[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27431-27457]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Gorton, 
        Mr. Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 1816. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
provide meaningful campaign finance reform through requiring better 
reporting, decreasing the role of soft money, and increasing individual 
contribution limits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules 
and Administration.

[[Page 27432]]




        The Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000

 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I join several of my 
colleagues in introducing the ``Open and Accountable Campaign Financing 
Act of 2000.'' This bill increases disclosure requirements on campaign 
contributions and political broadcast advertisements. It also caps 
``soft money'' contributions to political party committees at $60,000 
and adjusts individual contribution limits for inflation. I am pleased 
that the following Senators have joined me today in offering this bill: 
Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Slade Gorton (R-WA), Bob 
Kerrey (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Craig Thomas (R-WY).
  Changing the way federal campaigns are financed is inevitable, the 
American people will demand it. At some point, the Senate will have a 
full and open debate on how best to reform our campaign finance system. 
I was disappointed that floor procedures prevented us from doing so 
last week, because several of us had intended to offer amendments to 
the McCain-Feingold legislation.
  My colleagues and I introduce this bill today as a bipartisan 
alternative in what has been a very polarized debate. If we are ever to 
move forward on this issue, we will need to look at a variety of ways 
to reform the campaign finance system. This bill is a combination of 
ideas offered by myself and a number of my colleagues. Several specific 
provisions in this bill have widespread support by both Republicans and 
Democrats, and, I believe, can form a base from which consensus can 
build.
  Confidence in our political system is the essence of representative 
government. This begins with an open and accountable campaign financing 
system. We need to rise above partisan, ideological and personal 
rivalries, and find common ground on campaign finance reform.
  There are several elements that must be part of any reform of our 
campaign finance system. One of the most important is increased 
disclosure for all who participate in the political process. We should 
not fear an educated and informed body politic. If individuals and 
organizations are going to participate in the election process, their 
participation must be revealed to the public.
  To provide for fuller disclosure, this bill increases the financial 
reporting requirements for candidates and political parties. This 
legislation also takes the rules on broadcast ads that apply to 
candidates and extends them to all political broadcast ads. Under 
current federal regulations, when a candidate buys a political ad, the 
broadcaster is required to place information on the ad in a file that 
is open to the public. This includes a record of the times the spots 
are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased and at what 
rates, and the names of the officers of the organization placing the 
ad. Under current federal regulations, when an interest group places a 
political ad with a broadcaster, it does not have to meet all of these 
requirements. This bill requires that interest-group ads related to any 
federal candidate or issue go into the broadcaster's public file. There 
would be no added burden on the broadcaster. The broadcaster would 
simply use the same form already used for candidate and party ads. Let 
me make clear one thing the bill does not do. It does not require 
organizations to identify individual donors or provide membership 
lists. It preserves a reasonable balance between the public's right to 
know which groups are attempting to influence an election, and the 
privacy rights of individual donors.
  In addition to disclosure, we need to look at soft money 
contributions to national party committees. Most constitutional experts 
say that an outright ban on soft money would be unconstitutional. But 
this unaccountable, unlimited flood of soft money cascading over 
America's politics must be stopped. We need to find a middle ground 
between the extremes of banning soft money and leaving it unrestricted. 
This bill limits soft money contributions to national party committees 
to $60,000. This is not a ban on financial support of parties. It is a 
return to the original intent of the campaign finance reforms of the 
1970s, which worked well until they were exploited and abused.
  We also need to increase the ability of individuals to participate in 
the most accountable method of campaign financing. This bill adjusts 
and indexes contributions to inflation and indexes them for further 
years. For an individual, contribution limits would increase from 
$1,000 to $3,000 per candidate, per election. I've heard the argument 
that raising these limits would give the wealthy too much influence and 
access. If we cap or eliminate soft money and do not adjust the hard-
money limits, we will chase more money into the black hole of third-
party ads, where the public cannot view the flow of money. I want to 
bring more of that money into the sunlight where the American people 
have access to who is giving money and how much.
  We have a great opportunity to restore some of the confidence the 
American people have lost in their political system. Improving our 
system that selects America's leaders--who formulate and implement the 
policies that govern our Nation--is a worthy challenge.
 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I would like to express my 
support for ``The Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 
1999,'' which would provide this country with much needed campaign 
finance reform. Our Constitution lays out the requirements for someone 
running for office. In order to run for the Senate, the Constitution 
tells us that there are three requirements: you must be at least 30 
years old; you must have been a U.S. citizen for nine years; and you 
must be a resident of the state you wish to represent.
  What the Constitution doesn't tell you about is a fourth requirement: 
you must have an awful lot of money, or at least know how to raise it. 
The Constitution doesn't tell you this because when the framers drafted 
the Constitution, they could not have imagined the ridiculously large 
amounts of time and money one must spend today if he or she wants to be 
elected to office.
  We need to change the law to give power back to working families, 
restore their faith in the process, and make democracy work. That's why 
I have been an avid supporter of the McCain-Feingold bill and the 
Shays-Meehan bill that recently passed the House, and that's why I am 
now a cosponsor of Senator Hagel's bill.
  Earlier this month, the Senate debated the McCain-Feingold bill. This 
year's version was a stripped down version of the McCain-Feingold bills 
we've debated, and I have supported, in years past. Although I prefer 
the more comprehensive House passed Shays-Meehan bill, I understood 
Senators McCain and Feingold's decision to purposefully strip down 
their bill. They knew the realities of the vote count in the Senate. We 
didn't have the votes to pass anything more comprehensive, so they 
introduced a ``barebones'' bill which essentially did one simple thing: 
ban soft money.
  Unfortunately, the bill was pulled from the floor after a vote 
showing McCain-Feingold still didn't have the votes to pass. The good 
news is we picked up one vote; the bad news is we still haven't passed 
a campaign finance reform bill. We made progress. That is why it is 
important to not let this issue die on the back burner. That is why I 
am joining in Senator Hagel's effort to keep this issue alive.
  Currently, soft money is uncapped and unregulated--corporations, 
unions and wealthy individuals can contribute unlimited amounts of soft 
money. Senator Hagel's bill would cap soft money at $60,000. Although I 
prefer a complete ban, it is clear the Senate is a few votes short of 
passing this ban. Senator Hagel's new approach just might be the 
compromise that can muster enough votes to pass the Senate. Let me be 
clear--while I prefer much more comprehensive reform of our campaign 
financing system--I do believe Senator Hagel's proposal is a step in 
the right direction. This bill, with its cap on soft money and 
tightening of disclosure requirements, would be a good beginning.
  The American people are frustrated with the millions of dollars they 
see poured into campaigns. They are frustrated with out tendency to 
talk instead of act. I am hopeful this bill can

