[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17899-17915]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1438. A bill to establish the National Law Enforcement Museum on 
Federal land in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources


                  National Law Enforcement Museum Act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
National Law Enforcement Museum Act of 1999. This legislation would 
authorize the construction of a National Law Enforcement Museum to be 
built here in our Nation's Capital.
  Just over one year ago, this institution, along with millions of 
other Americans, were reminded about the risks that our officers must 
face on a daily basis. On July 24, 1998, U.S. Capitol Police Officer 
Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson were killed by a deranged 
man. This legislation I introduce today will ensure that their story of 
heroism and sacrifice is never forgotten, just as we must never forget 
the thousands of other officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to 
secure the safety and well-being of our communities.
  As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks peace 
officers face in enforcing our laws. Throughout our nation's history, 
nearly 15,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers have 
lost their lives in the line of duty. Based on FBI statistics, nearly 
63,000 officers are assaulted each year in this country, resulting in 
more than 21,000 injuries. On average, one police officer is killed 
somewhere in America every 54 hours.
  Approximately 740,000 law enforcement professionals are continuing to 
put their lives on the line for the safety and protection of others.
  We owe all of those officers a huge debt of gratitude, and it is only 
fitting that we properly commemorate this outstanding record of service 
and sacrifice.
  My legislation seeks to achieve this important goal by authorizing 
the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a nonprofit 
organization, to establish a comprehensive law enforcement museum and 
research repository on federal land in the District of Columbia. The 
Fund is the same group that so ably carried out the congressional 
mandate of 1984 to establish the National Law Enforcement Officers 
Memorial, which was dedicated in 1991 just a few blocks from the 
Capitol. Clearly, their record of significant achievement speaks 
volumes about their ability to meet this important challenge.
  Since 1993, the Fund has efficiently operated a small-scale version 
of the National Law Enforcement Museum at a site located about two 
blocks from the Memorial. The time has come to broaden the scope of 
this museum and move it in closer proximity to the National Law 
Enforcement Officers Memorial.
  This museum would serve as a repository of information for 
researchers, practitioners, and the general public. The museum will 
become the premiere source of information on issues related to law 
enforcement history and safety, and obviously a popular tourist 
attraction in Washington, DC, as well.
  The ideal location for this museum is directly across from the 
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on a parcel of federal-owned 
property that now functions as a parking lot. The building, as planned, 
will have underground parking for the judicial officers who currently 
use this lot.
  Under my legislation, no federal dollars are being proposed to 
establish this museum. Rather, the Fund would raise all of the money 
necessary to construct the museum through private donations. 
Recognizing the national importance of this museum, however, the 
legislation states that upon completion of the museum facility the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration will be responsible for the maintenance of the exterior 
grounds and interior space, respectively. The legislation places the 
responsibility of operating the museum in the hands of the Fund.
  Finally, let me add that this legislation is supported by 15 national 
law enforcement organizations: the Concerns of Police Survivors; the 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the Fraternal Order of 
Police; the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary; the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police; the International Brotherhood of 
Police Officers; the International Union of Police Associations/AFL-
CIO; the National Association of Police Organizations; the National 
Black Police Association; the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives; the National Sheriffs Association; the National 
Troopers Coalition; the Police Executive Research Forum; the Police 
Foundation; the United Federation of Police; and the National Law 
Enforcement Council. Together, these organizations represent virtually 
every law enforcement officer, family member and police survivor in the 
United States.
  Mr. President, as we remember the sacrifices made by Officer 
Chestnut, Detective Gibson and so many other brave officers, I strongly 
urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation and letters of support be printed in the Record.

[[Page 17900]]

  There being no objection, the materials was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1438

       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 ``National Law Enforcement 
     Museum Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       Congress finds that there should be established a National 
     Law Enforcement Museum to honor and commemorate the service 
     and sacrifice of law enforcement officers in the United 
     States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Memorial fund.--The term ``Memorial Fund'' means the 
     National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.
       (2) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the National Law 
     Enforcement Museum established under section 4(a).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Memorial Fund may construct a 
     National Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land located on 
     United States Reservation #7, on the property directly south 
     of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, bounded 
     by--
       (1) E Street, NW., on the north;
       (2) 5th Street, NW., on the west;
       (3) 4th Street, NW., on the east; and
       (4) Indiana Avenue, NW., on the south.
       (b) Design and Plans.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Memorial Fund shall be responsible for preparation of the 
     design and plans for the Museum.
       (2) Approval.--The design and plans for the Museum shall be 
     subject to the approval of--
       (A) the Secretary;
       (B) the Commission of Fine Arts; and
       (C) the National Capital Planning Commission.
       (c) Funding; Exterior Maintenance.--The Secretary--
       (1) shall not permit construction of the Museum to begin 
     unless the Secretary determines that sufficient amounts are 
     available to complete construction of the Museum in 
     accordance with the design and plans approved under 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) shall maintain the exterior and exterior grounds of the 
     Museum after completion of construction.
       (d) Interior Maintenance.--The Administrator of General 
     Services shall maintain the interior of the Museum after 
     completion of construction.
       (e) Operation.--The Memorial Fund shall operate the Museum 
     after completion of construction.
       (f) Federal Share.--The United States shall pay no expense 
     incurred in the establishment or construction of the Museum.
       (g) Failure To Construct.--If the Memorial Fund fails to 
     construct the Museum by the date that is 7 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the authority to construct the 
     Museum shall terminate on that date, unless construction of 
     the Museum begins before that date.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                   Police Organizations, Inc.,

                                  Washington, D.C., July 20, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Washington, DC,
       Dear Senator Campbell: I am writing on behalf of the 
     National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) to thank 
     you for your understanding and willingness to introduce 
     legislation that when passed into law would authorize the 
     National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF) to 
     establish a National Law Enforcement Museum in the District 
     of Columbia directly across the street from the National Law 
     Enforcement Officers Memorial.
       I stand ready to work with your staff to ensure speedy 
     passage of this important legislation.
       NAPO is a coalition of police unions and association from 
     across the United States that serves in Washington, DC to 
     advance the interest of America's law enforcement officers 
     through legislative and legal advocacy, political action and 
     education. Founded in 1978, NAPO now represents 4,000 police 
     organizations and more than 220,000 sworn law enforcement 
     officers including the Denver Police Association and the 
     nearly 4,000 members of the Colorado Police Protective 
     Association.
       NAPO lobbied tirelessly for the passage of legislation that 
     allowed for the establishment of the National Law Enforcement 
     Officers Memorial and will work just as hard for this 
     legislation, which when completed will truly complement each 
     other.
       The Memorial serves as a reminder to the law enforcement 
     community and the law-abiding public the sacrifice made on a 
     daily basis by our nation's law enforcement officers and 
     their loved ones.
       The museum will serve as the most comprehensive law 
     enforcement museum and research facility in the world. It 
     will help create a better understanding of the law 
     enforcement mission and will assist in bringing the police 
     and the public closer together.
       I appreciate your continued support of the law enforcement 
     community.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert T. Scully,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                  National Troopers Coalition,

                                       Albany, NY., July 19, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell:  On behalf of the over 40,000 
     members of the National Troopers Coalition, I wish to thank 
     you for your sponsorship of legislation that will create a 
     National Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land directly 
     across the street from the National Law Enforcement Officers 
     Memorial.
       This museum, in combination with the National Law 
     Enforcement Officers Memorial, will pay tribute to law 
     enforcement as a profession, as well as educate the public on 
     the duties performed by the public servants who have sworn to 
     protect the Constitution and the communities they serve. The 
     research component alone, in conjunction with established 
     Federal resources, should serve all of law enforcement as the 
     premier source of information for operational and training 
     purposes.
       The site being considered is a natural setting for this 
     museum and would no doubt enhance those Federal and District 
     of Columbia facilities located nearby.
       In closing, I would like to thank you for your leadership 
     in introducing this legislation, as well as your support for 
     State Troopers/Highway Patrolmen and their families. Your 
     concern for them is deeply appreciated. If I or another 
     member of the National Troopers Coalition can assist you, 
     please don't hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely:
                                                        Mike Muth,
     1st Vice Chairman.
                                  ____

                                           Federal Law Enforcement


                                         Officers Association,

                                East Northport, NY, July 23, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senator,
     Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the more than 16,000 
     members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 
     (FLEOA). I wish to express FLEOA's strong support for 
     legislation establishing a National Law Enforcement Museum on 
     Federal land located directly across the street from the 
     National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial (NLEOM). FLEOA 
     thanks you for your support.
       This legislation creates the largest and most comprehensive 
     law enforcement museum and research facility, at no cost to 
     the taxpayer as all funds necessary to complete the 
     construction will be raised through private donations. We 
     sincerely believe the museum and research facility will 
     enable the public to better understand and appreciate the 
     work of law enforcement, and thus further assist law 
     enforcement in fighting crime. The proposed location, across 
     the street from the Memorial Wall containing the names of 
     nearly 15,000 American law enforcement heroes, is ideal. 
     FLEOA, as a member of the NLEOM Executive Board, fully 
     supports this concept and proposed legislation.
       If you have any questions or need further information, 
     please feel free to contact me directly at (212) 264-8400, or 
     through feel free to contact me directly at (516) 368-6117. 
     Thank you for your support.
                                                 Richard J. Gallo,
     President.
                                  ____

                                             National Black Police


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: The National Black Police 
     Association was created in 1972 as a network between minority 
     officers across the country. The NBPA fosters a bond between 
     the minority officers and their communities. This nonprofit 
     organization has helped to improve relations between the 
     police departments and the community.
       I am writing on behalf of the National Law Enforcement 
     Memorial Fund to formally request that you introduce 
     legislation authorizing the NLEOMF to establish a National 
     Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land located directly 
     across the street from the National Law Enforcement Officers 
     Memorial.
       The goal of the NLEOMF is to create the largest and most 
     comprehensive law enforcement museum and research facility 
     found anywhere in the world. The museum will become ``the 
     source'' of information on issues related to law enforcement 
     history and safety. This facility would help to create a much 
     better public understanding of and appreciation for the law 
     enforcement profession and the work that they perform at 
     great personal risk.
       The museum site that is specified in this draft legislation 
     is federally-owned land that is currently being used by the 
     District of Columbia as a parking lot for the court buildings 
     in the area. Therefore, we hope that you give our request 
     favorable consideration. The museum will become a legacy 
     which that we all would be extremely proud.
           Sincerely,
                                                Wendell M. France,
                                                      Chairperson.

[[Page 17901]]

     
                                  ____
                                                      National Law


                                          Enforcement Council,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: As an honorary board member of the 
     National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial I am pleased to 
     endorse plans for a museum facility on the grounds of the 
     NLEOM. We strongly encourage you and your colleagues in the 
     Congress to support our efforts. The land on which we wish to 
     build our museum is locate on federal land and is located 
     directly across from the Memorial. It requires the approval 
     of Congress.
       A Joint Resolution for the building of our Memorial (PL 98-
     534) was approved by the Congress and signed into law in 
     1991. We understand a similar Joint Resolution is required 
     for the transfer of the public land in question, which is the 
     site selected for the museum.
       We are grateful for your interest and help in the 
     introduction of the necessary legislation which would allow 
     the NLEOMF to build their museum on federal land across from 
     their Museum.
       Kindest regards.
           Sincerely yours,
     Donald Baldwin.
                                  ____

                                              United Federation of


                                        Police Officers, Inc.,

                               Briarcliff Manor, NY, July 2, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: As a member of the National Law 
     Enforcement Memorial Fund's Board of Directors, I am writing 
     to formally request you introduce legislation authorizing our 
     organization to establish the National Law Enforcement Museum 
     on Federal Land located directly across the street from the 
     National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. It is my 
     understanding that you have received a draft of the proposed 
     legislation from our Executive Director Craig Floyd.
       The goal is to create the largest and most comprehensive 
     law enforcement museum and research facility found anywhere 
     in the world. The museum will become the source of 
     information on issues related to law enforcement history and 
     safety. This facility would create a much better public 
     understanding of and appreciation for the law enforcement 
     profession and the work that they perform at great personal 
     risk. The museum and research facility would also serve as an 
     important tool for policy makers and law enforcement trainers 
     in their efforts to make the profession safer and more 
     effective. This museum facility work provide an effective and 
     appropriate complement to the National Law Enforcement 
     Officers Memorial in commemorating the extraordinary level of 
     service and sacrifice provided throughout our history by our 
     nation's law enforcement officers.
       Therefore, on behalf of our active, retired, and associate 
     members, I urge you to shepherd this legislation through the 
     United States Congress so this dream will become a reality.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ralph M. Purdy,
     President.
                                  ____



                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 20, 1999.
     Re: National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial--National Law 
         Enforcement Museum Legislation.

