virtually all the Founders of our Republic,
that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered as, in the words of the learned Justice Joseph Story, ``the
palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong
moral check against the usurpation

[[Page S1599]]

and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are
successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and
triumph over them.''
It is astonishing to me that despite this pedigree of the Second
Amendment, the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms, those
advocates of state-ism and the politics of the left, have stooped to
new lows in their crusade to diminish the God-given liberties of the
American people. Seeing that radical gun control measures are unpopular
and cannot pass Congress and state legislatures, those hostile to the
Second Amendment have resorted to a new tactic in a not-so-veiled
attempt to undermine the right to keep and bear arms.
They have resorted to misusing our civil litigation system by
bringing law suits against the source of guns: firearms manufacturers.
They seek damages from firearms manufacturers for any harm caused by
gun wielding criminals, even though the manufacturers are not
responsible for the crimes. This violates traditional precepts of
American law, which is based upon the free-will notion that only those
responsible should be held liable.
More specifically, over the past few years the firearms manufacturing
industry has been subjected to these numerous ``junk'' lawsuits seeking
damages or injunctive relief for harm caused by third-party criminal
actors. Many of these cases have been brought by local government
entities, including approximately thirty American cities. The Clinton
Administration had announced that it would support these lawsuits and
publicly threatened that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development would commence an action against the firearms
manufacturers.
Generally, the plaintiffs in these cases argue that although the
firearms are legal products and despite the criminal actions of third
parties, manufacturers and sellers should be held liable because of the
negligent fashion in which they designed, marketed, and sold their
products. This novel theory stands traditional tort law on its head.
These radical lawsuits are onerous and may well bankrupt many
firearms manufacturers. If a maverick judge were to rule in favor of
the plaintiffs in one of these cases, the industry could face financial
ruin. Indeed, the Louisiana state judge handling the City of New
Orleans lawsuit recently refused to dismiss that lawsuit
notwithstanding the enactment of a state law that nullified the cause
of action. The net result may very well be the disappearance of a
lawful product--firearms--from interstate commerce.

Let me mention a junk lawsuit brought by the City of Chicago against
12 suburban gun shops, 22 gun manufacturers, and four gun distributors.
The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial dated November 14, 1998, agreed
that the mayor's anger at the misuse of handguns was understandable,
but called his lawsuit ``wrongheaded and ill-advised'' because ``it
represents an abuse of the tort liability system and a dangerous
extension of the tactic employed in similar lawsuits against the
tobacco industry of using potentially bankrupting lawsuits to force
makers of legal but unpopular products to quit.''
To one federal district court, such lawsuits are ``an obvious attempt
unwise and unwarranted to ban or restrict handguns through courts and
juries, despite the repeated refusals of state legislatures and
Congress to pass strong, comprehensive gun-control measures.''
[Patterson v. Rohm Gessellschaft, 608 F. Supp. 1206, 1211 (N.D. Tex.
1985)].
Indeed, in characterizing the federal lawsuit against the tobacco
producers and the HUD suit threatened against the firearms industries,
and in complete candor, former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich
noted that:

* * * the biggest problem is that these lawsuits are end
runs around the democratic process. We used to be a nation of
laws, but this new strategy presents novel means of
legislating--within settlement negotiations of large civil
suits initiated by the executive branch. This is faux
legislation that sacrifices democracy to the discretion of
administrative officials operating in secrecy.

[Robert Reich, ``Don't Democrats Believe in Democracy,'' The Wall
Street Journal, Wednesday, January 12, 2000].
Furthermore, these junk lawsuits seek to reverse the well-established
tort law principle that manufacturers are not responsible for the
criminal misuse of their products. For instance, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals in Martin v. Harrington and Richardson, Inc., [743 F.
2d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1984)], held that criminal misuse of a handgun
breaks the causal connection between the manufacturers action and the
injury ``because such criminal activity is not reasonably forseeable.''
A judge from a federal district court noted that ``under all ordinary
and normal circumstances in the absence of any reason to expect the
contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed with the assumption that
others will obey the criminal law.'' [Bennett v. The Cincinnati Checker
Cab, 353 F.Supp. 1206, 1209 (E.D. Kent, 1973)]. It is important to note
that in his opinion the judge cited the noted tort expert, the late
Professor Prosser, for the proposition that entities are not liable for
criminal acts of others because such acts are generally unforeseeable
and thereby cut the chain of proximate causation. [Prosser, Torts, 3d
ed. at 176].

Moreover, these lawsuits suffer from the same defect that some, if
not all, of the courts in the federal tobacco lawsuit suffer from: lack
of standing. Government entities, absent specific statutory authority--
which is not present in either the federal tobacco case or these gun
manufacturers cases--may not recoup medical and other expenses paid by
government agencies from manufacturers of products alleged to cause the
harm to ``third party'' beneficiaries of government programs. For
instance let me mention two cases. Holmes v. Securities Investor
Protection Corp., [503 U.S. 258, 268-69 (1992)] and Laborers Local 17
Health Benefit Fund v. Phillip Morris, [191 F. 3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1999)].
These cases stand for the proposition that a complaint is too
``remote'' when a plaintiff seeks to recover damage to a third party.
Therefore, the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit.
This is exactly what Connecticut Superior Court Judge Robert McWeeny
held when he recently dismissed the City of Bridgport's ``junk
lawsuit'' complaint for recoupment against Smith & Wesson. [Ganim v.
Smith & Wesson, [No. CV 990253198S (Superior Ct. Conn., Dec. 10,
1999)]].
Our judiciary is being transformed by these misguided advocates of
gun control from courts of justice into tribunals of the gun control
lobby. That is why this legislation is needed. The Congress has both a
duty to protect federal constitutional rights such as the right to keep
and bear arms, as well as to step in and reform our tort system when it
is being abused and the abuse has a significant impact on interstate
commerce.
Let me say a few words about last Friday's announcement of the
agreement between Smith & Wesson and HUD. Basically, the agreement
mandates that Smith & Wesson would provide trigger locks within 60 days
and make their handguns child resistant within a year. Smith & Wesson
also agreed to a ``code of conduct'' whereby the manufacturer would
sell its products only to ``authorized dealers and distributors'' who
agree to have their contract terminated if ``a disproportionate
number'' of crimes were traced to the firearms they sell. Some sort of
outside board will police the settlement. In return, the federal
government agreed not to bring suit against the firearms manufacturer
and eleven of the thirty cities and local governments dropped their
actions.
I believe that this so-called ``deal'' is the latest attempt by the
Administration to play on the fear of the American people for pure
political advantage. It makes the Administration look good. It makes it
seem that the Administration is doing ``something'' about gun violence.
But the record makes clear that the Administration has done little to
enforce the federal laws on the books against gun wielding criminals.
So this settlement masks the truth. The Administration has been inept
in preventing gun violence.

Let me say, first of all, that I don't believe that the
Administration ever really intended to see its lawsuit against the
firearms manufacturers to verdict. Indeed, in announcing the projected
lawsuit against the gun manufacturers, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo
admitted to the press that the whole effort was simply a bargaining
ploy.
So let's call it what the federal lawsuit really is: extortion. It is
an attempt to bypass the legislative process

[[Page S1600]]

and the Constitution to achieve a gun control agenda that the public's
elected officials oppose. Sue the industry and have them cave in or
face imminent financial ruin by having to defend an avalanche of
legally dubious lawsuits and bad publicity. That's their game plan.
Well, Smith & Wesson caved in. Why? Published reports have it that
the owner of Smith & Wesson, Tompkins PLC of Great Britain, could not
find a buyer for the $161 million company with lawsuits hanging over
its head. And Tompkins understands that three California gun companies
have gone out of business and that legal fees may very well bankrupt
the industry. So Tompkins surrendered.
And the reward for their surrender: it was announced on Saturday that
HUD and the mayors of Atlanta, Detroit and Miami directed their law
enforcement agencies to give preferences to Smith & Wesson when
purchasing firearms. [``Smith & Wesson Earns Preference,'' @ Home
Network, AP, March 18, 2000] This is outrageous. Not only does this
deal undercut the Second Amendment, it undercuts the principle of
competitive bidding. It creates an incentive that tax payers will be
gouged. It punishes innocent firearms manufacturers. It weakens the
rule of law because innocent manufacturers are denied their day in
court. It weakens democracy because the heavy hand of big government is
used as a tool of despotism.
But it is the ``code of conduct'' term of the settlement that is the
most peculiar. Again, this provision mandates that Smith & Wesson sell
its products only to ``authorized dealers and distributors'' who agree
to have their contracts terminated if ``a disproportionate number'' of
crimes are traced to the firearms they sell. Well, how is this to be
determined? What is a disproportionate number of crimes? And how will
this be traced to the dealer or distributor? And what if the dealer or
distributor were innocent of any wrongdoing?
It seems to me that this settlement term suffers from the same defect
as the underlying ``junk lawsuits''--innocent parties are being held
liable for the criminal acts of third parties.

