[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.

       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.

[[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.

                          ____________________