[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 26431-26443]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, and Mr. Mack):
  S. 1759. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
refundable credit for taxpayers owning certain commercial power takeoff 
vehicles; to the Committee on Finance.


THE FUEL TAX EQUALIZATION CREDIT FOR SUBSTANTIAL POWER TAKEOFF VEHICLES 
                                  ACT

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Fuel Tax 
Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Vehicles Act. This 
bill upholds a long-held principle in the application of the Federal 
fuels excise tax, and restores this principle for certain single engine 
``dual-use'' vehicles.
  This long-held principle is simple: fuel consumed for the purpose of 
moving vehicles over the road is taxed, while fuel consumed for ``off-
road'' purposes is not taxed. The tax is designed to compensate for the 
wear and tear impacts on roads. Fuel used for a non-propulsion ``off-
road'' purpose has no impact on the roads. It should not be taxed as if 
it does. Mr. President, this bill is based on this principle, and it 
remedies a problem created by IRS regulations that control the 
application of the federal fuels excise tax to ``dual-use'' vehicles.
  Dual-use vehicles are vehicles that use fuel both to propel the 
vehicle on the road, and also to operate separate, on-board equipment. 
The two prominent examples of dual-use vehicles are concrete mixers, 
which use fuel to rotate the mixing drum, and sanitation trucks, which 
use fuel to operate the compactor. Both of these trucks move over the 
road, but at the same time, a substantial portion of their fuel use is 
attributable to the non-propulsion function.
  Mr. President, the current problem developed because progress in 
technology has outstripped the regulatory process. In the past, dual-
use vehicles commonly had two engines. IRS regulations, written in the 
1950s, specifically exempt the portion of fuel used by the separate 
engine that operates special equipment such as a mixing drum or a trash 
compactor. These IRS regulations reflect the principle that fuel 
consumed for non-propulsion purposes is not taxed.
  Today, however, typical dual-use vehicles use only one engine. The 
single engine both propels the vehicle over the road and powers the 
non-propulsion function through ``power takeoff.'' A major reason for 
the growth of these single-engine, power takeoff vehicles is that they 
use less fuel. And a major benefit for everyone is that they are better 
for the environment.
  Power takeoff was not in widespread use when the IRS regulations were 
drafted, and the regulations deny an exemption for fuel used in single-
engine, dual-use vehicles. The IRS defends its distinction between one-
engine and two-engine vehicles based on possible administrative 
problems if vehicle owners were permitted to allocate fuel between the 
propulsion and non-propulsion functions.
  Mr. President, our bill is designed to address the administrative 
concerns expressed by the IRS, but at the same time, restore tax 
fairness for dual-use vehicles with one engine. The bill does this by 
establishing an annual tax credit available for taxpayers that own a 
licensed and insured concrete mixer or sanitation truck with a 
compactor. The amount of the credit is $250 and is a conservative 
estimate of the excise taxes actually paid, based on information 
compiled on typical sanitation trucks and concrete mixers.
  In sum, as a fixed income tax credit, no audit or administrative 
issue will arise about the amount of fuel used for the off-road 
purpose. At the same time, the credit provides a rough justice

[[Page 26432]]

method to make sure these taxpayers are not required to pay tax on 
fuels that they shouldn't be paying. Also, as an income tax credit, the 
proposal would have no effect on the highway trust fund.
  Mr. President, I would like to stress that I believe the IRS' 
interpretation of the law is not consistent with long-help principles 
under the tax law, despite their administrative concerns. Quite simply, 
the law should not condone a situation where taxpayers are required to 
pay the excise tax on fuel attributable to non-propulsion functions. 
This bill corrects an unfair tax that should have never been imposed in 
the first place. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1759

       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 ``Fuel Tax Equalization Credit 
     for Substantial Power Takeoff Vehicles Act''.

     SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR TAXPAYERS OWNING COMMERCIAL 
                   POWER TAKEOFF VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 34 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to certain uses of gasoline and special fuels) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Credit for Commercial Power Takeoff Vehicles.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year 
     the amount of $250 for each qualified commercial power 
     takeoff vehicle owned by the taxpayer as of the close of the 
     calendar year in which or with which the taxable year of the 
     taxpayer ends.
       ``(2) Qualified commercial power takeoff vehicle.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `qualified commercial 
     power takeoff vehicle' means any highway vehicle described in 
     paragraph (3) which is propelled by any fuel subject to tax 
     under section 4041 or 4081 if such vehicle is used in a trade 
     or business or for the production of income (and is licensed 
     and insured for such use).
       ``(3) Highway vehicle described.--A highway vehicle is 
     described in this paragraph if such vehicle is--
       ``(A) designed to engage in the daily collection of refuse 
     or recyclables from homes or businesses and is equipped with 
     a mechanism under which the vehicle's propulsion engine 
     provides the power to operate a load compactor, or
       ``(B) designed to deliver ready mixed concrete on a daily 
     basis and is equipped with a mechanism under which the 
     vehicle's propulsion engine provides the power to operate a 
     mixer drum to agitate and mix the product en route to the 
     delivery site.
       ``(4) Exception for vehicles used by governments, etc.--No 
     credit shall be allowed under this subsection for any vehicle 
     owned by any person at the close of a calendar year if such 
     vehicle is used at any time during such year by--
       ``(A) the United States or an agency or instrumentality 
     thereof, a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an 
     agency or instrumentality of one or more States or political 
     subdivisions, or
       ``(B) an organization exempt from tax under section 501(a).
       ``(5) Denial of double benefit.--The amount of any 
     deduction under this subtitle for any tax imposed by 
     subchapter B of chapter 31 or part III of subchapter A of 
     chapter 32 for any taxable year shall be reduced (but not 
     below zero) by the amount of the credit determined under this 
     subsection for such taxable year.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
John Breaux, in introducing the Fuel Tax Equalization Credit for 
Substantial Power Takeoff Act.
  This bill would create a simple mechanism to reimburse owners of 
concrete mixers and sanitation trucks for the Federal excise taxes that 
they pay on fuels used to power the off-road function of their 
vehicles.
  Today, IRS regulations impose the Federal fuels excise tax on 
``single engine, dual-use vehicles.'' Two prominent examples of such 
single-engine, dual-use vehicles are concrete mixers and sanitation 
trucks. The IRS taxes the entire amount of fuel used in these vehicles, 
despite the fact that a substantial portion of the fuel consumed is 
used to power an off-road function--the trash compactor of a sanitation 
truck, or the rotating drum of the cement truck.
  Mr. President, the Federal fuels excise tax is meant to pay for our 
Nation's roads. If fuel is used for an off-road purpose, it is a well-
established principle that we do not tax the fuel. In this case, fuels 
used to power the trash compactor or rotate the drum on a concrete 
mixer do not result in wear and tear on the roads and, therefore, 
should not be taxes.
  Contrary to this well-established principle, the IRS imposes the 
excise tax on single engine, dual-use vehicles. The simple reason given 
by the IRS for this distinction is administrative convenience. But the 
convenience of the IRS is no reason to overtax diesel fuel consumers.
  Mr. President, our bill corrects the discrepancy created under IRS 
regulations, and does so without creating any administrative red tape. 
The $250 income tax credit crafted in the bill would be easy to 
administer. While it will not fully and precisely compensate these 
truck owners for the taxes paid on fuel used off-road, this credit has 
been calculated based on industry data and using conservative 
estimates, and reduces a tax that these truck owners should not be 
paying in the first place. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join 
Senator Breaux and me in supporting this important piece of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
        Cleland, Ms. Collins, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Graham, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Roth, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Specter, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Torricelli, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1760. A bill to provide reliable officers, technology, education, 
community prosecutors, and training in our neighborhoods; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


   Protection Act of 1999 or Providing Reliable Officer, Technology, 
   Education, Community Prosecutors and Training in our Neighborhoods

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when we passed the 1994 crime bill and 
created the COPS Program, there were some skeptics. There were people 
who thought community policing was nothing more than social work and 
that the program would not work.
  Do you remember what I said to the skeptics? I told them that either 
this program was going to work and we would be geniuses or that it 
would flop and we would be run out of town. There is an old saying that 
success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan. Now, there are 
a thousand people all claiming to be the parent of this program simply 
because it has worked so darn well.
  In 1994, we set a goal of funding 100,000 police officers by the year 
2000. We met that goal last May--months ahead of schedule. As of today, 
there have been 103,000 officers funded and 55,000 officers deployed to 
the streets. The COPS Programs is ahead of schedule and under budget.
  Because of COPS, the concept of community policing has become law 
enforcement's principal weapon fighting crime. Community policing has 
redefined the relationship between law enforcement and the public. But, 
more importantly, it has reduced crime. And that is what we attempted 
to do.
  All across the country, from Wilmington to Washington--from 
Connecticut to California, we are seeing a dramatic decline in crime. 
Just this week, the FBI released its annual crime statistics which 
showed that once again, for the seventh year in a row, crime is down. 
In fact, since 1994, violent crime is down 17.6 percent. And just last 
year, violent crime was down

[[Page 26433]]

6.4 percent nationwide from the year before. But, we can't let that 
slow us down.
  And that's why I'm here today. I am proud of our accomplishments, but 
we cannot become complacent. We have a unique opportunity here. Some 
people say if crime down, why put more cops on the streets? Well it's 
simple math: more cops equals less crime. If we know one thing it is 
this: if a crime is going to be committed and there is a cop on one 
street corner and not one the other, guess where the crime is going to 
be committed? Not where the cop is, I would guess.
  Maybe someday we will reach the point where crime is so low that we 
don't have to take pro-active steps any longer. But, we are not there 
yet. Our children and our parents are still at great risk out there and 
it should not be that way. Nor does it have to be that way. And why 
more cops on the street, it won't be that way.
  That is why today, I introduced a bill to continue this program for 
the next 5 years. It's called ``PROTECTION''--``Providing reliable 
officers, technology, education, community prosecutors and training in 
our neighborhoods.'' This bill will put up to 50,000 more officers on 
the street.
  It will also allow police officers to be reimbursed for college or 
graduate school, because we all know that overcoming crime problems 
requires something more than just more cops. It requires cops who 
understand the importance of prevention and community relations. The 
legislation also provides funding for new technology so that law 
enforcement can purchase high-tech equipment to put them on equal 
footing with sophisticated criminals. And it provides for funding for 
community prosecutors--to expand the community policing concept to 
engage the whole law enforcement community in fighting crime. It has 
all the things that law enforcement told me that they needed to do 
their jobs.
  I am proud to say that this legislation has the support of all the 
major law enforcement organizations and that 49 of my colleagues have 
told me that they support this legislation. Forty-five of them will 
join me today in cosponsoring this legislation--including 5 
Republicans. I want to recognize my friends on the other side of the 
aisle and thank them for listening to their constituents, their mayors 
and their police chiefs who said: We can not do this without your help.
  I hope that even more will join us today. I ask the rest of my 
colleagues--there are 50 more of you--will you be with us on this? Will 
you listen to everyone who is asking for help? Will you listen to your 
police chiefs and your mayors? Will you stand up and be counted among 
those who say enough is enough--and I'm going to do something about 
crime? I'm going to put more police officers on the street. I'm going 
to support the most effective law enforcement program of our time.
  I hope that we can put politics aside on this one and all join forces 
to support the folks who do so much for us each and every day. The 
people who put their safety on the line so that we may be more secure. 
It is then, that I will know that we have all put our Nation's interest 
first.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1760

       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 ``Providing Reliable Officers, 
     Technology, Education, Community prosecutors, and Training In 
     Our Neighborhoods Act of 1999'' or ``PROTECTION Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROVIDING RELIABLE OFFICERS, TECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION, 
                   COMMUNITY PROSECUTORS, AND TRAINING IN OUR 
                   NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE.