The settlement represents the misuse of governmental power. It
represents a weakening of our democracy and the rule of law.
Mr. President, let me turn to the provisions of the bill that will
(1) prevent illicit fees to be charged for background checks, and (2)
that protect the privacy of gun owners from federal intrusion.
The Brady Handgun Control Act of 1993 is silent on whether the
government may charge a fee for the instant background check required
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t). And let me add that it was never
contemplated that the government would charge such a fee when Brady was
debated and passed.
Nonetheless, despite no explicit legal authority, the Administration
has repeatedly attempted to require the payment of such a fee by
licensed firearms dealers--which fees would almost surely be passed
along to purchasers through higher prices. This would truly amount to
``taxation without representation.''
Section 5 of our bill adds Section 540C to Title 28. This new section
prohibits the Administration from promulgating a tax without Congress'
approval. It codifies a prohibition on charging or collecting ``any fee
in connection with any background check required in connection with the
transfer of a firearm.'' The prohibition would apply both to the
Federal government and ``State or local officers or employees acting on
behalf of the United States.''
This section thus prohibits an unauthorized fee that may be
considered to be a ``tax'' on the exercise of a constitutional right--
in this case, to buy a firearm.
Finally, under the Brady bill, if the instant background check
reveals that the buyer is eligible to purchase the firearm, the
government is required to ``destroy all records of the system with
respect to the call and all records of the system relating to the
person or the transfer.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t)(2)(C)]. The Brady bill
also prohibits the government from using the instant check system to
establish a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms
transfers, except with respect to persons prohibited from receiving a
firearm. [Pub. L. 103-159, Sec. 103(i)].
Despite the law, the Administration promulgated regulations in 1998
that allowed the FBI to retain for 6 months information pertinent to an
approved firearms sale gathered as part of the instant check system.
[See C.F.R. Sec. 25.9(b)(1)].

But, I concur with those Second Amendment advocates who view these
record retention periods as veiled attempts by the government to
establish a national firearms registry. Furthermore, the only way to
ensure the privacy and security of the information in the instant check
system is to immediately destroy the records of approved firearms
transfers.
To address these concerns and preempt the Administration's efforts to
undermine the Brady bill's ban on a national firearms registry, my bill
would establish a new statute, Section 931 to title 18, that would
prohibit the use of the instant check system unless the system
``require[s] and result[s] in the immediate destruction of all
information, in any form whatsoever or through any medium,'' about any
person determined not to be prohibited from receiving a firearm.
The destruction requirement, however, would not apply to (1) ``any
unique identification number provided by the [instant check] system,''
or (2) ``the date on which that number is provided.'' These exceptions
parallel the exceptions contained in the Brady bill [see 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 922(t)(2)(C)] and allow the government to trace a firearm to a
dealer, but not to a purchaser.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation to prevent extortion against the manufacturers of a lawful
product, firearms. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to
prohibit a tax on the exercise of constitutional right--the Second
Amendment's guarantee of the right of the American citizen to keep and
bear arms. And I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that
protects the privacy of citizens who lawfully and peaceably possess
firearms from federal intrusion.
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. 2270

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 ``Right to Bear Arms
Protection and Privacy Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Citizens have a right, under the Second Amendment to
the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.
(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, and importers of nondefective
firearms, which seek money damages and other relief for the
harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties,
including criminals.
(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use
of firearms and ammunition in the United States is heavily
regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal
laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National
Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.
(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in
interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design,
marketing, distribution, manufacture, importation, or sale to
the public of firearms or ammunition that have been shipped
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and
should not be, liable or otherwise legally responsible for
the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse
firearm products or ammunition products.
(5) The possibility of imposing liability or other legal
restrictions on an entire industry as a result of harm that
is the sole responsibility of others is an abuse of the legal
system, erodes public confidence our Nation's laws, threatens
the diminution of a basic constitutional right, invites the
disassembly and destabilization of other industries and
economic sectors lawfully competing in America's free
enterprise system, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on
interstate and foreign commerce.
(6) The liability and equitable actions commenced or
contemplated by municipalities, cities, and other entities
are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years
of the common law and American jurisprudence. The possible
sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer
would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated
by the Framers of the Constitution. The Congress further
finds that such an expansion of liability would constitute a
deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to a citizen of the United

[[Page S1601]]

States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against law-abiding
manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of
firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the
criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition
products by others.
(2) To preserve a citizen's constitutional access to a
supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes,
including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive
or recreational shooting.
(3) To protect a citizen's right to privacy concerning the
lawful purchase and ownership of firearms.
(4) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and
immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to
section five of that Amendment.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL ACTIONS IN
FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.

(a) In General.--A qualified civil action may not be
brought in any Federal or State court.
(b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.--A qualified civil action
that is pending on the date of the enactment of this Act
shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the
action was brought.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means, with
respect to a qualified product--
(A) a person who is lawfully engaged in a business to
import, make, produce, create, or assemble a qualified
product, and who designs or formulates, or has engaged
another person to design or formulate, a qualified product;
(B) a lawful seller of a qualified product, but only with
respect to an aspect of the product that is made or affected
when the seller makes, produces, creates, or assembles and
designs or formulates an aspect of the product made by
another person; and
(C) any lawful seller of a qualified product who represents
to a user of a qualified product that the seller is a
manufacturer of the qualified product.
(2) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual,
corporation, company, association, firm, partnership,
society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including
any governmental entity.
(3) Qualified product.--The term ``qualified product''
means a firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18,
United States Code) or ammunition (as defined in section
921(a)(17) of such title), or a component part of a firearm
or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.
(4) Qualified civil action.--The term ``qualified civil
action'' means a civil or equitable action brought by any
person against a lawful manufacturer or lawful seller of a
qualified product, or a trade association, for damages or
other relief as a result of the criminal or unlawful misuse
of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but
shall not include an action brought against a manufacturer,
seller, or transferor who knowingly manufactures, sells, or
transfers a qualified product with knowledge that such
product will be used to commit a crime under Federal or State
law.
(5) Seller.--The term ``seller'' means, with respect to a
qualified product, a person who--
(A) in the course of a lawful business conducted for that
purpose, lawfully sells, distributes, rents, leases,
prepares, blends, packages, labels, or otherwise is involved
in placing a qualified product in the stream of commerce; or
(B) lawfully installs, repairs, refurbishes, reconditions,
or maintains an aspect of a qualified product that is alleged
to have resulted in damages.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' includes each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United
States, and any political subdivision of any such place.
(7) Trade association.--The term ``trade association''
means any association or business organization (whether or
not incorporated under Federal or State law) 2 or more
members of which are manufacturers or sellers of a qualified
product.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF BACKGROUND CHECK FEE; GUN OWNER
PRIVACY.

(a) Prohibition of Background Check Fee.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 33 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 540C. Prohibition of fee for background check in
connection with firearm transfer

``No officer, employee, or agent of the United States,
including a State or local officer or employee acting on
behalf of the United States, may charge or collect any fee in
connection with any background check required in connection
with the transfer of a firearm (as defined in section 921(a)
of title 18).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 33 of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 540B the following:

``540C. Prohibition of fee for background check in connection with
firearm transfer.''.

(b) Protection of Gun Owner Privacy and Ownership Rights.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 931. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States or officer, employee, or agent of the United States,
including a State or local officer or employee acting on
behalf of the United States--
``(1) shall perform any criminal background check through
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(referred to in this section as the `system') on any person
if the system does not require and result in the immediate
destruction of all information, in any form whatsoever or
through any medium, about any such person that is determined,
through the use of the system, not to be prohibited by
subsection (g) or (n) of section 922, or by State law, from
receiving a firearm; or
``(2) shall continue to operate the system (including
requiring a background check before the transfer of a
firearm) unless--
``(A) the NICS Index complies with the requirements of
section 552a(e)(5) of title 5, United States Code; and
``(B) the agency responsible for the system and the
system's compliance with Federal law does not invoke the
exceptions under subsection (j)(2) or paragraph (2) or (3) of
subsection (k) of section 552a of title 5, United States
Code, except if specifically identifiable information is
compiled for a particular law enforcement investigation or
specific criminal enforcement matter.
``(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a)(1) does not apply to
the retention or transfer of information relating to--
``(1) any unique identification number provided by the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System under
section 922(t)(1)(B)(i); or
``(2) the date on which that number is provided.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 44 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``931. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights.''.

(c) Civil Remedies.--Any person aggrieved by a violation of
section 540C of title 28 or 931 of title 18, United States
Code (as added by this section), may bring an action in the
United States district court for the district in which the
person resides for actual damages, punitive damages, and such
other relief as the court determines to be appropriate,
including a reasonable attorney's fee.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act except that
the amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of
November 30, 1998.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise along with Senator
Hatch to support the Right to Bear Arms Protection and Privacy Act of
2000.
This bill embodies the goals of several bills I have previously
introduced, and its passage would be a great relief for millions of law
abiding gun owners who want their rights protected.
Mr. President, this administration has launched an all-out assault on
gun owners and gunmakers in an attempt to blame them for the crime
problem that has resulted from the revolving-door criminal justice
approach taken by liberal judges throughout this country.
I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch to move this bill
expeditiously through the Judiciary Committee.
______

By Mr. DeWine (for himself, Mr. Rockfeller, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. L.
Chafee, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2271. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to improve the
quality and availability of training for judges, attorneys, and
volunteers working in the Nation's abuse and neglect courts, and for
other purposes consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997; to the Committee on Finance.

the training and knowledge ensure children a risk-free environment
(take care) act

