[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22975-22984]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Smith of Oregon, 
        Mr. Bayh, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1646. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act 
to improve the coverage of needy children under the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and the Medicaid Program; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          improved maternal and children's health coverage act

 Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act. I am joined by my 
colleagues Senator Landrieu, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Evan Bayh 
and Senator Dianne Feinstein.
  A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Congresswoman DeGette and Congresswoman Morella.
  This legislation is intended to help increase the coverage of 
uninsured children under the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
better known as CHIP.
  Right now there are 10.7 million uninsured children in the United 
States. The goal of CHIP is to insure 5 million children nationally.
  However, we have only enrolled 1.3 million of the targeted 5 million 
children so far. We can do better. We must do better.
  Let's get rid of barriers to coverage! There are several simple, 
administrative changes that we can make in this legislation that will 
help break down the barriers to enrollment.
  First, we can reduce the need for excessive documentation. States 
would be required to develop and use a uniform, simplified application 
form to determine eligibility for both Medicaid and CHIP. This means 
families only have to fill out one form.
  Second, families would only have to deal with one state agency to 
establish eligibility for either program. It is unfair to make parents 
go from agency to agency to enroll for state health insurance coverage.
  Third, we can do a better job making a greater variety of application 
sites available to families. Rather than only being able to apply at a 
state agency, states could opt to expand application site options. 
Let's take the application process to the places that parents and their 
children go on a regular basis--examples include schools and child care 
centers.
  This bill also expands health insurance coverage options to pregnant 
women who do not qualify for Medicaid because their incomes are 
slightly above Medicaid guidelines. Thousands of pregnant women earn 
just a bit too much to qualify for Medicaid, but they do not have 
health insurance because either their employer or their husband's 
employer doesn't offer it.
  We all know the importance of prenatal care to the health of unborn 
children. If a mother receives proper prenatal care, her child has a 
much greater chance of being born healthy. That is why the National 
Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's Hospitals 
and the March of Dimes--just to name a few organizations--support this 
legislation.
  In an era of making every federal dollar stretch as far as possible, 
this provision makes sense. For every $1 we spend on prenatal care, we 
save $3 later on that would be spent on complicated deliveries and 
serious birth defects. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money.
  Several years ago, the Arkansas governor and the state legislature 
implemented the AR Kids First health insurance program for children who 
did not qualify for Medicaid. AR Kids First precedes CHIP.
  The statistics for enrollment in the CHIP program in Arkansas are a 
bit ahead of the national curve. So for, AR Kids First has enrolled 
half of all eligible children. Over 45,000 now have coverage as a 
result of the state's proactive efforts and commitment to children's 
health.
  It has been so successful in enrolling eligible children for health 
insurance that the Department of Health and Human Services recently 
granted approval to allow AR Kids First to operate as the state's CHIP 
program.
  I applaud their efforts and hope that other states can learn from the 
outreach success of AR Kids First.
  Finally, this bill eliminates the sunset clause for a pot of money 
that Congress allocated for states to help them link families leaving 
welfare with the Medicaid and CHIP programs. As part of the 1996 
welfare reform law, Congress gave $500 million to states to see that 
families with children in the welfare system continue to receive health 
care coverage.
  Prior to 1996, poor families with children automatically received 
health benefits through Medicaid when they signed up for AFDC. Since 
Congress passed welfare reform legislation, Medicaid and TANF are no 
longer legally connected. States must revamp their eligibility systems 
to see that families with children do not fall through the cracks.
  There has been confusion between governors and the Department of 
Health and Human Services about the time period that this money could 
be spent.
  States run the risk of losing this money just 2 days from now. On 
September 30th, 16 states are in jeopardy of losing this funding and 18 
more states will lose funding by December 31, 1999.
  So, as you see, this piece of the Maternal and Children's Health 
Coverage Act is critical--and timely.
  I hope that the Congress and the President will act swiftly to 
eliminate the sunset clause and give states more time to spend this 
valuable pot of money.
  Mr. President, Congress is currently engaged in a debate over the 
Patients'

[[Page 22976]]

Bill of Rights. I hope that we don't lose sight of an equally important 
goal of seeing that all children in America have health care insurance.
  I believe this bill takes a positive step forward in helping states 
move closer to the goal of providing health insurance to 5 million 
uninsured children. We can do this. We must do this.
 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, 
Senator Lincoln from Arkansas, Senator Bayh from Indiana, Senator Smith 
from Oregon, and Senator Feinstein from California to introduce the 
``Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act of 1999,'' that 
would improve the health coverage of needy children under the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid. CHIP was 
implemented during the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to ensure children 
living in working families that do not qualify for Medicaid, but still 
cannot afford health insurance, receive the care they need.
  As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress allocated $500 
million to states to provide children and families access to Medicaid. 
This fund will expire for 16 states on September 30, 1999, and for 18 
more States, including Louisiana, on December 31, 1999. Our proposal 
would extend the life of this fund to allow states to continue to use 
these dollars as they carry out outreach efforts for both Medicare and 
CHIP providing our children with health care.
  Eleven million of the nation's children remain uninsured despite the 
passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Mr. 
President, we need to strengthen this essential program. In Louisiana 
alone, there are 268,000 children who still do not have health 
insurance. About half of these children are eligible for Medicaid or 
CHIP, but are not enrolled because of the lack of outreach. I know that 
in my colleague's state of Arkansas, they have insured just over half 
of the children who are eligible. The ``Improved Maternal and 
Children's Health Coverage Act'' will provide better outreach services 
to those families who may not know of their eligibility. It provides 
for a simplified and coordinated enrollment process that would 
determine eligibility for both Medicaid and CHIP.
  Additionally, the measure gives the states the option to cover 
pregnant women. Studies have shown that prenatal care improves the 
health of new born children and reduces the risk of birth defects. It 
is so very important that our children have health coverage from the 
first day of life.
  Parents are just beginning to be aware that this special program 
exists and that their children are eligible. It is our responsibility 
as leaders to make sure that our children are given the best possible 
opportunities for success. This means we must provide quality access to 
children's health services. We must not let these children fall through 
the cracks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1648. A bill to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to 
require the Secretary of Agriculture to take certain actions if the 
European Union does not reduce and subsequently eliminate agricultural 
export subsidies; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                   AGRICULTURE FAIR TRADE ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Fair 
Trade Act of 1999. I am joined by Senator Gorton of Washington and 
Senator Bingaman of New Mexico.
  I begin by saying I believe the next round of the WTO is vital to 
American farmers. As a Senator who represents Montana, a State whose 
primary industry is agriculture, this next round will decide the fate 
of our next generation of producers. It is that simple.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that while the rest of the Nation 
continues to experience astounding economic growth and prosperity 
through open and global trade, America's farmers and ranchers across 
the Nation are suffering, and they have yet to reap the fruits of free 
trade's bounty.
  During the last several months, we have worked to identify goals for 
agriculture in the next round of the WTO. The consensus is that we must 
step up our efforts dramatically in order to make genuine progress in 
leveling the playing field for our agriculture industry.
  It is our intention that this bill will begin this process. The 
Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a mechanism through which we can 
target unfair export subsidies and fight for their total elimination by 
January 1, 2003.
  It is our hope that such legislation will provide an incentive for 
our trading partners to voluntarily reduce their export subsidies 
during the next round of the WTO. The elimination of these subsidies 
will benefit farmers on both sides of the Atlantic.
  I believe this act provides a powerful two-tier trigger approach to 
the reduction of export subsidies.
  First, the European Union must reduce its agriculture export 
subsidies by 50 percent by January 1, 2002. If the EU fails to do so, 
the U.S. Agriculture Secretary shall take appropriate measures to 
protect the interests of American agricultural producers and ensure the 
international competitiveness of U.S. agriculture.
  In particular, the Secretary shall be authorized to target EU's most 
sensitive export market for grains and spend over $1 billion in Export 
Enhancement Program funding in that market.
  Step 2 requires the EU to enter into an agreement with the United 
States by January 1, 2003. The EU must agree to completely eliminate 
its export subsidies, and if not, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 
shall be authorized to, again, target EU's most sensitive export market 
for grain, double the Export Enhancement Program to $2 billion, and 
increase and utilize export funding for market promotion and direct ag 
export credit sales in the best interest of American ag producers.
  It is high time the Senate takes action to ensure that the next round 
of negotiations result in benefits to our agricultural producers.
  Why target EU export subsidies? I believe the United States has taken 
the high road in leading by example. That lead hurts U.S. producers. 
The United States has long taken the position that if we reduce support 
for agriculture, especially export subsidies, we will get a fair 
trading system.
  That is not the case across the Atlantic, where the EU export 
subsidies are 60 times greater than export subsidies in the United 
States. In fact, the EU accounts for nearly 85 percent of the world's 
agricultural export subsidies.
  I can remember in the 1980s when the U.S. and EU engaged in an 
``export subsidy war.'' At the same time, they both battled to undercut 
each other's prices in the world's wheat export markets. But over the 
decade, U.S. market share declined while EU market share increased 
dramatically.
  Europe, formerly the world's largest net importer, suddenly became 
the world's largest net exporter of agricultural products. It had 
nothing to do with luck. It had everything to do with their aggressive 
use of export subsidies.
  How did the United States fight back? We didn't. To date, the United 
States maintains an anemic Export Enhancement Program. Authorized at 
$500 million a year, EEP operates well below its Uruguay Round 
reduction commitments. If EEP is to be a credible tool in international 
trade, it is high time we start flexing its muscle.
  The United States will remain the most open market in the world. I am 
committed to that. At the same time, we must do everything possible to 
open foreign markets. A ``trigger'' is the first step--it has 
leverage--but one that must be taken as a very large stride in the path 
toward free trade.
  Again, I thank Senators Gorton and Bingaman for cosponsoring this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues vested in the future of American 
agriculture to join us in this endeavor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Mack, and Mr. McCain):
  S. 1649. A bill to provide incentives for States to establish and 
administer periodic teacher testing and merit pay programs for 
elementary school and secondary school teachers; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page 22977]]