       (a) COPS Program.--Section 1701(a) of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd(a)) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``and prosecutor'' after ``increase police''; 
     and
       (2) inserting ``to enhance law enforcement access to new 
     technologies, and'' after ``presence,''.
       (b) Hiring and Redeployment Grant Projects.--Section 
     1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by inserting after ``Nation'' the following: ``, or pay 
     overtime to existing career law enforcement officers to the 
     extent that such overtime is devoted to community policing 
     efforts''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by--
       (i) striking ``or pay overtime''; and
       (ii) striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) promote higher education among in-service State and 
     local law enforcement officers by reimbursing them for the 
     costs associated with seeking a college or graduate school 
     education.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking all that follows Support 
     Systems.--'' and inserting ``Grants pursuant to--
       ``(A) paragraph (1)(B) for overtime may not exceed 25 
     percent of the funds available for grants pursuant to this 
     subsection for any fiscal year;
       ``(B) paragraph (1)(C) may not exceed 20 percent of the 
     funds available for grants pursuant to this subsection in any 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(C) paragraph (1)(D) may not exceed 5 percent of the 
     funds available for grants pursuant to this subsection for 
     any fiscal year.''.
       (c) Additional Grant Projects.--Section 1701(d) of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796dd(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``integrity and ethics'' after 
     ``specialized''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and'' after ``enforcement officers'';
       (2) in paragraph (7) by inserting ``school officials, 
     religiously-affiliated organizations,'' after ``enforcement 
     officers'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:

     ``(8) establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by using 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools to serve as a law enforcement liaison 
     with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and 
     regulatory agencies, combat school-related crime and disorder 
     problems, gang membership and criminal activity, firearms and 
     explosives-related incidents, illegal use and possession of 
     alcohol, and the illegal possession, use, and distribution of 
     drugs;'';
       (4) in paragraph (10) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (5) in paragraph (11) by striking the period that appears 
     at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) develop and implement innovative programs (such as 
     the TRIAD program) that bring together a community's sheriff, 
     chief of police, and elderly residents to address the public 
     safety concerns of older citizens.''.
       (d) Technical Assistance.--Section 1701(f) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796dd(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``use up to 5 percent of the funds 
     appropriated under subsection (a) to'' after ``The Attorney 
     General may'';
       (B) by inserting at the end the following: ``In addition, 
     the Attorney General may use up to 5 percent of the funds 
     appropriated under subsections (d), (e), and (f) for 
     technical assistance and training to States, units of local 
     government, Indian tribal governments, and to other public 
     and private entities for those respective purposes.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``under subsection (a)'' 
     after ``the Attorney General''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``the Attorney General may'' and inserting 
     ``the Attorney General shall'';
       (B) by inserting ``regional community policing institutes'' 
     after ``operation of''; and
       (C) by inserting ``representatives of police labor and 
     management organizations, community residents,'' after 
     ``supervisors,''.
       (e) Technology and Prosecution Programs.--Section 1701 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended by--
       (1) striking subsection (k);
       (2) redesignating subsections (f) through (j) as 
     subsections (g) through (k); and
       (3) striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Law Enforcement Technology Program.--Grants made 
     under subsection (a) may be used to assist police 
     departments, in employing professional, scientific, and 
     technological advancements that will help them--
       ``(1) improve police communications through the use of 
     wireless communications, computers, software, videocams, 
     databases and other hardware and software that allow law 
     enforcement agencies to communicate more effectively across 
     jurisdictional boundaries and effectuate interoperability;
       ``(2) develop and improve access to crime solving 
     technologies, including DNA analysis, photo enhancement, 
     voice recognition, and other forensic capabilities; and

[[Page 26434]]

       ``(3) promote comprehensive crime analysis by utilizing new 
     techniques and technologies, such as crime mapping, that 
     allow law enforcement agencies to use real-time crime and 
     arrest data and other related information--including non-
     criminal justice data--to improve their ability to analyze, 
     predict, and respond pro-actively to local crime and disorder 
     problems, as well as to engage in regional crime analysis.
       ``(f) Community-Based Prosecution Program.--Grants made 
     under subsection (a) may be used to assist State, local or 
     tribal prosecutors' offices in the implementation of 
     community-based prosecution programs that build on local 
     community policing efforts. Funds made available under this 
     subsection may be used to--
       ``(1) hire additional prosecutors who will be assigned to 
     community prosecution programs, including programs that 
     assign prosecutors to handle cases from specific geographic 
     areas, to address specific violent crime and other local 
     crime problems (including intensive illegal gang, gun and 
     drug enforcement projects and quality of life initiatives), 
     and to address localized violent and other crime problems 
     based on needs identified by local law enforcement agencies, 
     community organizations, and others;
       ``(2) redeploy existing prosecutors to community 
     prosecution programs as described in paragraph (1) of this 
     section by hiring victim and witness coordinators, 
     paralegals, community outreach, and other such personnel; and
       ``(3) establish programs to assist local prosecutors' 
     offices in the implementation of programs that help them 
     identify and respond to priority crime problems in a 
     community with specifically tailored solutions.
       At least 75 percent of the funds made available under this 
     subsection shall be reserved for grants under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) and of those amounts no more than 10 percent may be 
     used for grants under paragraph (2) and at least 25 percent 
     of the funds shall be reserved for grants under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) to units of local government with a population of 
     less than 50,000.''.
       (f) Retention Grants.--Section 1703 of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd-2) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(d) Retention Grants.--The Attorney General may use no 
     more than 50 percent of the funds under subsection (a) to 
     award grants targeted specifically for retention of police 
     officers to grantees in good standing, with preference to 
     those that demonstrate financial hardship or severe budget 
     constraint that impacts the entire local budget and may 
     result in the termination of employment for police officers 
     funded under subsection (b)(1).''.
       (g) Definitions.--
       (1) Career law enforcement officer.--Section 1709(1) of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-8) is amended by inserting after 
     ``criminal laws'' the following: ``including sheriffs 
     deputies charged with supervising offenders who are released 
     into the community but also engaged in local community 
     policing efforts.''.
       (2) School resource officer.--Section 1709(4) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796dd-8) is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
     ``(A) to serve as a law enforcement liaison with other 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement and regulatory 
     agencies, to address and document crime and disorder problems 
     including gangs and drug activities, firearms and explosives-
     related incidents, and the illegal use and possession of 
     alcohol affecting or occurring in or around an elementary or 
     secondary school;
       (B) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
     ``(E) to train students in conflict resolution, restorative 
     justice, and crime awareness, and to provide assistance to 
     and coordinate with other officers, mental health 
     professionals, and youth counselors who are responsible for 
     the implementation of prevention/intervention programs within 
     the schools;''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) to work with school administrators, members of the 
     local parent teacher associations, community organizers, law 
     enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical 
     personnel in the creation, review, and implementation of a 
     school violence prevention plan;
       ``(I) to assist in documenting the full description of all 
     firearms found or taken into custody on school property and 
     to initiate a firearms trace and ballistics examination for 
     each firearm with the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, and Firearms;
       ``(J) to document the full description of all explosives or 
     explosive devices found or taken into custody on school 
     property and report to the local office of the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and
       ``(K) to assist school administrators with the preparation 
     of the Department of Education, Annual Report on State 
     Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act which tracks the 
     number of students expelled per year for bringing a weapon, 
     firearm, or explosive to school.''.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11) 
     of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     part Q, to remain available until expended--
       ``(i) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(ii) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(iii) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(iv) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(v) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       ``(vi) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``3 percent'' and inserting ``5 percent'';
       (B) by striking ``1701(f)'' and inserting ``1701(g)'';
       (C) by striking the second sentence and inserting ``Of the 
     remaining funds, if there is a demand for 50 percent of 
     appropriated hiring funds, as determined by eligible hiring 
     applications from law enforcement agencies having 
     jurisdiction over areas with populations exceeding 150,000, 
     no less than 50 percent shall be allocated for grants 
     pursuant to applications submitted by units of local 
     government or law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction 
     over areas with populations exceeding 150,000 or by public 
     and private entities that serve areas with populations 
     exceeding 150,000, and no less than 50 percent shall be 
     allocated for grants pursuant to applications submitted by 
     units of local government or law enforcement agencies having 
     jurisdiction over areas with populations less than 150,000 or 
     by public and private entities that serve areas with 
     populations less than 150,000.'';
       (D) by striking ``85 percent'' and inserting 
     ``$600,000,000''; and
       (E) by striking ``1701(b),'' and all that follows through 
     ``of part Q'' and inserting the following: ``1701 (b) and 
     (c), $350,000,000 to grants for the purposes specified in 
     section 1701(e), and $200,000,000 to grants for the purposes 
     specified in section 1701(f).''.

 Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
21st Century Community Policing Initiative Act. I am proud to be an 
original co-sponsor of this legislation, introduced by Senators Biden 
and Schumer, that I believe is crucial to our efforts to fight crime.
  This important bill would re-authorize the successful Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program through the year 2005. 
Because of the COPS program, there are over 100,000 more police 
officers on the beat than there were before this program was 
implemented in 1994. This represents a nearly 20 percent increase in 
police presence nationwide.
  By extending the COPS program, the 21st Century Community Policing 
Initiative Act will help put up to 50,000 more police on the streets 
over the next five years. It will also provide $350 million a year in 
grants to law enforcement agencies to assist them in acquiring new 
technology to enhance crime fighting efforts. This means better 
communications systems so cops in different jurisdictions can talk to 
each other; state of the art investigative tools like DNA analysis; and 
the means to target crime hot spots.
  This legislation would also provide $200 million per year in grants 
for community-wide prosecutors. This aspect of the bill would expand 
the community policing concept to engage the whole community in 
preventing and fighting crime. The cops have been so successful in 
their jobs that the next step is to provide more prosecutors to help 
get criminals off the streets.
  Mr. President, one of the best ways to fight crime is to have more 
well-trained police officers on our streets and in our schools, and to 
provide them with the latest equipment and technology. The COPS program 
has helped achieve these goals, and has in turn helped to make our 
communities safer places for our children, families, and businesses.
  The COPS program has been a tremendous asset to my state of North 
Carolina. As of October 20th, the COPS program had provided North 
Carolina with grants of over $135 million. From Alexander Mills to 
Zebulon, North Carolina communities have received COPS funding to help 
law enforcement agencies hire an additional 2,602 police officers to 
patrol neighborhoods and protect our schools.
  In August, I met with police officers and sheriffs from across North 
Carolina to learn more about how the COPS program is helping to keep 
local communities safe. I heard from law enforcement officers from the 
larger cities such as Raleigh and Charlotte. I also

[[Page 26435]]

spoke with officers from smaller, rural areas like North Wilkesboro and 
Randolph County. The one clear message that I got from all of these 
officers is that the COPS program is working and should be continued.
  Mr. President, crime rates in big cities are generally higher than 
they are in smaller towns. An increased police presence can help deter 
crime in these urban areas. However, officers I met with from less 
populated regions of North Carolina emphasized to me that even one more 
cop can make a world of difference to a community that lacks its own 
resources to hire more police officers. In these situations, the COPS 
program can step in and provide these communities with the additional 
help they need.
  One of the most interesting and persuasive arguments to renew the 
COPS program was also one that I heard during these conversations with 
North Carolina police officers. They told me that when people think of 
the COPS program, they immediately think of more officers policing the 
streets. However, one of the most important roles that the COPS program 
has played is to provide funds for law enforcement agencies to work in 
partnership with education officials to solve problems of crime in and 
around schools.
  Officers are not just placed in the schools to instill discipline. 
They act as counselors, coaches and mentors for children. And they are 
reaching out to students by offering safe after-school activities. 
North Carolina officers told me that these efforts are some of the best 
kinds of crime prevention measures that we can take.
  By connecting with at-risk youth, these school-based officers have 
become trusted adult authority figures that kids will run to in times 
of trouble, instead of running away from them.
  Many police chiefs and sheriffs credit community policing and COPS 
support with dramatic drops in crime rates around the nation. Since the 
inception of the COPS program, violent crime in North Carolina is down 
7% and aggravated assault has fallen by 8%. According to a report 
issued by the State Bureau of Investigation, the state's murder rate 
fell 3% from 1997 to 1998. And, the country's crime rate is at its 
lowest in 25 years.
  These statistics are encouraging, but now is not the time to 
eliminate a program that has substantially contributed to declining 
crime rates. We still have a long way to go to insuring that people are 
walking crime-free streets and children are attending crime-free 
schools.
  Continuation of the COPS program is one significant way that we can 
continue to make progress towards these goals.
  Mr. President, during debate on the juvenile crime bill, Senator 
Biden offered an amendment that would have re-authorized the COPS 
program through 2005. I voted for this amendment which was endorsed by 
many law enforcement organizations including the National Fraternal 
Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 
Unfortunately, the amendment failed by the slimmest of margins (48-50). 
However, I am confident that upon reconsideration of the question 
whether it is necessary to renew the COPS program, my colleagues will 
realize how effective and valuable the program has been, not only to 
their individual states, but to the nation as a whole.
  I want to thank Senators Biden and Schumer for their efforts to re-
authorize the COPS program and I urge all of my colleagues to support 
the 21st Century Community Policing Initiative Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 1762. A bill to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
cost share assistance for the rehabilitation of structural measures 
constructed as part of water resources projects previously funded by 
the Secretary under such act or related laws; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


               SMALL WATERSHED REHABILITATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we have a national problem that greatly 
affects Georgia if not addressed. Since 1944, under a federal program 
administered by the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, over 10,400 small watershed dams were 
constructed in 46 states. These dams were planned and designed with a 
50 year lifespan. The purpose of this program was to provide flood 
control, water quality improvement, rural water supply assurance, fish 
and wildlife habitat protection, recreation, and irrigation.
  Communities depend upon these watershed projects. However, many of 
these dams have reached their life expectancy and are badly in need of 
repair. Currently, the United States Department of Agriculture has 
neither the authority nor funds for rehabilitation of watershed 
structures. The legislation I introduce today along with Senator 
Lincoln, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act of 1999, provides a 
needed and critical solution to this growing crisis for rural America.
  The state of Georgia alone has 357 small watershed dams, 69 of which 
will reach the end of their designed lifespan within the next 10 years. 
It is my understanding that 121 dams in Georgia need to be modified to 
meet state dam safety laws and protect residential and commercial 
development downstream from the dams while 8 dams need repairs and 
modifications to extend their useful life and help prevent future 
environmental and economic losses. Since fiscal year 1996, the state of 
Georgia has appropriated over $4.6 million to bring these structures in 
compliance with the Georgia Safe Dams Act. However, state and local 
communities do not have enough financial resources available to 
rehabilitate these watersheds dams in a timely fashion.
  The legislation Senator Lincoln and I are introducing lays out a 
procedure and a funding mechanism for a rehabilitation process that 
would ultimately save these dams across the nation, including those 
located in Georgia. The bill authorizes $60 million a year from 2000 to 
2009 and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a system of 
ranking and approving rehabilitation requests on need and merit. 
Specifically, the legislation calls for $5 million to be used annually 
by the Secretary to assess the true needs of the entire program in the 
first two years of the program's existence. Under this program, 65 
percent would be funded by the federal government while the remaining 
35 percent would be funded locally. Recent flooding in the southeast 
from Hurricane Floyd and Irene make enactment of this legislation an 
even more pressing matter.
   This bi-partisan legislation has been endorsed by Governor Roy 
Barnes of Georgia and a wide range of other Georgia state and local 
officials and national associations.
  I would like to thank Senator Lincoln for her leadership, and for 
working with me on this important legislation. This bill is a Senate 
companion to legislation introduced by Representative Frank Lucas of 
Oklahoma. We look forward to working with him on securing its 
enactment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters of support be priinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1762

       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 ``Small Watershed 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REHABILITATION OF WATER RESOURCE STRUCTURAL MEASURES 
                   CONSTRUCTED UNDER CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS.

       The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 14. REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURAL MEASURES NEAR, AT, OR 
                   PAST THEIR EVALUATED LIFE EXPECTANCY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Rehabilitation.--The term `rehabilitation', with 
     respect to a structural measure

[[Page 26436]]

     constructed as part of a covered water resource project, 
     means the completion of all work necessary to extend the 
     service life of the structural measure and meet applicable 
     safety and performance standards. This may include (A) 
     protecting the integrity of the structural measure, or 
     prolonging the useful life of the structural measure, beyond 
     the original evaluated life expectancy, (B) correcting damage 
     to the structural measure from a catastrophic event, (C) 
     correcting the deterioration of structural components that 
     are deteriorating at an abnormal rate, (D) upgrading the 
     structural measure to meet changed land use conditions in the 
     watershed served by the structural measure or changed safety 
     criteria applicable to the structural measure, or (E) 
     decommissioning the structural measure, including removal or 
     breaching.
       ``(2) Covered water resource project.--The term `covered 
     water resource project' means a work of improvement carried 
     out under any of the following:
       ``(A) This Act.
       ``(B) Section 13 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (Public 
     Law 78-534; 58 Stat. 905).
       ``(C) The pilot watershed program authorized under the 
     heading `Flood Prevention' of the Department of Agriculture 
     Appropriation Act, 1954 (Public Law 156; 67 Stat. 214).
       ``(D) Subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and Food 
     Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451 et seq.; commonly known as the 
     Resource Conservation and Development Program).
       ``(3) Eligible local organization.--The term `eligible 
     local organization' means a local organization or appropriate 
     State agency responsible for the operation and maintenance of 
     structural measures constructed as part of a covered water 
     resource project.
       ``(4) Structural measure.--The term `structural measure' 
     means a physical improvement that impounds water, commonly 
     known as a dam, which was constructed as part of a covered 
     water resource project.
       ``(b) Cost Share Assistance for Rehabilitation.--
       ``(1) Assistance authorized.--The Secretary may provide 
     financial assistance to an eligible local organization to 
     cover a portion of the total costs incurred for the 
     rehabilitation of structural measures originally constructed 
     as part of a covered water resource project. The total costs 
     of rehabilitation include the costs associated with all 
     components of the rehabilitation project, including 
     acquisition of land, easements, and rights-of-ways, 
     rehabilitation project administration, the provision of 
     technical assistance, contracting, and construction costs, 
     except that the local organization shall be responsible for 
     securing all land, easements, or rights-of-ways necessary for 
     the project.
       ``(2) Amount of assistance; limitations.--The amount of 
     Federal funds that may be made available under this 
     subsection to an eligible local organization for construction 
     of a particular rehabilitation project shall be equal to 65 
     percent of the total rehabilitation costs, but not to exceed 
     100 percent of actual construction costs incurred in the 
     rehabilitation. However, the local organization shall be 
     responsible for the costs of water, mineral, and other 
     resource rights and all Federal, State, and local permits.
       ``(3) Relation to land use and development regulations.--As 
     a condition on entering into an agreement to provide 
     financial assistance under this subsection, the Secretary, 
     working in concert with the eligible local organization, may 
     require that proper zoning or other developmental regulations 
     are in place in the watershed in which the structural 
     measures to be rehabilitated under the agreement are located 
     so that--
       ``(A) the completed rehabilitation project is not quickly 
     rendered inadequate by additional development; and
       ``(B) society can realize the full benefits of the 
     rehabilitation investment.
       ``(c) Technical Assistance for Watershed Project 
     Rehabilitation.--The Secretary, acting through the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, may provide technical 
     assistance in planning, designing, and implementing 
     rehabilitation projects should an eligible local organization 
     request such assistance. Such assistance may consist of 
     specialists in such fields as engineering, geology, soils, 
     agronomy, biology, hydraulics, hydrology, economics, water 
     quality, and contract administration.
       ``(d) Prohibited Use.--
       ``(1) Performance of operation and maintenance.--
     Rehabilitation assistance provided under this section may not 
     be used to perform operation and maintenance activities 
     specified in the agreement for the covered water resource 
     project entered into between the Secretary and the eligible 
     local organization responsible for the works of improvement. 
     Such operation and maintenance activities shall remain the 
     responsibility of the local organization, as provided in the 
     project work plan.
       ``(2) Renegotiation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), as 
     part of the provision of financial assistance under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary may renegotiate the original 
     agreement for the covered water resource project entered into 
     between the Secretary and the eligible local organization 
     regarding responsibility for the operation and maintenance of 
     the project when the rehabilitation is finished.
       ``(e) Application for Rehabilitation Assistance.--An 
     eligible local organization may apply to the Secretary for 
     technical and financial assistance under this section if the 
     application has also been submitted to and approved by the 
     State agency having supervisory responsibility over the 
     covered water resource project at issue or, if there is no 
     State agency having such responsibility, by the Governor of 
     the State. The Secretary shall request the State dam safety 
     officer (or equivalent State official) to be involved in the 
     application process if State permits or approvals are 
     required. The rehabilitation of structural measures shall 
     meet standards established by the Secretary and address other 
     dam safety issues. At the request of the eligible local 
     organization, personnel of the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service of the Department of Agriculture may assist in 
     preparing applications for assistance.
       ``(f) Justification for Rehabilitation Assistance.--In 
     order to qualify for technical or financial assistance under 
     this authority, the Secretary shall require the 
     rehabilitation project to be performed in the most cost-
     effective manner that accomplishes the rehabilitation 
     objective. Since the requirements for accomplishing the 
     rehabilitation are generally for public health and safety 
     reasons, in many instances being mandated by other State or 
     Federal laws, no benefit-cost analysis will be conducted and 
     no benefit-cost ratio greater than one will be required. The 
     benefits of and the requirements for the rehabilitation 
     project shall be documented to ensure the wise and 
     responsible use of Federal funds.
       ``(g) Ranking of Requests for Rehabilitation Assistance.--
     The Secretary shall establish such system of approving 
     rehabilitation requests, recognizing that such requests will 
     be received throughout the fiscal year and subject to the 
     availability of funds to carry out this section, as is 
     necessary for proper administration by the Department of 
     Agriculture and equitable for all eligible local 
     organizations. The approval process shall be in writing, and 
     made known to all eligible local organizations and 
     appropriate State agencies.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $60,000,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2009 to provide 
     financial and technical assistance under this section.
       ``(i) Assessment of Rehabilitation Needs.--Of the amount 
     appropriated pursuant to subsection (h) for fiscal years 2000 
     and 2001, $5,000,000 shall be used by the Secretary, in 
     concert with the responsible State agencies, to conduct an 
     assessment of the rehabilitation needs of covered water 
     resource projects in all States in which such projects are 
     located.
       ``(j) Recordkeeping and Reports.--
       ``(1) Secretary.--The Secretary shall maintain a data base 
     to track the benefits derived from rehabilitation projects 
     supported under this section and the expenditures made under 
     this section. On the basis of such data and the reports 
     submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall prepare 
     and submit to Congress an annual report providing the status 
     of activities conducted under this section.
       ``(2) Grant recipients.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     completion of a specific rehabilitation project for which 
     assistance is provided under this section, the eligible local 
     organization that received the assistance shall make a report 
     to the Secretary giving the status of any rehabilitation 
     effort undertaken using financial assistance provided under 
     this section.''.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Georgia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                           Atlanta, June 16, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Coverdell,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Paul: The purpose of this correspondence is to 
     encourage your strong and active support for H.R. 728, the 
     Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendment of 1999. H.R. 728 
     was introduced by Representative Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma 
     and amends the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act 
     (P.L. 83-566, 16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) by adding a new section 
     to provide federal cost-share for rehabilitation of 
     structural measures that are near, at, or past their 
     evaluated life expectancy. Cost-share assistance will be 
     provided to local watershed, conservation and other districts 
     that have the legal responsibility for the safety and 
     conditions of watershed dams throughout the United States. 
     The need for funding by H.R. 728 results from the fact that 
     the United States Department of Agriculture now has neither 
     the authority nor funds for rehabilitation of watershed 
     structures.
       To date, there have been over 10,400 watershed dams 
     constructed with the help of federal cost-share funds, 
     primarily through Public Law 83-566, the Watershed Protection 
     and Flood Prevention Act. Georgia has 351 watershed 
     structures as a result of this program. Many of these dams 
     are nearing, or are already at the end of, their design 
     lifetime--50 years--and are in need of significant 
     rehabilitation to maintain structural integrity and dam 
     safety. Twenty-two of Georgia's Soil and Water Conservation 
     Districts have primary responsibility for operating and 
     maintaining these 351 dams, and