S. 2272. A bill to improve the administrative efficiency and
effectiveness of the Nation's abuse and neglect courts and for other
purposes consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page S1602]]

the strengthening abuse and neglect courts act of 2000

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two
pieces of legislation that would impact the lives of many at-risk
children living in foster care. In an effort to move forward and figure
out what Congress needs to do next to help improve the operation of the
child welfare system following the 1997 enactment of the Adoption and
Safe Families Act, my friend and colleague Senator Rockefeller and I,
as well as Senators Landrieu, Levin, Kerry, Kerrey, Wellstone, Colins,
Boxer, Chafee, Lincoln and Bingaman, are introducing the strengthening
Abuse and Neglect Courts Act and the Training and Knowledge Ensure
Children a Risk-free Environment (TAKE CARE) Act.
Before I talk about these bills, specifically, it's important to
understand how we arrived at where we are today with regard to the
child welfare agencies and the court system. Back in 1997, I was very
involved in one of the success stories of the 105th Congress: The
passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This subcommittee played
a critical role in shaping that legislation. This law has many goals:
First, it encourages safe and permanent family placements for abused
and neglected children; second, it makes it clear that the health and
safety of the child always must come first in any decision involving a
child in abuse and neglect cases; and third, it decreases the amount of
time that a child spends in the foster care system. Specifically, the
law requires initiation of proceedings to terminate parental rights for
any child who has been in the foster care system for fifteen (15) of
the last twenty-two (22) months.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act represented a significant change
in child welfare laws. Perhaps more important, we were changing the way
judges and child advocates looked at child welfare cases. This
represented a change in the culture of child welfare, as we know it,
and forced the system to stop and rethink its processes and its
purposes.
We all knew this law was not a quick nor a complete fix--more work
would be necessary to make the law a success and to implement a new way
of thinking about child welfare--a way of thinking that says that it is
no longer acceptable to place a child in long-term foster care without
a plan for permanent placement. We knew that a law that simply tells
judges that the health and safety of the child must be paramount would
not necessarily be reflected in judicial decisions. To get there,
training needs to be available so the law effectively becomes a part of
judge's decisionmaking process.
A tragic local case--the death of twenty-three month old Brianna
Blackmond--demonstrates the need for this training. Brianna had been
placed in foster care at the age of four months, due to her mother's
neglect. In January of this year, Brianna was killed just seventeen
days after being returned to her mother from foster care. In the
aftermath of this tragedy, DC Superior Court Judges told the Washington
Post about the agony they feel in making child welfare decisions. One
of the judges quoted in the article said this: ``These cases are, for
me, the most difficult thing we do. We feel the least trained and
skilled at it.''
These judges are making tough, life-changing decisions for all
parties involved. We have a responsibility to make sure they are
trained properly and feel confident about those decisions.
When we passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we also knew that
the imposition of reduced timelines would create additional pressure on
an already overburdened court system. These timelines, however, are
very important to the welfare of the children involved. Foster care,
after all, was meant to be a temporary solution--not a way of life.
These timelines can work only if the courts are able to process cases
in a timely manner. To give you an idea of what the courts are up
against, consider this: When the Family Court was established in New
York in 1962, it reviewed 96,000 cases the first year. By 1997, the
case load had increased to 670,000 cases. The courts must have a
manageable case load so that an appropriate decision can be made in
every case after all of the facts have been heard. We cannot rush
decision making in these cases--a child's life is at risk.
We also knew that the courts needed information to make the best
possible decision for the child. This problem was demonstrated in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Until recently, the court had no central clerk's
file, so there was no way of tracking the location of a particular
file. If the file could not be found on the day of a hearing or review,
it would result in a postponement, often adding months to a child's
stay in foster care. It is undisputed that children need permanency as
quickly as possible. It is simply unconscionable that children should
be trapped in foster care by a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork.
We need to move forward and help improve the operation of the child
welfare system, and in particular, the courts. The legislation Senator
Rockefeller and I are introducing today will help move us in the right
direction. Taken together, our bills would provide competitive grants
to courts to create computerized case tracking systems, as well as
grants to reduce pending backlogs of abuse and neglect cases so that
courts are better able to comply with the timelines established in the
Adoption and Safe Families Act. These bills also would allow judges,
attorneys, and court personnel to qualify for training under Title IV-
E's existing training provisions and would expand the CASA program to
underserved and urban areas, so that more children are able to benefit
from its services.

Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that when Congress passed
the Adoption and Safe Families Act, I believed it was a good start.
Congress, however, would have to do more to make sure that every child
has the opportunity to live in a safe, stable, loving and permanent
home. One of the essential ingredients is an efficiently operating
court system--a system that puts the principles embodied in the law
into practice. After all, that's where a lot of delays occur. As well
intentioned as the strict timelines of the 1997 law are, mandatory
filing dates are not enough to promote child placement permanency if
the court docket is too clogged to move cases through the system, or
judges aren't changing their routine in a way that reflects the
importance of these timelines and the necessity of placing the child's
safety first.
The critical next step is to help the courts improve administrative
efficiency and effectiveness--goals of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act. I believe that our legislation can do that. I encourage my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2271

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 ``Training and Knowledge
Ensure Children a Risk-Free Environment (TAKE CARE) Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

[[Page S1603]]

(6) The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the
Nation's abuse and neglect courts would be substantially
improved by the acquisition and implementation of
computerized case-tracking systems to identify and eliminate
existing backlogs, to move abuse and neglect caseloads
forward in a timely manner, and to move children into safe
and stable families. Such systems could also be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of such courts in meeting the
purposes of the amendments made by, and provisions of, the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
(7) The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the
Nation's abuse and neglect courts would also be improved by
the identification and implementation of projects designed to
eliminate the backlog of abuse and neglect cases, including
the temporary hiring of additional judges, extension of court
hours, and other projects designed to reduce existing
caseloads.
(8) The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the
Nation's abuse and neglect courts would be further
strengthened by improving the quality and availability of
training for judges, court personnel, agency attorneys,
guardians ad litem, volunteers who participate in court-
appointed special advocate (CASA) programs, and attorneys who
represent the children and the parents of children in abuse
and neglect proceedings.
(9) While recognizing that abuse and neglect courts in this
country are already committed to the quality administration
of justice, the performance of such courts would be even
further enhanced by the development of models and educational
opportunities that reinforce court projects that have already
been developed, including models for case-flow procedures,
case management, representation of children, automated
interagency interfaces, and ``best practices'' standards.
(10) Judges, magistrates, commissioners, and other judicial
officers play a central and vital role in ensuring that
proceedings in our Nation's abuse and neglect courts are run
efficiently and effectively. The performance of those
individuals in such courts can only be further enhanced by
training, seminars, and an ongoing opportunity to exchange
ideas with their peers.
(11) Volunteers who participate in court-appointed special
advocate (CASA) programs play a vital role as the eyes and
ears of abuse and neglect courts in proceedings conducted by,
or under the supervision of, such courts and also bring
increased public scrutiny of the abuse and neglect court
system. The Nation's abuse and neglect courts would benefit
from an expansion of this program to currently underserved
communities.
(12) Improved computerized case-tracking systems,
comprehensive training, and development of, and education on,
model abuse and neglect court systems, particularly with
respect to underserved areas, would significantly further the
purposes of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 by
reducing the average length of an abused and neglected
child's stay in foster care, improving the quality of
decision-making and court services provided to children and
families, and increasing the number of adoptions.

SEC. 3. TRAINING IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS.

(a) Payment For Training.--
(1) In general.--Section 474(a)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 674(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
``(C) 75 percent of so much of such expenditures as are for
the training (including cross-training with personnel
employed by, or under contract with, the State or local
agency administering the plan in the political subdivision,
training on topics relevant to the legal representation of
clients in proceedings conducted by or under the supervision
of an abuse and neglect court (as defined in section 475(8)),
and training on related topics such as child development and
the importance of developing a trusting relationship with a
child) of judges, judicial personnel, law enforcement
personnel, agency attorneys (as defined in section 475(9)),
attorneys representing parents in proceedings conducted by,
or under the supervision of, an abuse and neglect court (as
defined in section 475(8)), attorneys representing children
in such proceedings (as defined in section 475(10)),
guardians ad litem, and volunteers who participate in court-
appointed special advocate (CASA) programs, to the extent
such training is related to provisions of, and amendments
made by, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, provided
that any such training that is offered to judges or other
judicial personnel shall be offered by, or under contract
with, the State or local agency in collaboration with the
judicial conference or other appropriate judicial governing
body operating in the State,''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 473(a)(6)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
673(a)(6)(B)) is amended by striking ``474(a)(3)(E)'' and
inserting ``474(a)(3)(F)''.
(B) Section 474(a)(3)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
674(a)(3)(E)) (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1)) is
amended by striking ``subparagraph (C)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (D)''.
(C) Section 474(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 674(c)) is
amended by striking ``subsection (a)(3)(C)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(3)(D)''.
(b) Definition of Certain Terms.--Section 475 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 675) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraphs:
``(8) The term `abuse and neglect courts' means the State
and local courts that carry out State or local laws requiring
proceedings (conducted by or under the supervision of the
courts)--
``(A) that implement part B and this part (including
preliminary disposition of such proceedings);
``(B) that determine whether a child was abused or
neglected;
``(C) that determine the advisability or appropriateness of
placement in a family foster home, group home, or a special
residential care facility; or
``(D) that determine any other legal disposition of a child
in the abuse and neglect court system.
``(9) The term `agency attorney' means an attorney or other
individual, including any government attorney, district
attorney, attorney general, State attorney, county attorney,
city solicitor or attorney, corporation counsel, or privately
retained special prosecutor, who represents the State or
local agency administrating the programs under part B and
this part in a proceeding conducted by, or under the
supervision of, an abuse and neglect court, including a
proceeding for termination of parental rights.
``(10) The term `attorneys representing children' means any
attorney or a guardian ad litem who represents a child in a
proceeding conducted by, or under the supervision of, an
abuse and neglect court.''.