     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senator, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: On behalf of the National Sheriffs' 
     Association--representing the Office of Sheriff and the 
     public safety community in law enforcement, jails, and 
     judicial and court services--I write to express our 
     organization's wholehearted support for the establishment of 
     a National Law Enforcement Museum in Washington, D.C.
       Your background as a law enforcement officer and your 
     advocacy on behalf of the public safety community are 
     respected and appreciated by the NSA constituency, and I 
     assure you that--as a proud and dedicated member of the 
     Executive Committee and Board of Directors for the National 
     Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial--I will work hard with 
     NSA's leadership to assist you in any way we can in 
     furtherance of your proposed legislation for the Museum.
       NSA supports all legislation for the betterment of our 
     citizenry and the public safety community. The old motto To 
     Protect and Serve would be enshrined in a museum such as that 
     proposed and would preserve law enforcement's historical 
     roots. Accordingly, the National Sheriffs' Association would 
     welcome the privilege to work closely with you on this 
     honorable endeavor.
           Sincerely,
                                                  A.N. Moser, Jr.,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


       National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 19, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: The National Organization of Black 
     Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), applauds your efforts to 
     honor the law enforcement officers who have protected, and 
     those who protect our communities by introducing legislation 
     to create the National Law Enforcement Museum.
       NOBLE is an organization of over 3,500 primarily African-
     American law enforcement CEO's and command level officials 
     who are committed to improving the quality of law enforcement 
     service in this country through training, professional 
     competence, personal example and by forming meaningful 
     partnerships with the community.
       NOBLE is a member of the board of directors of the National 
     Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, and as such, supports the 
     proposed National Law Enforcement Museum to be located on the 
     isle of a parking lot in Judiciary Square, just south of the 
     National Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C.
       The nation's memorial to law enforcement officers who have 
     made the supreme sacrifice is unfortunately a perpetual 
     memorial with an average of 150 names inscribed on the 
     memorial walls each year. The memorial serves as a place 
     where the families, friends and coworkers can find peace and 
     solace as they cope with the loss of ``their'' officer.
       Many of these visitors leave mementos that are catalogued 
     and stored in the memorial offices. Other important items 
     relating to law enforcement are also sent to the memorial 
     offices. The memorial office is not an appropriate location 
     to display these remembrances. We believe that these items 
     should be displayed with the dignity they deserve. The 
     National Law Enforcement Museum would compliment the memorial 
     by not only telling the story of the courage and sacrifice of 
     the individual officers ``on the wall'' but also the 
     evolution of the law enforcement profession.
       Besides the historical component, the museum would include 
     a research center. This is a logical progression for the 
     NLEOMF as the center would provide the opportunity to focus 
     law enforcement historical and safety information at one 
     location.
       Fiscally, NOBLE believes that the National Law Enforcement 
     Museum is a good investment for the nation. The NLEOMF is 
     committed to this memorial and we have the capacity to 
     construct the memorial through private donations.
       The NLEOMF will partner with Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Administrator of the General Services Administration for 
     the maintenance of the building and grounds and the NLEOMF 
     would operate the museum. The D.C. Supreme Court has already 
     given its support for the museum.
       We trust that Congress will act on this legislation 
     expeditiously and turn this barren parking lot into living 
     facility, that will meld the past, the present and the future 
     of law enforcement with the memories of those whose names are 
     engraved on the walls of the companion memorial.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert L. Stewart,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1439. A bill to terminate production under the D5 submarine-
launched ballistic missile program; to the Committee on Armed Services.


           trident ii (d-5) missile production limitation act

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a 
bill whose time has come.
  Mr. President, it is a decade since the Berlin Wall came down, 
heralding the end of the Cold War. Since then, we have reduced our 
nuclear arsenal, as have the Russians. And our Navy is advocating to 
downsize the Trident nuclear submarine fleet, the cornerstone of our 
nuclear triad strategy. It's just common sense to limit future 
production of weapons deployed in those submarines.
  The bill I introduce today would terminate future production of the 
Trident II missile. In doing so, this common sense bill would save 
American taxpayers $5 billion over the next five years, and more than 
$13 billion over the next ten years.
  Mr. President, the Trident II, or D-5 missile, is the Navy's 
submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The missile is a Cold War 
relic that was designed specifically to be a first-strike strategic 
missile that would attack targets inside the Soviet Union from waters 
off the continental United States.
  The Trident II is deployed aboard Ohio-class nuclear submarines in 
the order of 24 per boat. Each missile is loaded with 8 independently 
targetable,

[[Page 17902]]

nuclear warheads. In other words, 192 warheads per submarine. The 
warheads bear 300- to 475-kilotons of explosive power. Doing the math, 
that equals up to 91,200 kilotons of warheads on each and every Trident 
submarine.
  Mr. President, the truth of the matter is we all know that one 
submarine firing 192 warheads could bring about an apocalypse on this 
planet. Needless to say, 18, 14, or even 10 submarines with that kind 
of firepower is beyond necessity. This is especially true if one 
considers that in addition to, yes, in addition to the SLBMS, the 
United States deploys 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic 
missiles with three warheads each; 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs with 10 
warheads each; and 94 B-52 and 21 B-2 bombers capable of carrying 
strategic nuclear warheads.
  Mr. President, the United States is building or possesses, right now, 
360 Trident II missiles. Current plans would have us purchase 65 more 
missiles through 2005. The 360 missiles we already own are more than 
enough to fully arm the ten existing Trident II-armed submarines as 
well as maintain an adequate test flight program. We simply do not need 
65 more missiles. Nor do we need to backfit four Trident I, or C4, 
missile carrying submarines to carry Trident IIs, especially when one 
considers that the C4 submarines won't even outlast the Trident I 
missiles they carry.
  I'd like to briefly inform my colleagues on the difference between 
the Trident I and Trident II missiles. According to CBO, the C4 has an 
accuracy shortage of about 450 feet compared to the D5, or the distance 
from where the presiding officer is sitting right now to where the 
Speaker of the House is sitting down the hall. Given the fact that 
either missile could utterly destroy the District of Columbia many 
times over, spending billions of dollars to backfit the C4 submarines 
seems unnecessary.
  And this is not an inexpensive program, Mr. President. According to 
the Congressional Budget Office, which recommends that we discontinue 
production of the Trident II and retire all eight C4 submarines, if we 
terminate production of the missile after this year and retire the C4s 
by 2005, we would save more than $5 billion over five years, and more 
than $13 billion over the next ten years. Even here in the Senate, 
that's real money.
  Mr. President, I am not naive enough to believe that Russia's 
deteriorating infrastructure has eliminated the threat of their 
ballistic missile capability. And given the missile technology advances 
in China, North Korea, and Iran, and attempts by rogue states to buy 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is imperative that we maintain 
a deterrent to ward off this threat. There is still an important role 
for strategic nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Their role, however, is 
diminished dramatically from what it was in the past, and our missile 
procurement decisions should reflect that change.
  Mr. President, of our known potential adversaries, only Russia and 
China even possess ballistic missile-capable submarines. China's one 
ballistic missile capable submarine is used solely as a test platform. 
Russia is the only potential adversary with a credible SLBM force, and 
its submarine capabilities have deteriorated significantly or remain 
far behind those of our Navy. Due to Russia's continued economic 
hardships, they continue to cede ground to us in technology and 
training. Reports even contend that Russia is having trouble keeping 
just one or two of its strategic nuclear submarines operational. 
According to General Eugene E. Habiger, USAF (Ret.) and former 
commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, Moscow's ``sub fleet 
is belly-up.''
  Mr. President, Russia's submarine fleet has shrunk from more than 300 
vessels to about 100. Even Russia's most modern submarines can't be 
used to full capability because Russia can't adequately train its 
sailors. Clearly, the threat is diminishing.
  Mr. President, earlier this year, Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of 
Naval Operations, went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and 
stated unequivocally that the Pentagon believes that 14 Trident 
submarines is adequate to anchor the sea-based corner of the nuclear 
triad. Based on that testimony, the committee put forward a Department 
of Defense authorization bill supporting the Navy's plan. Common sense 
would dictate that fewer submarines warrant fewer missiles. The threat 
is diminishing; the Navy knows it and the Congress knows it.
  The Navy's plan, with the Senate's agreement, to downsize our Trident 
submarine fleet saves valuable resources and allows us to reach START 
II arms levels for our SLBMs, and moves us toward future arms reduction 
treaties. By going with ten boats, the Navy could meet essential 
requirements under START II today and the anticipated requirements 
under a START III framework tomorrow.
  And ultimately, Mr. President, the United States' leadership in 
reducing our nuclear stockpile shows our good faith, and will make 
Russia's passage of a START II treaty more likely.
  This strategy of reducing our nuclear stockpile is supported widely 
by some of our foremost military leaders. General George Lee Butler, 
former commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, and an ardent 
advocate of our deterrent force during the Cold War, has said that 
``With the end of the Cold War, these weapons are of sharply reduced 
utility, and there is much to be gained by substantially reducing their 
numbers.'' I believe we should heed his words.
  Mr. President, more than anything else, this issue comes down to a 
question of priorities. Do we want to spend $13 billion over the next 
ten years to purchase unnecessary Trident II missiles, or do we want to 
use that money to address readiness concerns that we've talked a lot 
about but haven't addressed adequately?
  Mr. President, for the past year, we've heard the call to address our 
military's readiness crisis from virtually all quarters. We were told 
that foremost among the readiness shortfalls were operations and 
maintenance as well as pay and allowances accounts.
  A preliminary General Accounting Office report on recruitment and 
retention found that issues like a lack of spare parts; concerns with 
the health care system; increased deployments; and dissatisfaction with 
military leaders have at least as much effect on retention, if not 
more, than a pay raise.
  And the Pentagon concurs. Last September, General Henry Shelton, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stated that ``without relief, we will see 
a continuation of the downward trends in readiness . . . and shortfalls 
in critical skills.'' Army Chief of Staff General Dennis Reimer claimed 
that the military faces a ``hollow force'' without increased readiness 
spending. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson asserted that 
the Navy has a $6 billion readiness deficit.
  To address the readiness shortfall, Mr. President, the Congress 
passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The bill spent 
close to $9 billion, but just $1 billion of it went to address the 
readiness shortfall. Priorities, Mr. President.
  And last month, on the Defense appropriations bill, a couple of 
Senators inserted an amendment, without debate, to take $220 million 
from vital Army and Air Force spare parts and repair accounts, and from 
the National Guard equipment account to buy planes. Planes that the 
Pentagon doesn't even want. Sponsors of the amendment admitted readily 
that this was done for the benefit of a company that had lost a multi-
billion dollar contract with a foreign country. Priorities, Mr. 
President.
  This bill makes sense now and for the future by saving vital defense 
dollars now and for years to come, and by stimulating the arms treaty 
dialogue.
  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. 1439

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

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF D5 SUBMARINE-LAUNCHED BALLISTIC 
                   MISSILE PROGRAM.

       (a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     terminate production

[[Page 17903]]

     of D5 submarine ballistic missiles under the D5 submarine-
     launched ballistic missile program.
       (b) Payment of Termination Costs.--Funds available on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act for obligation 
     for the D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile program may 
     be obligated for production under that program only for 
     payment of the costs associated with the termination of 
     production under this Act.
       (c) Inapplicability to Missiles in Production.--Subsections 
     (a) and (b) do not apply to missiles in production on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. Lott, and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 1440. A bill to promote economic growth and opportunity by 
increasing the level of visas available for highly specialized 
scientists and engineers and by eliminating the earnings penalty on 
senior citizens who continue to work after reaching retirement age; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                  new workers for economic growth act

