[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 40 (Friday, March 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2824-S2831]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 603. A bill to provide for full voting representation in the 
Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that individuals who are 
residents of the District of Columbia shall be exempt from Federal 
income taxation until such full voting representation takes effect, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
Senator Russ Feingold and with my longtime friend Congresswoman Eleanor 
Holmes Norton in the House of Representatives, in sending the message 
that, as the United States Supreme Court has said, ``No right is more 
precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election 
of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must 
live.'' Here we are, in the year 2001--225 years after the birth of our 
nation--and the residents of the District of Columbia, despite paying 
their full freight of federal taxes, are still deprived of this 
fundamental right. The bill we introduce today, the ``No Taxation 
Without Representation Act of 2001,'' drawing on the famous cry of the 
Boston Tea Party, is a reminder that full representation is a building 
block of the covenant of our democracy, a birthright of every American 
citizen.
  The voting problems in the 2000 Presidential election make the 
symbolism of this bill even more powerful. Not since the civil rights 
struggle of the early 1960's have we been so keenly aware of the 
importance of a vote. All taxpaying citizens of the United States, 
except the residents of Washington, D.C., can vote for representatives 
to advocate for and protect the interests of their constituents in both 
the House and Senate. As American citizens, we do not regard this 
opportunity as a privilege; we regard it as a right. Many Americans are 
not aware and, I believe, would be shocked to know that the residents 
of the District of Columbia have no such right. Although they regularly 
elect ``shadow'' Senators and a ``shadow'' Representative, these people 
are not recognized as members of Congress. The sole voice in Congress 
for D.C. is Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton in the House of 
Representatives.
  Now I have known Congresswoman Norton for many years, and I know her 
to be able and persistent. The residents of Washington, D.C. are lucky 
to have such a strong and talented advocate on their side. But as a 
delegate, she has the right to vote only in committee; she does not 
have the right to vote on the congressional floor. So unlike every 
other American, Washingtonians have no congressional representatives to 
call who can vote for or against pending legislation that may become 
the law of the land, their land.
  Ever since the American Revolution, the power to tax and the right to 
vote have been inextricably linked. D.C. residents pay federal taxes, 
but have no vote in Congress. I am introducing this bill today in order 
to condemn this unfair situation. If enacted, this bill would exempt 
D.C. residents from paying federal income tax so long as they are not 
fully represented on Capitol Hill. There is a rationale for such an 
exemption from tax. Residents of United States territories such as 
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands which, like 
D.C., have delegate representation in Congress are not required to pay 
any federal income tax. But let me be clear. My goal in sponsoring this 
legislation is not to provide a windfall to the people of Washington, 
D.C. Allowing the residents of D.C. to live tax-free will not solve 
this problem. This bill is a matter of principle, not tax policy. And 
the principle is the right to full enfranchisement.

  As our nation's capital, Washington, D.C. belongs to each and every 
American. We should all take pride in this beautiful city and show its 
citizens the respect they deserve. That is why I have long supported 
legislation providing much-needed financial and political empowerment 
for D.C. I was an original cosponsor of the D.C. Economic Recovery Act 
of 1997, which would have offered tax incentives for people to live and 
invest in here in D.C. We succeeded in getting two provisions of that 
bill enacted, a tax credit for first-time home-buyers and elimination 
of capital gains tax for economic development investments in D.C. I was 
also an original cosponsor of legislation to grant D.C. statehood both 
times it was introduced. And it is because I still believe that the 
people of Washington, D.C. deserve full participation in our democracy 
that I am sponsoring the No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2001 
today.
  My hope is that by introducing this bill, we can bring national 
attention to the injustice that the residents of Washington, D.C. have 
for too long endured. I hope it will help rally the necessary support 
here in Congress to grant D.C. full congressional voting rights. All 
American citizens deserve the right to elect representatives to speak 
and to vote on their behalf in Congress. It is time that the American 
citizens living within the borders of Washington, D.C. are given their 
due. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, 
and 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. 603

       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 ``No Taxation Without 
     Representation Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The residents of the District of Columbia are the only 
     Americans who pay Federal income taxes but are denied voting 
     representation in the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       (2) The principle of one person, one vote requires that 
     residents who have met every element of American citizenship 
     should have every benefit of American citizenship, including 
     voting representation in the House and the Senate.
       (3) The residents of the District of Columbia are twice 
     denied equal representation, because they do not have voting 
     representation as other taxpaying Americans do and are 
     nevertheless required to pay Federal income taxes unlike the 
     Americans who live in the territories.
       (4) Despite the denial of voting representation, Americans 
     in the Nation's capital are second among the residents of all 
     States in per capita income taxes paid to the Federal 
     Government.
       (5) Unequal voting representation in our representative 
     democracy is inconsistent with the founding principles of the 
     Nation and the strongly held principles of the American 
     people today.

     SEC. 3. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the community 
     of American citizens

[[Page S2825]]

     who are residents of the District constituting the seat of 
     government of the United States shall have full voting 
     representation in the Congress.