                             the merit act

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend 
and colleague, Senator Mack, to introduce the Measures to Encourage 
Results in Teaching Act, or as it is frequently and aptly called, the 
MERIT Act.
  Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding 
our nation's schools and the state of elementary and secondary public 
school education. This country spends $740 billion per year on 
education. This is more than the Gross Domestic Products of Spain, 
Canada or Brazil. Yet the results of the Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study for Eighth Grade Students ranked American 
students 28th in science and 17th in math when compared to students in 
other countries. This situation worsens by the twelfth grade, when our 
advanced students performed at the bottom of international comparisons.
  Mr. President, 43 percent of our fourth graders cannot pass a basic 
reading test. Our children deserve the highest quality education 
possible and unfortunately, as just even these few statistics 
demonstrate, we are failing. Neither our children nor our nation can 
succeed unless we improve our educational system.
  Without a good education and the strong skills it provides, our young 
people will not be able to get good jobs at good wages. Without 
skilled, educated workers, our businesses will lose their competitive 
edge in the world marketplace. The prosperity of our entire nation 
demands that we do more to improve our children's education.
  The question then, Mr. President, is ``how can we improve our kids' 
education?'' There are a lot of fancy theories floating about on this 
topic. But one thing we know for certain: the most important 
educational tool in any classroom remains a qualified, highly trained 
teacher. Teachers play a special and indispensable role in our 
children's education. Nothing can replace the positive and long lasting 
impact a dedicated, knowledgeable teacher has on a child's learning 
process. And nothing can compensate for the weak teaching that, despite 
the best of intentions, can result from a teacher's lack of knowledge, 
preparation, skill and interest.
  The bulk of our teachers are working hard, under difficult 
circumstances, to educate our children. Unfortunately, Mr. President, 
too many of them have not gained the training they need to succeed in 
educating young people. Currently, the Department of Education reports 
that one-third of high school math teachers, nearly 25 percent of high 
school English teachers and 20 percent of science teachers are teaching 
without a college major or even a college minor in their subjects.
  The MERIT Act constitutes an important step toward providing better 
education. It will ensure that teachers have the training they need to 
succeed, and that teachers are rewarded for their successes. Common 
sense dictates that teachers should have subject-matter knowledge in 
the areas they teach. Common sense also dictates that teachers who 
motivate and inspire their students, and who put forth the extra effort 
to improve and expand upon their own skills and knowledge, should be 
rewarded.
  The MERIT Act puts common sense into action. It will provide 
incentives for states to establish teacher testing and merit pay 
policies. Specifically, this legislation would provide that 50 percent 
of the funds provided over the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriation level for 
the Eisenhower Professional Development Program will be made available 
to any state that has established periodic assessments of elementary 
and secondary school teachers, and implements a pay system to reward 
teachers based on merit and proven performance.
  Mr. President, I'd like to be particularly clear on one point: This 
bill will not result in any reductions in funding for the Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program. This is an incentive program, not 
another Washington-knows-best mandate. No state will be penalized for 
its decision not to participate in the MERIT Act program. In fact, 
should the appropriation level for the Eisenhower Program increase, so 
will the amount provided to each state.
  What this legislation will provide, Mr. President, is an important 
incentive for states to make certain that our kids are taught by 
committed teachers who have received the training they need to succeed. 
Day in and day out, teachers make a real difference for our kids. They 
inspire children to dream, and to work to make those dreams come true. 
They help our young people realize their full potential and work to 
achieve it. Their contributions are invaluable and their efforts demand 
commendation. The MERIT Act would reward these teachers for their 
commitment and ensure that our children will be taught by the most 
qualified and knowledgeable individuals available.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a section by 
section analysis, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1649