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Lott and 
McConnell in introducing the New Workers for Economic Growth Act, which 
will increase the number of H-1B temporary work visas used by U.S. 
companies to recruit and hire foreign workers with very specialized 
skills, particularly in high technology fields. In addition, the 
legislation eliminates the reduction in Social Security benefits now 
imposed on individuals aged 65 through 69 who continue to work and 
whose earnings exceed $15,500 annually. This bill will ensure that the 
U.S. economic expansion will not be impeded by a lack of skilled 
workers.
  With record low unemployment, many U.S. companies have been forced to 
slow their expansion, or cancel projects, and may be forced to move 
their operations overseas because of an inability to find qualified 
individuals to fill job vacancies. We will achieve our full economic 
potential only if we ensure that high-technology companies can find and 
hire the people whose unique qualifications and specialized skills are 
critical to America's future success.
  Last year, the Congress increased temporarily the number of annual H-
1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, and to 
107,500 in 2001. The number of H-1B visas is scheduled to drop back to 
65,000 for Fiscal Year 2002 and subsequent years. The New Workers for 
Economic Growth Act will increase the H-1B visa cap to 200,000 for 
Fiscal Years 2000, 2001 and 2002. By the end of that period, we will 
have the data we need to make an informed decision on the number of 
such visas required beyond 2002. The bill retains the language of 
current law which protects qualified U.S. workers from being displaced 
by H-1B visa holders.
  According to a recent study by the American Electronics Association 
(AEA), Texas has the fastest growing high technology industry in the 
country and is second only to California in the number of high 
technology workers. This legislation will ensure that these companies 
have access to highly skilled, specialized workers, in order that such 
businesses can continue to grow and prosper, and in doing so, create 
jobs and opportunity for U.S. workers.
  Additionally, our bill expands work opportunities for America's 
retired senior citizens by removing the financial penalty which is now 
imposed on those who choose to continue to work while receiving Social 
Security and whose wages exceed specified levels. The Social Security 
earnings test robs senior citizens of their money, their dignity, and 
their right to work, and it robs our Nation of their talent and wisdom. 
I believe that this legislation represents a fair and effective way to 
address a critical need in our Nation's economy, and I hope my 
colleagues will quickly approve this important proposal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb, 
        and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1441. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States 
Code, to modify employee contributions to the Civil Service Retirement 
System and the Federal Employees Retirement System to the percentages 
in effect before the statutory temporary increase in calendar year 
1999, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


         federal employee retirement contributions act of 1999

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, 
Senators Mikulski, Warner, Robb and Akaka, in introducing the Federal 
Employee Retirement Contributions Act of 1999. This bill would return 
Federal employee retirement contribution rates to their 1998 levels, 
effective January 1st, 2000.
  Mr. President, in the 1997 Budget Reconciliation bill, as part of the 
deficit reduction effort, Congress enacted temporary increases in 
Federal employee retirement contribution rates. In order to meet its 
fiscal year 1998 reconciliation instructions, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee reluctantly agreed to phased-in, temporary increases in 
employee retirement payments of .5 percent through December 31, 2002.
  The 1997 provision effectively takes retirement contribution rates 
under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) from 7 percent to 7.5 
percent and under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) from .8 
percent to 1.3 percent. Rates are to return to 7 percent and .8 percent 
respectively in 2003.
  Mr. President, the sole rationale for this additional tax on Federal 
employee income in 1997 was to achieve deficit reduction. It is 
important to point out that Federal employees received no additional 
benefits from their increased contributions. Thus, the size of a 
Federal employee's retirement annuity is not greater because of their 
increased contributions. Instead, these contribution increases were 
merely one of several measures included in the Balanced Budget Act in 
order to raise revenues and reduce the deficit.
  The goal of deficit reduction is being realized, and after 30 years 
of spiraling deficits the economy is now strong and the budget has been 
balanced. With budget surpluses projected for the near future, the 
rationale for increasing Federal employees' retirement contribution is 
no longer valid.
  During the past weeks as tax cut proposals have begun moving in the 
Senate, I have worked to repeal the increased contributions as part of 
these proposals. While the Majority's tax cut packages would grant 
billions of dollars in tax relief over the next ten years, and even 
more in future years, the bill proposals fail to remove the burden that 
was placed on Federal employees under the Balanced Budget Act.
  Mr. President, if we are going to move forward with tax reduction 
proposals, it is my strong view that we should first make certain that 
Federal employees, who were singled out to bear an additional burden in 
the deficit reduction effort, are relieved of that burden. Federal 
employees should not be forced to continue to contribute more than 
their fair share, at a time when others are having their taxes reduced.
  As of January 1, 1999, half of the .5 percent increase (.25 percent) 
has already taken effect. Unless action is taken, an additional .15 
percent will be deducted from Federal employees' salaries for their 
retirement on January 1, 2000, followed by .10 percent more in 2001. In 
these times of strong economic growth, Federal workers should no longer 
be required to carry this additional burden.
  Federal employees were asked to make numerous sacrifices in order to 
contribute to our Nation's fiscal health. In addition to the increase 
in retirement contributions, the Federal Government has cut 
approximately 330,000 employees from its rolls and delayed statutory 
pay raises over the last several years. Certainly, these were 
substantial contributions to our country's economy and have helped us 
turn the corner toward the bright economic future that is now 
predicted. As we consider how to best utilize projected budget 
surpluses, we should first remove this burden from Federal employees 
who have already contributed so much. Repealing the increases in 
Federal employee retirement contributions is the fair thing to do.

[[Page 17904]]

  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. 1441

       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 ``Federal Employee Retirement 
     Contributions Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, AND DEPOSITS.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--The table under 
     section 8334(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter relating to an employee by striking:

       

                                         ``7.4  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           7.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             7  After December 31,
                                                 2002.'';
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                           ``7  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

       (2) in the matter relating to a Member or employee for 
     Congressional employee service by striking:

       

                                         ``7.9  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                             8  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2002.'';
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                           ``7  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

       (3) in the matter relating to a Member for Member service 
     by striking:

       

                                         ``8.4  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.'';
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

       (4) in the matter relating to a law enforcement officer for 
     law enforcement service and firefighter for firefighter 
     service by striking:

       

                                         ``7.9  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                             8  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2002.'';
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                         ``7.5  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

       (5) in the matter relating to a bankruptcy judge by 
     striking:

       

                                         ``8.4  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.'';
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

       (6) in the matter relating to a judge of the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for service as a judge 
     of that court by striking:

       

                                         ``8.4  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.'';
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

       (7) in the matter relating to a United States magistrate by 
     striking:

       

                                         ``8.4  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.'';
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

       (8) in the matter relating to a Court of Federal Claims 
     judge by striking:

       

                                         ``8.4  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.'';
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

       (9) in the matter relating to the Capitol Police by 
     striking:

       

                                         ``7.9  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                             8  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''.
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                         ``7.5  After December 31,
                                                 1999.'';
 

     and
       (10) in the matter relating to a nuclear material courier 
     by striking:

       

                                         ``7.9  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                             8  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''.
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                         ``7.5  After December 31,
                                                 1999.''.
 

       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8422(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) The applicable percentage under this paragraph for 
     civilian service shall be as follows:

       

``Employee............................       7  January 1, 1987, to
                                                 December 31, 1998.
                                          7.25  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                             7  After December 31, 1999.
Congressional employee................     7.5  January 1, 1987, to
                                                 December 31, 1998.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.5  After December 31, 1999.
Member................................     7.5  January 1, 1987, to
                                                 December 31, 1998.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.5  After December 31, 1999.
Law enforcement officer, firefighter,      7.5  January 1, 1987, to
 member of the Capitol Police, or air            December 31, 1998.
 traffic controller.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.5  After December 31, 1999.
Nuclear materials courier.............       7  January 1, 1987, to the
                                                 day before the date of
                                                 enactment of the strom
                                                 Thurmond National
                                                 Defense Authorization
                                                 Act for Fiscal Year
                                                 1999.
                                          7.75  The date of enactment of
                                                 the Strom Thurmond
                                                 National Defense
                                                 Authorization Act for
                                                 Fiscal Year 1999 to
                                                 December 31, 1998.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 1999.''.
 

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MILITARY AND 
                   VOLUNTEER SERVICE UNDER FERS.

       (a) Military Service.--Section 8422(e)(6) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) The percentage of basic pay under section 204 of 
     title 37 payable under paragraph (1), with respect to any 
     period of military service performed during January 1, 1999, 
     through December 31, 1999, shall be 3.25 percent.''.
       (b) Volunteer Service.--Section 8422(f)(4) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) The percentage of the readjustment allowance or 
     stipend (as the case may be) payable under paragraph (1), 
     with respect to any period of volunteer service performed 
     during January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999, shall be 
     3.25 percent.''.

     SEC. 4. OTHER FEDERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEMS.

       (a) Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
     System.--
       (1) Deductions, withholdings, and deposits.--Section 
     7001(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 
     105-33; 111 Stat. 659) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Individual deductions, withholdings, and deposits.--
     Notwithstanding section 211(a)(1) of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2021(a)(1)) beginning on 
     January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999, the percentage 
     deducted and withheld from the basic pay of an employee 
     participating in the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System shall be 7.25 percent.''.

[[Page 17905]]

       (2) Military service.--Section 252(h)(1)(A) of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2082(h)(1)(A)), 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(h)(1)(A) Each participant who has performed military 
     service before the date of separation on which entitlement to 
     an annuity under this title is based may pay to the Agency an 
     amount equal to 7 percent of the amount of basic pay paid 
     under section 204 of title 37, United States Code, to the 
     participant for each period of military service after 
     December 1956; except, the amount to be paid for military 
     service performed beginning on January 1, 1999, through 
     December 31, 1999, shall be 7.25 percent of basic pay.''.
       (b) Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7001(d)(2) of the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 660) is amended by 
     striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 805(a)(1) of the 
     Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4045(a)(1)), beginning 
     on January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999, the amount 
     withheld and deducted from the basic pay of a participant in 
     the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System shall be 
     7.25 percent.
       ``(B) Foreign service criminal investigators/inspectors of 
     the office of the inspector general, agency for international 
     development.--Notwithstanding section 805(a)(2) of the 
     Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4045(a)(2)), beginning 
     on January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999, the amount 
     withheld and deducted from the basic pay of an eligible 
     Foreign Service criminal investigator/inspector of the Office 
     of the Inspector General, Agency for International 
     Development participating in the Foreign Service Retirement 
     and Disability System shall be 7.75 percent.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 805(d)(1) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4045(d)(1)) is amended in the 
     table in the matter following subparagraph (B) by striking:

       

                                        ``January 1, 1970,             7
                                         through December 31,
                                         1998, inclusive.
                                         January 1, 1999,           7.25
                                         through December 31,
                                         1999, inclusive.
                                         January 1, 2000,            7.4
                                         through December 31,
                                         2000, inclusive.
                                         January 1, 2001,            7.5
                                         through December 31,
                                         2002, inclusive.
                                         After December 31, 2002    7''.
 

     and inserting the following:

       

                                        ``January 1, 1970,             7
                                         through December 31,
                                         1998, inclusive.
                                         January 1, 1999,           7.25
                                         through December 31,
                                         1999, inclusive.
                                         After December 31, 1999   7.''.
 

       (c) Foreign Service Pension System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 856(a)(2) of the Foreign Service 
     Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4071e(a)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) The applicable percentage under this subsection shall 
     be as follows:

       

                                         ``7.5  Before January 1, 1999.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 1999.''.
 

       (2) Volunteer service.--Section 854(c)(1) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4071c(c)(1)) is amended by 
     striking all after ``volunteer service;'' and inserting 
     ``except, the amount to be paid for volunteer service 
     beginning on January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999, 
     shall be 3.25 percent.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on December 31, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED.
  S. 1442. A bill to provide for the professional development of 
elementary and secondary school teachers; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                  professional development reform act

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional 
Development Reform Act to strengthen and improve professional 
development for teachers and administrators.
  I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's 
classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared 
teachers are central to improving the academic performance and 
achievement of students.
  Last Congress, I introduced the TEACH Act to reform the way our 
prospective teachers are trained. The TEACH Act sought to foster 
partnerships among teacher colleges, schools of arts and sciences, and 
elementary and secondary schools.
  Such partnerships were a central recommendation of the National 
Commission on Teaching and America's Future to reform teacher training, 
and I was pleased that my legislation was included in the renewed 
teacher training title of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998.
  As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, the focus shifts to new teachers and teachers 
already in the classroom.
  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today would reform 
professional development, which too often consists of fragmented, one-
shot workshops, at which teachers passively listen to experts and are 
isolated from the practice of teaching.
  We don't expect students to learn their ``ABCs'' after one day of 
lessons, and we shouldn't expect a one-day professional development 
workshop to yield the desired result.
  Research shows that such professional development fails to improve or 
even impact teaching practice.
  Moreover, a recent survey of teachers found that professional 
development is too short term and lacks intensity. In 1998, 
participation in professional development programs typically lasted 
from 1 to 8 hours--the equivalent of only a day or less.
  As a consequence, only about 1 in 5 teachers felt very well prepared 
for addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency, 
those from culturally diverse backgrounds, and those with disabilities, 
or integrating educational technology into the curriculum.
  Instead, research shows that effective professional development 
approaches are sustained, intensive activities that focus on deepening 
teachers knowledge of content; allow teachers to work collaboratively; 
provide opportunities for teachers to practice and reflect upon their 
teaching; are aligned with standards and embedded in the daily work of 
the school; and involve parents and other community members.
  Such high-quality professional development improves student 
achievement. Indeed, a 1998 study in California found that the more 
teachers were engaged in ongoing, curriculum-centered professional 
development, holding school conditions and student characteristics 
constant, the higher their students' mathematics achievement on the 
state's assessment.
  Community School District 2 in New York City is one district which 
has seen its investment in sustained, intensive professional 
development pay off with increases in student achievement. Professional 
development in District 2 is delivered in schools and classrooms and 
focused on system-wide instructional improvement, with intensive 
activities such as observation of exemplary teachers and classrooms 
both inside and outside the district, supervised practice, peer 
networks, and offsite training opportunities.
  Unfortunately, a recent national evaluation of the Eisenhower 
Professional Development program found that the majority of 
professional development activities in the six districts studied did 
not follow such a sustained and intensive approach.
  And, in a recent article in the Providence Journal, some teachers 
noted that professional development for them has revolved around 
sitting and listening to experts talk about standards, rather than 
working closely with teachers and students to refine new methods of 
teaching those standards.
  Unlike the bill passed last week in the other body which would do 
little to address these issues or change professional development, my 
legislation would create a new formula program for professional 
development that is sustained, collaborative, content-centered, 
embedded in the daily work of the school, and aligned with standards 
and school reform efforts.
  To achieve this enhanced professional development, the legislation 
funds the following activities: mentoring; peer observation and 
coaching; curriculum-based content training; dedicated time for 
collaborative lesson planning; opportunities for teachers to