SEC. 4. STATE STANDARDS FOR AGENCY ATTORNEYS.

Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) provides that, not later than January 1, 2002, the
State shall develop and encourage the implementation of
guidelines for all agency attorneys (as defined in section
475(9)), including legal education requirements for such
attorneys regarding the handling of abuse, neglect, and
dependency proceedings.''.

SEC. 5. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND
DEPENDENCY MATTERS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall
provide the technical assistance, training, and evaluations
authorized under this section through grants, contracts, or
cooperative arrangements with other entities, including
universities, and national, State, and local organizations.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney
General should ensure that entities that have not had a
previous contractual relationship with the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, or
another Federal agency can compete for grants for technical
assistance, training, and evaluations.
(b) Purpose.--Technical assistance shall be provided under
this section for the purpose of supporting and assisting
State and local courts that handle child abuse, neglect, and
dependency matters to effectively carry out new
responsibilities enacted as part of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89; 111 Stat. 2115) and
to speed the process of adoption of children and legal
finalization of permanent families for children in foster
care by improving practices of the courts involved in that
process.
(c) Activities.--Technical assistance consistent with the
purpose described in subsection (b) may be provided under
this section through the following:
(1) The dissemination of information, existing and
effective models, and technical assistance to State and local
courts that receive grants for automated data collection and
case-tracking systems and outcome measures.
(2) The provision of specialized training on child
development that is appropriate for judges, referees,
nonjudicial decision-makers, administrative, and other court-
related personnel, and for agency attorneys, attorneys
representing children, guardians ad litem, volunteers who
participate in court-appointed special advocate (CASA)
programs, or parents.
(3) The provision of assistance and dissemination of
information about best practices of abuse and neglect courts
for effective case management strategies and techniques,
including automated data collection and case-tracking
systems, assessments of caseload and staffing levels,
management of court dockets, timely decision-making at all
stages of a proceeding conducted by, or under the supervision
of, an abuse and neglect court (as so defined), and the
development of streamlined case flow procedures, case
management models, early case resolution programs, mechanisms
for monitoring compliance with the terms of court orders,
models for representation of children, automated interagency
interfaces between data bases, and court rules that
facilitate timely case processing.
(4) The development and dissemination of training models
for judges, attorneys representing children, agency
attorneys, guardians ad litem, and volunteers who participate
in court-appointed special advocate (CASA) programs.
(5) The development of standards of practice for agency
attorneys, attorneys representing children, guardians ad
litem, volunteers who participate in court-appointed

[[Page S1604]]

special advocate (CASA) programs, and parents in such
proceedings.
(d) Training Requirement.--Any training offered in
accordance with this section to judges or other judicial
personnel shall be offered in collaboration with the judicial
conference or other appropriate judicial governing body
operating with respect to the State in which the training is
offered.
(e) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``agency
attorneys'', ``abuse and neglect courts'', and ``attorneys
representing children'' have the meanings given such terms in
section 475 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675) (as
amended by section 3(b) of this Act).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to carry out this section $5,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.
____

S. 2272

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 ``Strengthening Abuse and
Neglect Courts Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Under both Federal and State law, the courts play a
crucial and essential role in the Nation's child welfare
system and in ensuring safety, stability, and permanence for
abused and neglected children under the supervision of that
system.
(2) The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law
105-89; 111 Stat. 2115) establishes explicitly for the first
time in Federal law that a child's health and safety must be
the paramount consideration when any decision is made
regarding a child in the Nation's child welfare system.
(3) The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 promotes
stability and permanence for abused and neglected children by
requiring timely decision-making in proceedings to determine
whether children can safely return to their families or
whether they should be moved into safe and stable adoptive
homes or other permanent family arrangements outside the
foster care system.
(4) To avoid unnecessary and lengthy stays in the foster
care system, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
specifically requires, among other things, that States move
to terminate the parental rights of the parents of those
children who have been in foster care for 15 of the last 22
months.
(5) While essential to protect children and to carry out
the general purposes of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997, the accelerated timelines for the termination of
parental rights and the other requirements imposed under that
Act increase the pressure on the Nation's already
overburdened abuse and neglect courts.
(6) The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the
Nation's abuse and neglect courts would be substantially
improved by the acquisition and implementation of
computerized case-tracking systems to identify and eliminate
existing backlogs, to move abuse and neglect caseloads
forward in a timely manner, and to move children into safe
and stable families. Such systems could also be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of such courts in meeting the
purposes of the amendments made by, and provisions of, the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
(7) The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the
Nation's abuse and neglect courts would also be improved by
the identification and implementation of projects designed to
eliminate the backlog of abuse and neglect cases, including
the temporary hiring of additional judges, extension of court
hours, and other projects designed to reduce existing
caseloads.
(8) The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the
Nation's abuse and neglect courts would be further
strengthened by improving the quality and availability of
training for judges, court personnel, agency attorneys,
guardians ad litem, volunteers who participate in court-
appointed special advocate (CASA) programs, and attorneys who
represent the children and the parents of children in abuse
and neglect proceedings.
(9) While recognizing that abuse and neglect courts in this
country are already committed to the quality administration
of justice, the performance of such courts would be even
further enhanced by the development of models and educational
opportunities that reinforce court projects that have already
been developed, including models for case-flow procedures,
case management, representation of children, automated
interagency interfaces, and ``best practices'' standards.
(10) Judges, magistrates, commissioners, and other judicial
officers play a central and vital role in ensuring that
proceedings in our Nation's abuse and neglect courts are run
efficiently and effectively. The performance of those
individuals in such courts can only be further enhanced by
training, seminars, and an ongoing opportunity to exchange
ideas with their peers.
(11) Volunteers who participate in court-appointed special
advocate (CASA) programs play a vital role as the eyes and
ears of abuse and neglect courts in proceedings conducted by,
or under the supervision of, such courts and also bring
increased public scrutiny of the abuse and neglect court
system. The Nation's abuse and neglect courts would benefit
from an expansion of this program to currently underserved
communities.
(12) Improved computerized case-tracking systems,
comprehensive training, and development of, and education on,
model abuse and neglect court systems, particularly with
respect to underserved areas, would significantly further the
purposes of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 by
reducing the average length of an abused and neglected
child's stay in foster care, improving the quality of
decision-making and court services provided to children and
families, and increasing the number of adoptions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(a) Abuse and Neglect Courts.--The term ``abuse and neglect
courts'' means the State and local courts that carry out
State or local laws requiring proceedings (conducted by or
under the supervision of the courts)--
(1) that implement part B and part E of title IV of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 670 et seq.)
(including preliminary disposition of such proceedings);
(2) that determine whether a child was abused or neglected;
(3) that determine the advisability or appropriateness of
placement in a family foster home, group home, or a special
residential care facility; or
(4) that determine any other legal disposition of a child
in the abuse and neglect court system.
(b) Agency Attorney.--The term ``agency attorney'' means an
attorney or other individual, including any government
attorney, district attorney, attorney general, State
attorney, county attorney, city solicitor or attorney,
corporation counsel, or privately retained special
prosecutor, who represents the State or local agency
administrating the programs under parts B and E of title IV
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 670 et
seq.) in a proceeding conducted by, or under the supervision
of, an abuse and neglect court, including a proceeding for
termination of parental rights.

SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATE COURTS AND LOCAL COURTS TO AUTOMATE
THE DATA COLLECTION AND TRACKING OF PROCEEDINGS
IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT COURTS.

(a) Authority To Award Grants.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney
General, acting through the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention of the Office of Justice Programs,
shall award grants in accordance with this section to State
courts and local courts for the purposes of--
(A) enabling such courts to develop and implement automated
data collection and case-tracking systems for proceedings
conducted by, or under the supervision of, an abuse and
neglect court;
(B) encouraging the replication of such systems in abuse
and neglect courts in other jurisdictions; and
(C) requiring the use of such systems to evaluate a court's
performance in implementing the requirements of parts B and E
of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 620 et
seq.; 670 et seq.).
(2) Limitations.--
(A) Number of grants.--Not less than 20 nor more than 50
grants may be awarded under this section.
(B) Per state limitation.--Not more than 2 grants
authorized under this section may be awarded per State.
(C) Use of grants.--Funds provided under a grant made under
this section may only be used for the purpose of developing,
implementing, or enhancing automated data collection and
case-tracking systems for proceedings conducted by, or under
the supervision of, an abuse and neglect court.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--A State court or local court may submit an
application for a grant authorized under this section at such
time and in such manner as the Attorney General may
determine.
(2) Information required.--An application for a grant
authorized under this section shall contain the following:
(A) A description of a proposed plan for the development,
implementation, and maintenance of an automated data
collection and case-tracking system for proceedings conducted
by, or under the supervision of, an abuse and neglect court,
including a proposed budget for the plan and a request for a
specific funding amount.
(B) A description of the extent to which such plan and
system are able to be replicated in abuse and neglect courts
of other jurisdictions that specifies the common case-
tracking data elements of the proposed system, including, at
a minimum--
(i) identification of relevant judges, court, and agency
personnel;
(ii) records of all court proceedings with regard to the
abuse and neglect case, including all court findings and
orders (oral and written); and
(iii) relevant information about the subject child,
including family information and the reason for court
supervision.
(C) In the case of an application submitted by a local
court, a description of how the plan to implement the
proposed system was developed in consultation with related
State courts, particularly with regard to a State court
improvement plan funded under section 13712 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 670 note) if
there is such a plan in the State.
(D) In the case of an application that is submitted by a
State court, a description of how the proposed system will
integrate with a State court improvement plan funded under
section 13712 of such Act if there is such a plan in the
State.
(E) After consultation with the State agency responsible
for the administration of