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Measures 
     to Encourage Results in Teaching Act of 1999''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) All students deserve to be taught by well-educated, 
     competent, and qualified teachers.
       (2) More than ever before, education has and will continue 
     to become the ticket not only to economic success but to 
     basic survival. Students will not succeed in meeting the 
     demands of a knowledge-based, 21st century society and 
     economy if the students do not encounter more challenging 
     work in school. For future generations to have the 
     opportunities to achieve success the future generations will 
     need to have an education and a teacher workforce second to 
     none.
       (3) No other intervention can make the difference that a 
     knowledgeable, skillful teacher can make in the learning 
     process. At the same time, nothing can fully compensate for 
     weak teaching that, despite good intentions, can result from 
     a teacher's lack of opportunity to acquire the knowledge and 
     skill needed to help students master the curriculum.
       (4) The Federal Government established the Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower Professional Development Program in 1985 to ensure 
     that teachers and other educational staff have access to 
     sustained and high-quality professional development. This 
     ongoing development must include the ability to demonstrate 
     and judge the performance of teachers and other instructional 
     staff.
       (5) States should evaluate their teachers on the basis of 
     demonstrated ability, including tests of subject matter 
     knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skill. States 
     should develop a test for their teachers and other 
     instructional staff with respect to the subjects taught by 
     the teachers and staff, and should administer the test every 
     3 to 5 years.
       (6) Evaluating and rewarding teachers with a compensation 
     system that supports teachers who become increasingly expert 
     in a subject area, are proficient in meeting the needs of 
     students and schools, and demonstrate high levels of 
     performance measured against professional teaching standards, 
     will encourage teachers to continue to learn needed skills 
     and broaden teachers' expertise, thereby enhancing education 
     for all students.
       (c) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To provide incentives for States to establish and 
     administer periodic teacher testing and merit pay programs 
     for elementary school and secondary school teachers.
       (2) To encourage States to establish merit pay programs 
     that have a significant impact on teacher salary scales.
       (3) To encourage programs that recognize and reward the 
     best teachers, and encourage those teachers that need to do 
     better.

     SEC. 2. STATE INCENTIVES FOR TEACHER TESTING AND MERIT PAY.

       (a) 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;
       (2) by redesignating sections 2401 and 2402 as sections 
     2501 and 2502, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after part D the following:

      ``PART E--STATE INCENTIVES FOR TEACHER TESTING AND MERIT PAY

     ``SEC. 2401. STATE INCENTIVES FOR TEACHER TESTING AND MERIT 
                   PAY.

       ``(a) State Awards.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, from funds described in subsection (b) that are 
     made available for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make an 
     award to each State that--
       ``(1) administers a test to each elementary school and 
     secondary school teacher in the State, with respect to the 
     subjects taught by the teacher, every 3 to 5 years; and

[[Page 22978]]

       ``(2) has an elementary school and secondary school teacher 
     compensation system that is based on merit.
       ``(b) Availale Funding.--The amount of funds referred to in 
     subsection (a) that are available to carry out this section 
     for a fiscal year is 50 percent of the amount of funds 
     appropriated to carry out this title that are in excess of 
     the amount so appropriated for fiscal year 2000, except that 
     no funds shall be available to carry out this section for any 
     fiscal year for which--
       ``(1) the amount appropriated to carry out this title 
     exceeds $600,000,000; or
       ``(2) each of the several States is eligible to receive an 
     award under this section.
       ``(c) Award Amount.--A State shall receive an award under 
     this section in an amount that bears the same relation to the 
     total amount available for awards under this section for a 
     fiscal year as the number of States that are eligible to 
     receive such an award for the fiscal year bears to the total 
     number of all States so eligible for the fiscal year.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--Funds provided under this section may 
     be used by the States to carry out the activities described 
     in section 2207.
       ``(e) Definition of State.--For the purpose of this 
     section, the term `State' means each of the 50 States and the 
     District of Columbia.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2000.

     SEC. 3. TEACHER TESTING AND MERIT PAY.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a State may use Federal education funds--
       (1) to carry out a test of each elementary school or 
     secondary school teacher in the State with respect to the 
     subjects taught by the teacher; or
       (2) to establish a merit pay program for the teachers.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary 
     school'' and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
                                  ____



             section 1. short title; findings; and purposes

       This section states that the short title of this bill is 
     the ``Measures to Encourage Results in Teaching Act of 
     1999.''
       The findings section stresses the importance of having 
     quality teachers in the classroom and the direct correlation 
     between a teacher's ability and the educational success of 
     his or her students.The findings also state the importance of 
     evaluating teachers on the basis of demonstrated ability, 
     including tests of subject matter knowledge, teaching 
     knowledge, and teaching skill.
       The purpose of the legislation is to provide incentives for 
     States to establish and administer periodic teacher testing 
     and merit pay programs for elementary and secondary school 
     teachers.


     section 2. state incentives for teacher testing and merit pay

       Section 2(a) amends the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act by adding Sec. 2401 ``State Incentives for Teacher 
     Testing and Merit Pay.''
       Subsection (a) states that the Secretary of Education shall 
     make awards to each State that tests each elementary and 
     secondary school teacher in the subject he or she teaches 
     every 3 to 5 years and that establishes a teacher 
     compensation system based on merit.
       Subsection (b) states that the available funding for the 
     above section shall be 50 percent of the increase in funds 
     appropriated for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional 
     Development Program about the FY 2000 appropriated levels. 
     This ensures that States will not have their Eisenhower 
     funding cut below current fundings levels.
       Subsection (c) divides the amount awarded under this 
     section equally among States operating a teacher testing and 
     merit pay program.
       Subsection (d) stipulates that funds under this section can 
     only be used to carry out teacher testing and merit pay 
     activity.
       Subsection (e) defines ``State'' to mean each of the 50 
     States and the District of Columbia.


                section 3. teacher testing and merit pay

       Subsection (a) stipulates that States may use Federal 
     education funds to carry out teacher testing programs and to 
     establish merit pay programs for teachers.
       Subsection (d) defines ``elementary school'' and 
     ``secondary school'' as having the same meaning as under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

 Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague Senator Abraham, to introduce the Merit Act, which is 
legislation to ensure that every classroom in America is staffed with a 
competent, qualified and caring teacher. Last Congress, the Senate 
debated a number of initiatives to further this goal and passed this 
legislation as an amendment to a comprehensive education reform bill, 
which was vetoed by the President. Earlier this year, I joined Senator 
Gregg in cosponsor the Teacher Empowerment Act. Both the TEA, and the 
MERIT ACT are important reform bills to enable local schools to staff 
their classrooms with the best and brightest teachers.
  The 21st Century begins in just under 100 days. If our children are 
to be prepared for the challenges ahead, educational excellence must 
become our first order of business. As Congress continues to focus on a 
number of important reforms to federal K-12 education policy, I 
strongly believe that any real education reform must confront the most 
basic, the most important, and the most neglected aspect of public 
education: the quality of instruction in the classroom.
  Parents all over the state of Florida, and I imagine the same is true 
around the country, are concerned that the success --or failure--of 
their child's entire academic year will be determined by the quality 
and expertise of their child's teacher. Studies show that the most 
important factor in determining student success on standardized tests 
is the teacher's ability to present the material. Studies also show 
that when a student is assigned an ineffective teacher, the damage is 
not limited to one year. In fact, student test scores do not recover 
for three years, even if their subsequent teachers are excellent.
  America's classrooms are staffed with many dedicated, knowledgeable, 
and hardworking teachers. Nevertheless, the case for sweeping reform is 
not difficult to make. While the United States already spends more 
money per pupil than virtually any industrialized democracy in the 
world, our children frequently score near the bottom in international 
exams in science and math. Without exceptional teaching, no amount of 
resources will be able to turn bad schools into good schools. Throwing 
more money at the problem is no longer the answer.
  Our schools and classrooms should be staffed with teachers who have 
the appropriate training and background. Students deserve teachers with 
a thorough knowledge of the subjects they are teaching and the ability 
to convey complex material in ways that students can understand. One 
way to determine the competency of teachers would be to test them on 
their knowledge of the subject areas they teach.
  At a time when states are raising the bar for student achievement, 
few are raising standards for teachers. Today, seven states have no 
licensing exams for new teachers, and of the 43 states that do have 
licensing exams, only 29 require high school teachers to pass an exam 
in the subject they plan to teach. However, in many cases, these 
requirements are waived when there is a shortage of qualified 
candidates.
  We have a clear interest in ensuring that beginning teachers are able 
to meet high standards and are knowledgeable about the subject matter 
they are presenting, and a number of states have taken the initiative 
to test their prospective teachers. However, when you consider that 
many teachers--especially teachers in low income districts--do not even 
have a minor degree in the subject they teach, it is important to 
periodically evaluate the performance of all teachers. Schools are 
often strapped for good teachers and will simply staff a science class 
with a math teacher. These are cases where testing could provide 
valuable insight as to the mastery of the teacher in additional 
subjects, and would identify those teachers who need additional 
encouragement.
  Common sense also dictates that we should not concentrate all our 
attention on under-performing teachers. We must also recognize that 
there are many great teachers who are successfully challenging their 
students on a daily basis. Today, our public schools compensate 
teachers based almost solely on seniority, not on their performance 
inside the classroom. Merit-pay would differentiate between teachers 
who are hard-working and inspiring, and those who fall short.
  The legislation we are introducing today, known as the MERIT ACT--
which stands for Measures to Enhance Results in Teaching --is the same 
legislation that passed the Senate last Congress with bipartisan 
support by a

[[Page 22979]]

vote of 63-35. It rewards states that test its teachers on their 
subject matter knowledge, and pays its teachers based on merit.
  Here is how it works: we will make half of any additional funding 
over the FY 2000 level for the Eisenhower Professional Development 
Program available to states that periodically test elementary and 
secondary school teachers, and reward teachers based on merit and 
proven performance. There will be no reduction in current funding to 
states under this program based on this legislation. As funding 
increases for this program, so will the amount each state receives. 
Incentives will and should be provided to those states that take the 
initiative to establish teacher testing and merit pay programs.
  Again, I want to emphasize that all current money being spent on this 
program is unaffected by this legislation. Only additional money will 
be used as an incentive for states to enact teacher testing and merit 
pay programs.
  Finally, this legislation enables states to also use federal 
education money to establish and administer teacher testing and merit 
pay programs. This broad approach will enable states to staff their 
schools with the best and most qualified teachers, thereby enhancing 
learning for all students. In turn, teachers can be certain that all of 
their energy, dedication and expertise will be rewarded. And it can be 
done without placing new mandates on states or increasing the federal 
bureaucracy.
  It is interesting to note that as Governor of the State of Arkansas, 
Bill Clinton enthusiastically supported teacher testing, and as 
Governor of South Carolina, Secretary of Education Richard Riley 
advocated a merit-pay plan. In fact, then-Governor Clinton in 1984 said 
that he was more convinced than ever that competency tests were needed 
to take inventory of teachers' basic skills. He said, ``Teachers who 
don't pass the test shouldn't be in the classroom''. While President 
Clinton vetoed this legislation last year, I am hoping he will stand by 
his State of the Union address where he stated that new teachers should 
be required to pass performance exams and all teachers should know the 
subject matter they are teaching.
  I would also like to mention the important steps being taken by 
schools around the country to address the need for merit-based pay. 
Most recently, in Denver, Colorado, schools have reached an agreement 
with the unions to commence a two year demonstration program which will 
pay teachers based on performance. It is important to note the two 
largest unions, the National Education Association and the American 
Federation of Teachers, have approached the Denver plan with an open 
mind. In this program, teachers can earn an additional $1500 by the end 
of an academic year if a majority of the teacher's students 
``improve.'' I am encouraged by the initiative taken by Denver's 
schools to implement innovative approaches to teacher compensation, and 
I look forward to the continued cooperation of America's teacher 
unions. Without their cooperation, reforms to education in America are 
often frustrated. In the end, I believe teachers, administrators, 
parents and students will be able to devise a system that is fair and 
one that works to improve teacher and student performance alike.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues as we continue the fight 
to give dedicated professionals who teach our children a personal stake 
in the quality of the instruction they provide. I hope there will again 
be broad, bipartisan support for this bill.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, 
Senators Abraham and Mack to introduce legislation today which will 
help ensure that our children are being taught by the best, brightest 
and most component teachers.
  ``A teacher affects eternity; they can never tell where their 
influence stops.'' I share this sentiment of Henry Adams--
knowledgeable, enthusiastic teachers play a critical role in the 
development of our children.
  Personally, I can attest to the lasting mark teachers can have on a 
child, for my life has greatly benefitted from the guidance, 
encouragement and support of many teachers. As many of my colleagues 
know, my years in school were not notable for individual academic 
achievement, but I was fortunate to have been taught by some of the 
finest leaders and role models our nation could offer a young person. 
Their efforts helped prepare me for the experiences and obstacles I 
faced later in life.
  It is important for us to continue to work to ensure that all 
children have access to wonderful, intelligent and inspirational 
teachers. It is my strong belief that testing our teachers and 
providing merit pay for those that excel is critical for retaining 
smart, enthusiastic and talented teachers in our nation's classrooms. 
This is why I cosponsored this measure last year and have joined my 
colleagues again this year to reintroduce this legislation.
  Too many teachers are receiving salaries which are not commensurate 
with the invaluable service they provide. It is unconscionable that a 
bad politician is paid more than a good teacher. I will continue 
fighting for better pay for our nation's teachers, but I will also 
continue fighting for programs which encourage our states to provide 
merit-based pay, and periodically test teachers for competence. By all 
means, we should reward good teachers. They have answered one of the 
highest callings in our society, and they should be honored for the 
sacrifices they make on our children's behalf. But we should also weed 
out problem teachers who have lost the desire to teach or who have 
failed to improve their teaching skills in this high tech age.
  The fact is that teachers who refuse to demonstrate their competency, 
are probably not competent to teach. Every child in every classroom 
deserves a teacher who is qualified and enthusiastic about teaching. 
Some people just aren't meant to be teachers, and we should help them 
find another line of work.
  There are thousands of dedicated teachers around our nation working 
with parents, school officials and local communities to guide our 
children and provide them with the highest quality education necessary 
for ensuring the youth of our country have both the love in their 
hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make 
their dreams a reality. These are precisely the teachers whom we should 
be fighting to keep in our schools and merit pay is crucial towards 
achieving that.
  America's teachers are helping our youth develop the personal, 
professional and emotional skills necessary for successfully defining 
and achieving their goals. The impact of quality teachers on our 
children and our nation's future is immeasurable and irreplaceable, and 
we must continue developing and strengthening programs which encourage 
these teachers to continue teaching our children and building a better 
future for all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this measure we 
are introducing today and work with us to ensure the best teachers with 
the best skills are teaching our children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Craig, 
        and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1651. A bill to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to 
require the Secretary of Agriculture to take certain actions if the 
European Union does not reduce and subsequently eliminate agricultural 
export subsidies; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                agricultural trade fairness act of 1999