[[Page 17906]]

visit other classrooms to model effective teaching practice; training 
on integrating technology into the curriculum, addressing the specific 
needs of diverse students, and involving parents; professional 
development networks to provide a forum for interaction and exchange of 
information among teachers and administrators; and release time and 
compensation for mentors and substitute teachers to make these 
activities possible.
  The Professional Development Reform Act also requires partnerships 
between elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher 
education for providing training opportunities, including advanced 
content area courses and training to address teacher shortages. In 
fact, preliminary U.S. Department of Education data show that the 
Eisenhower Professional Development activities sponsored by 
institutions of higher education are most effective.
  My legislation will also provide funding for skills and leadership 
training for principals and superintendents, as well as mentors. 
Indeed, ensuring that our principals have the training and support to 
serve as instructional leaders is critical, as is ensuring that mentors 
have the skills necessary to help our newest teachers and other 
teachers who need assistance in the classroom.
  Funding is targeted to Title I schools with the highest percentages 
of students living in poverty, where improvements in professional 
development are needed most.
  My legislation does not eliminate the Eisenhower program, but it does 
require that Eisenhower and other federal, state, and local 
professional development funds be coordinated and used in the manner 
described in our bill--on professional development activities that 
research shows works.
  In addition, the Professional Development Reform Act offers resources 
but it demands results. Strong accountability provisions require that 
school districts and schools which receive funding actually improve 
student performance and increase participation in sustained 
professional development in three years in order to secure additional 
funding.
  In sum, my legislation seeks to ensure that new teachers have the 
support they need to be successful teachers, that all teachers have 
access to high quality professional development regardless of the 
content areas they teach, and that the professional development does 
not isolate teachers, but rather is part of a coordinated and 
comprehensive strategy aligned with standards.
  Not only does the research bear this out as the way to improve 
teaching practice and student learning, but education leaders in my 
home state of Rhode Island, as well as witnesses at a recent Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing stressed the 
importance of this type of professional development.
  Mr. President, the time for action is now as schools must hire an 
estimated 2.2 million new teachers over the next decade due to 
increasing enrollments, the retirement of approximately half of our 
current teaching force, and high attrition rates.
  Ensuring that teachers have the training, assistance, and support to 
increase student achievement and sustain them throughout their careers 
is a great challenge. But we must meet and overcome this challenge if 
we are to reform education and prepare our children for the 21st 
Century.
  The Professional Development Reform Act, by increasing our 
professional development investment and focusing it on the kind of 
activities and opportunities for teachers and administrators that 
research shows is effective, is critical to this effort.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by 
cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1442

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

     SECTION 1. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Professional Development Reform Act''.
       (b) Amendments.--Title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part E as part F; and
       (2) by inserting after part D the following:

                   ``PART E--PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

     ``SEC. 2351. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this part are as follows:
       ``(1) To improve the academic achievement of students by 
     providing every student with a well-prepared teacher.
       ``(2) To provide every new teacher with structured support, 
     including a qualified and trained mentor, to facilitate the 
     transition into successful teaching.
       ``(3) To ensure that every teacher is given the assistance, 
     tools, and professional development opportunities, throughout 
     the teacher's career, to help the teacher teach to the 
     highest academic standards and help students succeed.
       ``(4) To provide training to prepare and support principals 
     to serve as instructional leaders and to work with teachers 
     to create a school climate that fosters excellence in 
     teaching and learning.
       ``(5) To transform, strengthen, and improve professional 
     development from a fragmented, one-shot approach to 
     sustained, high quality, and intensive activities that--
       ``(A) are collaborative, content-centered, standards-based, 
     results-driven, and embedded in the daily work of the school;
       ``(B) allow teachers regular opportunities to practice and 
     reflect upon their teaching and learning; and
       ``(C) are responsive to teacher needs.

     ``SEC. 2252. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Professional development.--The term `professional 
     development' means effective professional development that--
       ``(A) is sustained, high quality, intensive, and 
     comprehensive;
       ``(B) is content-centered, collaborative, school-embedded, 
     tied to practice, focused on student work, supported by 
     research, and aligned with and designed to help elementary 
     school or secondary school students meet challenging State 
     content standards and challenging State student performance 
     standards;
       ``(C) includes structured induction activities that provide 
     ongoing and regular support to new teachers in the initial 
     years of their careers;
       ``(D) includes sustained in-service activities to improve 
     elementary school or secondary school teaching in the core 
     academic subjects, to integrate technology into the 
     curriculum, to improve understanding and the use of student 
     assessments, to improve classroom management skills, to 
     address the specific needs of diverse students, including 
     limited English proficient students, individuals with 
     disabilities, and economically disadvantaged individuals, and 
     to encourage and provide instruction on how to work with and 
     involve parents to foster student achievement; and
       ``(E) includes sustained onsite training opportunities that 
     provide active learning and observational opportunities for 
     elementary school or secondary school teachers to model 
     effective practice.
       ``(2) Administrator.--The term `administrator' means a 
     school principal or superintendent.

     ``SEC. 2353. STATE ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

       ``From the amount appropriated under section 2361 that is 
     not reserved under section 2360 for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall make an allotment to each State educational 
     agency having an application approved under section 2354 in 
     an amount that bears the same relation to the amount 
     appropriated under section 2361 that is not reserved under 
     section 2360 for the fiscal year as the amount the State 
     educational agency received under part A of title I for the 
     fiscal year bears to the amount received under such part by 
     all States for the fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 2354. STATE APPLICATIONS.

       ``Each State educational agency desiring an allotment under 
     section 2353 for a fiscal year shall submit to the Secretary 
     an application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied 
     by such information as the Secretary may require. The 
     application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the strategy to be used to implement 
     State activities described in section 2355;
       ``(2) a description of how the State educational agency 
     will assist local educational agencies in transforming, 
     strengthening, and improving professional development;
       ``(3) a description of how the activities described in 
     section 2355 and the assistance described in paragraph (2) 
     will assist the State in achieving the State's goals for 
     comprehensive education reform, will help all students meet 
     challenging State content standards and challenging State 
     student performance standards, and will help all teachers 
     meet State standards for teaching excellence;

[[Page 17907]]

       ``(4) a description of the manner in which the State 
     educational agency will ensure, consistent with the State's 
     comprehensive education reform plan policies, or statutes, 
     that funds provided under this part will be effectively 
     coordinated with all Federal and State professional 
     development funds and activities, including funds and 
     activities under this title, titles I, III, VI, and VII, 
     title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, section 307 of 
     the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 1999, and the 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act; and
       ``(5) a description of--
       ``(A) how the State educational agency will collect and 
     utilize data for evaluation of the activities carried out by 
     local educational agencies under this part, including 
     collecting baseline data in order to measure changes in the 
     professional development opportunities provided to teachers 
     and measure improvements in teaching practice and student 
     performance; and
       ``(B) the specific performance measures the State 
     educational agency will use to determine the need for 
     technical assistance described in section 2355(2) and to make 
     a continuation of funding determination under section 2358.

     ``SEC. 2355. STATE ACTIVITIES.

       ``From the amount allotted to a State educational agency 
     under section 2353 for a fiscal year, the State educational 
     agency--
       ``(1) shall reserve not more than 5 percent to support, 
     directly or through grants to or contracts with institutions 
     of higher education, educational nonprofit organizations, 
     professional associations of administrators, or other 
     entities that are responsive to the needs of administrators 
     and teachers, programs that--
       ``(A) provide effective leadership training--
       ``(i) to encourage highly qualified individuals to become 
     administrators; and
       ``(ii) to develop and enhance instructional leadership, 
     school management, parent involvement, mentoring, and staff 
     evaluation skills of administrators; and
       ``(B) provide effective leadership and mentor training--
       ``(i) to encourage highly qualified and effective teachers 
     to become mentors; and
       ``(ii) to develop and enhance the mentoring and peer 
     coaching skills of such qualified and effective teachers;
       ``(2) may reserve not more than 2 percent for providing 
     technical assistance and dissemination of information to 
     schools and local educational agencies to help the schools 
     and local educational agencies implement effective 
     professional development activities that are aligned with 
     challenging State content standards, challenging State 
     student performance standards, and State standards for 
     teaching excellence; and
       ``(3) may reserve not more than 2 percent for evaluating 
     the effectiveness of the professional development provided by 
     schools and local educational agencies under this part in 
     improving teaching practice, increasing the academic 
     achievement of students, and helping students meet 
     challenging State content standards and challenging State 
     student performance standards, and for administrative costs.

     ``SEC. 2356. LOCAL PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Allocations to Local Educational Agencies.--Each 
     State educational agency receiving an allotment under section 
     2353 for a fiscal year shall make an allocation from the 
     allotted funds that are not reserved under section 2355 for 
     the fiscal year to each local educational agency in the State 
     that is eligible to receive assistance under part A of title 
     I for the fiscal year in an amount that bears the same 
     relation to the allotted funds that are not reserved under 
     section 2355 as the amount the local educational agency 
     received under such part for the fiscal year bears to the 
     amount all local educational agencies in all States received 
     under such part for the fiscal year.
       ``(b) Applications.--Each local educational agency desiring 
     a grant under this part shall submit an application to the 
     State educational agency at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such information as the State educational 
     agency may require. The application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of how the local educational agency 
     plans--
       ``(A) to work with schools served by the local educational 
     agency that are described in section 2357 to carry out the 
     local activities described in section 2357; and
       ``(B) to meet the purposes described in section 2351;
       ``(2) a description of the manner in which the local 
     educational agency will ensure that--
       ``(A) the grant funds will be used--
       ``(i) to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills 
     necessary to teach students to be proficient or advanced in 
     challenging State content standards and challenging State 
     student performance standards, and any local education reform 
     plans or policies; and
       ``(ii) to help teachers meet standards for teaching 
     excellence; and
       ``(B) funds provided under this part will be effectively 
     coordinated with all Federal, State, and local professional 
     development funds and activities;
       ``(3) a description of the local educational agency's 
     strategy for--
       ``(A) selecting and training highly qualified mentors 
     (utilizing teachers certified by the National Board for 
     Professional Teaching Standards and teachers granted advanced 
     certification as a master or mentor teacher by the State, 
     where possible), for matching such mentors (from the new 
     teachers' teaching disciplines) with the new teachers; and
       ``(B) providing release time for the teachers (utilizing 
     highly qualified substitute teachers and high quality retired 
     teachers, where possible);
       ``(4) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will collect and analyze data on the quality and impact of 
     activities carried out in schools under this part, and the 
     specific performance measures the local educational agency 
     will use in the local educational agency's evaluation 
     process;
       ``(5) a description of the local educational agency's plan 
     to develop and carry out the activities described in section 
     2357 with the extensive participation of administrators, 
     teachers, parents, and the partnering institution described 
     in section 2357(4); and
       ``(6) a description of the local educational agency's 
     strategy to ensure that there is schoolwide participation in 
     the schools to be served.

     ``SEC. 2357. LOCAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``Each local educational agency receiving an allocation 
     under this part shall use the allocation to carry out 
     professional development activities in schools served by the 
     local educational agency that have the highest percentages of 
     students living in poverty, as measured in accordance with 
     section 1113(a)(5), including--
       ``(1) mentoring, team teaching, and peer observation and 
     coaching;
       ``(2) dedicated time for collaborative lesson planning and 
     curriculum development meetings;
       ``(3) consultation with exemplary teachers and short- and 
     long-term visits to other classrooms and schools;
       ``(4) partnering with institutions of higher education and, 
     where appropriate, educational nonprofit organizations, for 
     joint efforts in designing the sustained professional 
     development opportunities, for providing advanced content 
     area courses and other assistance to improve the content 
     knowledge and pedagogical practices of teachers, and, where 
     appropriate, for providing training to address areas of 
     teacher and administrator shortages;
       ``(5) providing release time (including compensation for 
     mentor teachers and substitute teachers as necessary) for 
     activities described in this section; and
       ``(6) developing professional development networks, through 
     Internet links, where available, that--
       ``(A) provide a forum for interaction among teachers and 
     administrators; and
       ``(B) allow the exchange of information regarding advances 
     in content and pedagogy.

     ``SEC. 2358. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING.