[[Page S1605]]

parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 670 et seq.)--
(i) a description of the coordination of the proposed
system with other child welfare data collection systems,
including the Statewide automated child welfare information
system (SACWIS) and the adoption and foster care analysis and
reporting system (AFCARS) established pursuant to section 479
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 679); and
(ii) an assurance that such coordination will be
implemented and maintained.
(F) Identification of an independent third party that will
conduct ongoing evaluations of the feasibility and
implementation of the plan and system and a description of
the plan for conducting such evaluations.
(G) A description or identification of a proposed funding
source for completion of the plan (if applicable) and
maintenance of the system after the conclusion of the period
for which the grant is to be awarded.
(H) An assurance that any contract entered into between the
State court or local court and any other entity that is to
provide services for the development, implementation, or
maintenance of the system under the proposed plan will
require the entity to agree to allow for replication of the
services provided, the plan, and the system, and to refrain
from asserting any proprietary interest in such services for
purposes of allowing the plan and system to be replicated in
another jurisdiction.
(I) An assurance that the system established under the plan
will provide data that allows for evaluation (at least on an
annual basis) of the following information:
(i) The total number of cases that are filed in the abuse
and neglect court.
(ii) The number of cases assigned to each judge who
presides over the abuse and neglect court.
(iii) The average length of stay of children in foster
care.
(iv) With respect to each child under the jurisdiction of
the court--

(I) the number of episodes of placement in foster care;
(II) the number of days placed in foster care and the type
of placement (foster family home, group home, or special
residential care facility);
(III) the number of days of in-home supervision; and
(IV) the number of separate foster care placements.

(v) The number of adoptions, guardianships, or other
permanent dispositions finalized.
(vi) The number of terminations of parental rights.
(vii) The number of child abuse and neglect proceedings
closed that had been pending for 2 or more years.
(viii) With respect to each proceeding conducted by, or
under the supervision of, an abuse and neglect court--

(I) the timeliness of each stage of the proceeding from
initial filing through legal finalization of a permanency
plan (for both contested and uncontested hearings);
(II) the number of adjournments, delays, and continuances
occurring during the proceeding, including identification of
the party requesting each adjournment, delay, or continuance
and the reasons given for the request;
(III) the number of courts that conduct or supervise the
proceeding for the duration of the abuse and neglect case;
(IV) the number of judges assigned to the proceeding for
the duration of the abuse and neglect case; and
(V) the number of agency attorneys, children's attorneys,
parent's attorneys, guardians ad litem, and volunteers
participating in a court-appointed special advocate (CASA)
program assigned to the proceeding during the duration of the
abuse and neglect case.

(J) A description of how the proposed system will reduce
the need for paper files and ensure prompt action so that
cases are appropriately listed with national and regional
adoption exchanges, and public and private adoption services.
(K) An assurance that the data collected in accordance with
subparagraph (I) will be made available to relevant Federal,
State, and local government agencies and to the public.
(L) An assurance that the proposed system is consistent
with other civil and criminal information requirements of the
Federal government.
(M) An assurance that the proposed system will provide
notice of timeframes required under the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89; 111 Stat. 2115) for
individual cases to ensure prompt attention and compliance
with such requirements.
(c) Conditions for Approval of Applications.--
(1) Matching requirement.--
(A) In general.--A State court or local court awarded a
grant under this section shall expend $1 for every $3 awarded
under the grant to carry out the development, implementation,
and maintenance of the automated data collection and case-
tracking system under the proposed plan.
(B) Waiver for hardship.--The Attorney General may waive or
modify the matching requirement described in subparagraph (A)
in the case of any State court or local court that the
Attorney General determines would suffer undue hardship as a
result of being subject to the requirement.
(C) Non-federal expenditures.--
(i) Cash or in kind.--State court or local court
expenditures required under subparagraph (A) may be in cash
or in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or
services.
(ii) No credit for pre-award expenditures.--Only State
court or local court expenditures made after a grant has been
awarded under this section may be counted for purposes of
determining whether the State court or local court has
satisfied the matching expenditure requirement under
subparagraph (A).
(2) Notification to state or appropriate child welfare
agency.--No application for a grant authorized under this
section may be approved unless the State court or local court
submitting the application demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the Attorney General that the court has provided the
State, in the case of a State court, or the appropriate child
welfare agency, in the case of a local court, with notice of
the contents and submission of the application.
(3) Considerations.--In evaluating an application for a
grant under this section the Attorney General shall consider
the following:
(A) The extent to which the system proposed in the
application may be replicated in other jurisdictions.
(B) The extent to which the proposed system is consistent
with the provisions of, and amendments made by, the Adoption
and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89; 111 Stat.
2115), and parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 670 et seq.).
(C) The extent to which the proposed system is feasible and
likely to achieve the purposes described in subsection
(a)(1).
(4) Diversity of awards.--The Attorney General shall award
grants under this section in a manner that results in a
reasonable balance among grants awarded to State courts and
grants awarded to local courts, grants awarded to courts
located in urban areas and courts located in rural areas, and
grants awarded in diverse geographical locations.
(d) Length of Awards.--No grant may be awarded under this
section for a period of more than 5 years.
(e) Availability of Funds.--Funds provided to a State court
or local court under a grant awarded under this section shall
remain available until expended without fiscal year
limitation.
(f) Reports.--
(1) Annual report from grantees.--Each State court or local
court that is awarded a grant under this section shall submit
an annual report to the Attorney General that contains--
(A) a description of the ongoing results of the independent
evaluation of the plan for, and implementation of, the
automated data collection and case-tracking system funded
under the grant; and
(B) the information described in subsection (b)(2)(I).
(2) Interim and final reports from attorney general.--
(A) Interim reports.--Beginning 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and biannually thereafter until a
final report is submitted in accordance with subparagraph
(B), the Attorney General shall submit to Congress interim
reports on the grants made under this section.
(B) Final report.--Not later than 90 days after the
termination of all grants awarded under this section, the
Attorney General shall submit to Congress a final report
evaluating the automated data collection and case-tracking
systems funded under such grants and identifying successful
models of such systems that are suitable for replication in
other jurisdictions. The Attorney General shall ensure that a
copy of such final report is transmitted to the highest State
court in each State.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

SEC. 5. GRANTS TO REDUCE PENDING BACKLOGS OF ABUSE AND
NEGLECT CASES TO PROMOTE PERMANENCY FOR ABUSED
AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN.

(a) Authority to Award Grants.--The Attorney General,
acting through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention of the Office of Justice Programs and in
collaboration with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, shall award grants in accordance with this section
to State courts and local courts for the purposes of--
(1) promoting the permanency goals established in the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89;
111 Stat. 2115); and
(2) enabling such courts to reduce existing backlogs of
cases pending in abuse and neglect courts, especially with
respect to cases to terminate parental rights and cases in
which parental rights to a child have been terminated but an
adoption of the child has not yet been finalized.
(b) Application.--A State court or local court shall submit
an application for a grant under this section, in such form
and manner as the Attorney General shall require, that
contains a description of the following:
(1) The barriers to achieving the permanency goals
established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
that have been identified.
(2) The size and nature of the backlogs of children
awaiting termination of parental rights or finalization of
adoption.
(3) The strategies the State court or local court proposes
to use to reduce such backlogs and the plan and timetable for
doing so.

[[Page S1606]]

(4) How the grant funds requested will be used to assist
the implementation of the strategies described in paragraph
(3).
(c) Use of Funds.--Funds provided under a grant awarded
under this section may be used for any purpose that the
Attorney General determines is likely to successfully achieve
the purposes described in subsection (a), including
temporarily--
(1) establishing night court sessions for abuse and neglect
courts;
(2) hiring additional judges, magistrates, commissioners,
hearing officers, referees, special masters, and other
judicial personnel for such courts;
(3) hiring personnel such as clerks, administrative support
staff, case managers, mediators, and attorneys for such
courts; or
(4) extending the operating hours of such courts.
(d) Number of Grants.--Not less than 15 nor more than 20
grants shall be awarded under this section.
(e) Availability of Funds.--Funds awarded under a grant
made under this section shall remain available for
expenditure by a grantee for a period not to exceed 3 years
from the date of the grant award.
(f) Report on Use of Funds.--Not later than the date that
is halfway through the period for which a grant is awarded
under this section, and 90 days after the end of such period,
a State court or local court awarded a grant under this
section shall submit a report to the Attorney General that
includes the following:
(1) The barriers to the permanency goals established in the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 that are or have been
addressed with grant funds.
(2) The nature of the backlogs of children that were
pursued with grant funds.
(3) The specific strategies used to reduce such backlogs.
(4) The progress that has been made in reducing such
backlogs, including the number of children in such backlogs--
(A) whose parental rights have been terminated; and
(B) whose adoptions have been finalized.
(5) Any additional information that the Attorney General
determines would assist jurisdictions in achieving the
permanency goals established in the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997.
(g) Authorization of Appropriation.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal year 2001 $10,000,000 for the
purpose of making grants under this section.