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Agriculture Fair Trade Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to be joined in 
this bipartisan effort by the bill's leading cosponsors, Senator 
Gorton, Senator Bingaman, Senator Craig and Senator Murray. The measure 
is also supported by the Montana Grain Growers and the Montana Farm 
Bureau.
  Let me begin by saying that this next round of WTO is vital. As a 
senator who represents Montana--a state whose primary industry is 
agriculture--this next round will decide the fate of our next 
generation of producers. It is becoming increasingly

[[Page 22980]]

clear that while the rest of the nation continues to experience 
astounding economic growth and prosperity through open and global 
trade, America's farmers and ranchers across the nation suffer. They 
have yet to reap the fruits of free trade's bounty.
  During the past several months, we in the Senate, the Administration 
and farmers and ranchers back home have worked to identify the goals 
for agriculture in the next round in the WTO. And the consensus is that 
we must step up our efforts in order to make any genuine progress in 
leveling the playing field for the agricultural industry.
  It is our intention that this bill will begin this process. The 
Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a mechanism through which we can 
target unfair export subsidies and fight for their total elimination by 
January 1, 2003. It is our hope that such legislation will provide an 
incentive for our trading partners to voluntarily reduce their export 
subsidies during the next round of the WTO. The elimination of these 
subsidies will benefit farmers on both sides of the Atlantic.
  I believe that the Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a powerful, 
two-tiered ``trigger'' approach to the reduction of export subsidies.
  First, the European Union must reduce its agricultural export 
subsidies by 50 percent by January 1, 2002. If the EU fails to do so, 
the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture shall take appropriate measures to 
protect the interests of American agricultural producers and ensure the 
international competitiveness of United States agriculture.
  In particular, the Secretary shall be authorized to--
  Target the EU's most sensitive export market for grains, and
  Spend $1 billion in Export Enhancement Program funding in that 
market.
  Step two requires the European Union to enter into an agreement with 
the United States. By January 1, 2003, the EU must agree to completely 
eliminate its export subsidies. If not, the U.S. Secretary of 
Agriculture shall be authorized to--
  Again, target the EU's most sensitive export market for grains,
  Double the Export Enhancement Program to $2 billion, and
  Increase and utilize export funding for market promotion and direct 
ag export credit sales in the best interest of American ag producers.
  It's high time, we in the U.S. Senate take action to ensure that the 
next round of negotiations results in benefits to our producers.


                    Why Target EU Export subsidies?

  I believe that the U.S. has taken the high road in leading by 
example. That lead hurts U.S. producers. The United States has long 
taken the position that if we reduce support for agriculture we will 
get a fair trading system. That is not the case across the Atlantic, 
where the EU export subsidies are 60 times greater than export 
subsidies in the United States. In fact, the EU accounts for nearly 85 
percent of the world's export subsidies.
  I can remember the 1980s when the U.S. and EU engaged in an ``export 
subsidy war.'' At that time, both countries battled to undercut each 
other's prices in the world's wheat export markets. Over the decade, 
U.S. market share declined while EU market share increased 
dramatically. Europe, formerly the world's largest net importer, 
suddenly became the world's largest net exporter. It had nothing to do 
with luck. It had everything to do with their aggressive use of export 
subsidies.
  And how did the United States fight back? We didn't. To date, the 
United States maintains the anemic Export Enhancement Program. 
Authorized at $500 million a year, EEP operates well below its Uruguay 
Round reduction commitments. If EEP is to be a credible tool in 
international trade, its high time to start flexing its muscle.
  The United States will remain the most open market in the world. I am 
committed to that. At the same time, we must do everything possible to 
open foreign markets. A ``trigger'' is the first step--but one that 
must be taken as a very large stride in the path toward fair trade.
  I again thank Senators Gorton, Bingaman, Craig and Murray for 
cosponsoring this important legislation. And I urge my colleagues 
vested in the future of America agriculture to join us in this 
endeavor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Warner, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Domenici, 
        Mr. Moynihan, Ms. Collins, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1653. A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


 national fish and wildlife foundation establishment act amendments of 
                                  1999

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act 
of 1984. This legislation makes important changes in the Foundation's 
charter, changes that I believe will allow the Foundation to build on 
its fine record of providing funding for conservation of our Nation's 
fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
  The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 1984, to 
bring together diverse groups to engage in conservation projects across 
America and, in some cases, around the world. Since its inception, the 
Foundation has made more than 3,400 grants totaling over $435 million. 
This is an impressive record of accomplishment. The Foundation has 
pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing 
the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for 
neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the 
Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling 
Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name just a few.
  Mr. President, the Foundation has funded these programs by raising 
private funds to match Federal appropriations on at least a 2 to 1 
basis. During this time of fiscal constraint this is an impressive 
record of leveraging Federal dollars. Moreover, all of the Foundation's 
operating costs are raised privately, which means that Federal and 
private dollars given for conservation is spent only on conservation 
projects.
  I am proud to count myself as one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of the 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In 1984, I, along with my 
colleagues Senators Howard Baker, George Mitchell, and John Breaux, saw 
the need to create a private, nonprofit group that could build public-
private partnerships and consensus, where previously there had only 
been acrimony and, many times, contentious litigation.
  The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has more than fulfilled the 
hopes of its original sponsors. It has helped to bring solutions to 
some difficult natural resource problems and is becoming widely 
recognized for its innovative approach to solving environmental 
problems. For example, when Atlantic salmon neared extinction in the 
United States due to overharvest in Greenland, the Foundation and its 
partners bought Greenland salmon quotas. I and many others in Congress 
want the Foundation to continue its important conservation efforts. So, 
today I am introducing amendments to the Foundation's charter that will 
allow it to do just that.
  Mr. President, this legislation is quite simple. It makes three key 
changes to current law. First, the bill would expand the Foundation's 
governing board of directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will 
allow a greater number of those with a strong interest in conservation 
to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's 
activities.
  The bill's second key feature authorizes the Foundation to work with 
other agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department 
of Commerce, in addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. President, it is 
my view that the Foundation should continue to provide valuable 
assistance to government agencies within the Departments of the 
Interior and Commerce that may be faced with conservation issues. 
Finally, it would reauthorize appropriations to