       ``Each local educational agency or school that receives 
     funding under this part shall be eligible to continue to 
     receive the funding after the third year the local 
     educational agency or school receives the funding if the 
     local educational agency or school demonstrates that the 
     local educational agency or school has--
       ``(1) improved student performance;
       ``(2) increased participation in sustained professional 
     development; and
       ``(3) made significant progress toward at least 1 of the 
     following:
       ``(A) Reducing the number of out-of-field placements and 
     teachers with emergency credentials.
       ``(B) Improving teaching practice.
       ``(C) Reducing the new teacher attrition rate for the local 
     educational agency or school.
       ``(D) Increasing partnerships and linkages with 
     institutions of higher education.

     ``SEC. 2359. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       ``Funds made available under this part shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     funds expended to carry out activities relating to teacher 
     programs or professional development.

     ``SEC. 2360. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Reservation.--The Secretary shall reserve not more 
     than 5 percent of the amount appropriated under section 2361 
     for each fiscal year for the national evaluation described in 
     subsection (b) and the dissemination activities described in 
     subsection (c).
       ``(b) National Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for an 
     annual, independent, national evaluation of the activities 
     assisted under this part not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of the Professional Development Reform Act. 
     The evaluation shall include information on the impact of the 
     activities assisted under this part on student performance.
       ``(2) State reports.--Each State receiving an allotment 
     under this part shall submit to the Secretary the results of 
     the evaluation described under section 2355(3).
       ``(3) Report to congress.--The Secretary annually shall 
     submit to Congress a report that describes the information in 
     the national evaluation and the State reports.
       ``(c) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall collect and 
     broadly disseminate information (including creating and 
     maintaining a national database or clearinghouse) to help

[[Page 17908]]

     States, local educational agencies, schools, teachers, and 
     institutions of higher education learn about effective 
     professional development policies, practices, and programs, 
     data projections of teacher and administrator supply and 
     demand, and available teaching and administrator 
     opportunities.

     ``SEC. 2361. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 
     2004.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. 
        Murray):
  S. 1443. A bill to amend section 10102 of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1995 regarding elementary school and 
secondary school counseling; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


   ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL COUNSELING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr President, in April, the nation was rocked by an 
unspeakable act of violence at Columbine High School in Littleton, 
Colorado. Twelve innocent students, a heroic teacher and the two 
student gunmen were killed in the 8th deadly school shooting in 39 
months.
  Since that tragic incident, there has been a nation wide discussion 
on the causes of such violence and a search for solutions to prevent 
such occurrences in the future. I would like to take a few moments to 
discuss one innovative program that can help us prevent violent acts 
from happening in the first place.
  Mr. President, children today are subjected to unprecedented social 
stresses, including the fragmentation of the family, drug and alcohol 
abuse, violence, child abuse and poverty. In 1988, the Des Moines 
Independent School District recognized the situation confronting young 
students and expanded counseling services in elementary schools.
  The expanded counseling program-- Smoother Sailing operates on the 
simple premise that we must get to kids early to prevent problems 
rather than waiting for a crisis. As a result, the district more than 
tripled the number of elementary school counselors to make sure that at 
least one well-trained professional is available in every single 
elementary school building.
  Smoother Sailing began as a pilot program in 10 elementary schools. 
The program increased the number of counselors in the elementary 
schools so there is one counselor for every 250 students--the ratio 
recommended for an effective program. The participating schools began 
seeing many positive changes.
  After two years, the schools participating in Smoother Sailing saw a 
dramatic reduction in the number of students referred to the office for 
disciplinary reasons.
  During the 1987-88 school year, 157 students were referred to the 
office for disciplinary action. After two years of Smoother Sailing, 
the number of office referrals in those schools dropped to 83--a 47% 
reduction in office referrals.
  During the same period, Des Moines elementary schools with a 
traditional crisis intervention counseling program had only a 21% 
reduction in office referrals.
  There were other changes as well. Teachers in Smoother Sailing 
schools reported fewer classroom disturbances and principals noticed 
fewer fights in the cafeteria and on the playground. The schools and 
classrooms had become more disciplined learning environments. It was 
clear that Smoother Sailing was making a difference so the counseling 
program was expanded to all 42 elementary schools in Des Moines in 
1990.
  Smoother Sailing continues to be a success.
  Smoother Sailing helps students solve problems in a positive manner. 
Assessments of 4th and 5th grade students show that students can 
generate more than one solution to a problem. Further, the types of 
solutions were positive and proactive. We know that the ability to 
effectively solve problems is essential for helping students make the 
right decisions when confronted with violence or drugs.
  Smoother Sailing gets high marks in surveys of administrators, 
teachers and parents. They report a high degree of satisfaction with 
the program.
  Ninety-five percent of parents surveyed said the counselor is a 
valuable part of my child's educational development. Ninety-three 
percent said they would seek assistance from the counselor if the child 
was experiencing difficulties at school.
  Administrators credit Smoother Sailing with decreasing the number of 
student suspensions and referrals to the office for disciplinary 
action. In addition, principals report that the program is responsible 
for creating an atmosphere that is conducive to learning.
  Experts tell us that to be effective, there should be at least one 
counselor for every 250 students. Unfortunately, the current 
student:counselor ratio is more than double the recommended level--it 
is 531:1. That means counselors are stretched to the limit and cannot 
devote the kind of attention to children that is needed.
  In most schools, the majority of counselors are employed at the 
middle and secondary levels. Therefore, the situation is more acute in 
elementary schools where the student to counselor ratio is greater than 
1000:1.
  Mr. President, Smoother Sailing was the model for the Elementary 
School Counseling Demonstration Act, a section of the Elementary and 
Secondary School Act.
  Today, along with Senators Lincoln and Wellstone, I am introducing 
the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Improvement Act of 1999. 
This legislation does three things.
  First, it reauthorizes the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration 
Act and expands services to secondary schools.
  Second, it authorizes $100 million in funding to hire school 
counselors, school psychologists and school social workers.
  Finally, since the counselor shortage is particularly acute in 
elementary schools, the amendment requires that the first $60 million 
appropriated would go to provide grants for elementary schools.
  Mr. President, CNN and USA Today recently conducted a public opinion 
poll of Americans. They asked what would make a difference in 
preventing a future outbreak of violence in our nation's schools.
  The leading response was to restrict access to firearms. The second 
most popular response--a response selected by 60% of those polled--was 
to increase the number of counselors in our nation's schools.
  We should heed the advice of the American people. We have a desperate 
need to improve counseling services in our nation's schools and this 
legislation will be an important step in addressing this critical 
issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  This legislation is supported by several organizations--the American 
Counseling Association, the American School Counseling Association, the 
American Psychological Association, the National Association of School 
Psychologists, the School of Social Work Association of America and the 
National Association of Social Workers. I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    July 26, 1999.
       Dear Senator. We are writing to urge your support of the 
     ``Elementary and Secondary Counseling Improvement Act'' 
     introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). The Act would 
     increase and expand access to much needed counseling and 
     mental health services for children in our nation's 
     elementary and secondary schools.
       According to the National Institute of Mental Health 
     (NIMH), although 7.5 million children under the age of 18 
     require mental health services, only one in five receive 
     them. As the tragedy of this year's school shootings remind 
     us, students have mental, emotional, and behavioral needs 
     which require the services of qualified counseling 
     professionals. Additionally, counseling and mental health 
     services are essential to help teachers provide quality 
     instruction and enable students to achieve to high academic 
     standards.
       Unfortunately, in schools across the nation, the supply of 
     qualified school counselors, school psychologists and school 
     social workers is scarce. The U.S. average student-to-
     counselor ratio is 513:1. In states like California and 
     Minnesota, one counselor serves

[[Page 17909]]

     more than 1,000 students, and in other states, one school 
     psychologist serves as many as 2,300 students. Similar 
     caseloads exist for school social workers; in one county in 
     Georgia, one school social worker is responsible for over 
     4,000 students. These ratios make it nearly impossible for 
     students to get the counseling and mental health services 
     they need. This serious shortage of qualified professionals 
     has undermined efforts to make schools safe, improve academic 
     achievement, and has overly burdened teachers.
       High caseloads are not the only obstacle facing a student 
     in need of help. School counselors, school psychologists, and 
     school social workers are often charged with miscellaneous 
     administrative or paperwork duties, and may spend almost a 
     quarter of their time on these tasks. Providers need to be 
     able to provide direct services to student, teachers, 
     families, and staff in schools.
       The Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Act (ESCD) 
     was first enacted with bi-partisan support as part of the 
     Improving America's Schools Act in 1994. The Act provided 
     counseling services through qualified school counselors, 
     school psychologists, and school social workers. Senator 
     Harkin's ``Elementary and Secondary Counseling Improvement 
     Act'' would reauthorize the Elementary School Counseling 
     Demonstration, and expand services to secondary schools.
       The Elementary and Secondary Counseling Improvement Act 
     would provide funding to schools to expand counseling 
     programs and services provided by only hiring qualified 
     school counselors, school psychologists, and social workers. 
     The Act ensures that programs funded will be comprehensive 
     and accountable by requiring that applicants:
       Design the program to be developmental and preventative; 
     Provide in-service training for school counselors, school 
     psychologists, and school social workers; Convene an advisory 
     board composed of parents, counseling professionals, 
     teachers, school administrators, and community leaders to 
     oversee the design and implementation of the program; and 
     Require that counseling professionals spend at least 85% of 
     their work time providing direct services to students and no 
     more than 15% on administrative tasks.
       We urge you to support Senator Harkin's Elementary and 
     Secondary Counseling Improvement Act.
           Sincerely,
       American Counseling Association (AA).
       American Psychological Association (APA).
       National Association of School Psychologists (NASP).
       National Association of Social Workers (NASW).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 1444. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
eliminate the 60-month limit and increase the income limitation on the 
student loan interest deduction; to the Committee on Finance.


            Expansion of the Student Loan Interest Deduction

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Burns 
introducing legislation to expand the student loan interest deduction. 
Specifically, my bill will repeal the sixty-month payment limitation 
and increase the income levels qualifying students for the tax 
deduction for student loan interest. I previously presented the 
elimination of the sixty-month student loan deductibility restriction 
in a bill in February. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have 
asked that both it and the income limit expansion I now propose be 
included in the Reconciliation bill that will be before the Senate this 
week. I am happy to report that both are in the committee reported 
bill.
  In a move detrimental to the education of our nation's students, the 
Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated the tax deduction for student loan 
interest. Deeply troubled that this important relief was no longer 
available to young women and men trying to start their careers, since 
1987 my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I have sought to ease 
the heavy burden of paying back student loans by reinstating the tax 
deduction. In 1992, we succeeded in passing legislation to restore the 
deduction for student loan interest, only to be stymied by a veto as 
part of a larger bill with tax increases. After ten arduous years, our 
persistent work on behalf of America's students finally came to 
fruition when we succeeded in reinstating the deduction under the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Our victory demonstrated Congress' sincere 
commitment to making educational opportunities available to all 
students and families across the nation, and confirmed our willingness 
to assist young Americans in acquiring the best education possible by 
easing the financial hardship they face.
  While our endeavors in 1997 were progressive, we were unable to go as 
far as we wanted to go due to financial constraints. Because the nation 
was still in a fiscal crisis at that time, we were compelled to limit 
the deductibility of student loan interest to sixty payments, and to 
only those taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of between $40,000 
and $55,000 filing individually or between $60,000 and $75,000 for 
married couples. Additionally, the deduction itself was phased in at 
$1000, and will cap out at $2500 in 2002.
  In keeping the income limits for the deduction at such low income 
levels, we are letting a great opportunity to assist more young 
Americans pass us by. Setting the income cap at the current low mark 
does a disservice to some of our nation's most needy collegiate 
borrowers. A great number of students are forced to borrow heavily to 
acquire an education that will allow them to stay competitive in our 
global economy. The present income restriction punishes resourceful 
students who land jobs which pay salaries slightly above the meager 
cap, even though they may have been forced to borrow heavily to obtain 
their education due to limited means.
  Currently, the deductibility of student loan interest is limited to a 
mere sixty loan payments, equivalent to five years plus time spent in 
forbearance or deferment. This payment limitation, like the income 
restriction, was put in place during our fiscal difficulties of 1997. 
Since we are now experiencing a great budget surplus with our booming 
economy, Congress now has the ability to expand on both of these areas 
where previously we were forced to scale back. As mentioned, I already 
introduced a bill, S. 471, that would eliminate the 60-month limit on 
student loan interest reductions.
  Fortunately, our situation today is quite different than when we made 
our original improvements in 1997. Now, with our robust economy and 
budget surplus, we have a splendid opportunity to do what we were 
unable to do before. As the price of going to college has continued to 
spiral upward, student debt has risen to appalling levels. We must not 
shrink from our responsibility to provide additional relief to our 
students. We should repeal the sixty-month payment limitation. We 
should increase the income levels from $40,000 to $50,000 for single 
students, and, eliminating any marriage penalty, increase from $60,000 
to $100,000 for married couples. The amount of the deduction would then 
be gradually phased out for taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and 
$65,000 filing individually and between $100,000 and $115,000 for 
married couples. Let our actions clearly demonstrate that the United 
States Congress stands behind all of our nation's students in their 
efforts to better their lives.
  By expanding the student loan interest deduction, we will bring vital 
relief to some of our most deserving borrowers seeking the American 
dream. Rather than penalizing resourceful students who find jobs with 
incomes above the present cap, we will be rewarding the hard work and 
ingenuity of our students. We must continue to support young Americans 
who land jobs with salaries slightly above our current threshold yet 
still needing financial assistance.
  Excessive student debt is a major problem for many students. As 
people in a position to help them, Congress must seek out more ways to 
be of service to our young people. In this time of economic plenty, it 
is our duty to invest in our students' education, for to do so is an 
investment in America's future. A well-deducted workforce is vital to 
maintain competitiveness in an ever-changing global economy. By 
broadening the income limits to receive the tax deduction for student 
loan interest, we demonstrate our commitment to education and 
maintaining the position of the United States at the pinnacle of the 
free world.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to relieve the 
excessive burdens on those trying to better themselves and their 
families through education by loosening the income limits