SEC. 6. GRANTS TO EXPAND THE COURT-APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE
PROGRAM IN UNDERSERVED AREAS.

(a) Grants To Expand CASA Programs in Underserved Areas.--
The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice shall
make a grant to the National Court-Appointed Special Advocate
Association for the purposes of--
(1) expanding the recruitment of, and building the capacity
of, court-appointed special advocate programs located in the
15 largest urban areas;
(2) developing regional, multijurisdictional court-
appointed special advocate programs serving rural areas; and
(3) providing training and supervision of volunteers in
court-appointed special advocate programs.
(b) Limitation on Administrative Expenditures.--Not more
than 5 percent of the grant made under this subsection may be
used for administrative expenditures.
(c) Determination of Urban and Rural Areas.--For purposes
of administering the grant authorized under this subsection,
the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice shall
determine whether an area is one of the 15 largest urban
areas or a rural area in accordance with the practices of,
and statistical information compiled by, the Bureau of the
Census.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to make the grant authorized under this
section, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.

Mr. ROCKFELLER. I am proud to join Senator DeWine and other concerned
colleagues in introducing two bills that are related and designed to
help strengthen our court systems that preside over the child abuse and
neglect cases. If we want the child welfare system to work well, we
must invest in improving our courts, as well as our State agencies. We
need to reduce the backlog of cases. We need to invest in computer
systems so that the courts keep track of these children. We need to
train judges and court personnel so that they can make the tough
decisions required by the 1997 Adoption Act to make a child's safety,
health, and permanency paramount.
These two bills are identical to a package we introduced last year,
but we hope dividing the legislation into separate bills will
streamline consideration. Both bills are urgent.
These bills build on the foundation of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act, passed in October 1997. For the first time, this law established
that a child's health and safety must be the paramount consideration
when any decision is made regarding a child in the abuse and neglect
system. The law promotes stability and permanence for abused and
neglected children by requiring timely decisionmaking in proceedings to
determine whether children can safely return to their families or
whether they should be moved into safe and stable adoptive homes. More
specifically, the law requires a State to move to terminate the
parental rights of any parent whose child has been in foster care for
15 out of the last 22 months. While essential to protect children,
these accelerated time lines increase the pressure on the Nation's
already overburdened child abuse and neglect courts.
Our courts play a vital role in the Nation's child protection system.
Through my discussions with judges in my State of West Virginia and
across the country, I have learned that abuse and neglect judges make
some of the most difficult decisions made by any members of the
judiciary. Adjudications of abuse and neglect, terminations of parental
rights, approval of adoptions, and life-changing determinations are not
made without careful and sometimes painful deliberation. Despite the
courts' commitment to the fair and efficient administration of justice
in these cases, staggering increases in the number of children in the
abuse and neglect system have placed a tremendous burden on our abuse
and neglect courts.
Throughout the debate on the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we heard
from dozen of judges--especially in my State of West Virginia--who
maintained that the biggest problems facing their courts are the
overwhelming backlog of abuse and neglect cases. Without creative ways
to eliminate such backlogs, the judges argued, new cases will never
move smoothly through the court system. That is why the Strengthening
Abuse and Neglect Courts Act authorizes a grant program to provide
State courts with the funds they need to eliminate current backlogs
once and for all. For some courts, that might involve the temporary
hiring of an additional judge, a temporary extension of court hours, or
restructuring the duties of court personnel. This program will provide
grants to those court projects that will result in the effective and
rapid elimination of current backlogs to smooth the way for more
efficient courts in the future. Grants would also be established to
fund computer tracking systems for courts to prevent backlog and ensure
timely consideration and information.
We also seek to expand the successful Court-Appointed Special
Advocate (CASA) Program. CASA volunteers are the eyes and the ears of
the courts, spending time with abused and neglected children,
interviewing the adults involved in their lives, and helping to give
judges a better understanding of the needs of each individual child.
Despite the incredible success of the CASA programs, thousands of
abused and neglected children do not have the benefit of CASA
representation. The bill provides CASA with a $55 million grant to
expand its programs into underserved inner cities and rural areas.
The second bill, the TAKE CARE Act, Training and Knowledge Ensure
Children a Risk-free Environment, recognizes the need for improved
training, continuing educational opportunities, and model practice
standards for judges, attorneys and other court personnel who work in
the abuse and neglect courts. More specifically, the bill requires that
abuse and neglect agencies design and encourage the implementation of
``best practice'' standards for those attorneys representing the
agencies in abuse and neglect cases. It extends the federal
reimbursement for training currently provided to agency representatives
to judges, court personnel, law enforcement representatives, guardians-
ad-litem, and the other attorneys who practice in abuse and neglect
proceedings. For the first time, such reimbursement would help fund
specialized cross-training agency and court personnel and training that
focuses on vital subjects such as new research on child development.
Abused and neglected children depend upon the courts to decide their
safety and to find a permanent home. This is what children need, and
too many are waiting. We should move swiftly on the Strengthening Abuse
and Nelgect Courts Act and the TAKE CARE Act to help such vulnerable
children.

[[Page S1607]]

______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Harkin, and Mr. Reed):
S. 2274. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide families and disabled children with the opportunity to purchase
coverage under the Medicaid Program for such children; to the Committee
on Finance.

Family Opportunity Act of 2000

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators
Kennedy, Jeffords and Harkin in introducing the Family Opportunity Act
of 2000. This new legislation will make life easier for many families
and their children.
When you're a parent, your main objective is to provide for your
child to the best of your ability. If it takes a 12-hour day in the
field or in the factory, that's what you do. Our federal government
takes this goal and turns it upside down for parents of children with
special health care needs.
The government forces these parents to choose between family income
and their children's health care. That's a terrible choice. Families
must have a low income to qualify their children for both Medicaid and
federal disability benefits. This means parents often refuse jobs, pay
raises and overtime just to preserve access to Medicaid for their child
with disabilities.
Families have to remain in poverty just to keep Medicaid.
Obviously this affects entire families, not just the child with the
health care needs. Melissa Arnold, an Iowan, has a 17-year-old son who
can't work even part-time for fear of jeopardizing his brother's
Medicaid coverage. Ms. Arnold has accepted several promotions without
the pay raises she's earned. Despite these challenges, this family has
stayed together.
In the worst cases, parents give up custody of their child with
special health care needs or put their child in an out-of-home
placement just to keep their child's access to Medicaid-covered
services. Why is Medicaid so desirable? It's critical to the well-being
of children with multiple medical needs. It covers a lot of services
that these children need, such as physical therapy and medical
equipment.
Private health plans often are much more limited in what they cover.
Many parents can't afford needed services out-of-pocket. Today, my
colleagues and I will introduce legislation to fix the Catch-22 for
parents of children with disabilities.
Our bill, the Family Opportunity Act of 2000, creates a state option
to allow working parents who have a child with a disability to keep
working and to still have access to Medicaid for their child. Parents
would pay for Medicaid coverage on a sliding scale. No one would have
to become impoverished or stay impoverished to secure Medicaid for a
child.
Our bill also establishes family-to-family health information
centers. These centers would be staffed by actual parents of children
with special needs as well as professionals. They would provide
information to families trying to arrange health services for their
children.
The Family Opportunity Act of 2000 is modeled after last year's
successful Work Incentives Improvement Act. Under that law, adults with
disabilities can return to work and not risk losing their health care
coverage. Parents of children with disabilities should have the same
opportunities as adults with disabilities.
Everybody wants to use their talents to the fullest potential, and
every parent wants to provide as much as possible for his or her
children. The government shouldn't get in the way.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues
Senators Grassley, Jeffords, and Harkin in introducing the Family
Opportunity Act of 2000. Our goal is to help children with disabilities
by removing the health care barriers that so often prevent families
from staying together and staying employed.
Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is
enjoying today, families of disabled children and special needs
children continue to struggle to keep their families together, live
independently and become fully contributing members of their
communities.
More than 8% of children in this country have significant
disabilities. Yet many of them do not have access to the health
services they need to maintain and prevent deterioration of their
health. Too often, to obtain needed health services for their children
under Medicaid, families are forced to become poor, stay poor, put
their children in institutions, or give up custody of their children
entirely. No parent should be faced with that unacceptable choice.
In a recent survey of 20 states, 64% families of special needs
children report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises,
turning down overtime, and are unable to save money for the future of
their children and family--so that their children can stay eligible for
Medicaid through SSI, the Social Security Income Program.
Today we are introducing legislation to close the health care gap for
vulnerable families, and enable them to obtain the health care their
disabled children deserve.
The Family Opportunity Act of 2000 will remove the unfair barriers
that deny needed health care to so many disabled children and special
needs children.
It will make health insurance coverage more widely available for
children with significant current disabilities, by enabling parents to
buy-in to Medicaid at an affordable rate.
It will enable states to develop a demonstration program to provide a
Medicaid buy-in for children with potentially significant
disabilities--those who will become severely disabled if they do not
receive health services.
It will establish Family to Family Information Centers in each state
to help families with special needs children.
The passage of the Work Incentives Improvement Act last year
demonstrated the nation's commitment to help adults with disabilities
obtain the health services they need, in order to lead independent and
productive lives. The legislation we are introducing today makes a
similar commitment to children with disabilities and their families.
I look forward to working with all members of Congress to enact this
legislation. Disabled children and their families across the country
deserve this help in achieving their dreams and participating fully in
the social and economic mainstream of our nation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues,
Senators Grassley, Kennedy and Harkin in introducing the Family
Opportunity Act of 2000. We are taking the right step, the logical
step, and a much needed step.
The last bill signed into law in the 20th Century was the Work
Incentives Improvement Act. Through it, we extended health care
coverage to adults with disabilities who work, by allowing them to buy-
in to Medicaid coverage regardless of their income. Tomorrow, we set
out to help children with disabilities by introducing the Family
Opportunity Act. This legislation will create a similar Medicaid buy-in
option for families of children with disabilities.
When a child is born, it is a time for joy, hope, and dreams. If the
child has a serious medical condition that may lead to a significant
disability, or if the child is born with a disability, these feelings
are often put on hold. Instead, the families of these children must
concentrate on some basic facts, facts that may be a matter of life and
death. These facts will shape the quality of life that the family can
offer the child. The family will have to answer some important
questions. First, do they have health insurance? If so, does the
insurance cover the cost of the specialized services that their child
needs? Families who answer `NO' to these questions are overwhelmed and
fearful, and their vision of the future is filled with uncertainty.
Every day, children in America are born with severe disabilities that
require specialized health care services. Too often, the parents of
these children do not have health care coverage or their coverage does
not cover the needed services. These families do not have many options.
Their child can receive health care coverage only if the family is
poor, or if the family gives the child up to the state. We have all
heard heart wrenching stories, but none are more traumatic than these.
The Family Opportunity Act of 2000 is a solution to this tragic
problem. Children without health insurance will now be covered. Those
children with