     SEC. 4. EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE RESIDENTS 
                   OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     inserting after section 138 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 138A. RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       ``(a) Exemption for Residents During Years Without Full 
     Voting Representation in Congress.--This section shall apply 
     with respect to any taxable year during which residents of 
     the District of Columbia are not represented in the House of 
     Representatives and Senate by individuals who are elected by 
     the voters of the District and who have the same voting 
     rights in the House of Representatives and Senate as Members 
     who represent States.
       ``(b) Residents for Entire Taxable Year.--An individual who 
     is a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia during 
     the entire taxable year shall be exempt from taxation under 
     this chapter for such taxable year.
       ``(c) Taxable Year of Change of Residence From District of 
     Columbia.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who has 
     been a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia for a 
     period of at least 2 years before the date on which such 
     individual changes his residence from the District of 
     Columbia, income which is attributable to that part of such 
     period of District of Columbia residence before such date 
     shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt 
     from taxation under this chapter.
       ``(2) Deductions, etc. allocable to excluded amounts not 
     allowable.--An individual shall not be allowed--
       ``(A) as a deduction from gross income any deductions 
     (other than the deduction under section 151, relating to 
     personal exemptions), or
       ``(B) any credit,
     properly allocable or chargeable against amounts excluded 
     from gross income under this subsection.
       ``(d) Determination of Residency.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     determination of whether an individual is a bona fide 
     resident of the District of Columbia shall be made under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Individuals registered to vote in other 
     jurisdictions.--No individual may be treated as a bona fide 
     resident of the District of Columbia for purposes of this 
     section with respect to a taxable year if at any time during 
     the year the individual is registered to vote in any other 
     jurisdiction.''.
       (b) No Wage Withholding.--Paragraph (8) of section 3401(a) 
     of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(E) for services for an employer performed by an employee 
     if it is reasonable to believe that during the entire 
     calendar year the employee will be a bona fide resident of 
     the District of Columbia unless section 138A is not in effect 
     throughout such calendar year; or''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 138 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 138A. Residents of the District of Columbia.''

       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Withholding.--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to remuneration paid after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 604. A bill to amend title III or the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 to provide for digital education partnerships; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Ready 
To Learn, Ready To Teach Act. I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Warner.
  In 1992, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Ready To Learn 
Television Act. The premise was to utilize the time children spend 
watching television to prepare them for the first year of school. Data 
told us that nearly every preschool child in America was watching up to 
30 hours of television per week. While there were some educational 
television shows, there was not a consistent effort to provide truly 
meaningful programming.
  Ready to Learn was signed by President Bush in October, 1992. The new 
law supported the coordination of existing Public Broadcasting shows 
like Sesame Street and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. By 1994, more local 
public television stations began airing a consistent block of preschool 
educational programs and PBS began developing supplemental materials to 
help parents prepare their children for school.
  Today, new research from the University of Alabama and the University 
of Kansas tells us that Ready to Learn is having a positive impact on 
children and their parents. The University of Alabama study found that 
Ready to Learn families read books together more often and for longer 
periods than non participants. And--this is a fact that surprises 
many--Ready to Learn children watch 40 percent less television and are 
more likely to choose educational programs when they do watch.
  Using the best research tested information available, Ready To Learn 
supports the development of educational, commercial-free television 
shows for young children. Between the Lions, is the first television 
series to offer educationally valid reading instruction which has been 
endorsed by the professional organizations that represent librarians, 
teachers and school principals. Its partners also include: the Center 
for the Book at the Library of Congress; the National Center for Family 
Literacy; the National Coalition for Literacy and the Home Instruction 
Program for Preschool Youngsters. This broad-based support is 
unprecedented for a children's television show. It is well deserved 
affirmation of the Ready to Learn mission.
  A recent study from the University of Kansas showed that children who 
watched Between the Lions a few hours per week, increased their 
knowledge of letter-sound correspondence by 64 percent compared to a 25 
percent increase by those who did not watch it. Continuing research 
suggests that classroom, teacher led use of the video and online 
resources will be beneficial to kindergarten and first grade students 
and is desired by teachers.
  Thirty seven million children have played to, sung with, and learned 
from Ready To Learn Television shows. The parents and other care givers 
of more than 6 million children have participated in the local 
workshops and other services provided by 133 public broadcasting 
stations.
  In my state, the Mississippi Educational Television Network Ready to 
Learn director, Cassandra Washington Love, has received high praise for 
the effective assistance she provides to families. One grandfather 
said, ``It made my grandchildren happy to know that they could get free 
books. My wife and I were also happy because we were not able to buy 
them any books. Thanks to that TV station.''
  The second element of the Ready To Learn, Ready To Teach Act concerns 
teacher professional development. MATHLINE is a proven professional 
development model for teachers of mathematics. In 1994, Congress 
authorized the ``Telecommunications Demonstration Project for 
Mathematics,'' which has supported a project called MATHLINE.
  MATHLINE is a blend of technology and teacher ``best practices.'' 
MATHLINE demonstrations established some of the first internet-like 
online communications between teachers. The flexibility of video tape 
allows MATHLINE participants to adjust training schedules and cut out 
the expense and time of travel.
  This bill graduates MATHLINE to TeacherLine, a more comprehensive 
professional development tool for teachers of preschool through twelfth 
grade. TeacherLine will also support state of the art, digitally 
produced content for classroom use.
  Digital broadcasting will dramatically increase the services local 
public broadcasting stations can offer schools. One of the most 
exciting is the ability to broadcast multiple video channels and data 
information simultaneously. This will make possible for instructional 
materials to be distributed on full time, continuous channels, on 
demand, when teachers and students need it.
  In my opinion we should reauthorize the programs that are successful 
models and lead to educational improvement.
  The Ready To Learn, Ready To Teach Act takes the best of educational 
technology programming; improves those proven to work, and places 
renewed confidence in one of education's most trusted and successful 
partners.