[[Page 26437]]

     many of our districts share responsibility with local 
     governments on the remaining structures. Since FY96, the 
     state of Georgia has appropriated over $4.6 million to bring 
     these structures in compliance with the Georgia Safe Dams 
     Act.
       These watershed structures provide over $16 million of 
     benefits each year to Georgia communities by protecting urban 
     and rural infrastructures, as well as personal property, from 
     flooding and flood damage. These dams also protect 
     irreplaceable natural resources through an effective 
     watershed approach.
       Representative Lucas is currently seeking co-sponsors for 
     this bill in the House. Congressmen Nathan Deal and Saxby 
     Chambliss have already become co-sponsors of H.R. 728. I 
     would like to ask for your support in co-sponsoring this 
     legislation; it is important to Georgia's soil and water 
     conservation districts and the state of Georgia.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Roy E. Barnes.
                                  ____



                                   Office of the Commissioner,

                             Pickens County, GA, October 20, 1999.
     Senator Paul Coverdell,
     Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coverdell: I certainly appreciate and support 
     your effort to introduce the Small Watershed Rehabilitation 
     Act 1999.
       As you know, these watershed structures are very well 
     placed in 19 sites throughout our County preventing major 
     runoff, erosion and flooding.
       Even though our efforts to maintain them are ongoing we are 
     somewhat limited by budget and time restraints due to routine 
     County maintenance.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Frank Martin,
     Commissioner.
                                  ____

                                             Paulding County Board


                                             of Commissioners,

                                     Dallas, GA, October 20, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Coverdell,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coverdell: I would like to offer you my 
     support for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Senate Bill 
     that you will be introducing. I appreciate your efforts on 
     behalf of Paulding County. If there is ever anything I can do 
     for you, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Carruth,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                   Paulding County


                                       Board of Commissioners,

                                     Dallas, GA, October 20, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Coverdell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coverdell: In reference to the Small Watershed 
     Rehabilitation Senate Bill that you will be introducing, I 
     want to offer you my support in your efforts to get this 
     passed. I appreciate your time and effort in what you are 
     doing for Paulding County and if there is ever anything I can 
     do for you, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Hal Echols,
     Post III Commissioner.
                                  ____

                                                   Paulding County


                                       Board of Commissioners,

                                     Dallas, GA, October 20, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Coverdell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coverdell: In reference to the Small Watershed 
     Rehabilitation Senate Bill that you will be introducing, I 
     want to offer you my support in your efforts to get this 
     passed. I appreciate your time and effort in what you are 
     doing for Paulding County and if there is ever anything I can 
     do for you, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Roger Leggett,
     Post II Commissioner.
                                  ____

                                                   Paulding County


                                       Board of Commissioners,

                                     Dallas, GA, October 20, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Coverdell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coverdell: I am in total support of the 
     Watershed Dam bill you will be introducing. We have many 
     watershed dams in Paulding County that are in need of repair.
       If you need any additional, please call me.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mike J. Pope,
     Commissioner, Post I.
                                  ____

                                                 Cobb County Board


                                             of Commissioners,

                                   Marietta, GA, October 19, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Coverdell,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coverdell: I want to formally endorse your 
     sponsorship of legislation to amend the Watershed Protection 
     and Flood Prevention Act, in order to provide financial 
     assistance to local entities working to rehabilitate 
     structural measures constructed as part of a covered water 
     resource project.
       Having federal financial assistance available to address a 
     portion of the costs for the rehabilitation of structures 
     that impound water can ensure that appropriate revenues and 
     support will be available as Cobb County works to extend the 
     service life of these structures.
       Finally, I appreciate the effort on behalf of Congress to 
     address the safety concerns associated with the maintenance 
     of these aging structures. The protection of life and 
     property is a priority and assistance in this effort is most 
     appreciated.
       Please know that I aggressively support this legislation 
     and your sponsorship.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bill Byrne,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                  Gwinnett County,
                               Office of the County Administrator,
                                                 October 19, 1999.
     Senator Paul D. Coverdell,
     Colony Square, Atlanta, GA.
       Senator Coverdell: I appreciate the opportunity to give 
     input on the Watershed Rehabilitation Legislation. I have 
     reviewed the draft bill, and it appears to be in our best 
     interest for this legislation to pass. It provides 65% 
     rehabilitation funding for existing soil conservation service 
     dams. This funding can also be used to extend the life of the 
     dams, correct accelerated deterioration, correct damage from 
     a catastrophic event, or upgrade the dam to meet changed land 
     use conditions in the watershed.
       It appears that no funding is currently available for this 
     work, and since Gwinnett County has responsibility for 14 of 
     the referenced dams, we support this draft legislation. If 
     you have any questions or need additional information, please 
     feel free to call me at (770) 822-7021. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Charlotte Nash,
     County Administrator.
                                  ____

                                                 Habersham County,


                               Office of County Commissioners,

                               Clarkesville, GA, October 20, 1999.
     To: Mr. Richard Gupton.
     Subject: Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act of 1999.
       Dear Sir: We fully support Senator Paul Coverdell's effort 
     to obtain federal funds to up grade and maintain the 
     watershed dams in our county. These dams have provided and 
     are still providing much needed flood protection and other 
     benefits including municipal water. The cost of bringing 
     these dams up to safe dams standards far exceeds our budget. 
     Any help from the federal level is certainly a wise use of 
     tax dollars.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jerry L. Tanksley,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                              City of Hogansville,


                                               E. Main Street,

                                Hogansville, GA, October 21, 1999.
       Honorable Paul Coverdell: The reservoir here in Hogansville 
     was built in the mid 1970's primarily for the purpose of 
     flood control. It has served the community exceptionally well 
     in its intended purpose.
       It can't be overstated as to how important the maintenance 
     of the dam is to the integrity of the dam and the safety to 
     the community immediately downstream.
       As with anything we do, it does cost to properly maintain 
     the dam and these costs escalate each year. It is extremely 
     important that we receive Federal financial assistance with 
     the maintenance of the dam at our reservoir.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David Aldrich,
     City Manager.
                                  ____

         Upper Chattahoochee River Soil and Water Conservation 
           District,
                                                 October 20, 1999.
     Re Watershed Dam Rehabilitation.
     Mr. Richard Gupton.
       Dear Mr. Gupton: I would like to express our strongest 
     support for Senator Coverdell's Bill to provide assistance to 
     repair the watershed dams across the county and especially 
     important to me the dams in Forsyth County.
       I have been a supervisor in Forsyth County for over five 
     years and have seen first hand the tremendous benefits that 
     these structures have provided the citizens of Forsyth 
     County.
       As these dams approach 40 and 50 years old the District has 
     seen the urgent need for federal assistance in performing 
     necessary repairs and upgrades to meet new regulations and 
     standards. This assistance is urgently needed to upgrade 
     these structures so they can continue to provide benefits in 
     the year to come.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leonard Ridings,
                                              District Supervisor.