[[Page S1608]]

disabilities whose health insurance does not cover the services they
need, will also be covered. Children with significant disabilities will
no longer be denied the health care coverage they need, regardless of
their family's income. Their families will, however, be expected to
contribute to the cost of coverage. In addition, these families will
have access to assistance from a Family Health Information Center. This
service will provide families with information about their options and
will help them exercise these options. Their children will receive the
care they need and deserve.
Data from the Social Security Administration indicates that in
December 1999 there were 1,080 Vermont children with disabilities
eligible for Medicaid. That means that the families of these children
are poor. Some of these families have chosen to keep their income under
the prescribed limits in law, so that they can access health care
through Medicaid for their child with a disability. These families
cannot access health care coverage for their children through the
private sector.
With the Family Opportunity Act everyone wins. Through Medicaid,
children with disabilities will receive the health care services they
desperately need. Through the Family Health Information Centers, their
families will be provided with the right information at the right time.
Families will be able to make key medical decisions that will maximize
the quality of life for their children with disabilities. And, the
federal and state governments will have a cost-effective program to
help children and families in need.
The Family Opportunity Act of 2000 will make time for joy, hope, and
dreams, for families of children with special needs. This is a good
start to the 21st Century.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of the Family
Opportunity Act of 2000. I commend my colleague from Iowa, Senator
Grassley, for his work on this important piece of legislation. I also
thank Senator Kennedy for his continued leadership on these issues.
This bill would help many children across the country get the services
they need to grow up and become independent and productive members of
society. And, it will help their families stay afloat financially.
I am always encouraged when issues affecting individuals with
disabilities and their families rise above partisan lines. Disability
is not a partisan issue. President Bush understood that. Bob Dole
understands that. And I am glad to see that my fellow senator from Iowa
has joined me in the fight to ensure that children with disabilities
and their families get a fair shake in life.
Just last year the Congress and the President agreed that we should
remove barriers to work for people with disabilities in our national
programs when it passed the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999 into law. The Family Opportunity Act builds on
that bipartisan agreement and says that we should also remove barriers
to work for families of children with disabilities. Right now, many
families are forced to spend down their savings and earnings on
specialized services for their children because their private insurance
won't cover them. Other families give up jobs and promotions so that
they continue to qualify for Medicaid.
This is wrong for two reasons. First, it's the child that suffers if
appropriate services aren't available due to high cost and lack of
insurance coverage. Second, if a family is forced to pay for expensive
services time and again or forced to give up an employment opportunity,
the entire family is pushed to edge financially. As a result, the
family can become impoverished or forced to give up custody of their
child in order to secure appropriate Medicaid services.
This bill provides a commonsense solution to the problem. The bill
allows States to offer Medicaid coverage to children with severe
disabilities living in middle-income families through a buy-in program.
children will get the right early intervention services, rehabilitation
and long-term therapies, and medical equipment they need to keep pace
and grow into adulthood. And, parents will no longer have to sacrifice
a job, a raise, or overtime so they can stay inside the income bracket
that qualifies their child for SSI/Medicaid.
Perhaps most importantly, this bill will ensure that children get the
services they need to stay at home with their families. Keeping
families strong is the best therapy for everyone--the child, the
family, and the entire community.
Finally, the Family to Family Health Information Centers included in
the bill will ensure every family knows what about the services and
opportunities that are available to them. I know this type of
information exchange works because I've taken the lead to fund similar
programs in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
Ten years ago, as the chief sponsor of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, I said on the Senate floor that I wanted every child
and individual with a disability to have an equal opportunity to
participate in all aspects of American life.
Since that time, I have worked hard to ensure that every national
program encourages independence and self-sufficiency for individuals
with disabilities. Each step we take to live up to the promise of the
Americans with Disabilities' Act is progress. Last year's Ticket to
Work and Work Incentives Improvement was a big step toward equality.
The Family Opportunity Act builds on that legislation.
In my mind, the Medicaid Community Attendant Services Act (MiCASSA),
introduced by myself and Senator Specter last fall, takes the next big
step toward fulfilling the promise of the ADA. Given a real choice,
most Americans who need long-term services and supports would prefer to
receive them in home and community settings rather than in
institutions. And yet, too often decisions relating to the provision of
long-term services and supports are influenced by what is reimbursable
under Federal and State Medicaid policy rather than by what individuals
need. Research has revealed a significant bias in the Medicaid program
toward reimbursing services provided in institutions over services
provided in home and community settings (75 percent of Medicaid funds
pay for services provided in institutions).
Long-term services and supports provided under the Medicaid program
must meet the evolving and changing needs and preferences of
individuals. No individual should be forced into an institution to
receive reimbursement for services that can be effectively and
efficiently delivered in the home or community. Individuals must be
empowered to exercise and real choice in selecting long term services
and supports that meet their unique needs. Federal and State Medicaid
policies should facilitate and be responsive to and not impede an
individual's choice in selecting needed long-term services and
supports.
MiCASSA would eliminate the bias in Medicaid law toward institutional
care by providing that stats offer community attendant services and
supports as well as institutional care for eligible individuals in need
of long term services and supports. The legislation also assists states
develop and enhance comprehensive statewide system of long-term
services and supports that provide real consumer choice consistent with
the principle that service and supports should be provided in the most
integrated setting appropriate to meeting the unique need of the
individual.
I look forward to building further bipartisan agreement on both
pieces of legislation. This is an exciting time for disability policy.
______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2275. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to prohibit the
exportation of Alaska North Slope crude oil; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

the oil supply improvement act

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, gasoline prices have reached astronomical
levels. Nowhere has this price increase been more apparent than in
California. For several years now, we have been experiencing gasoline
prices well above what the rest of the nation has faced.
But now, this problem, which started on the West Coast, has moved
east and is affecting everyone. On Monday, the Energy Information
Administration reported that the average price of gasoline in the
United States was $1.52 per gallon--the tenth straight week gasoline
prices have gone up. That price is

[[Page S1609]]

52 cents higher than the national average price just one year ago.
As I said, in California, the problem is even worse. The average
price for a gallon of gasoline is now $1.79--up 57 cents per gallon
from this time last year.
These prices are all-time highs.
Mr. President, I believe that there are several steps that can be
taken to address this problem and to help American consumers. We should
impose a moratorium on major oil company mergers. We must have vigorous
enforcement of the antitrust laws. We should increase the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy standard for SUVs and light trucks so that it
equals the standard for cars. And, we should ban the exportation of
crude oil from Alaska's North Slope.
I want to talk about this last suggestion, because it is the subject
of a bill I am introducing today, called the Oil Supply Improvement
Act.
For 22 years--from 1973 to 1995--the export of Alaska North Slope oil
was banned. We banned it to reduce our dependence on imported oil and
to keep gasoline prices down.
Unfortunately, at the behest of oil producers--and despite warnings
of higher gasoline prices--the ban was lifted in 1995. Clearly, the
fears of those of us who opposed lifting the ban have become reality.
The General Accounting Office has confirmed that lifting the export ban
resulted in an increase in the price of crude oil by about $1 per
barrel.
In fact, some oil companies have used their ability to export this
oil to keep the price of gasoline on the West Coast artificially high.
The Federal Trade Commission makes this charge in its lawsuit to block
the merger of BP-Amoco and Arco. That suit also alludes to secret
internal company documents showing that there was price manipulation.
Alaska North Slope oil was exported specifically to keep gasoline
prices on the West Coast high.
Mr. President, I am not suggesting that this bill alone is the
complete solution. It is only one piece of the puzzle, and only one of
the things that I am suggesting. But when we have an energy shortage in
this country, we should not be sending the oil in this country
somewhere else.
This is oil that is on public lands--and that is transported along a
federal right-of-way. Taxpayers own this product. In this time of an
energy shortage, it is time to put American consumers and industry
first.
______