[[Page S2826]]

  I hope Senators will support this important education legislation.
  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. 604

       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 ``Ready to Learn, Ready to 
     Teach Act of 2001''.

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 3301. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) In 1994, Congress and the Department collaborated to 
     make a long-term, meaningful and public investment in the 
     principle that high quality preschool television programming 
     will help children be ready to learn by the time the children 
     entered first grade.
       ``(2) The Ready to Learn Television Program through the 
     Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and local public television 
     stations has proven to be an extremely cost-effective 
     national response to improving early childhood cognitive 
     development and helping parents, caregivers, and professional 
     child care providers learn how to use television as a means 
     to help children learn and develop social skills and values.
       ``(3) Independent research shows that parents who 
     participate in Ready to Learn workshops are more selective of 
     the programs that they choose for their children, limit the 
     number of hours of television viewing of their children, and 
     use the television programs as a catalyst for learning.
       ``(4) The Ready to Learn (RTL) Television Program is 
     supporting and creating commercial-free broadcast programs 
     for young children that are of the highest possible 
     educational quality.
       ``(5) Through the Nation's 350 local public television 
     stations, these programs and other programming elements reach 
     tens of millions of children, their parents, and caregivers 
     without regard to their economic circumstances, location, or 
     access to cable. Public television is a partner with Federal 
     policy to make television an instrument of preschool 
     children's education and early development.
       ``(6) The Ready to Learn Television Program supports 
     thousands of local workshops organized and run by local 
     public television stations, child care service providers, 
     Head Start Centers, Even Start family literacy centers and 
     schools. These workshops have trained 630,587 parents and 
     professionals who, in turn, serve and support over 6,312,000 
     children across the Nation.
       ``(7) The Ready to Learn Television Program has published 
     and distributed a periodic magazine entitled `PBS Families' 
     that contains developmentally appropriate material to 
     strengthen reading skills and enhance family literacy.
       ``(8) Ready to Learn Television stations also have 
     distributed millions of age-appropriate books in their 
     communities. Each station receives a minimum of 300 books 
     each month for free local distribution. Some stations are now 
     distributing more than 1,000 books per month. Nationwide, 
     more than 653,494 books have been distributed in low-income 
     and disadvantaged neighborhoods free of charge.
       ``(9) Demand for Ready To Learn Television Program outreach 
     and training has increased from 10 Public Broadcasting 
     Service stations to 133 stations in 5 years. This growth has 
     put a strain on available resources resulting in an inability 
     to meet the demand for the service and to reach all the 
     children who would benefit from the service.
       ``(10) Federal policy played a crucial role in the 
     evolution of analog television by funding the television 
     program entitled `Sesame Street' in the 1960's. Federal 
     policy should continue to play an equally crucial role for 
     children in the digital television age.

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

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

     ``SEC. 3303. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING.

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

     ``SEC. 3304. DUTIES OF SECRETARY.

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

     ``SEC. 3305. APPLICATIONS.

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

     ``SEC. 3306. REPORTS AND EVALUATION.

       ``(a) Annual Report to Secretary.--An eligible entity 
     receiving funds under section 3302 shall prepare and submit 
     to the Secretary an annual report which contains such

[[Page S2827]]

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

     ``SEC. 3307. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

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

     ``SEC. 3308. DEFINITION.

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

     ``SEC. 3309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this part, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding 
     fiscal years.
       ``(b) Funding Rule.--Not less than 60 percent of the 
     amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal 
     year shall be used to carry out section 3303.''.