[[Page 26438]]

     
                                  ____
                                                     Bartow County


                                        Commissioner's Office,

                                                 October 21, 1999.
     Senator Paul Coverdell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Re Watershed Dams Legislation.
       Dear Senator Coverdell: As County Commissioner, I support 
     the legislation currently being considered on watershed dams.
       Bartow County has seven watershed dams. This legislation, 
     if passed, would benefit many counties, like Bartow that have 
     several of these dams to maintain.
       Thank you for your endorsement of this legislation.
           Very truly yours,

                                               Clarence Brown,

                                                Sole Commissioner,
     Bartow County, GA.
                                  ____



                                 National Watershed Coalition,

                                                  October 4, 1999.
     Hon. Paul D. Coverdell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coverdell, Recently I have heard you might be 
     considering introducing a Small Watershed Rehabilitation Bill 
     in the Senate, much like H.R. 728 that is working its way 
     through the House of Representatives. This letter is to 
     support you in that endeavor, and offer the resources of the 
     National Watershed Coalition (NWC) in that support.
       Our NWC represents local watershed project sponsors at the 
     national level. For many years they have been telling us that 
     our nation's small watershed structures, which provide 
     invaluable benefits to society, in some instances are in 
     vital need of rehabilitation and upgrading to meet current 
     standards. In many cases, these local sponsors, no matter how 
     much they would like to be able to accomplish these mandated 
     upgrades, simply do not have the financial capability to do 
     so, and are not likely to get that capability soon. Your own 
     state of Georgia has been a national leader in recognizing 
     this problem and assisting these local project sponsors with 
     technical and financial help. Even with Georgia's own 
     statewide rehabilitation program, more is needed. We believe 
     that since the federal government worked with these local 
     sponsors in planning and building these structures, and since 
     much of the required upgrading is as a result of changed 
     federal policies, it just makes sense that the federal 
     government assist with the rehabilitation on a cost-sharing 
     basis much as they did the original construction.
       Within the next 10 years, 69 of Georgia's 357 watershed 
     structures will reach the end of their designed lifespan. 
     Georgia has about 130 structures that need some modification, 
     and the cost estimate is $85 million. The cost of 
     rehabilitating these structures can be expensive. Two dams 
     were recently modified in Georgia's Etowah River and Raccoon 
     Creek Watersheds at a cost of nearly $750,000 each. With 
     rehabilitation, these very worthwile structures will continue 
     to provide benefits to society for years to come. It has been 
     estimated these watershed projects provide $2.20 in benefits 
     for every $1.00 of cost. That is the kind of federal 
     investment we ought to be protecting.
       The NWC is pleased you are considering introducing such a 
     bill, and will help.
           Sincerely,
                                               W.R. ``Bill'' Hamm,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                 National Watershed Coalition,

                                                        Burke, VA.

         National Watershed Coalition--What Is It?--Who Is It?

       The National Watershed Coalition is a non-profit 
     organization consisting of national, regional, state, and 
     local associations and organizations that have joined forces 
     to advocate the use of the watershed or hydrologic unit 
     concept when assessing natural resources issues. 
     Additionally, we are pooling our resources to support and 
     strengthen USDA's Small Watershed Protection and Flood 
     Prevention Programs (PL 534 & 566) as we believe they 
     represent the best available planning and implementation 
     vehicles for water and land resource management. The 
     Coalition also supports other water resources programs 
     employing total resource based principles in planning, and 
     the rehabilitation of older projects.
       The affairs of the Coalition are managed by a steering 
     committee made up of representatives of all participating 
     national, regional, and state organizations and associations. 
     Current steering committee membership includes: Alabama 
     Association of Conservation Districts; Arkansas Watershed 
     Coalition; Associated General Contractors of America; 
     Association of State Dam Safety Officials; Association of 
     State Floodplain Managers; Association of Texas Soil & Water 
     Conservation Districts; Interstate Council on Water Policy; 
     Iowa Watersheds; Kansas Association of Conservation 
     Districts; Land Improvement Contractors of America; Lower 
     Colorado River Authority, Texas; Mississippi Association of 
     Conservation Districts; Missouri Watershed Association; 
     National Association of Conservation Districts; National 
     Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies; 
     National Association of State Conservation Agencies; New 
     Mexico Watershed Coalition; North Carolina Association of 
     Soil & Water Conservation Districts; Oklahoma Association of 
     Conservation Districts; Oklahoma Conservation Commission; 
     Pennsylvania Division of Conservation Districts; Soil & Water 
     Conservation Society; South Carolina Association of 
     Conservation Districts; South Carolina Land Resources 
     Conservation Commission; State Association of Kansas 
     Watersheds; Tennessee Association of Conservation Districts; 
     Texas Association of Watershed Sponsors; Texas State Soil & 
     Water Conservation Board; Tombigbee River Valley Water 
     Management District, Mississippi; Town Creek Water Management 
     District of Lee, Pontotoc, Prentiss & Union Counties, 
     Mississippi; Virginia Association of Soil & Water 
     Conservation Districts; West Virginia Soil & Water 
     Conservation District Supervisors Association; West Virginia 
     State Soil Conservation Agency; and Wisconsin PL-566 
     Coalition.


                              memberships

       The National Watershed Coalition includes among its 
     membership a number of supporters (local watershed sponsors 
     and individuals), who have made voluntary tax-exempt 
     contributions to support the Coalition's efforts. Funds 
     obtained through memberships are used to provide information 
     to all members, and help defray expenses of publishing the 
     newsletter, mailings and a biennial conference. Our 
     membership categories are individual, organization and 
     Steering Committee.


                    how the steering committee works

       The steering committee meets three to four times each year 
     to review problems and concerns about water resources issues 
     and the PL 534 & 566 watershed programs and related 
     authorities, and discuss recommendations on how the program 
     can be improved. Each representative takes recommendations 
     back to their own organization and follows up with their own 
     membership, committees, and contacts. There is also regular 
     communication throughout the year concerning progress made on 
     current watershed management issues.
       There is no required membership fee to become a member of 
     the Steering Committee of the National Watershed Coalition, 
     although some organizations do make a voluntary contribution 
     in support. In addition, representatives of participating 
     organizations and associations pay their own wages and 
     expenses for attendance at committee meetings, and handle 
     their own clerical and postage expenses inhouse. Steering 
     committee members are encouraged to also be Individual 
     Members.
       From time to time, there has been, and may be again, 
     solicitation for funds for specific purposes toward a common 
     goal; however, it is understood that solicited funds are to 
     be given entirely on a voluntary basis. The Coalition is a 
     501(c)(3) organization. Funds contributed to the Coalition 
     are tax deductible.
       If your organization wishes to play a more active role in 
     this effort, we welcome your participation. All you need to 
     do is write to the address indicated below requesting to be a 
     part of this important effort, explaining your organization's 
     interest and support for the watershed approach and the Small 
     Watershed Programs, and providing the name, title, and 
     address of the person designated to represent your group. 
     When your organization receives its acceptance letter, you 
     will be included on the mailing list and invited to 
     participate in all steering committee meetings. We welcome 
     all interested organizations.
       We look forward to hearing from you. The more participation 
     we have, the stronger our voice will be.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 1764. A bill to make technical corrections to various antitrust 
laws and to references to such laws; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


      ANTITRUST TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1999

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the 
Antitrust Technical Corrections and Improvements Act of 1999 with my 
colleague Mike DeWine. This act makes five miscellaneous technical 
corrections to the antitrust laws. Companion legislation to this bill 
has been introduced in the House by Representatives Hyde and Conyers.
  One of the technical corrections repeals an outdated provision which 
applies only to the Panama Canal, one clarifies a long existing 
ambiguity and expressly ensures that the Sherman Act applies to the 
District of Columbia and the territories, and another repeals a 
redundant jurisdictional provision. In addition, two other provisions 
correct typographical errors in two antitrust statutes--the inadvertent 
mislabeling of an amendment to the Clayton Act passed last year and 
another a punctuation error in the Year 2000 Information and Readiness 
Disclosure Act.

[[Page 26439]]

  The only difference between our bill and the House companion is that 
the House would repeal an outdated statute--the Taking Depositions in 
Public Act--which requires that pre-trial depositions in antitrust 
cases brought by the government be taken in public. This provision was 
enacted in 1913 at a time when antitrust cases were tried under 
completely different procedures from today and testimony was usually 
not taken in open court. In other words, back then antitrust trials 
were essentially conducted ``on paper.'' This statute was virtually 
ignored--and unused--until the past year. This provision was revived 
last year when, as part of its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, the 
government deposed Bill Gates.
  Now, of course, people need to be deposed if they possess evidence 
that may be integral to the resolution of the case. But today the 1913 
statute seems both unnecessary, counter-productive and, even, 
voyeuristic--that is, if you can have voyeurism in an antitrust 
context. Its need has vanished because testimony is now taken in open 
court in antitrust cases, as it is in any other. Indeed, requiring the 
depositions of prominent figures such as Bill Gates and Steve Case in 
controversial and widely publicized cases inevitably creates a media 
``feeding frenzy'' contrary to the sound administration of justice and 
a sober examination of complicated legal issues.
  So I would support the House provision but, at this point, my belief 
is that it is more important to move the underlying measure in a timely 
manner than to wait to develop a consensus on the deposition provision 
in the Senate. We'll work on that consensus here, or we'll work the 
differences out in conference.
  Mr. President, I ask that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record. I look forward to working with my colleagues to turn this bill 
into law.
  The summary of the bill follows:

Summary of the Antitrust Technical Corrections and Improvements Act of 
                                  1999

       1. Repeal of the Antitrust Provision of the Panama Canal 
     Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 31)--Section 11 of the Panama Canal Act 
     provides that no vessel owned by someone who is violating the 
     antitrust laws may pass through the Panama Canal. With the 
     return of the Canal to Panamanian sovereignty at the end of 
     1999, it is appropriate to repeal this outdated provision.
       2. Clarification that Section 2 of the Sherman Act Applies 
     to the District and the Territories (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3)--
     Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act are two of the central 
     provisions of the antitrust laws. Section 1 prohibits 
     combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, and 
     Section 2 prohibits monopolization. Section 3 of the Sherman 
     Act was intended to apply these provisions to the District of 
     Columbia and the various territories of the United States. 
     Unfortunately, however, section 3 is ambiguously drafted and 
     leaves it unclear whether Section 2 applies to the District 
     of Columbia and the territories. This bill clarifies that 
     both Section 1 and Section 2 apply to the District and the 
     Territories.
       3. Repeal of Redundant Antitrust Jurisdictional Provision 
     in Section 77 at the Wilson Tariff Act--In 1955, Congress 
     modernized the jurisdictional and venue provisions relating 
     to antitrust suits by amendment Section 4 of the Clayton Act 
     (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15). At that time, it repealed the redundant 
     jurisdiction provision in Section 7 of the Sherman Act, but 
     not the corresponding provision in Section 77 of the Wilson 
     Tariff Act. It appears that this was an oversight because 
     Section 77 was never codified and has rarely been used. 
     Repealing Section 77 will not change any substantive rights 
     because Section 4 of the Clayton Act provides any potential 
     plaintiff with the same rights. Rather it simply rides the 
     law of a confusing, redundant, and little used provision.
       4. Technical Amendment to the Curt Flood Act of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-297)--This provision corrects an inadvertent 
     technical error in the statutory codification of the Curt 
     Flood Act of 1998, the statute which provided that major 
     league baseball players are covered under the antitrust law. 
     The Curt Flood Act was codified to a section number of the 
     Clayton Act which was already in use. The amendment corrects 
     this error by redesignating the statute as section 28 of the 
     Clayton Act. This substantive change to the statute is 
     intended.
       5. Technical Amendment to the Year 2000 Information and 
     Readiness Disclosure Act--This provision corrects a 
     typographical error in the statute as enacted by the 
     inserting a missing period in section 5(a)(2). No substantive 
     change to the statute is intended.
                                 ______
                                 