[[Page 22981]]

the Departments of the Interior and the Department of Commerce through 
2004.
  Mr. President, last year this bill passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent, but unfortunately the House was unable to duplicate our 
efforts. I believe that this legislation will produce real conservation 
benefits and I strongly urge my colleagues to once again give the bill 
their support.
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1984, Congress created the 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a charitable, nonprofit 
corporation with the mission of conserving our nation's fish, wildlife, 
plant, and other natural resources. The Foundation's creation was 
championed by congressional members from both sides of the aisle, 
including my esteemed colleague on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Chairman John Chafee. The bipartisan support the Foundation 
received in Congress reflected broad agreement that additional efforts 
were needed to protect and manage our natural resources.
  Over the past 15 years, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has 
established a solid track record. The Foundation has achieved on-the-
ground results. It has also stretched federal dollars and built public-
private partnerships essential to conservation efforts. The Foundation 
has provided more than 3,500 grants to over 940 private local 
organizations, state and county governments, tribes, federal and 
interstate agencies, and colleges and universities in all 50 states. By 
requiring grantees to match Foundation grants with non-federal funds, 
the $135 million in federal funds invested by the Foundation have been 
leveraged to deliver more than $440 million to natural resource 
conservation efforts. Significantly, these funds are used to help build 
public-private partnerships among individual landowners, government and 
tribal agencies, conservation organizations, and business. The result 
is the development of consensus, locally-driven solutions to the 
challenges involved in protecting and managing fish, wildlife, plants, 
and other natural resources.
  In my home state of Montana, where fishing, hunting, and the 
enjoyment of our natural resources are deeply ingrained into our way of 
life, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has made important 
contributions to conservation efforts. These contributions include 
supporting environmental education, habitat restoration and protection, 
resource management, and the development of conservation policy. For 
example, public-private partnerships have been established to restore 
and protect native fish species, such as Arctic grayling, bull trout, 
and cutthroat trout, prized by anglers. Working with landowners, 
thousands of acres of lands have been purchased and easements acquired 
to benefit elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, other game animals. Support 
has been provided to county and tribal efforts to control the spread of 
noxious weed species that threaten farms, rangelands, wildlife habitat, 
and recreation areas. In total, the Foundation has funded 187 projects 
and delivered a total of almost $13 million to conservation projects in 
Montana.
  Mr. President, even with the accomplishments of the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation, the need to conserve the nation's natural 
resources remains. Today, in too many areas of the country, the health 
and sustainability of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on 
which they depend, are threatened. Bitter disputes continue to arise 
among interests when solutions to difficult natural resource problems 
are sought. Tight budgets often severely limit the ability of 
governments and private entities to adequately address conservation 
challenges. Because of this, the need for an organization such as the 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which promotes conservation, 
builds partnerships and consensus, and stretches dollars, is as clear 
today as it was in 1984
  The bill we are introducing today, the National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation Establishment Act Amendments of 1999, will increase the 
Foundation's ability to continue to carry out is important mission. 
First and foremost, the legislation authorizes federal appropriations 
through 2004 to support the Foundation's work. The legislation also 
strengthens the Foundation by increasing the size of its board of 
directors and allowing board members to be removed for nonperformance. 
Finally, the bill broadens the Foundation's authority by allowing it to 
work with all agencies within the Departments of Interior and Commerce. 
This legislation is nearly identical to the legislation passed by the 
Senate last year.
  Mr. President, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has provided 
valuable assistance to this nation's natural resource conservation 
efforts over the past 15 years. If the legislation we are introducing 
today is passed, I have no doubt that the Foundation will continue it 
solid record of accomplishment. I urge my colleagues to join the 
bipartisan group of cosponsors and support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today Chairman Chafee has introduced 
legislation providing for the reauthorization of the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation. I appreciate the leadership that the chairman has 
taken in sponsoring this bipartisan bill, and anticipate that it will 
move quickly through the legislative process.
  I have been a strong supporter of the Foundation and the programs and 
activities it undertakes to further conservation and management of our 
nation's fish and wildlife resources from the beginning. Created by 
Congress in 1984, the Foundation has used its relationship with 
government, private, and corporate stakeholders to foster interagency 
cooperation and coordination. It has also brought private sector 
involvement, initiative, imagination, and technology to bear in solving 
conservation problems.
  Mr. President, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 
Establishment Act requires that all federal money appropriated to the 
Foundation be matched by contributions from non-federal sources, such 
as: corporations, State and local government agencies, foundations and 
individuals. The Foundation's operating policy is to raise a match of 
at least 2 to 1, to maximize leverage for our federal funds. The 
Foundation takes the appropriated money and places it directly into 
conservation projects. What does this mean? This means that for every 
federally appropriated dollar we give the Foundation, an average of 
$3.17 in on-the-ground conservation takes place. This is something we 
all should take credit for.
  Mr. President, one of the things that distinguishes the Foundation 
from other conservation groups, is that its efforts yield results in 
the field, and that its projects include its trademark characteristics 
of partnership building, public-private coordination, community 
involvement, and sustainable economics. The Foundation has worked with 
over 700 agencies, universities, businesses and conservation groups, 
both large and small, over the last decade. These factors have helped 
the Foundation become one of the most effective conservation 
organizations in the nation. The Foundation's projects are all peer 
reviewed by agency staff, state resource officials, and other 
professionals in the natural resource field, and there is a process to 
solicit comments from members of Congress concerning grants in a 
member's district or state.
  In Mississippi the Foundation has supported many local habitat 
restoration projects aimed specifically at helping private landowners 
restore wetlands and riparian areas to improve habitat for waterfowl 
and shorebirds. Further, the Foundation is an important partner in the 
work that local groups are going to market the conservation programs of 
the farm bill in Mississippi. With funds from the Foundation, local 
conservation groups are partnering with the USDA Natural Resources 
Conservation Service to reach farmers who had not participated in 
conservation programs. Finally, the Foundation is playing a key role in 
restoring bottomland hardwood habitats critical to migrating 
neotropical songbirds and other water-dependent wildlife species by 
working with utility companies to support tree planting throughout the 
region. These efforts

[[Page 22982]]

all help in regaining some the state's original wetlands habitats.
  Mr. President, we are all aware of our deficit reduction challenges 
and the needs and concerns of our many constituencies. The Foundation 
provides us with a unique opportunity to meet these challenges and 
needs.
  Mr. President, this bill should be acted upon quickly, and the 
chairman can count on my strong support for the bill's adoption.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1654. A bill to protect the coast of Florida; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                  florida coast protection act of 2000