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

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

                   ``PART D--THE TEACHERLINE PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 3401. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Since 1995, the Telecommunications Demonstration 
     Project for Mathematics (as established under this part 
     pursuant to the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994) (in 
     this section referred to as `MATHLINE') has allowed the 
     Public Broadcasting Service to pioneer and refine a new model 
     of teacher professional development for kindergarten through 
     grade 12 teachers. MATHLINE uses video modeling of standards-
     based lessons, combined with professionally facilitated 
     online learning communities of teachers, to help mathematics 
     teachers from elementary school through secondary school 
     adopt and implement standards-based practices in their 
     classrooms. This approach allows teachers to update their 
     skills on their own schedules through video, while providing 
     online interaction with peers and master teachers to 
     reinforce that learning. This integrated, self-paced approach 
     breaks down the isolation of classroom teaching while making 
     standards-based best practices available to all participants.
       ``(2) MATHLINE was developed specifically to disseminate 
     the first national voluntary standards for teaching and 
     learning as developed by the National Council of Teachers of 
     Mathematics (NCTM). During 3 years of actual deployment, more 
     than 5,800 teachers have participated for at least a full 
     year in the demonstration. These teachers, in turn, have 
     taught more than 1,500,000 students cumulatively.
       ``(3) Independent evaluations indicate that teaching 
     improves and students benefit as a result of the MATHLINE 
     program.
       ``(4) The MATHLINE program is ready to be expanded to reach 
     many more teachers in more subject areas under the broader 
     title of Teacherline. The Teacherline Program will link the 
     digitized public broadcasting infrastructure with education 
     networks by working with the program's digital membership, 
     and Federal and State agencies, to expand and build upon the 
     successful MATHLINE model and take advantage of greatly 
     expanded access to the Internet and technology in schools, 
     including digital television. Tens of thousands of teachers 
     will have access to the Teacherline Program to advance their 
     teaching skills and their ability to integrate technology 
     into teaching and learning. The Teacherline Program also will 
     leverage the Public Broadcasting Service's historic 
     relationships with higher education to improve preservice 
     teacher training.
       ``(5) The congressionally appointed Web-based Education 
     Commission recently issued a comprehensive report on Internet 
     learning that called for powerful new Internet resources, 
     especially broadband access, to be made widely and equitably 
     available and affordable for all learners.
       ``(6) The Web-based Education Commission also called for 
     continuous and relevant training and support for educators 
     and administrators at all levels.
       ``(7) The National Research Council recently issued a 
     report entitled `Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn 
     Mathematics' that concluded that professional development in 
     mathematics needs to be sustained over years in order to be 
     effective.
       ``(8) Furthermore, the Glenn Commission, appointed by the 
     Secretary of Education to consider ways of improving 
     preparation and professional growth for mathematics and 
     science teachers concluded that teacher training `depends 
     upon sustained, high-quality professional development'. The 
     Commission recommended the establishment of an ongoing system 
     to improve the quality of mathematics and science teaching in 
     grades K-12.
       ``(9) Over the past several years tremendous progress has 
     been made in wiring classrooms, equipping the classrooms with 
     multimedia computers, and connecting the classrooms to the 
     Internet.
       ``(10) There is a great need for aggregating high quality, 
     curriculum-based digital content for teachers and students to 
     easily access and use in order to meet State and local 
     standards for student performance.
       ``(11) The congressionally appointed Web-based Education 
     Commission called for the development of high quality public-
     private online educational content that meets the highest 
     standards of educational excellence.
       ``(12) Most local public television stations and State 
     networks provide high-quality video programs, and teacher 
     professional development, as a part of their mission to serve 
     local schools. Programs distributed by public broadcast 
     stations are used by more classroom teachers than any other 
     because of their high quality and relevance to the 
     curriculum.
       ``(13) Digital broadcasting can dramatically increase and 
     improve the types of services public broadcasting stations 
     can offer kindergarten through grade 12 schools.
       ``(14) Digital broadcasting can contribute to the 
     improvement of schools and student performance as follows:
       ``(A) Broadcast of multiple video channels and data 
     information simultaneously.
       ``(B) Data can be transmitted along with the video content 
     enabling students to interact, access additional information, 
     communicate with featured experts, and contribute their own 
     knowledge to the subject.
       ``(C) Both the video and data can be stored on servers and 
     made available on demand to teachers and students.
       ``(15) Interactive digital education content will be an 
     important component of Federal support for States in setting 
     high standards and increasing student performance.

     ``SEC. 3402. PROJECT AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to a 
     nonprofit telecommunications entity, or partnership of such 
     entities, for the purpose of carrying out a national 
     telecommunications-based program to improve teaching in core 
     curriculum areas. The program shall be designed to assist 
     elementary school and secondary school teachers in preparing 
     all students for achieving State and local content standards 
     in core curriculum areas.
       ``(b) The Secretary is also authorized to award grants to 
     eligible entities described in section 3404(b) to develop, 
     produce, and distribute innovative educational and 
     instructional video programming that is designed for use by 
     kindergarten through grade 12 schools and based on State and 
     local standards. In making the grants, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that eligible entities enter into multiyear content 
     development collaborative arrangements with State educational 
     agencies, local educational agencies, institutions of higher 
     education, businesses, or other agencies and organizations.

     ``SEC. 3403. APPLICATION REQUIRED.

       ``(a) Each nonprofit telecommunications entity, or 
     partnership of such entities, desiring a grant under section 
     3402(a) shall submit an application to the Secretary. Each 
     such application shall--
       ``(1) demonstrate that the applicant will use the public 
     broadcasting infrastructure and school digital networks, 
     where available, to deliver video and data in an integrated 
     service to train teachers in the use of standards-based 
     curricula materials and learning technologies;
       ``(2) ensure that the project for which assistance is 
     sought will be conducted in cooperation with appropriate 
     State educational agencies, local educational agencies, 
     national, State or local nonprofit public telecommunications 
     entities, and national education professional associations 
     that have developed content standards in the subject areas;
       ``(3) ensure that a significant portion of the benefits 
     available for elementary schools and secondary schools from 
     the project for which assistance is sought will be available 
     to schools of local educational agencies which have a high 
     percentage of children counted for the purpose of part A of 
     title I; and
       ``(4) contain such additional assurances as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require.
       ``(b) In approving applications under section 3402(a), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that the program authorized by section 
     3402(a) is

[[Page S2828]]

     conducted at elementary school and secondary school sites 
     across the Nation.
       ``(c) Each eligible entity desiring a grant under section 
     3402(b) shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 3404. REPORTS AND EVALUATION.

       ``An eligible entity receiving funds under section 3402(a) 
     shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an annual report 
     which contains such information as the Secretary may require. 
     At a minimum, the report shall described the program 
     activities undertaken with funds received under section 
     3402(a), including--
       ``(1) the core curriculum areas for which program 
     activities have been undertaken and the number of teachers 
     using the program in each core curriculum area; and
       ``(2) the States in which teachers using the program are 
     located.

     ``SEC. 3405. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING.