            By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):

  S. 1765. A bill to prohibit post-viability abortions; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                    the late-term abortion ban bill

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senator Boxer and I today are 
introducing a bill to ban abortions after a fetus is viable.
  The bill has 3 provisions:
  (1) It bans post-viability abortions.
  (2) It provides an exception to the ban if, in the medical judgment 
of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve the 
life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to 
the woman.
  (3) It includes two civil penalties:
  For the first offense, a fine not to exceed $10,000. For the second 
offense, revocation of a physician's medical license.
  This amendment is similar to S. 481 which we introduced in the 
previous Congress and the amendment we offered as a substitute to the 
``partial-birth abortion bill'' when the Senate considered it. The 
major difference is that the bill we introduce today adds the penalty 
of revocation of the medical license for a second offense. S. 481 did 
not include this penalty. Both S. 481 and this bill have as the penalty 
for the first offense a $10,000 fine.
  This bill reflects my deep belief that abortions after a fetus is 
viable should not take place except in the rarest of circumstances to 
protect the life and health of the mother. That is the intent of this 
bill.
  The medical community has said that there are very occasionally very 
extraordinary and tragic circumstances when a physician may determine 
that a postviability abortion is the safest procedure for protecting a 
woman's health. These are circumstances which most of us can never 
imagine.
  Leading medical organizations say that post-viability abortions are 
rare and should be rare. They say that medical decisions should be made 
by doctors who must determine the best procedure. For example, the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has said:

       ACOG has never supported post-viability abortions except 
     for the constitutionally protected exception of saving the 
     life or health of a woman.
       There may be circumstances where the physician and patient 
     would reach the conclusion that this procedure [Intact 
     Dilatation and Extraction after 16 weeks of pregnancy] is the 
     most medically appropriate . . . there is a need for 
     flexibility in handling unexpected situations. . . .

  The California Medical Association wrote me, ``The determination of 
the medical need for, and effectiveness of, particular medical 
procedures must be left to the medical profession, to be reflected in 
the standard of care . . . The legislative process is ill-suited to 
evaluate complex medical procedures whose importance may vary with a 
particular patient's case and with the state of scientific knowledge.''
  Congress cannot anticipate every conceivable medical situation. Only 
the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's 
unique medical history and health can make this decision of how best to 
protect the woman's health.
  This substitute is designed to protect the fetus, to protect the 
woman's life and health and to give the physician the latitude to make 
the necessary medical decisions in those rarest of circumstances.
  The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, held that 
the woman's health must be the physician's primary concern and the 
physician must be given the discretion he or she needs to choose the 
most appropriate abortion method to protect the woman's life and 
health.
  The Supreme Court has defined ``health of the mother.'' In Doe v. 
Bolton, the Court held that the decision of whether a woman requires an 
abortion for the health of the mother is a medical judgment to ``be 
exercised in light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, 
familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the 
patient.'' In so doing, the Court further recognized a doctor's 
important role in determining whether an abortion is necessary.

[[Page 26440]]

  I believe that the language of this bill--unlike S. 1692, Senator 
Santorum's bill and the substitute offered yesterday by Senator 
Durbin-- has a meaningful health exception for the woman and is 
constitutional.
  The decision to have an abortion--by the mother, the father, the 
physician--is never an easy one. It is the most wrenching decision any 
woman could ever have to make. It is a profoundly, impossibly difficult 
decision in the late stages of pregnancy.
  No physician would perform a postviability abortion without extended 
and serious consideration. Because the physician's action has 
consequences for human life and the action should not be undertaken 
except in the gravest of circumstances, the substitute includes two 
penalties. It creates for the first offense a $10,000 fine; for the 
second offense, revocation of the physician's license.
  I oppose post-viability abortions. They are wrong, except to save the 
mother's life and health. Late-term abortions are rare and they should 
be rare.
  I will vote against S. 1692, Senator Santorum's bill, because it is 
not constitutional. It does not include adequate protections for a 
woman's health.
  I believe this bill is a far preferable approach. Its penalties 
represent grave consequences for violations. It protects the fetus 
except in extraordinary circumstances that could have serious adverse 
consequences for the mother's health. It protects a woman's life and 
health.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this bill.

      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1767. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to improve Native Hawaiian education programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


             native hawaiian education reauthorization act

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, on 
behalf of myself and Senator Akaka, that would provide for the 
reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian Education Act.
  First enacted into law in 1988 as part of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, the Native Hawaiian Education Act provides 
support for the education of native Hawaiian students in furtherance of 
the United States' trust responsibility to the native people of Hawaii.
  Mr. President, I am sad to report that while these programs are 
beginning to demonstrate an improved pattern of academic performance 
and achievement, we still have a way to go, as the following statistics 
would indicate.
  Education risk factors continue to start even before birth for many 
native Hawaiian children, including late or no prenatal care, high 
rates of births to unmarried native Hawaiian mothers, and high rates of 
births to teenage parents.
  Native Hawaiian students continue to begin their school experience 
lagging behind other students in terms of readiness factors such as 
vocabulary test scores;
  Native Hawaiian students continue to score below national norms on 
standardized education achievement tests at all grade levels;
  Both public and private schools continue to show a pattern of lower 
percent ages of native Hawaiian students in the uppermost achievement 
levels and in gifted and talented programs;
  Native Hawaiian students continue to be over-represented among 
students qualifying for special education programs provided to students 
with learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, emotional 
impairment, and other such disabilities;
  Native Hawaiian continue to be under-represented in institutions of 
higher education and among adults who have completed four or more years 
of college;
  Native Hawaiian continue to be disproportionately represented in many 
negative social and physical statistics indicative of special 
educational needs, as demonstrated by the fact that--
  Native Hawaiian students are more likely to be retained in grade 
level and to be excessively absent in secondary school;
  Native Hawaiian students have the highest rates of drug and alcohol 
use in the State of Hawaii; and
  Native Hawaiian children continue to be disproportionately victimized 
by child abuse and neglect; and
  In the 1988, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Hawaiian 
fourth graders ranked 39 among groups of students from 39 States in 
reading.
  Mr. President, because Hawaiian students rank among the lowest groups 
of students nationally in reading, and because native Hawaiian students 
rank the lowest among Hawaiian students in reading, it is imperative 
that greater focus be placed on beginning reading and early education 
and literacy in Hawaii.
  Mr. President, there was a time in the history of Hawaii when there 
were very high rates of literacy and integration of traditional culture 
and Western Education among native Hawaiians. These high rates were 
attributable to the Hawaiian language-based public school system 
established in 1840 by King Kamehameha III.
  Mr. President, if we are to reverse the course of these downward 
trends in educational achievement and academic performance of native 
Hawaiian students, it is critical that the initiatives authorized by 
the Native Hawaiian Education Act be reauthorized.
  Mr. President, I respectfully request unanimous consent that the text 
of this measure be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1767

       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 ``Native Hawaiian Education 
     Reauthorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION.

       Part B of title IX of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) is amended to 
     read as follows:

                  ``PART B--NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION

     ``SEC. 9201. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Native Hawaiian Education 
     Act'.

     ``SEC. 9202. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) Native Hawaiians are a distinct and unique indigenous 
     people with a historical continuity to the original 
     inhabitants of the Hawaiian archipelago, whose society was 
     organized as a nation and internationally recognized as a 
     nation by the United States, Britain, France, and Japan, as 
     evidenced by treaties governing friendship, commerce, and 
     navigation.
       ``(2) At the time of the arrival of the first non-
     indigenous people in Hawai`i in 1778, the Native Hawaiian 
     people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient 
     subsistence social system based on a communal land tenure 
     system with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion.
       ``(3) A unified monarchal government of the Hawaiian 
     Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first 
     King of Hawai`i.
       ``(4) From 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized 
     the sovereignty and independence of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, 
     which was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, extended 
     full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Kingdom of 
     Hawai`i, and entered into treaties and conventions with the 
     Kingdom of Hawai`i to govern friendship, commerce and 
     navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887.
       ``(5) In 1893, the sovereign, independent, internationally 
     recognized, and indigenous government of Hawai`i, the Kingdom 
     of Hawai`i, was overthrown by a small group of non-Hawaiians, 
     including United States citizens, who were assisted in their 
     efforts by the United States Minister, a United States naval 
     representative, and armed naval forces of the United States. 
     Because of the participation of United States agents and 
     citizens in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, in 1993 
     the United States apologized to Native Hawaiians for the 
     overthrow and the deprivation of the rights of Native 
     Hawaiians to self-determination through Public Law 103-150 
     (107 Stat. 1510).
       ``(6) In 1898, the joint resolution entitled `Joint 
     Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to 
     the United States', approved July 7, 1898 (30 Stat. 750), 
     ceded absolute title of all lands held by the Republic of 
     Hawai`i, including the government and crown lands of the 
     former Kingdom of Hawai`i, to the United States, but mandated 
     that revenue generated from the lands be used `solely for the 
     benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for 
     educational and other public purposes'.