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, Senator Graham and I rise again to introduce 
the Florida Coast Protection Act of 2000. This legislation will amend 
current law to give states the ability to have all pertinent 
environmental information on hand before they are forced to rule on oil 
and gas drilling development plans, and it would also implement a 
permanent ban on leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. President, Floridians have always been justifiably concerned 
about the prospect of oil and gas exploration in the waters off our 
coast. We are well aware of the risk this activity poses to our 
environment and our economy because, in Florida, a healthy environment 
means a healthy economy. Millions of people come to Florida each year 
to enjoy the climate, our beaches, and our fine quality of life. The 
tourism industry in Florida provides millions of jobs and generates 
revenues in the billion of dollars. It would take only one disaster to 
end Florida's good standing as America's vacationland. We cannot afford 
to let that happen.
  Throughout my tenure in the Senate I have opposed exploration and 
drilling off Florida's coasts. My goal--and the goal of the entire 
Florida Congressional delegation--is to permanently remove this threat 
from Florida's coast. In recent years, we have stood together in 
opposition to drilling and have successfully extended the annual 
moratorium on all new leasing activities on Florida's continental 
shelf. While the opposition of Floridians to oil drilling is well-
documented, the reality remains that leases have been issued, potential 
drilling sites have been explored, and it is likely that actual 
extraction of resources could take place within the next few years.
  In order to prevent a repeat of the past mistake of leasing in the 
OCS off Florida, our legislation makes permanent the ban on any new 
leasing activity within 100 miles of our coast. In addition, it gives 
states the flexibility to make a determination regarding the 
consistency of oil and gas development and production plans as required 
by the Coastal Zone Management Act after an environmental impact 
statement detailing the direct and cumulative impacts of the project is 
completed by the Minerals Management Service.
  It is this second provision which is so important. Many in this body 
may not be aware that my state is currently engaged in a battle to keep 
drilling rigs off its coasts. In the process, the government of the 
state of Florida was forced, by current law, to make a consistency 
determination on a pending development plan without the benefit of the 
environmental impact statement. In fact, the state was forced to 
conclude that the plan is inconsistent with its own coastal zone 
management program months before the environmental impact statement was 
concluded. As I stand here, the EIS for this development plan is still 
not finalized and its draft is currently the subject of public 
hearings. Without the benefit of this detailed study, the state is 
unable to accurately assess the primary, secondary and cumulative 
impacts drilling will have on our coast, estuaries, marine life and our 
economy. No state should be put in a similar position and our bill 
seeks to correct this.
  Mr. President, removing the threat of oil and gas exploration 
permanently from Florida's coast will require responsible leadership 
from the Congress. This reasonable legislation, in my view, will 
provide states with critical information needed to assess risks to my 
state's economic and environmental well-being. I urge my colleagues to 
support this worthwhile effort. We look forward to working with Senator 
Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, to meet this goal. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1654

       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 ``Florida Coast Protection Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Necessary data and information.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (B), a State shall not be considered to receive 
     all necessary data and information with respect to a plan for 
     exploration, development, or production before the date on 
     which the State receives a copy of an environmental impact 
     statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) that 
     applies to that exploration, development, or production.''.

     SEC. 3. UNIFORM DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 25 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1351(a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (a)(1), by striking ``other than the Gulf 
     of Mexico,'' each place it appears; and
       (2) by striking subsection (l).

     SEC. 4. OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION.

       Section 25(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 
     1972 (43 U.S.C. 1351(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(e)(1) At least'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(e) Major Federal Action.--
       ``(1) Outside the gulf of mexico.--
       ``(A) In general.--At least'';
       (2) by striking ``(2) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Preliminary and final plans.--The Secretary''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In the gulf of mexico.--
       ``(A) In general.--The approval of a development and 
     production plan in a covered area (as defined in section 
     8(p)(1)) shall be considered to be a major Federal action for 
     the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       ``(B) Time for review following receipt of environmental 
     impact statement.--In the case of a development and 
     production plan in a covered area, the Secretary shall ensure 
     that each affected State for which a development and 
     production plan affects any land use or water use in the 
     coastal zone of the State with a coastal zone management 
     program approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455), receives the final 
     environmental impact statement not less than 180 days before 
     determining concurrence or objection to the coastal zone 
     consistency certification that is required to accompany the 
     environmental impact statement under section 307(c)(3)(B) of 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
     1456(c)(3)(B)).''.

     SEC. 5. LEASING ACTIVITY OFF THE COAST OF FLORIDA.

       Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (p), the 
     Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Leasing Activity Off the Coast of Florida.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Covered area.--The term `covered area' means--
       ``(i) the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (as 
     established by the Secretary) which is adjacent to the State 
     of Florida as defined by 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A);
       ``(ii) the Straits of Florida Planning Area (as established 
     by the Secretary); and
       ``(iii) the South Atlantic Planning Area (as established by 
     the Secretary) which is adjacent to the State of Florida as 
     defined by 43 U.S.C. 1333 (a)(2)(A);
     within 100 miles off the coast of Florida.
       ``(B) Preleasing activity.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `preleasing activity' means an 
     activity relating to a lease that is conducted before a lease 
     sale is held.
       ``(ii) Inclusions.--The term `preleasing activity' 
     includes--

       ``(I) the scheduling of a lease sale;
       ``(II) the issuance of a request for industry interest;
       ``(III) the issuance of a call for information or a 
     nomination;
       ``(IV) the identification of an area for prospective 
     leasing;
       ``(V) the publication of a draft or final environmental 
     impact statement or a notice of sale; and

[[Page 22983]]

       ``(VI) the performance of any form of rotary drilling in a 
     prospective lease area.