       ``(a) Awards.--The Secretary shall award grants under 
     section 3402(b) to eligible entities to--
       ``(1) facilitate the development of educational programming 
     that shall--
       ``(A) include student assessment tools to give feedback on 
     student performance;
       ``(B) include built-in teacher utilization and support 
     components to ensure that teachers understand and can easily 
     use the content of the programming with group instruction or 
     for individual student use;
       ``(C) be created for, or adaptable to, State and local 
     content standards; and
       ``(D) be capable of distribution through digital 
     broadcasting and school digital networks.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under section 3402(b), an entity shall be a local public 
     telecommunications entity as defined by section 397(12) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 that is able to demonstrate a 
     capacity for the development and distribution of educational 
     and instructional television programming of high quality.
       ``(c) Competitive Basis.--Grants under section 3402(b) 
     shall be awarded on a competitive basis as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Duration.--Each grant under section 3402(b) shall be 
     awarded for a period of 3 years in order to allow time for 
     the creation of a substantial body of significant content.

     ``SEC. 3406. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

       ``Each eligible entity desiring a grant under section 
     3402(b) shall contribute to the activities assisted under 
     section 3402(b) non-Federal matching funds equal to not less 
     than 100 percent of the amount of the grant. Matching funds 
     may include funds provided for the transition to digital 
     broadcasting, as well as in-kind contributions.

     ``SEC. 3407. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       ``With respect to the implementation of section 3402(b), 
     entities receiving a grant from the Secretary may use not 
     more than 5 percent of the amounts received under the grant 
     for the normal and customary expenses of administering the 
     grant.

     ``SEC. 3408. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part, $45,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years. 
     However, for any fiscal year in which appropriations for 
     section 3402 exceeds the amount appropriated under such 
     section for the preceding fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     only award the amount of such excess minus at least $500,000 
     to applicants under section 3402(b).''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Cochran 
in sponsoring the Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act of 2001. I commend 
him for his leadership in improving early learning opportunities for 
children and families, so that more children come to school ready to 
learn.
  In the early 1990s, Dr. Ernest Boyer, the distinguished former leader 
of the Carnegie Foundation, gave compelling testimony to the Senate 
Labor Committee about the appallingly high number of children who enter 
school without the skills to prepare them for learning. Their lack of 
preparation presented enormous obstacles to their ability to learn 
effectively in school, and seriously impaired their long-term 
achievement.
  In response, Congress enacted the Ready to Learn program in 1992, and 
2 years later its promise was so great that we extended it for five 
years. Because of the Department of Education and the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, the Ready to Learn initiative became an innovative 
and effective program. By linking the power of television to the world 
of books, many more children have been enabled to become good readers 
much more quickly.
  Many children who enter school without the necessary basic skills are 
soon placed in a remedial program, which is costly for school systems. 
It is even more costly, however, for the students who face a bleaker 
future.
  Today, by the time they enter school, the average child will have 
watched 4,000 hours of television. That is roughly the equivalent of 4 
years of school.
  For far too many youngsters, this is wasted time--time consuming 
``empty calories'' for the brain. Instead, that time could be spent 
reading, writing, and learning. Through Ready to Learn television 
programming, children can obtain substantial educational benefits that 
turn TV time into learning time.
  As a result of Ready to Learn television, millions of children and 
families have access to high-quality television produced by public 
television stations across the country. Tens of thousands of parents 
and child-care providers have learned how to be better role models, to 
reinforce learning, and to be more active participants in children's 
learning from programs funded through Ready to Learn.
  For many low-income families, the workshops, books, and television 
shows funded through this program are a vital factor in preparing 
children to read. These programs help parents and child-care providers 
teach children the basics, preparing them to enter school ready to 
learn and ready to succeed.
  Ready to Learn provides 6.5 hours of non-violent educational 
programming a day. These hours include some of the best programs 
available to children, including Arthur, Barney & Friends, Mister 
Rogers' Neighborhood, The Puzzle Place, Reading Rainbow, and Sesame 
Street.
  A recent study by the University of Alabama found that Ready to Learn 
works. Parents who participate in Ready to Learn workshops are more 
critical consumers of television and their children are more active 
viewers. Children watch 40 percent less television overall, and they 
watch more education-oriented programming. These parents did more 
hands-on activities and read more minutes with their children than non-
attendees. They read less for entertainment and more for education. 
They took their children to libraries and bookstores more than non-
attendees.
  Ready to Learn extends beyond the television screen. Thousands of 
workshops are offered by local television stations, almost always in 
conjunction with local child-care training agencies or early childhood 
development professionals. These workshops have trained more than 
320,000 parents and professionals who serve and support over 4 million 
children across the country.
  Ready to Learn has published and distributed millions of copies of 
PBS magazine, a quarterly which contains developmentally appropriate 
games and activities around Ready to Learn programming, parenting 
advice, news, and other information.
  In partnership with PBS and other programs, each station receives a 
minimum of 200 books each month for free local distribution. More than 
300,000 books are distributed each year. Twelve of the 15 television 
programs named ``best for classroom use'' by teachers are PBS programs 
according to a 1997 study by the Corporation for Public Television.
  In addition, Ready to Learn stations have won 57 Emmys for their 
children's programming.
  Many of the innovations under Ready to Learn have come from local 
stations. WGBH in Boston is one of the nation's leaders in public 
broadcasting. It created the Reading Rainbow, and Where in the World is 
Carmen San Diego, which are leaders in educational programming across 
the country.
  Last year, WGBH hosted 34 Ready to Learn workshops in Massachusetts. 
1,100 parents and 265 child-care providers and teachers attended. These 
parents and providers in turn worked with 3,400 children, who are now 
better prepared to succeed in their schools.
  WGBY of Springfield is the mainstay of literacy services for Western 
Massachusetts. This station trained 250 home day-care providers, who 
serve 2,500 children. A video lending library makes PBS materials 
available to teachers to use in their classroom.
  Workshop participants receive training on using children's programs 
as the starting point for educational activities. Participants receive 
free books. For some, these are the only books they have ever owned. 
They receive the PBS Families magazine, in English or Spanish, and they 
also receive the broadcasting schedules. Each of these resources builds 
on the learning that begins with viewing the PBS programs.