[[Page 26441]]

       ``(7) By 1919, the Native Hawaiian population had declined 
     from an estimated 1,000,000 in 1778 to an alarming 22,600, 
     and in recognition of this severe decline, Congress enacted 
     the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108), which 
     designated approximately 200,000 acres of ceded public lands 
     for homesteading by Native Hawaiians.
       ``(8) Through the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920, Congress affirmed the special 
     relationship between the United States and the Native 
     Hawaiians, which was described by then Secretary of the 
     Interior Franklin K. Lane, who said: `One thing that 
     impressed me . . . was the fact that the natives of the 
     island who are our wards, I should say, and for whom in a 
     sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in numbers and 
     many of them are in poverty.'.
       ``(9) In 1938, Congress again acknowledged the unique 
     status of the Hawaiian people by including in the Act of June 
     20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781, chapter 530; 16 U.S.C. 391b, 391b-1, 
     392b, 392c, 396, 396a), a provision to lease lands within the 
     National Parks extension to Native Hawaiians and to permit 
     fishing in the area `only by native Hawaiian residents of 
     said area or of adjacent villages and by visitors under their 
     guidance.'.
       ``(10) Under the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the 
     admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union', approved 
     March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4), the United States transferred 
     responsibility for the administration of the Hawaiian Home 
     Lands to the State of Hawai`i but reaffirmed the trust 
     relationship between the United States and the Hawaiian 
     people by retaining the exclusive power to enforce the trust, 
     including the power to approve land exchanges and amendments 
     to such Act affecting the rights of beneficiaries under such 
     Act.
       ``(11) In 1959, under the Act entitled `An Act to provide 
     for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union', the 
     United States also ceded to the State of Hawai`i title to the 
     public lands formerly held by the United States, but mandated 
     that such lands be held by the State `in public trust' and 
     reaffirmed the special relationship that existed between the 
     United States and the Hawaiian people by retaining the legal 
     responsibility to enforce the public trust responsibility of 
     the State of Hawai`i for the betterment of the conditions of 
     Native Hawaiians, as defined in section 201(a) of the 
     Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.
       ``(12) The United States has recognized and reaffirmed 
     that--
       ``(A) Native Hawaiians have a cultural, historic, and land-
     based link to the indigenous people who exercised sovereignty 
     over the Hawaiian Islands, and that group has never 
     relinquished its claims to sovereignty or its sovereign 
     lands;
       ``(B) Congress does not extend services to Native Hawaiians 
     because of their race, but because of their unique status as 
     the indigenous people of a once sovereign nation as to whom 
     the United States has established a trust relationship;
       ``(C) Congress has also delegated broad authority to 
     administer a portion of the Federal trust responsibility to 
     the State of Hawaii;
       ``(D) the political status of Native Hawaiians is 
     comparable to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives; 
     and
       ``(E) the aboriginal, indigenous people of the United 
     States have--
       ``(i) a continuing right to autonomy in their internal 
     affairs; and
       ``(ii) an ongoing right of self-determination and self-
     governance that has never been extinguished.
       ``(13) The political relationship between the United States 
     and the Native Hawaiian people has been recognized and 
     reaffirmed by the United States, as evidenced by the 
     inclusion of Native Hawaiians in--
       ``(A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     2991 et seq.);
       ``(B) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1996);
       ``(C) the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20 
     U.S.C. 80q et seq.);
       ``(D) the Native American Graves Protection and 
     Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
       ``(E) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       ``(F) the Native American Languages Act (25 U.S.C. 2901 et 
     seq.);
       ``(G) the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 
     Hawaiian Culture and Art Development Act (20 U.S.C. 4401 et 
     seq.);
       ``(H) the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et 
     seq.) and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2801 et seq.); and
       ``(I) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et 
     seq.).
       ``(14) In 1981, Congress instructed the Office of Education 
     to submit to Congress a comprehensive report on Native 
     Hawaiian education. The report, entitled the `Native Hawaiian 
     Educational Assessment Project', was released in 1983 and 
     documented that Native Hawaiians scored below parity with 
     regard to national norms on standardized achievement tests, 
     were disproportionately represented in many negative social 
     and physical statistics indicative of special educational 
     needs, and had educational needs that were related to their 
     unique cultural situation, such as different learning styles 
     and low self-image.
       ``(15) In recognition of the educational needs of Native 
     Hawaiians, in 1988, Congress enacted title IV of the Augustus 
     F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School 
     Improvement Amendments of 1988 (102 Stat. 130) to authorize 
     and develop supplemental educational programs to address the 
     unique conditions of Native Hawaiians.
       ``(16) In 1993, the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate 
     released a 10-year update of findings of the Native Hawaiian 
     Educational Assessment Project, which found that despite the 
     successes of the programs established under title IV of the 
     Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and 
     Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988, many of the 
     same educational needs still existed for Native Hawaiians. 
     Subsequent reports by the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate 
     and other organizations have generally confirmed those 
     findings. For example--
       ``(A) educational risk factors continue to start even 
     before birth for many Native Hawaiian children, including--
       ``(i) late or no prenatal care;
       ``(ii) high rates of births by Native Hawaiian women who 
     are unmarried; and
       ``(iii) high rates of births to teenage parents;
       ``(B) Native Hawaiian students continue to begin their 
     school experience lagging behind other students in terms of 
     readiness factors such as vocabulary test scores;
       ``(C) Native Hawaiian students continue to score below 
     national norms on standardized education achievement tests at 
     all grade levels;
       ``(D) both public and private schools continue to show a 
     pattern of lower percentages of Native Hawaiian students in 
     the uppermost achievement levels and in gifted and talented 
     programs;
       ``(E) Native Hawaiian students continue to be 
     overrepresented among students qualifying for special 
     education programs provided to students with learning 
     disabilities, mild mental retardation, emotional impairment, 
     and other such disabilities;
       ``(F) Native Hawaiians continue to be underrepresented in 
     institutions of higher education and among adults who have 
     completed 4 or more years of college;
       ``(G) Native Hawaiians continue to be disproportionately 
     represented in many negative social and physical statistics 
     indicative of special educational needs, as demonstrated by 
     the fact that--
       ``(i) Native Hawaiian students are more likely to be 
     retained in grade level and to be excessively absent in 
     secondary school;
       ``(ii) Native Hawaiian students have the highest rates of 
     drug and alcohol use in the State of Hawai`i; and
       ``(iii) Native Hawaiian children continue to be 
     disproportionately victimized by child abuse and neglect; and
       ``(H) Native Hawaiians now comprise over 23 percent of the 
     students served by the State of Hawai`i Department of 
     Education, and there are and will continue to be 
     geographically rural, isolated areas with a high Native 
     Hawaiian population density.
       ``(17) In the 1998 National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress, Hawaiian fourth-graders ranked 39th among groups of 
     students from 39 States in reading. Given that Hawaiian 
     students rank among the lowest groups of students nationally 
     in reading, and that Native Hawaiian students rank the lowest 
     among Hawaiian students in reading, it is imperative that 
     greater focus be placed on beginning reading and early 
     education and literacy in Hawai`i.
       ``(18) The findings described in paragraphs (16) and (17) 
     are inconsistent with the high rates of literacy and 
     integration of traditional culture and Western education 
     historically achieved by Native Hawaiians through a Hawaiian 
     language-based public school system established in 1840 by 
     Kamehameha III.
       ``(19) Following the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai`i in 
     1893, Hawaiian medium schools were banned. After annexation, 
     throughout the territorial and statehood period of Hawai`i, 
     and until 1986, use of the Hawaiian language as an 
     instructional medium in education in public schools was 
     declared unlawful. The declaration caused incalculable harm 
     to a culture that placed a very high value on the power of 
     language, as exemplified in the traditional saying: `I ka 
     `olelo no ke ola; I ka `olelo no ka make. In the language 
     rests life; In the language rests death.'.
       ``(20) Despite the consequences of over 100 years of 
     nonindigenous influence, the Native Hawaiian people are 
     determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future 
     generations their ancestral territory and their cultural 
     identity in accordance with their own spiritual and 
     traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social 
     institutions.
       ``(21) The State of Hawai`i, in the constitution and 
     statutes of the State of Hawai`i--
       ``(A) reaffirms and protects the unique right of the Native 
     Hawaiian people to practice and perpetuate their culture and 
     religious customs, beliefs, practices, and language; and
       ``(B) recognizes the traditional language of the Native 
     Hawaiian people as an official language of the State of 
     Hawai`i, which may be used as the language of instruction for 
     all subjects and grades in the public school system.

[[Page 26442]]



     ``SEC. 9203. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this part are to--
       ``(1) authorize and develop innovative educational programs 
     to assist Native Hawaiians in reaching the National Education 
     Goals;
       ``(2) provide direction and guidance to appropriate 
     Federal, State, and local agencies to focus resources, 
     including resources made available under this part, on Native 
     Hawaiian education, and to provide periodic assessment and 
     data collection;
       ``(3) supplement and expand programs and authorities in the 
     area of education to further the purposes of this title; and
       ``(4) encourage the maximum participation of Native 
     Hawaiians in planning and management of Native Hawaiian 
     education programs.

     ``SEC. 9204. NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL AND ISLAND 
                   COUNCILS.

       ``(a) Establishment of Native Hawaiian Education Council.--
     In order to better effectuate the purposes of this part 
     through the coordination of educational and related services 
     and programs available to Native Hawaiians, including those 
     programs receiving funding under this part, the Secretary is 
     authorized to establish a Native Hawaiian Education Council 
     (referred to in this part as the `Education Council').
       ``(b) Composition of Education Council.--The Education 
     Council shall consist of not more than 21 members, unless 
     otherwise determined by a majority of the council.
       ``(c) Conditions and Terms.--
       ``(1) Conditions.--At least 10 members of the Education 
     Council shall be Native Hawaiian education service providers 
     and 10 members of the Education Council shall be Native 
     Hawaiians or Native Hawaiian education consumers. In 
     addition, a representative of the State of Hawai`i Office of 
     Hawaiian Affairs shall serve as a member of the Education 
     Council.
       ``(2) Appointments.--The members of the Education Council 
     shall be appointed by the Secretary based on recommendations 
     received from the Native Hawaiian community.
       ``(3) Terms.--Members of the Education Council shall serve 
     for staggered terms of 3 years, except as provided in 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(4) Council determinations.--Additional conditions and 
     terms relating to membership on the Education Council, 
     including term lengths and term renewals, shall be determined 
     by a majority of the Education Council.
       ``(d) Native Hawaiian Education Council Grant.--The 
     Secretary shall make a direct grant to the Education Council 
     in order to enable the Education Council to--
       ``(1) coordinate the educational and related services and 
     programs available to Native Hawaiians, including the 
     programs assisted under this part;
       ``(2) assess the extent to which such services and programs 
     meet the needs of Native Hawaiians, and collect data on the 
     status of Native Hawaiian education;
       ``(3) provide direction and guidance, through the issuance 
     of reports and recommendations, to appropriate Federal, 
     State, and local agencies in order to focus and improve the 
     use of resources, including resources made available under 
     this part, relating to Native Hawaiian education, and serve, 
     where appropriate, in an advisory capacity; and
       ``(4) make direct grants, if such grants enable the 
     Education Council to carry out the duties of the Education 
     Council, as described in paragraphs (1) through (3).
       ``(e) Additional Duties of the Education Council.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Education Council shall provide 
     copies of any reports and recommendations issued by the 
     Education Council, including any information that the 
     Education Council provides to the Secretary pursuant to 
     subsection (i), to the Secretary, the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate.
       ``(2) Annual report.--The Education Council shall prepare 
     and submit to the Secretary an annual report on the Education 
     Council's activities.
       ``(3) Island council support and assistance.--The Education 
     Council shall provide such administrative support and 
     financial assistance to the island councils established 
     pursuant to subsection (f) as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, in a manner that supports the distinct needs of 
     each island council.
       ``(f) Establishment of Island Councils.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to better effectuate the 
     purposes of this part and to ensure the adequate 
     representation of island and community interests within the 
     Education Council, the Secretary is authorized to facilitate 
     the establishment of Native Hawaiian education island 
     councils (referred to individually in this part as an `island 
     council') for the following islands:
       ``(A) Hawai`i.
       ``(B) Maui.
       ``(C) Moloka`i.
       ``(D) Lana`i.
       ``(E) O`ahu.
       ``(F) Kaua`i.
       ``(G) Ni`ihau.
       ``(2) Composition of island councils.--Each island council 
     shall consist of parents, students, and other community 
     members who have an interest in the education of Native 
     Hawaiians, and shall be representative of individuals 
     concerned with the educational needs of all age groups, from 
     children in preschool through adults. At least \3/4\ of the 
     members of each island council shall be Native Hawaiians.
       ``(g) Administrative Provisions Relating to Education 
     Council and Island Councils.--The Education Council and each 
     island council shall meet at the call of the chairperson of 
     the appropriate council, or upon the request of the majority 
     of the members of the appropriate council, but in any event 
     not less often than 4 times during each calendar year. The 
     provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not 
     apply to the Education Council and each island council.
       ``(h) Compensation.--Members of the Education Council and 
     each island council shall not receive any compensation for 
     service on the Education Council and each island council, 
     respectively.
       ``(i) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Native Hawaiian Education Reauthorization 
     Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the 
     Senate a report that summarizes the annual reports of the 
     Education Council, describes the allocation and use of funds 
     under this part, and contains recommendations for changes in 
     Federal, State, and local policy to advance the purposes of 
     this part.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $300,000 for fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years. Funds 
     appropriated under this subsection shall remain available 
     until expended.