       ``(iii) Exclusions.--The term `preleasing activity' does 
     not include an environmental, geologic, geophysical, 
     economic, engineering, or other scientific analysis, study, 
     or evaluation.
       ``(2) Prohibition of preleasing activities and lease 
     sales.--The Secretary shall not conduct any preleasing 
     activity or hold a lease sale under this Act in a covered 
     area.''.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Mack, to introduce legislation that will protect the coast of Florida 
in the future from the damages of offshore drilling.
  I introduced similar legislation in last year's Congress that sought 
to codify the annual moratorium on leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and 
ensure that states receive all environmental documentation prior to 
making a decision on whether to allow drilling off of its shores. That 
legislation did not pass in the 105th Congress.
  Today, I am introducing legislation that takes these steps, plus 
several others. The Florida Coast Protection Act of 2000 will protect 
Florida's fragile coastline from outer continental shelf leasing and 
drilling in three important ways.
  First, we transform the annual moratorium on leasing and preleasing 
activity off the coast of Florida into a permanent ban covering 
Planning Areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida, 
and the South Atlantic Planning Area.
  Second, the Florida Coast Protection Act corrects an egregious 
conflict in regulatory provisions where an effected state is required 
to make a consistency determination for proposed oil and gas production 
or development under the Coastal Zone Management Act prior to receiving 
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the Mineral Management 
Service.
  Our bill requires that the EIS is provided to affected states 6 
months before they make a consistency determination, and it requires 
that every oil and gas development plan have an EIS completed prior to 
development.
  Third, our bill corrects the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and 
ensures that oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico are subject to 
the same rules and regulations that apply to oil and gas leases in 
other areas.
  What would this bill mean for Florida? The elimination of preleasing 
activity and lease sales off the coast of Florida protects our economic 
and environmental future.
  More than 100 years ago, my grandfather settled in Northwest Florida. 
My mother grew up near the Gulf of Mexico in Walton County. For years, 
I have taken my children and grandchildren to places like Grayton Beach 
so that they can appreciate the natural treasures and local cultures 
that are port of both their own heritage and that of the Florida 
Panhandle.
  We have a solemn obligation to preserve these important aspects of 
our state's history for all of our children and grandchildren. Much of 
our identity as Floridians is tied to the thousands of miles of 
pristine coastline that link Jacksonville to Miami and Key West to 
Pensacola.
  The Florida coastline will not be safe if offshore oil and gas 
resources are developed. For example, a 1997 Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) study indicated that even in the absence of oil leakage, a 
typical oil rig can discharge between 6,500 and 13,000 barrels of waste 
per year. The same study also warned of further harmful impact on 
marine mammal populations, fish populations, and air quality.
  Nor are leakages or waste discharge the only drilling-related 
environmental consequences. Physical disturbances caused by anchoring, 
pipeline placement, rig construction, and the resuspension of bottom 
sediments can also be destructive. Given these conclusions, it isn't 
hard to imagine the environmental havoc that oil or natural gas 
drilling could wreak along the sensitive Panhandle coastline.
  Because the Gulf of Mexico's natural beauty and diverse habitats 
attract visitors from all over the world and support a variety of 
commercial activities, an oil or natural gas accident in the Gulf of 
Mexico could also have a crippling effect on the Northwest Florida 
economy. In 1996, the cities of Panama City, Pensacola, and Fort Walton 
Beach reported $1.5 billion in sales to tourists. That same year, the 
Panhandle's five westernmost counties generated more than $8 million in 
public revenues from visitors paying the state's tourist development 
tax. And Florida's fishing industry benefits from the fact that nearly 
90 percent of reef fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico come from the West 
Florida continental shelf.
  Florida's fishing industry benefits from the fact that nearly 90 
percent of reef fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico come from the West 
Florida continental shelf.
  For the last several years, I have been working with Senator Connie 
Mack, U.S. Congressman Joe Scarborough, and others to head off the 
threat of oil and natural gas drilling. In June of 1997, we introduced 
legislation to cancel six natural gas leases seventeen miles off the 
Pensacola coast and compensate Mobil Oil Corporation for its 
investment. Five days after the introduction of that legislation and 
two months before it was scheduled to begin exploratory drilling off 
Florida's Panhandle, Mobile ended its operation and returned its leases 
to the federal government.
  While that action meant that Panhandle residents faced one less 
economic and environmental catastrophe-in-the-making, it did not 
completely eliminate the threats posed by oil and natural gas drilling 
off Florida's Gulf Coast. Florida's Congressional representatives fight 
hard each year to extend the federal moratorium on new oil and natural 
gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. But that solution is temporary. So in 
June of 1998, we introduced the Florida Gulf Coast Protection Act to 
prevent the federal government from issuing leases in the future.
  This legislation did not pass during the 105th Congress. Today we are 
introducing the Florida Gulf Coast Protection Act for the year 2000. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee to move this legislation forward and protect the 
coast of Florida for our children and grandchildren.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1656. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
permit children covered under a State child health plan (SCHIP) to 
continue to be eligible for benefits under the vaccine for children 
program; to the Committee on Finance.


              KEEPING CHILDREN HEALTHY WITH IMMUNIZATIONS

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill 
to clarify that children receiving health insurance under the 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in states like California 
are eligible for free vaccines under the 1993 Federal Vaccines for 
Children (VFC) program.
  I want to especially commend the leadership of Congresswoman Nancy 
Pelosi who is introducing a companion bill in the House today.
  I am introducing this bill because the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services has interpreted the law so narrowly that as many as 
528,000 children in California have lost or will lose their eligibility 
to receive free vaccines, under California's Healthy Families program. 
Approximately 169,000 kids have lost eligibility to date.
  California ranks 37th overall among States having children fully 
immunized by the age of 18 to 24 months. From 1993 to 1997, Orange 
County, California, had 85 hospitalizations and four deaths related to 
chicken pox. Across the State in 1996 there were 15 deaths and 1,172 
hospitalizations related to chicken pox. More recently, the 
Immunization Branch in California reports that in 1998 over 1,000 
whooping cough cases, including 5 deaths, were reported--the largest 
number of cases and deaths since the 1960's. Whooping cough and chicken 
pox are diseases for which there are vaccinations. We must do more to 
increase access to vaccinations for our nation's children.
  The Federal Vaccines for Children program, created by Congress in 
1993 (P.L. 105-33), provides vaccines at no cost to poor children. In 
1998, as many

[[Page 22984]]

743,000 poor children in my state, who were uninsured or on Medicaid, 
received these vaccines. This number is down by approximately 32,000 
children in comparison to the 1997 immunization figures for 
California's poor children. California received $80.3 million in 1999 
from the Federal Government to provide vaccines.
  Mr. President, what can be so basic to public health than 
immunization against disease? Do we really want our children to get 
polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and whooping cough--
diseases for which we have effective vaccines, diseases which we have 
practically eradicated by widespread immunization? Every parent knows 
that vaccines are fundamental to children's good health.
  Congress recognized the importance of immunizations in creating the 
program, with many Congressional leaders at the time arguing that 
childhood immunization is one of the most cost-effective steps we can 
take to keep our children healthy. It makes no sense to me to withhold 
them from children who (1) have been getting them when they were 
uninsured and (2) have no other way to get them once they become 
insured.
  According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation report, 28 percent of 
California's two-year old children are not immunized. Add to that the 
fact that we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. 
Our uninsured rate for non-elderly adults is 24 percent, the third 
highest in the U.S., while the national uninsured rate is 17 percent. 
As for children, 1.85 million or 19 percent of our children are without 
health insurance, compared to 15 percent nationally, according to 
UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. Clearly, there is a need.
  In creating the new children's health insurance program in 
California, the state chose to set up a program under which the state 
contracts with private insurers, rather than providing eligible 
children care through Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California). Unfortunately, 
HHS has interpreted this form of ``health insurance'' as making them 
``insured,'' as defined in the vaccines law, and thus ineligible for 
the federal vaccines. I disagree.
  It is my view that in creating the federal vaccines program, Congress 
made eligible for these vaccines children who are receiving Medicaid, 
children who are uninsured, and native American children. I believe 
that in defining the term ``insured'' at that time Congress clearly 
meant private health insurance plans. Children enrolled in California's 
new Healthy Families program are participating in a federal-state, 
subsidized insurance plan. Healthy Families is a state-operated 
program. Families apply to the state for participation. They are not 
insured by a private, commercial plan, as traditionally defined or as 
defined in the Vaccine for Children's law (42 U.S.C. sec. 
1396s(b)(2)(B). On February 23, the California Medical Association 
wrote to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, ``As they are participants in a 
federal and state-subsidized health program, these individuals are not 
``insured'' for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(B).''
  The California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which is 
administering the new program with the Department of Health Services, 
wrote to HHS on February 5, ``It is imperative that states like 
California, who have implemented the Children's Health Insurance 
Program (CHIP) using private health insurance, be given the same 
support and eligibility for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program at 
no cost as states which have chosen to expand their Medicaid program.'' 
The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized on March 10, 1998, ``More 
than half a million California children should not be deprived of 
vaccinations or health insurance because of a technicality . . .,'' 
calling the denial of vaccines ``a game of semantics.''
  Children's health should not be a ``game of semantics.'' Proper 
childhood immunizations are fundamental to a lifetime of good health. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill into law, to help 
me keep our children healthy.

                          ____________________