  Through partnerships with the Massachusetts Office of Child Care 
Services

[[Page S2829]]

and community-based organizations such as Head Start, Even Start, and 
the Reach Out & Read Program at Boston Medical Center, Ready to Learn 
trainers are reaching many low-income families with media and literacy 
information.
  In Worcester, the Clark Street Developmental Learning School offers a 
family literacy program that uses Reading Rainbow or Arthur in every 
session with families. In addition, the school has now expanded its 
efforts to create an adult literacy center in the school. Many of the 
parents involved in the Ready to Learn project now attend the adult 
education program there.
  Similar successes are happening across the nation. Since 1994, the 
sponsors of Ready to Learn workshops have given away 1.5 million books. 
Their program has grown from 10 television stations in 1994 to 130 
television stations today. They have conducted over 8,500 workshops 
reaching 186,000 parents and 146,000 child care providers, who have in 
turn affected the lives of over four million children.
  The Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act of 2001 that we are 
introducing today will continue this high-quality children's television 
programming. Equally important, it will take this valuable service into 
the next century through digital television, a powerful resource for 
delivering additional information through television programs.
  The Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act will also increase the 
authorization of funds for Ready to Learn programs from $30 million to 
$50 million a year, enabling these programs to reach even more families 
and children with these needed services.
  The Act also authorizes $20 million for high-quality teacher 
professional development. Building on the success of the MathLine 
program, the bill will expand the program to include materials for 
helping teachers to teach to high state standards in core subject 
areas.
  Participating stations make the teachers workshops available through 
districts, schools, and even on the teachers' own television sets. In 
this way, at their own pace, and in their own time, teachers can review 
the materials, observe other teachers at work, and reflect on their own 
practices. They can consider ways to improve their teaching, and make 
adjustments to their own practices. Teachers will also receive 
essential help in integrating technology into their teaching.
  Teachers themselves are very supportive of the contribution that 
television can make to their classrooms. Eighty-eight percent of 
teachers surveyed in 1997 by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
said that quality television used in the classroom helped them be more 
creative, 92 percent said that it helped them be more effective in the 
classroom.
  Again, I commend Senator Cochran for his leadership, and I urge my 
colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation, so that 
many more children can come to school ready to learn.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Allard, and Mr. Craig):
  S. 606. A bill to provide additional authority to the Office of 
Ombudsman of the Environmental Protection Agency; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ombudsman 
Reauthorization Act of 2001 in partnership with the Senator from 
Colorado, Senator Allard, and my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig.
  We all expect our federal agencies to operate professionally, 
efficiently, and with the interests of the American people at the 
forefront. To help ensure this commitment, several officials are 
charged with the responsibility of internally auditing and monitoring 
the operations and expenses of agency and department programs. These 
individuals are sometimes known as ``watch-dogs'' for their role in 
alerting the public and Congress to questionable activities.
  Within the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, Office of Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER, this duty is held by the 
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is ultimately responsible for responding to 
public inquiries into the activities of OSWER and investigating those 
matters that warrant closer scrutiny.
  Originally established in 1984, the Ombudsman provides the public and 
Congress with an added measure of confidence that controversial waste 
control and emergency response actions by the EPA are being properly 
overseen and investigated where appropriate. Communities in Idaho, for 
their part, have twice welcomed the Ombudsman and his staff to our 
state to look into questionable decisions made by the EPA under the 
Superfund statute. In both cases, the Ombudsman has made extraordinary 
efforts to keep the public informed on the issues and a part of the 
investigations. Each time, the people of Idaho have shown collective 
relief that someone of the Ombudsman's stature and expertise has become 
involved in cleanup decisions in our state. In both cases, the 
Ombudsman has demonstrated an ability to understand the will of the 
community and, despite strong agency resistance, to point out policy 
decisions for cleanups that were not justified or in the public 
interest.
  In 1988, the standing authority of the Ombudsman expired, leaving the 
office and investigations in a precarious position. In essence, while 
the Ombudsman endured as an ``at will'' employee of the EPA, the 
Office's independence and authority have continuously been eroded by 
the agency. Today, the Ombudsman must get approval for new 
investigation and budgetary needs from the very people he and his staff 
must monitor. With these restrictions on the Ombudsman's functions, the 
public has become increasingly alarmed by the loss of a true internal 
watch-dog of EPA activities.
  The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2001 would help restore public 
confidence. First and foremost, it would reestablish the statutory 
recognition of the Office of Ombudsman within the OSWER function of the 
EPA. Second, it would clarify the operational guidelines and 
authorities of the Ombudsman to collect information on matters 
requested by the public and investigate questionable agency activities. 
Finally, the measure would create a separate budget authority, free 
from the possible influence of those that may be subject to 
investigations.
  This legislation is a careful balance between the need to restore 
public confidence in the independence of the Ombudsman and the need to 
ensure discretion and accountability in investigations conducted by the 
Ombudsman. I invite the Administration to engage us in an effort to 
recreate the Ombudsman in the model originally envisioned by Congress 
in the 1980s when the office was established. Our work together will 
help ensure the American people that EPA OSWER programs are chosen 
based on merits, functioning well, and are conducted in the interests 
of the public health and the environment.
  I would like to take a moment to congratulate my colleague, Senator 
Allard, for his partnership in this effort. His leadership on this 
issue has helped raise public and congressional attention when few 
others recognized the importance of this cause. I salute him for his 
diligence in advancing this debate, and I have welcomed the opportunity 
to work with him on this legislation.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about an 
issue of government accountability and public safety. Today, my 
colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo and I are introducing the Ombudsman 
Reauthorization Act of 2001. The bill's goal is to reauthorize the 
Ombudsman's Office within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office 
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, (OSWER).
  I'd like to keep my remarks brief, but I want to share my reasoning 
and interest in this issue. Last year, I introduced similar legislation 
because of an ongoing battle between the citizens of a Denver 
neighborhood and the EPA concerning the Shattuck Superfund site. Only 
through the work of the Ombudsman's office, did the truth finally 
become known.
  The story surrounding the Shattuck site in the Overland Park 
neighborhood in southwest Denver and what the EPA did to this community 
will have a lasting impact not only on the residents of the Overland 
Park neighborhood, but on each and every one of us who looks to the EPA 
to be the guardian of our nation's environmental health and safety. In 
1997, after several years of