     ``SEC. 9205. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) General Authority.--
       ``(1) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     make direct grants to, or enter into contracts with--
       ``(A) Native Hawaiian educational organizations;
       ``(B) Native Hawaiian community-based organizations;
       ``(C) public and private nonprofit organizations, agencies, 
     and institutions with experience in developing or operating 
     Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in the 
     Native Hawaiian language; and
       ``(D) consortia of the organizations, agencies, and 
     institutions described in subparagraphs (A) through (C),

     to carry out programs that meet the purposes of this part.
       ``(2) Priorities.--In awarding grants or contracts to carry 
     out activities described in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
     shall give priority to entities proposing projects that are 
     designed to address--
       ``(A) beginning reading and literacy among students in 
     kindergarten through third grade;
       ``(B) the needs of at-risk youth;
       ``(C) needs in fields or disciplines in which Native 
     Hawaiians are underemployed; and
       ``(D) the use of the Hawaiian language in instruction.
       ``(3) Permissible activities.--Activities provided through 
     programs carried out under this part may include--
       ``(A) the development and maintenance of a statewide Native 
     Hawaiian early education and care system to provide a 
     continuum of services for Native Hawaiian children from the 
     prenatal period of the children through age 5;
       ``(B) the operation of family-based education centers that 
     provide such services as--
       ``(i) programs for Native Hawaiian parents and their 
     infants from the prenatal period of the infants through age 
     3;
       ``(ii) preschool programs for Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(iii) research on, and development and assessment of, 
     family-based, early childhood, and preschool programs for 
     Native Hawaiians;
       ``(C) activities that enhance beginning reading and 
     literacy among Native Hawaiian students in kindergarten 
     through third grade; 
       ``(D) activities to meet the special needs of Native 
     Hawaiian students with disabilities, including--
       ``(i) the identification of such students and their needs;
       ``(ii) the provision of support services to the families of 
     those students; and
       ``(iii) other activities consistent with the requirements 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;
       ``(E) activities that address the special needs of Native 
     Hawaiian students who are gifted and talented, including--
       ``(i) educational, psychological, and developmental 
     activities designed to assist in the educational progress of 
     those students; and
       ``(ii) activities that involve the parents of those 
     students in a manner designed to assist in the students' 
     educational progress;
       ``(F) the development of academic and vocational curricula 
     to address the needs of Native Hawaiian children and adults, 
     including curriculum materials in the Hawaiian

[[Page 26443]]

     language and mathematics and science curricula that 
     incorporate Native Hawaiian tradition and culture;
       ``(G) professional development activities for educators, 
     including--
       ``(i) the development of programs to prepare prospective 
     teachers to address the unique needs of Native Hawaiian 
     students within the context of Native Hawaiian culture, 
     language, and traditions;
       ``(ii) in-service programs to improve the ability of 
     teachers who teach in schools with concentrations of Native 
     Hawaiian students to meet those students' unique needs; and
       ``(iii) the recruitment and preparation of Native 
     Hawaiians, and other individuals who live in communities with 
     a high concentration of Native Hawaiians, to become teachers;
       ``(H) the operation of community-based learning centers 
     that address the needs of Native Hawaiian families and 
     communities through the coordination of public and private 
     programs and services, including--
       ``(i) preschool programs;
       ``(ii) after-school programs; and
       ``(iii) vocational and adult education programs;
       ``(I) activities to enable Native Hawaiians to enter and 
     complete programs of postsecondary education, including--
       ``(i) provision of full or partial scholarships for 
     undergraduate or graduate study that are awarded to students 
     based on their academic promise and financial need, with a 
     priority, at the graduate level, given to students entering 
     professions in which Native Hawaiians are underrepresented;
       ``(ii) family literacy services;
       ``(iii) counseling and support services for students 
     receiving scholarship assistance;
       ``(iv) counseling and guidance for Native Hawaiian 
     secondary students who have the potential to receive 
     scholarships; and
       ``(v) faculty development activities designed to promote 
     the matriculation of Native Hawaiian students;
       ``(J) research and data collection activities to determine 
     the educational status and needs of Native Hawaiian children 
     and adults;
       ``(K) other research and evaluation activities related to 
     programs carried out under this part; and
       ``(L) other activities, consistent with the purposes of 
     this part, to meet the educational needs of Native Hawaiian 
     children and adults.
       ``(4) Special rule and conditions.--
       ``(A) Institutions outside hawaii.--The Secretary shall not 
     establish a policy under this section that prevents a Native 
     Hawaiian student enrolled at a 2- or 4-year degree granting 
     institution of higher education outside of the State of 
     Hawai`i from receiving a fellowship pursuant to paragraph 
     (3)(I).
       ``(B) Fellowship conditions.--The Secretary shall establish 
     conditions for receipt of a fellowship awarded under 
     paragraph (3)(I). The conditions shall require that an 
     individual seeking such a fellowship enter into a contract to 
     provide professional services, either during the fellowship 
     period or upon completion of a program of postsecondary 
     education, to the Native Hawaiian community.
       ``(b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of 
     funds provided to a grant recipient under this section for 
     any fiscal year may be used for administrative purposes.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

     ``SEC. 9206. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--No grant may be made under 
     this part, and no contract may be entered into under this 
     part, unless the entity seeking the grant or contract submits 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     determine to be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     part.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--Each applicant for a grant or contract 
     under this part shall submit the application for comment to 
     the local educational agency serving students who will 
     participate in the program to be carried out under the grant 
     or contract, and include those comments, if any, with the 
     application to the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 9207. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' means 
     any individual who is--
       ``(A) a citizen of the United States; and
       ``(B) a descendant of the aboriginal people who, prior to 
     1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now 
     comprises the State of Hawai`i, as evidenced by--
       ``(i) genealogical records;
       ``(ii) Kupuna (elders) or Kama`aina (long-term community 
     residents) verification; or
       ``(iii) certified birth records.
       ``(2) Native hawaiian community-based organization.--The 
     term `Native Hawaiian community-based organization' means any 
     organization that is composed primarily of Native Hawaiians 
     from a specific community and that assists in the social, 
     cultural, and educational development of Native Hawaiians in 
     that community.
       ``(3) Native hawaiian educational organization.--The term 
     `Native Hawaiian educational organization' means a private 
     nonprofit organization that--
       ``(A) serves the interests of Native Hawaiians;
       ``(B) has Native Hawaiians in substantive and policymaking 
     positions within the organization;
       ``(C) incorporates Native Hawaiian perspective, values, 
     language, culture, and traditions into the core function of 
     the organization;
       ``(D) has demonstrated expertise in the education of Native 
     Hawaiian youth; and
       ``(E) has demonstrated expertise in research and program 
     development.
       ``(4) Native hawaiian language.--The term `Native Hawaiian 
     language' means the single Native American language 
     indigenous to the original inhabitants of the State of 
     Hawai`i.
       ``(5) Native hawaiian organization.--The term `Native 
     Hawaiian organization' means a private nonprofit organization 
     that--
       ``(A) serves the interests of Native Hawaiians;
       ``(B) has Native Hawaiians in substantive and policymaking 
     positions within the organizations; and
       ``(C) is recognized by the Governor of Hawai`i for the 
     purpose of planning, conducting, or administering programs 
     (or portions of programs) for the benefit of Native 
     Hawaiians.
       ``(6) Office of hawaiian affairs.--The term `Office of 
     Hawaiian Affairs' means the office of Hawaiian Affairs 
     established by the Constitution of the State of Hawai`i.''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Higher Education Act of 1965.--Section 317(b)(3) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059d(b)(3)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 9212'' and inserting ``section 
     9207''.
       (b) Public Law 88-210.--Section 116 of Public Law 88-210 
     (as added by section 1 of Public Law 105-332 (112 Stat. 
     3076)) is amended by striking ``section 9212 of the Native 
     Hawaiian Education Act (20 U.S.C. 7912)'' and inserting 
     ``section 9207 of the Native Hawaiian Education Act''.
       (c) Museum and Library Services Act.--Section 261 of the 
     Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9161) is amended 
     by striking ``section 9212 of the Native Hawaiian Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 7912)'' and inserting ``section 9207 of the 
     Native Hawaiian Education Act''.
       (d) Native American Languages Act.--Section 103(3) of the 
     Native American Languages Act (25 U.S.C. 2902(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``section 9212(1) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7912(1))'' and inserting 
     ``section 9207 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965''.
       (e) Workforce Investment Act of 1998.--Section 166(b)(3) of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2911(b)(3)) 
     is amended by striking ``paragraphs (1) and (3), 
     respectively, of section 9212 of the Native Hawaiian 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 7912)'' and inserting ``section 9207 
     of the Native Hawaiian Education Act''.
       (f) Assets for Independence Act.--Section 404(11) of the 
     Assets for Independence Act (42 U.S.C. 604 note) is amended 
     by striking ``section 9212 of the Native Hawaiian Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 7912)'' and inserting ``section 9207 of the 
     Native Hawaiian Education Act''.

                          ____________________