By Mr. FRIST:
S. 2276. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to establish programs to recruit, retain, and retrain teachers,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.

a million quality teachers act

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce A Million Quality
Teachers Act. Thomas Jefferson once observed that of all the bills in
the federal code, ``by far the most important is that for the diffusion
of knowledge among the people.'' ``No surer foundation,'' he said,
``can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness.''
Unfortunately, our current foundation of elementary and secondary
education is grossly inadequate to enable American children of all
income levels and backgrounds to best realize the ``American dream''
and the economic freedoms that the ``American dream'' encapsulates.
Most companies dismiss the value of a high school diploma. Twelfth
grade students in the United States rank near the very bottom on
international comparisons in math and science. The Third International
Math and Science Study, the most comprehensive and rigorous comparison
of quantitative skills across nations, reveals that the longer our
students stay in the elementary and public school system, the worse
they perform on standardized tests.
High school graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed as college
graduates (3.9% vs. 1.9%). Moreover, the value of a college degree over
a high school degree is rising. In 1970, a college graduate made 136%
more than a high school graduate. Today it is 176%. Even more ominous
are labor participation rates for high school graduates in an
information economy. While labor force participation for adults is at
an all time high in the American economy, this boom has masked a 10%
decline in participation rates for high school graduates since 1970
from 96.3% to 86.4%.
Our children cannot afford to be illiterate in mathematics and
science. The rapidly changing technology revolution demands skills and
proficiency in mathematics, science, and technology. IT, perhaps the
fastest growing sector of our economy, relies on more than basic high
school literacy in mathematics and science.
The Senate has begun to consider the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). As a member of the
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I have worked
hard to ensure that we change the current focus of our federal
education effort from a confusing, duplicative, categorical system that
relies on inputs to one that focuses on effectiveness and on increased
student achievement as a result.
The bill that I introduce today is a good complement to the ESEA bill
that we will soon debate on the Senate floor. We have all heard about
the impending teacher shortage. The Department of Education estimates
that we will need over 2.2 million new teachers in the next decade to
meet enrollment increases and to offset the large number of baby boomer
teachers who will soon be retiring. Additionally, although America has
many high-quality teachers already, we do not have enough, and with the
impending retirement of the baby boomer generation of teachers, we will
need even more.

the President and many Senate Democrats want to continue to devote
significant resources to reducing class size, and the concept to hire
more teachers isn't a bad idea. Studies have shown that smaller class
size may improve learning under certain circumstances. But class size
is only a small piece in the bigger puzzle to improve America's
education system, not the catapult that will launch us into education
prosperity.
My bill takes the class size reduction money and redirects it to
strengthening and improving teacher quality. Tennessee's own William
Sanders, a professor at the University of Tennessee, has pioneered the
``value-added'' system of measuring the effectiveness of a teacher. His
research demonstrates that teacher quality has a greater effect on
student performance than any other factor--including class size and
student demographics. He goes on to say that, ``When kids have
ineffective teachers, they never recover.'' According to noted
education economist and researcher Eric Hanushek of the University of
Rochester, ``the difference between a good and a bad teacher can be a
full level of achievement in a single year.''
Unfortunately, there are too many teachers in America today who lack
proper preparation in the subjects that they teach. My own state of
Tennessee actually does a good job of ensuring that teachers have at
lest a major or minor in the subject that they teach--well enough to
receive a grade of A in that category on the recent Thomas Fordham
Foundation report on teacher quality in the states. Even in Tennessee,
however, 64.5% of teachers teaching physical science do not even have a
minor in the subject. Among history teachers, nearly 50% did not major
or minor in history. Many other states do worse.
Additionally, there is consensus that we are not attracting enough of
the best and the brightest to teaching, and not retaining enough of the
best of those that we attract. According to Harvard economist Richard
Murnane, ``College graduates with high test scores are less likely to
become teachers, licensed teachers with high test scores are less
likely to take jobs, employed teachers with high test scores are less
likely to stay, and former teachers with high test scores are less
likely to return.''
A Million Quality Teachers seeks to change that by recruiting, and
helping states recruit into the teaching profession top-quality
students who have majored in academic subjects. We want teachers
teaching math who have majored in and who love math. We want teachers
teaching science who have majored in and who love science. This bill
helps draw those students into teaching for a few years at the very

[[Page S1610]]

least, and studies have shown that new teachers are most effective in
the first couple of years of teaching. This bill would attract new
students, and different kinds of students, into teaching by offering
significant loan repayment.
While teachers are one of our nation's most critical professions, it
is often very difficult to attract highly skilled and marketable
college students and graduates because of a profound lack of
competitive salaries and the burden of student loans. In addition to
the loan forgiveness and alternative certification stipends, the
legislation will allow states to use up to $1.3 billion originally
designated in a lump sum to hire more teachers to instead allow the
states to use that money more creatively in programs to attract the
kind of quality teachers they need but cannot afford. Using innovative
tools already tested by many states, such as signing bonuses, loan
forgiveness, payment of certification costs, and income tax credits,
states will be able to once again make teaching an attractive and
competitive career for our brightest college graduates. Additionally,
the legislation does not limit states to these tools, but allows them
to receive grants to continue testing other innovative and new programs
for the same purposes.

There are two parts to the bill:
Part I is a competitive grant program for States to enable them to
run their own innovative quality teacher recruitment, retention and
retraining programs. Part II is a loan forgiveness and alternative
certification scholarship program to entice individuals with strong
academic backgrounds into teaching.
The State grant program will help States focus on recruitment,
retention and retraining in the way that best serves the individual
State. Some states may decide to offer a teacher signing bonus program
like the widely publicized and very successful program in
Massachusetts. Other states may choose to institute teacher testing and
merit pay, or to award performance bonuses to outstanding teachers. The
program is very flexible, yet the State must be accountable for
improving the quality of teachers in that State.
States who participate must submit a plan for how they intend to use
funds under the program and how they expect teacher quality to increase
as a result, including the expected increase in the number of teachers
who majored in the academic subject in which they teach, and the number
of teachers who received alternative certification, if the funds are
used for recruitment activities. If the funds are used for retention or
retraining, the State must focus on how the program will decrease
teacher attrition and increase the effectiveness of existing teachers.
States must also report at the end of the three-year grant on how the
program increased teacher quality and increased the number of teachers
with academic majors in the subjects in which they teach and the number
of teachers that received alternative certification and/or how the
program decreased teacher attrition and increased the effectiveness of
existing teachers.
The loan forgiveness provision is different than loan forgiveness
already in current law in that it targets a different population:
students in college or graduate school today who are excelling in an
academic subject. The purpose is to attract students into teaching who
might not otherwise choose to pursue a teaching career and who are
majoring in an academic subject.
Any eligible student may take advantage of the loan forgiveness and
deferral. An eligible student has majored in a core academic subject
with at least a 3.0 GPA and has not been a fulltime teacher previously.
Loan payments are deferred for as long as the student is obtaining
alternative certification or teaching in a public school.
The federal government would actually forgive:
35% of all federally subsidized or guaranteed loans after the first
two years that an eligible student teaches;
For the next two years, an additional 30% is forgiven;
After 6 years, an additional 20% is forgiven; and
After 8 years, the remaining 15% of the loan obligation is
eliminated.
The premise is that teaching is or will soon be like other
professions where there is at least some degree of transience. In fact,
recent studies show that most new teachers leave within four years. But
these studies also show that new teachers are most effective in the
first few years of teaching. This bill would attract new students, and
different kinds of students, into teaching by offering significant loan
repayment.
Alternative certification stipends will provide a seamless transition
for a student from school into teaching. The bill provides stipends to
students who have received their academic degrees from a college or
university in order to obtain certification through alternative means.
Students who have received assistance under the loan forgiveness
section get first priority, but any student who has received a
bachelors or advanced degree in a core academic subject with a GPA of
at least 3.0 and who has never taught full-time in a public school is
eligible.
Students would receive the lesser of $5,000 or the costs of the
alternative certification program, in exchange for agreeing to teach in
a public school for 2 years.
There is also a small amount of money available to the Department of
Education for the purposes of notifying eligible students of the loan
forgiveness and alternative certification stipend programs and
contracting with outside groups of broaden public awareness of the
program, including to advertise it in various media formats.
A Million Quality Teachers is a good complement to the Teacher
Empowerment Act contained in the ESEA proposal voted out of the HELP
Committee by a 10-8 vote. The Teacher Empowerment Act (TEA) directs
federal funds to local education agencies for professional development,
recruitment and class size reduction, while A Million Quality Teachers
directs federal funds to states for statewide initiatives like the very
successful Massachusetts teacher signing bonus program. A Million
Quality Teachers also addresses the pressing need for more highly-
qualified teachers in light of the teacher shortage by providing
appropriate incentives to top students in order to entice them into the
teaching profession.
The job of every new generation is to meet civilization's new
problems, improve its new opportunities, and explore its ever-expanding
horizons, creating dreams not just for themselves, but for all who come
after. Our job--the job of the current generation--is to help them do
just that. Learning is the future. Education is the key. I think it's
time we embarked upon a national effort to bring up to a standard
demanded by the challenge, and improving teacher quality is the first
step. I hope that my colleagues will concur.

____________________