[[Page S2830]]

EPA stonewalling, the residents of Overland Park in Denver brought 
their concerns about a Superfund site in their neighborhood and their 
frustrations with the EPA to my attention. I learned that the 
neighborhood had run into a wall of bureaucracy that was unresponsive 
to the very public it is charged with protecting and I requested the 
Ombudsman's intervention. In early 1999, the Ombudsman's office began 
an investigation and quickly determined that the claims made by 
residents were not only meritorious, but the EPA officials had engaged 
in an effort to keep documents and decisions hidden from the public 
thereby placing their health in danger.
  The Shattuck saga has been a frustrating and often disheartening 
experience for all involved. It is an example of what can happen when a 
government entity goes unchecked. For the residents of Denver, the 
Office of Ombudsman afforded the only opportunity to reveal the truth, 
and for the health and safety of the public to be given proper 
priority. In fact, the Ombudsman was so successful at uncovering the 
facts surrounding Shattuck, his investigation has resulted in EPA 
officials restructuring the office so that its actions may be 
restricted, and its independence compromised.
  Without the Ombudsman's investigation on Shattuck, the residents of 
Overland Park would have never learned the truth about the decisions 
made which had direct impact on their personal health. The Ombudsman's 
investigation brought integrity back into the process. Without the 
Ombudsman's work, a trusted federal agency would have been able to 
successfully hide the truth from the very people it is charged to 
protect. The Shattuck issue is a decade long example of why citizens' 
trust in their government has waned. Our bill will preserve the only 
mechanism within the EPA that the public can trust to protect their 
health and safety.
  I am not alone in my concerns and the Shattuck case is not unique. 
Many of my fellow Senators and Representatives have experienced similar 
battles with the EPA over the years in their states.
  After I introduced legislation last year, Senator Crapo joined me in 
my legislative endeavors and has been a great asset. In experiencing a 
similar superfund problem in his home state of Idaho, Senator Crapo 
knows firsthand the need for this independent and trustworthy office. 
As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, his 
assistance is greatly appreciated by me, and by all those who believe 
that their government should be there to serve the needs of the people. 
With Senator Crapo's assistance, the committee held a hearing on my 
bill last year which helped to bring many of these concerns to light 
and push the issue forward. We have worked together in the first months 
of this Congress to craft this new bill, which I believe takes great 
strides in properly defining the role, powers, duties and 
responsibilities of a federal ombudsman. The bill guarantees the much 
needed independence of the office without creating another 
unaccountable government entity.
  Let me make it clear that my main priority in introducing this bill, 
is to keep the EPA OSWER Ombudsman Office independent and open for 
business. I believe that in the future, my colleagues may find 
themselves in a similar situation and I want to make sure that they 
have every assurance that the public's safety is protected, that its 
voice is heard, that its questions are answered and that its concerns 
are addressed.
  I look forward to working with new EPA Administrator Whitman to 
address these concerns and I'm sure she will agree with me on the need 
for government accountability and public confidence.
  I would ask all my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and 
join Senator Crapo and me in passing it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Gramm):
  S. 607. A bill to amend the National Housing Act to require partial 
rebates of FHA mortgage insurance premiums to certain mortgagors upon 
payment of their FHA-insured mortgages; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reinstate 
distributive shares for excess amounts in the Federal Housing 
Administration, FHA, insurance fund.
  FHA provides an important program for first time, low- and moderate-
income, and minority homeowners. These families should not be 
overcharged on FHA premiums. Premiums in excess of an amount necessary 
to maintain an actuarially sound reserve ratio in the FHA Mutual 
Mortgage Insurance, MMI, Fund can only be characterized as a tax on 
homeownership.
  On the other hand, Congress, in conjunction with the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, must ensure that FHA stays healthy, so 
that it can continue to function as an important source of 
homeownership. The Congress has previously determined that a capital 
reserve ratio of 2 percent of the MMI fund's amortized insurance-in-
force is necessary to ensure the safety and soundness of the MMI fund. 
However, it has never been clear how the Congress arrived at that 
number.
  Last year, the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche found that the 
capital adequacy ratio of the fund was 3.66 percent, far in excess of 
the Congressionally mandated goal of 2 percent. While it is important 
for Congress to know the capital adequacy ratio, it is just as 
important to understand the implications of the ratio and whether a 2 
percent reserve is sufficient.
  In order to get a better handle on this issue I requested that the 
General Accounting Office look into the matter, and earlier this week I 
held a hearing of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation to 
examine their findings. GAO's report finds that the current reserve is 
adequate to withstand all but the most serious economic scenarios. 
However, GAO also sounds a note of caution. Economic conditions can 
quickly change, thus changing the value of the fund and the level of 
reserve.
  I believe that the most prudent court of action is for the Congress 
to increase the reserve requirement to either 2.5 percent or 3 percent 
of the insurance in force, and then direct the Department to reinstate 
distributive shares whenever the reserve fund becomes excessive. 
Therefore, I am reintroducing legislation that would require partial 
rebates of FHA mortgage insurance premiums to certain mortgagors upon 
repayment of their FHA insured mortgages. My legislation takes the 
cautious approach of providing rebates only when the reserve ratio is 
in excess of 3 percent, or 150 percent of the reserve level currently 
mandated by Congress. If the reserve ratio drops below 3 percent, 
distributive shares would be suspended. Of course this rebate would be 
based on sound actuarial and accounting practice since a major reason 
for the strength in the fund is that fact that we have experienced a 
near perfect economy in recent years.
  The FHA single family mortgage program was designed to operate as a 
mutual insurance program where homeowners were granted rebates in 
excess of premiums required to maintain actuarial soundness. This 
rebate program was suspended at the direction of Congress in 1990 when 
the MMI fund was in the red--with the intent that the payment of 
distributive shares or rebates would resume when the Fund was again 
financially sound. With a sufficient capital reserve ratio, it is time 
to resume rebates and return the MMI program to its prior status as a 
mutual insurance fund.
  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. 607