[[Page 17910]]

to quality for the tax deduction for student loan interest payments and 
eliminating the sixty-month payment limitation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. REID):
  S. 1445. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to prevent abuse of recipients of long-term care services under the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs; to the Committee on Finance.


                      patient abuse prevention act

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Patient 
Abuse Prevention Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 
Senator Reid, who has worked tirelessly with me on this important 
legislation.
  This bill is the product of collaboration and input from the 
administration, the health care industry, patient and employee 
advocates--who all have the same goal I do: protecting patients in 
long-term care from abuse, neglect, and mistreatment.
  Last fall, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of 
Inspector General issued a report describing how easy it is for people 
with abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in nursing homes. On 
September 14 of last year, the Senate Aging Committee held hearings on 
this disturbing problem, where we heard horrifying stories of elderly 
patients being abused by the very people who are charged with their 
care. While the vast majority of nursing home workers are dedicated and 
professional, even one instance of abuse is inexcusable. This should 
not be happening in a single nursing home in America.
  Mr. President, it is estimated that more than 43 percent of Americans 
over the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number 
of people needing long-term care services will continue to increase as 
the Baby Boom generation ages. The vast majority of nursing homes, home 
health agencies and hospices do an excellent job in caring for their 
patients. But it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow 
over what should be a healing environment.
  A disturbing number of cases have been reported where workers with 
criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care, 
and have subsequently abused patients in their care. In 1997, the 
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this 
problem, which led my home State of Wisconsin to pass a criminal 
background check law for health care workers. The legislation I 
introduce today follows their example and builds on their efforts.
  Why is it necessary to act? Because it is just far too easy for a 
worker with a history of abuse to find employment and prey on the most 
vulnerable patients. The OIG report found that 5 percent of nursing 
home employees in two States had prior criminal records. The OIG also 
found that between 15-20 percent of those convicted of patient abuse 
had prior criminal records. It is just too easy for known abusers to 
find work in health care and continue to prey on patients.
  Current state and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out 
abusive workers. All States are required to maintain registries of 
abusive nurse aides. But nurse aids are not the only workers involved 
in abuse, and other workers are not tracked at all. Even worse, there 
is no system to coordinate information about abusive nurse aides 
between States. A known abuser in Iowa would have little trouble moving 
to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there.
  In addition, there is no Federal requirement that long-term care 
facilities conduct criminal background checks on prospective employees. 
People with violent criminal backgrounds--people who have already been 
convicted of murder, rape, and assault--could easily get a job in a 
nursing home or other health care setting without their past ever being 
discovered.
  Our legislative will go a long way toward solving this problem. 
First, it will create a National Registry of abusive long-term care 
employees. States will be required to submit information from their 
current State registries to the National Registry. Facilities will be 
required to check the National Registry before hiring a prospective 
worker. Any worker with a substantiated finding of patient abuse will 
be prohibited from working in long-term care.
  Second, the bill provides a second line of defense to protect 
patients from violent criminals. If the National Registry does not 
contain information about a prospective worker, the facility is then 
required to initiate an FBI background check. Any conviction for 
patient abuse or a relevant violent crime would bar that applicant from 
working with patients.
  I realize that this legislation will not solve all instances of 
abuse. We still need to do more to stop abuse from occurring in the 
first place. But this bill will ensure that those who have already 
abused an elderly or disabled patient, and those who have committed 
violent crimes against people in the past, are kept away from 
vulnerable patients.
  Mr. President, I want to repeat that I strongly believe that most 
long-term care providers and their staff work hard to deliver the 
highest quality care. However, it is imperative that Congress act 
immediately to get rid of those that don't. When a patient checks into 
a nursing home or hospice, or receives home health care, they should 
not have to give up their right to be free from abuse, neglect, or 
mistreatment.
  Our nation's seniors made our country what it is today. It is our 
obligation to make sure we treat them with the dignity, care, and 
respect they deserve. I look forward to continuing to work with my 
colleagues, the administration, and the health care industry in this 
effort to protect patients. Our nation's seniors and disabled deserve 
nothing less than our full attention.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for 
this legislation from the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home 
Reform be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1445

       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 ``Patient Abuse Prevention 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM TO PREVENT ABUSE OF NURSING 
                   FACILITY RESIDENTS.

       (a) Nursing Facility and Skilled Nursing Facility 
     Requirements.--
       (1) Medicaid program.--Section 1919(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(b)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(8) Screening of nursing facility workers.--
       ``(A) Background checks on applicants.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (B)(ii), before hiring a nursing facility 
     worker, a nursing facility shall--
       ``(i) give the worker written notice that the facility is 
     required to perform background checks with respect to 
     applicants;
       ``(ii) require, as a condition of employment, that such 
     worker--

       ``(I) provide a written statement disclosing any conviction 
     for a relevant crime or finding of patient or resident abuse;
       ``(II) provide a statement signed by the worker authorizing 
     the facility to request the search and exchange of criminal 
     records;
       ``(III) provide in person a copy of the worker's 
     fingerprints; and
       ``(IV) provide any other identification information the 
     Secretary may specify in regulation;

       ``(iii) initiate a check of the data collection system 
     established under section 1128E in accordance with 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary to determine whether 
     such system contains any disqualifying information with 
     respect to such worker; and
       ``(iv) if that system does not contain any such 
     disqualifying information--

       ``(I) request that the State initiate a State and national 
     criminal background check on such worker in accordance with 
     the provisions of subsection (e)(8); and
       ``(II) furnish to the State the information described in 
     subclauses (II) through (IV) of clause (ii) not more than 7 
     days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays 
     under section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code) after 
     completion of the check against the system initiated under 
     clause (iii).

       ``(B) Prohibition on hiring of abusive workers.--
       ``(i) In general.--A nursing facility may not knowingly 
     employ any nursing facility

[[Page 17911]]

     worker who has any conviction for a relevant crime or with 
     respect to whom a finding of patient or resident abuse has 
     been made.
       ``(ii) Provisional employment.--After complying with the 
     requirements of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph 
     (A), a nursing facility may provide for a provisional period 
     of employment for a nursing facility worker pending 
     completion of the check against the data collection system 
     described under subparagraph (A)(iii) and the background 
     check described under subparagraph (A)(iv). Such facility 
     shall maintain direct supervision of the worker during the 
     worker's provisional period of employment.
       ``(C) Reporting requirements.--A nursing facility shall 
     report to the State any instance in which the facility 
     determines that a nursing facility worker has committed an 
     act of resident neglect or abuse or misappropriation of 
     resident property in the course of employment by the 
     facility.
       ``(D) Use of information.--
       ``(i) In general.--A nursing facility that obtains 
     information about a nursing facility worker pursuant to 
     clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (A) may use such 
     information only for the purpose of determining the 
     suitability of the worker for employment.
       ``(ii) Immunity from liability.--A nursing facility that, 
     in denying employment for an applicant (including during the 
     period described in subparagraph (B)(ii)), reasonably relies 
     upon information about such applicant provided by the State 
     pursuant to subsection (e)(8) or section 1128E shall not be 
     liable in any action brought by such applicant based on the 
     employment determination resulting from the information.
       ``(iii) Criminal penalty.--Whoever knowingly violates the 
     provisions of clause (i) shall be fined in accordance with 
     title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 
     years, or both.
       ``(E) Civil penalty.--
       ``(i) In general.--A nursing facility that violates the 
     provisions of this paragraph shall be subject to a civil 
     penalty in an amount not to exceed--

       ``(I) for the first such violation, $2,000; and
       ``(II) for the second and each subsequent violation within 
     any 5-year period, $5,000.

       ``(ii) Knowing retention of worker.--In addition to any 
     civil penalty under clause (i), a nursing facility that--

       ``(I) knowingly continues to employ a nursing facility 
     worker in violation of subparagraph (A) or (B); or
       ``(II) knowingly fails to report a nursing facility worker 
     under subparagraph (C);

     shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to 
     exceed $5,000 for the first such violation, and $10,000 for 
     the second and each subsequent violation within any 5-year 
     period.
       ``(F) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Conviction for a relevant crime.--The term 
     `conviction for a relevant crime' means any Federal or State 
     criminal conviction for--

       ``(I) any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (4) 
     of section 1128(a); and
       ``(II) such other types of offenses as the Secretary may 
     specify in regulations, taking into account the severity and 
     relevance of such offenses, and after consultation with 
     representatives of long-term care providers, representatives 
     of long-term care employees, consumer advocates, and 
     appropriate Federal and State officials.

       ``(ii) Disqualifying information.--The term `disqualifying 
     information' means information about a conviction for a 
     relevant crime or a finding of patient or resident abuse.
       ``(iii) Finding of patient or resident abuse.--The term 
     `finding of patient or resident abuse' means any 
     substantiated finding by a State agency under subsection 
     (g)(1)(C) or a Federal agency that a nursing facility worker 
     has committed--

       ``(I) an act of patient or resident abuse or neglect or a 
     misappropriation of patient or resident property; or
       ``(II) such other types of acts as the Secretary may 
     specify in regulations.

       ``(iv) Nursing facility worker.--The term `nursing facility 
     worker' means any individual (other than any volunteer) that 
     has direct access to a patient of a nursing facility under an 
     employment or other contract, or both, with such facility. 
     Such term includes individuals who are licensed or certified 
     by the State to provide such services, and nonlicensed 
     individuals providing such services, as defined by the 
     Secretary, including nurse assistants, nurse aides, home 
     health aides, and personal care workers and attendants.''.
       (2) Medicare program.--Section 1819(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(b)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(8) Screening of skilled nursing facility workers.--
       ``(A) Background checks on applicants.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (B)(ii), before hiring a skilled nursing 
     facility worker, a skilled nursing facility shall--
       ``(i) give the worker written notice that the facility is 
     required to perform background checks with respect to 
     applicants;
       ``(ii) require, as a condition of employment, that such 
     worker--

       ``(I) provide a written statement disclosing any conviction 
     for a relevant crime or finding of patient or resident abuse;
       ``(II) provide a statement signed by the worker authorizing 
     the facility to request the search and exchange of criminal 
     records;
       ``(III) provide in person a copy of the worker's 
     fingerprints; and
       ``(IV) provide any other identification information the 
     Secretary may specify in regulation;

       ``(iii) initiate a check of the data collection system 
     established under section 1128E in accordance with 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary to determine whether 
     such system contains any disqualifying information with 
     respect to such worker; and
       ``(iv) if that system does not contain any such 
     disqualifying information--

       ``(I) request that the State initiate a State and national 
     criminal background check on such worker in accordance with 
     the provisions of subsection (e)(6); and
       ``(II) furnish to the State the information described in 
     subclauses (II) through (IV) of clause (ii) not more than 7 
     days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays 
     under section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code) after 
     completion of the check against the system initiated under 
     clause (iii).