       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 ``Homeowners Rebate Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES FROM MUTUAL MORTGAGE 
                   INSURANCE FUND RESERVES.

       (a) In General.--Section 205(c) of the National Housing Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1711(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Distribution of Reserves.--Upon termination of an 
     insurance obligation of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund by 
     payment of the mortgage insured thereunder, if the Secretary 
     determines (in accordance

[[Page S2831]]

     with subsection (e)) that there is a surplus for distribution 
     under this section to mortgagors, the Participating Reserve 
     Account shall be subject to distribution as follows:
       ``(1) Required distribution.--In the case of a mortgage 
     paid after November 5, 1990, and insured for 7 years or more 
     before such termination, the Secretary shall distribute to 
     the mortgagor a share of such Account in such manner and 
     amount as the Secretary shall determine to be equitable and 
     in accordance with sound actuarial and accounting practice, 
     subject to paragraphs (3) and (4).
       ``(2) Discretionary distribution.--In the case of a 
     mortgage not described in paragraph (1), the Secretary is 
     authorized to distribute to the mortgagor a share of such 
     Account in such manner and amount as the Secretary shall 
     determine to be equitable and in accordance with sound 
     actuarial and accounting practice, subject to paragraphs (3) 
     and (4).
       ``(3) Limitation on amount.--In no event shall the amount 
     any such distributable share exceed the aggregate scheduled 
     annual premiums of the mortgagor to the year of termination 
     of the insurance.
       ``(4) Application requirement.--The Secretary shall not 
     distribute any share to an eligible mortgagor under this 
     subsection beginning on the date which is 6 years after the 
     date that the Secretary first transmitted written 
     notification of eligibility to the last known address of the 
     mortgagor, unless the mortgagor has applied in accordance 
     with procedures prescribed by the Secretary for payment of 
     the share within 6-year period. The Secretary shall transfer 
     from the Participating Reserve Account to the General Surplus 
     Account any amounts that, pursuant to the preceding sentence, 
     are no longer eligible for distribution.''.
       (b) Determination of Surplus.--Section 205(e) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1711(e)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, if, at the time of such a 
     determination, the capital ratio (as defined in subsection 
     (f)) for the Fund is 3.0 percent or greater, the Secretary 
     shall determine that there is a surplus for distribution 
     under this section to mortgagors.''.
       (c) Retroactive Payments.--
       (1) Timing.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall determine the amount of each distributable 
     share for each mortgage described in paragraph (2) to be paid 
     and shall make payment of such share.
       (2) Mortgages covered.--A mortgage described in this 
     paragraph is a mortgage for which--
       (A) the insurance obligation of the Mutual Mortgage 
     Insurance Fund was terminated by payment of the mortgage 
     before the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) a distributable share is required to be paid to the 
     mortgagor under section 205(c)(1) of the National Housing Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1711(c)(1)), as amended by subsection (a) of this 
     section; and
       (C) no distributable share was paid pursuant to section 
     205(c) of the National Housing Act upon termination of the 
     insurance obligation of such Fund.

                          ____________________