       ``(B) Prohibition on hiring of abusive workers.--
       ``(i) In general.--A skilled nursing facility may not 
     knowingly employ any skilled nursing facility worker who has 
     any conviction for a relevant crime or with respect to whom a 
     finding of patient or resident abuse has been made.
       ``(ii) Provisional employment.--After complying with the 
     requirements of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph 
     (A), a skilled nursing facility may provide for a provisional 
     period of employment for a skilled nursing facility worker 
     pending completion of the check against the data collection 
     system described under subparagraph (A)(iii) and the 
     background check described under subparagraph (A)(iv). Such 
     facility shall maintain direct supervision of the covered 
     individual during the worker's provisional period of 
     employment.
       ``(C) Reporting requirements.--A skilled nursing facility 
     shall report to the State any instance in which the facility 
     determines that a skilled nursing facility worker has 
     committed an act of resident neglect or abuse or 
     misappropriation of resident property in the course of 
     employment by the facility.
       ``(D) Use of information.--
       ``(i) In general.--A skilled nursing facility that obtains 
     information about a skilled nursing facility worker pursuant 
     to clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (A) may use such 
     information only for the purpose of determining the 
     suitability of the worker for employment.
       ``(ii) Immunity from liability.--A skilled nursing facility 
     that, in denying employment for an applicant (including 
     during the period described in subparagraph (B)(ii)), 
     reasonably relies upon information about such applicant 
     provided by the State pursuant to subsection (e)(6) or 
     section 1128E shall not be liable in any action brought by 
     such applicant based on the employment determination 
     resulting from the information.
       ``(iii) Criminal penalty.--Whoever knowingly violates the 
     provisions of clause (i) shall be fined in accordance with 
     title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 
     years, or both.
       ``(E) Civil penalty.--
       ``(i) In general.--A skilled nursing facility that violates 
     the provisions of this paragraph shall be subject to a civil 
     penalty in an amount not to exceed--

       ``(I) for the first such violation, $2,000; and
       ``(II) for the second and each subsequent violation within 
     any 5-year period, $5,000.

       ``(ii) Knowing retention of worker.--In addition to any 
     civil penalty under clause (i), a skilled nursing facility 
     that--

       ``(I) knowingly continues to employ a skilled nursing 
     facility worker in violation of subparagraph (A) or (B); or
       ``(II) knowingly fails to report a skilled nursing facility 
     worker under subparagraph (C);

     shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to 
     exceed $5,000 for the first such violation, and $10,000 for 
     the second and each subsequent violation within any 5-year 
     period.
       ``(F) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Conviction for a relevant crime.--The term 
     `conviction for a relevant crime' means any Federal or State 
     criminal conviction for--

       ``(I) any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (4) 
     of section 1128(a); and
       ``(II) such other types of offenses as the Secretary may 
     specify in regulations, taking into account the severity and 
     relevance of such offenses, and after consultation with 
     representatives of long-term care providers, representatives 
     of long-term care employees, consumer advocates, and 
     appropriate Federal and State officials.

       ``(ii) Disqualifying information.--The term `disqualifying 
     information' means information about a conviction for a 
     relevant crime or a finding of patient or resident abuse.

[[Page 17912]]

       ``(iii) Finding of patient or resident abuse.--The term 
     `finding of patient or resident abuse' means any 
     substantiated finding by a State agency under subsection 
     (g)(1)(C) or a Federal agency that a skilled nursing facility 
     worker has committed--

       ``(I) an act of patient or resident abuse or neglect or a 
     misappropriation of patient or resident property; or
       ``(II) such other types of acts as the Secretary may 
     specify in regulations.

       ``(iv) Skilled nursing facility worker.--The term `skilled 
     nursing facility worker' means any individual (other than any 
     volunteer) that has direct access to a patient of a skilled 
     nursing facility under an employment or other contract, or 
     both, with such facility. Such term includes individuals who 
     are licensed or certified by the State to provide such 
     services, and nonlicensed individuals providing such 
     services, as defined by the Secretary, including nurse 
     assistants, nurse aides, home health aides, and personal care 
     workers and attendants.''.
       (b) State Requirements.--
       (1) Medicaid program.--
       (A) Expansion of state registry to collect information 
     about nursing facility employees other than nurse aides.--
     Section 1919 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r) is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (e)(2)--

       (I) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Nurse aide 
     registry'' and inserting ``Nursing facility employee 
     registry'';
       (II) in subparagraph (A)--

       (aa) by striking ``By not later than January 1, 1989, the'' 
     and inserting ``The'';
       (bb) by striking ``a registry of all individuals'' and 
     inserting ``a registry of (I) all individuals''; and
       (cc) by inserting before the period ``, and (II) all other 
     nursing facility employees with respect to whom the State has 
     made a finding described in subparagraph (B)'';

       (III) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``involving an 
     individual listed in the registry'' and inserting ``involving 
     a nursing facility employee''; and
       (IV) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``nurse aide'' and 
     inserting ``nursing facility employee or applicant for 
     employment''; and

       (ii) in subsection (g)(1)--

       (I) in subparagraph (C)--

       (aa) in the first sentence, by striking ``nurse aide'' and 
     inserting ``nursing facility employee''; and
       (bb) in the third sentence, by striking ``nurse aide'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``nursing facility employee''; 
     and

       (II) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``nurse aide'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``nursing facility employee''.

       (B) Federal and state requirement to conduct background 
     checks.--Section 1919(e) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396r(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) Federal and state requirements concerning criminal 
     background checks on nursing facility employees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon receipt of a request by a nursing 
     facility pursuant to subsection (b)(8) that is accompanied by 
     the information described in subclauses (II) through (IV) of 
     subsection (b)(8)(A)(ii), a State, after checking appropriate 
     State records and finding no disqualifying information (as 
     defined in subsection (b)(8)(F)(ii)), shall submit such 
     request and information to the Attorney General and shall 
     request the Attorney General to conduct a search and exchange 
     of records with respect to the individual as described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Search and exchange of records by attorney general.--
     Upon receipt of a submission pursuant to subparagraph (A), 
     the Attorney General shall direct a search of the records of 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any criminal history 
     records corresponding to the fingerprints or other positive 
     identification information submitted. The Attorney General 
     shall provide any corresponding information resulting from 
     the search to the State.
       ``(C) State reporting of information to nursing facility.--
     Upon receipt of the information provided by the Attorney 
     General pursuant to subparagraph (B), the State shall--
       ``(i) review the information to determine whether the 
     individual has any conviction for a relevant crime (as 
     defined in subsection (b)(8)(F)(i));
       ``(ii) report to the nursing facility the results of such 
     review; and
       ``(iii) in the case of an individual with a conviction for 
     a relevant crime, report the existence of such conviction of 
     such individual to the database established under section 
     1128E.
       ``(D) Fees for performance of criminal background checks.--
       ``(i) Authority to charge fees.--

       ``(I) Attorney general.--The Attorney General may charge a 
     fee to any State requesting a search and exchange of records 
     pursuant to this paragraph and subsection (b)(8) for 
     conducting the search and providing the records. The amount 
     of such fee shall not exceed the lesser of the actual cost of 
     such activities or $50. Such fees shall be available to the 
     Attorney General, or, in the Attorney General's discretion, 
     to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, until expended.
       ``(II) State.--A State may charge a nursing facility a fee 
     for initiating the criminal background check under this 
     paragraph and subsection (b)(8), including fees charged by 
     the Attorney General, and for performing the review and 
     report required by subparagraph (C). The amount of such fee 
     shall not exceed the actual cost of such activities.

       ``(ii) Prohibition on charging applicants or employees.--An 
     entity may not impose on an applicant for employment or an 
     employee any charges relating to the performance of a 
     background check under this paragraph.
       ``(E) Regulations.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to the Secretary's authority 
     to promulgate regulations under this title, the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Secretary, may promulgate 
     such regulations as are necessary to carry out the Attorney 
     General's responsibilities under this paragraph and 
     subsection (b)(8), including regulations regarding the 
     security, confidentiality, accuracy, use, destruction, and 
     dissemination of information, audits and recordkeeping, and 
     the imposition of fees.
       ``(ii) Appeal procedures.--The Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary, shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to establish procedures by which 
     an applicant or employee may appeal or dispute the accuracy 
     of the information obtained in a background check conducted 
     under this paragraph. Appeals shall be limited to instances 
     in which an applicant or employee is incorrectly identified 
     as the subject of the background check, or when information 
     about the applicant or employee has not been updated to 
     reflect changes in the applicant's or employee's criminal 
     record.
       ``(F) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall 
     submit a report to Congress on--
       ``(i) the number of requests for searches and exchanges of 
     records made under this section;
       ``(ii) the disposition of such requests; and
       ``(iii) the cost of responding to such requests.''.
       (2) Medicare program.--
       (A) Expansion of state registry to collect information 
     about skilled nursing facility employees other than nurse 
     aides.--Section 1819 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395i-3) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (e)(2)--

       (I) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Nurse aide 
     registry'' and inserting ``Skilled nursing care employee 
     registry'';
       (II) in subparagraph (A)--

       (aa) by striking ``By not later than January 1, 1989, the'' 
     and inserting ``The'';
       (bb) by striking ``a registry of all individuals'' and 
     inserting ``a registry of (I) all individuals''; and
       (cc) by inserting before the period ``, and (II) all other 
     skilled nursing facility employees with respect to whom the 
     State has made a finding described in subparagraph (B)'';

       (III) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``involving an 
     individual listed in the registry'' and inserting ``involving 
     a skilled nursing facility employee''; and
       (IV) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``nurse aide'' and 
     inserting ``skilled nursing facility employee or applicant 
     for employment''; and

       (ii) in subsection (g)(1)--

       (I) in subparagraph (C)--

       (aa) in the first sentence, by striking ``nurse aide'' and 
     inserting ``skilled nursing facility employee''; and
       (bb) in the third sentence, by striking ``nurse aide'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``skilled nursing facility 
     employee''; and

       (II) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``nurse aide'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``skilled nursing facility 
     employee''.

       (B) Federal and state requirement to conduct background 
     checks.--Section 1819(e) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395i-3(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Federal and state requirements concerning criminal 
     background checks on skilled nursing facility employees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon receipt of a request by a skilled 
     nursing facility pursuant to subsection (b)(8) that is 
     accompanied by the information described in subclauses (II) 
     through (IV) of subsection (b)(8)(A)(ii), a State, after 
     checking appropriate State records and finding no 
     disqualifying information (as defined in subsection 
     (b)(8)(F)(ii)), shall submit such request and information to 
     the Attorney General and shall request the Attorney General 
     to conduct a search and exchange of records with respect to 
     the individual as described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Search and exchange of records by attorney general.--
     Upon receipt of a submission pursuant to subparagraph (A), 
     the Attorney General shall direct a search of the records of 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any criminal history 
     records corresponding to the fingerprints or other positive 
     identification information submitted. The Attorney General 
     shall provide any corresponding information resulting from 
     the search to the State.
       ``(C) State reporting of information to skilled nursing 
     facility.--Upon receipt of the information provided by the 
     Attorney

[[Page 17913]]

     General pursuant to subparagraph (B), the State shall--
       ``(i) review the information to determine whether the 
     individual has any conviction for a relevant crime (as 
     defined in subsection (b)(8)(F)(i));
       ``(ii) report to the skilled nursing facility the results 
     of such review; and
       ``(iii) in the case of an individual with a conviction for 
     a relevant crime, report the existence of such conviction of 
     such individual to the database established under section 
     1128E.
       ``(D) Fees for performance of criminal background checks.--
       ``(i) Authority to charge fees.--

       ``(I) Attorney general.--The Attorney General may charge a 
     fee to any State requesting a search and exchange of records 
     pursuant to this paragraph and subsection (b)(8) for 
     conducting the search and providing the records. The amount 
     of such fee shall not exceed the lesser of the actual cost of 
     such activities or $50. Such fees shall be available to the 
     Attorney General, or, in the Attorney General's discretion, 
     to the Federal Bureau of Investigation until expended.
       ``(II) State.--A State may charge a skilled nursing 
     facility a fee for initiating the criminal background check 
     under this paragraph and subsection (b)(8), including fees 
     charged by the Attorney General, and for performing the 
     review and report required by subparagraph (C). The amount of 
     such fee shall not exceed the actual cost of such activities.

       ``(ii) Prohibition on charging applicants or employees.--An 
     entity may not impose on an applicant for employment or an 
     employee any charges relating to the performance of a 
     background check under this paragraph.
       ``(E) Regulations.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to the Secretary's authority 
     to promulgate regulations under this title, the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Secretary, may promulgate 
     such regulations as are necessary to carry out the Attorney 
     General's responsibilities under this paragraph and 
     subsection (b)(9), including regulations regarding the 
     security confidentiality, accuracy, use, destruction, and 
     dissemination of information, audits and recordkeeping, and 
     the imposition of fees.
       ``(ii) Appeal procedures.--The Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary, shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to establish procedures by which 
     an applicant or employee may appeal or dispute the accuracy 
     of the information obtained in a background check conducted 
     under this paragraph. Appeals shall be limited to instances 
     in which an applicant or employee is incorrectly identified 
     as the subject of the background check, or when information 
     about the applicant or employee has not been updated to 
     reflect changes in the applicant's or employee's criminal 
     record.
       ``(F) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall 
     submit a report to Congress on--
       ``(i) the number of requests for searches and exchanges of 
     records made under this section;
       ``(ii) the disposition of such requests; and
       ``(iii) the cost of responding to such requests.''.
       (c) Application to Other Entities Providing Long-Term Care 
     Services.--
       (1) Medicaid.--Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (65), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (65) the following:
       ``(66) provide that any entity that is eligible to be paid 
     under the State plan for providing long-term care services 
     for which medical assistance is available under the State 
     plan to individuals requiring long-term care complies with 
     the requirements of subsections (b)(8) and (e)(8) of section 
     1919.''.
       (2) Medicare.--Part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:


 ``APPLICATION OF SKILLED NURSING FACILITY PREVENTIVE ABUSE PROVISIONS 
 TO ANY PROVIDER OF SERVICES OR OTHER ENTITY PROVIDING LONG-TERM CARE 
                                SERVICES

       ``Sec. 1897. The requirements of subsections (b)(8) and 
     (e)(6) of section 1819 shall apply to any provider of 
     services or any other entity that is eligible to be paid 
     under this title for providing long-term care services to an 
     individual entitled to benefits under part A or enrolled 
     under part B (including an individual provided with a 
     Medicare+Choice plan offered by a Medicare+Choice 
     organization under part C).''.
       (d) Reimbursement of Reasonable Costs for Background 
     Checks.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     factor into any payment system under titles XVIII and XIX of 
     the Social Security Act the reasonable costs of the 
     requirements of sections 1819(b)(8) and 1919(b)(8) of such 
     Act, as added by this section, incurred by any entity subject 
     to such requirements.

     SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF ABUSIVE NURSING FACILITY WORKERS IN THE 
                   DATABASE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF NATIONAL HEALTH 
                   CARE FRAUD AND ABUSE DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Inclusion of Abusive Acts Within a Long-Term Care 
     Facility.--Section 1128E(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi); and
       (2) by inserting after clause (iv), the following:
       ``(v) A finding of abuse or neglect of a patient or a 
     resident of a long-term care facility, or misappropriation of 
     such a patient's or resident's property.''.
       (b) Coverage of Long-Term Care Facility Employees.--Section 
     1128E(g)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
     7e(g)(2)) is amended by inserting ``, and includes any 
     individual of a long-term care facility (other than any 
     volunteer) that has direct access to a patient or resident of 
     such a facility under an employment or other contract, or 
     both, with the facility (including individuals who are 
     licensed or certified by the State to provide services at the 
     facility, and nonlicensed individuals, as defined by the 
     Secretary, providing services at the facility, including 
     nurse assistants, nurse aides, home health aides, and 
     personal care workers and attendants)'' before the period.
       (c) Reporting by Long-Term Care Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1128E(b)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``and 
     health plan'' and inserting ``, health plan, and long-term 
     care facility''.
       (2) Correction of information.--Section 1128E(c)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(c)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``and health plan'' and inserting ``, health plan, 
     and long-term care facility''.
       (d) Access to Reported Information.--Section 1128E(d)(1) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(d)(1)) is amended 
     by striking ``and health plans'' and inserting ``, health 
     plans, and long-term care facilities''.
       (e) Mandatory Check of Database by Long-Term Care 
     Facilities.--Section 1128E(d) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1320a-7e(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Mandatory check of database by long-term care 
     facilities.--A long-term care facility shall check the 
     database maintained under this section prior to hiring under 
     an employment or other contract, or both, any individual as 
     an employee of such a facility who will have direct access to 
     a patient or resident of the facility (including individuals 
     who are licensed or certified by the State to provide 
     services at the facility, and nonlicensed individuals, as 
     defined by the Secretary, that will provide services at the 
     facility, including nurse assistants, nurse aides, home 
     health aides, and personal care workers and attendants).''.
       (f) Definition of Long-Term Care Facility.--Section 
     1128E(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(g)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Long-term care facility.--The term `long-term care 
     facility' means a skilled nursing facility (as defined in 
     section 1819(a)), a nursing facility (as defined in section 
     1919(a)), a home health agency, a hospice facility, an 
     intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded (as 
     defined in section 1905(d)), or any other facility that 
     provides long-term care services and receives payment for 
     such services under the medicare program under title XVIII or 
     the medicaid program under title XIX.''.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the amendments made by this 
     section, $10,200,000 for fiscal year 2000.

     SEC. 4. PREVENTION AND TRAINING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish a demonstration program to provide 
     grants to develop information on best practices in patient 
     abuse prevention training (including behavior training and 
     interventions) for managers and staff of hospital and health 
     care facilities.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall be a public or private 
     nonprofit entity and prepare and submit to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services an application at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary 
     may require.
       (c) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     this section shall be used to--
       (1) examine ways to improve collaboration between State 
     health care survey and provider certification agencies, long-
     term care ombudsman programs, the long-term care industry, 
     and local community members;
       (2) examine patient care issues relating to regulatory 
     oversight, community involvement, and facility staffing and 
     management with a focus on staff training, staff stress 
     management, and staff supervision;
       (3) examine the use of patient abuse prevention training 
     programs by long-term care entities, including the training 
     program developed by the National Association of Attorneys 
     General, and the extent to which such programs are used; and
       (4) identify and disseminate best practices for preventing 
     and reducing patient abuse.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

[[Page 17914]]



     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of and amendments made by the Act shall 
     apply, without regard to whether implementing regulations are 
     in effect, to any individual applying for employment or hired 
     for such employment--
       (1) by any skilled nursing facility (as defined in section 
     1819(a) of the Social Security Act) or any nursing facility 
     (as defined in section 1919(a) of such Act), on or after the 
     date which is 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act,
       (2) by any home health agency, on or after the date which 
     is 12 months after such date of enactment, and
       (3) by any hospice facility, any intermediate care facility 
     for the mentally retarded (as defined in section 1905(d) of 
     the Social Security Act), or any other facility that provides 
     long-term care services and receives payment for such 
     services under the medicare program under title XVIII of such 
     Act or the medicaid program under title XIX of such Act, on 
     or after the date which is 18 months after such date of 
     enactment.
                                  ____

                                  National Citizens' Coalition for


                                          Nursing Home Reform,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1999.
     Hon. Herbert Kohl,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: The National Citizens' Coalition for 
     Nursing Home Reform (NCCNHR) commends you and your staff for 
     your initiative in seeking to improve care and conditions in 
     long-term care facilities. NCCNHR is a non-profit consumer 
     organization whose mission is to improve the quality of care 
     and life for long term care residents. Our organization 
     represents residents and their advocates. We work closely 
     with the nation's long-term care ombudsmen and house the 
     National Long Term Care Ombudsman Resource Center.
       We strongly support your proposed legislation cited as the 
     Patient Abuse Prevention Act, which would require criminal 
     background checks for nursing home workers. This legislation 
     would provide residents protection from individuals with a 
     history of committing crimes against residents. It would also 
     create a much needed National Registry for long-term care 
     employees with a history of abuse, to be used by nursing 
     homes hiring employees for their facilities.
       In particular, NCCNHR applauds your revisions to last 
     year's bill, the ``Long-Term Care Patient Protection Act of 
     1998'' to include (1) a requirement that criminal background 
     checks of employees will be conducted in all facilities 
     (including specifically, nursing homes, home health, and 
     hospices); (2) that applicants may not be charged for the 
     costs of the checks; (3) that applicants who challenge the 
     accuracy of the background check will also be able to appeal 
     the decision and (4) that there is no longer a prohibition on 
     Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for the costs of 
     conducting background checks.
       We strongly urge, however, that the legislation also expand 
     its language to provide criminal background checks on all 
     long-term care workers and not just employees who have direct 
     access to residents. Considering the vulnerability of long-
     term care residents, criminal background checks should be 
     conducted on all workers, including contract workers, in all 
     health care settings, including home care, and assisted 
     living.
       Again, NCCNHR congratulates you, Senator Kohl, on your 
     persistence and foresight. If you need further information, 
     contact me or Ana Rivas-Beck, J.D., Law and Policy 
     Specialist.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Elma Holder,
                                                          Founder.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator 
Kohl, in introducing the ``Patient Abuse Prevention Act.'' This 
legislation would help protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens by 
keeping workers with criminal and abusive backgrounds out of our long-
term care facilities.
  It is simply too easy for workers with criminal or abusive histories 
to gain employment in long-term care facilities. A report released last 
year by the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS) confirmed that current regulations were not 
sufficient to protect the frail and elderly from being placed in the 
hands of known abusers and criminals. If we do not take steps to keep 
workers with criminal and abusive backgrounds out of our long-term care 
facilities, the growing number of reports of abuse and theft in these 
facilities will only continue to increase.
  The ``Patient Abuse Prevention Act'' would give employers the tools 
they need to weed out potential employees who are unfit to provide care 
to the elderly because of abusive or criminal backgrounds. Our bill 
would create a national registry of abusive workers within an existing 
database at HHS. It would also expand existing State nurse aide 
registries to include substantiated findings of abuse by all facility 
employees, not just nurse aides. States would submit any existing or 
newly acquired information contained in the State registries to the 
national registry. This would ensure that once an employee is added to 
the national registry, the offender will not be able to simply cross 
state lines and find employment in another facility where he may 
continue to prey on the frail and elderly.
  Our bill would require all long-term care facilities to initiate a 
search of the national registry of abusive workers when considering a 
potential employee. If the prospective employee is not listed on the 
registry, the facility would then conduct a State and national criminal 
background check on the individual through the Federal Bureau of 
Investigations.
  The Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services 
reports that 46 percent of facilities believe that incidents of abuse 
are under-reported. Our bill would require long-term care facilities to 
report all instances of resident neglect, abuse, or theft by an 
employee to the State. This would ensure that offenders are reported 
and added to the national registry before they have the opportunity to 
strike again.
  Over the past few years, Senator Kohl and I have worked to ensure 
that our frail and elderly are not placed in the hands of criminals. 
During the 105th Congress, we introduced similar legislation and 
conducted hearings through the Senate Special Committee on Aging. This 
bill is a culmination of our efforts to institute greater protections 
for all residents of long-term care facilities.
  One of the most difficult times for any individual or family is when 
they must make the decision to rely upon the support and services of a 
long-term care facility. Families should not have to live with the fear 
that their loved one is being left in the hands of a criminal. Last 
year, Richard Meyer testified before the Senate Aging Committee about 
the sexual assault of his 92-year-old mother by a male certified 
nursing assistant who had previously been charged and convicted for 
sexually assaulting a young girl. This legislation would prevent 
tragedies like this one from occurring in the future.
  I have visited countless long-term care facilities in my home state 
of Nevada. During these visits, I have always been impressed by the 
compassion and dedication of the staff. Most nurse aides and health 
care workers are professional, honest, and dedicated. Unfortunately, it 
only takes one abusive staff member to terrorize the lives of the 
residents. That is why we must work to weed out the ``bad apples'' who 
do not have the best interest of the residents in mind. I urge you to 
join Senator Kohl and me in our efforts to provide greater protections 
for all residents of long-term care facilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT:
  S. 1446. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
an additional advance refunding of bonds originally issued to finance 
governmental facilities used for essential governmental functions; to 
the Committee on Finance.


  state and local government essential services financing legislation

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
help state and local governments more effectively finance the cost of 
essential services such as schools, streets, and water and sewer 
systems.
  By easing tax law restrictions on the refinancing of certain bonds, 
this proposal would allow local jurisdictions to take advantage of 
favorable market interest rates. Financing the essential projects of 
our communities is primarily a state and local government 
responsibility. Federal tax laws should make it easier--not more 
difficult--for them to lessen the burden of taxes and other 
governmental charges on our citizens.
  The proposal would adjust tax law restrictions on the refinancing of 
certain bonds issued to provide services such as government-owned 
schools, hospitals, streets and water and sewer systems.

[[Page 17915]]

  Under current tax rules, most state and local governments may 
undertake an advance refunding of bonded indebtedness only one time and 
are thus unable to take full advantage of periods when market interest 
rates are low. This legislation would allow every state and local 
government an additional opportunity to refinance bonded indebtedness 
issued to finance essential governmental projects.
  Furthermore, this legislation would give state and local governments 
flexibility skin to that of a homeowner who refinances a mortgage to 
reduce monthly payments and thereby increase income. The federal 
government should not expect state and local governments to shoulder 
the burden of financing local infrastructure, and then deny them the 
flexibility to handle their own affairs in the most efficient and cost-
effective manner. The change will help continue shifting power and 
control to local government where it belongs.
  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. 1446

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

     SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL ADVANCE REFUNDINGS OF CERTAIN 
                   GOVERNMENTAL BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 149(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to advance refundings of other 
     bonds) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
       (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (II), and
       (3) by inserting after subclause (II) the following:

       ``(III) the 2nd advance refunding of the original bond if 
     the original bond was issued after 1985 or the 3rd advance 
     refunding of the original bond if the original bond was 
     issued before 1986, if, in either case, the original bond was 
     issued as part of an issue 90 percent or more of the net 
     proceeds of which were used to finance governmental 
     facilities used for 1 or more essential governmental 
     functions (within the meaning of section 141(c)(2)),''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to refunding bonds issued on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________