[[Page 27433]]

help make that happen. In fact I want to applaud my friend, Senator 
Hagel for his efforts, and urge our colleagues to support this 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1820. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
national service educational awards from the recipient's gross income; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                  americorps scholarship fairness act

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on 
behalf of thousands dedicated volunteers around the country. The 
legislation I am offering addresses an inequity in the tax code that 
adversely affects AmeriCorps volunteers. I urge my colleagues to pass 
it immediately.
  Since 1994, in 4,000 communities across the country, AmeriCorps 
participants have tutored and mentored more than 4 million children, 
developed after-school programs for over one million young people, and 
helped build more than 11,000 homes. Their dedication and commitment 
are a tribute to the American tradition of public service. Currently, 
at the conclusion of 1,700 hours of service, AmeriCorps members receive 
an education award of $4,725. The award may be used by former 
volunteers to pay for tuition expenses or the repayment of student 
loans.
  Under long-established tax law, scholarships and grants are 
excludable from income. However, because the AmeriCorps awards are 
considered to represent payment for services rendered, they must be 
included in taxable income at the end of the year. This tax treatment 
creates a significant hardship for former volunteers. Because 
AmeriCorps education awards are sent directly to the loan agency or 
educational institution, they do not represent income from which a 
portion may be reserved by the beneficiary for the payment of tax. 
After serving in AmeriCorps, many former volunteers work part-time to 
pay for college, and the education award pushes their income above the 
standard income tax deduction, creating tax liability for an individual 
with little means to pay for it.
  Mr. President, allow me to illustrate. Maleah Thorpe of Sunderland, 
Massachusetts, is a two-year AmeriCorps participant. Most recently, 
Maleah served as a volunteer with Massachusetts Campus Compact. The 
Massachusetts Campus Compact coordinates formal and informal assistance 
for students, staff, and faculty in the areas of: America Reads and 
early childhood literacy initiatives, America Counts and math education 
initiatives, and other Campus and community partnerships. Maleah's 
service has benefited our community and our country, while at the same 
time, has provided a rewarding personal experience.
  Listen to what Maleah has to say about AmeriCorps:

       My experiences with AmeriCorps have been life-changing, 
     introducing me to so many opportunities and a new 
     appreciation of both the diversity and strength of people in 
     our nation. I consider myself fortunate and am thankful that 
     I will have not one, but two educational awards should I need 
     to use them. However, I am at the same time dreading the out-
     of-pocket expense that will accompany their use * * *. 
     Although I was anxious to use the educational award earned 
     during my first year of service to reduce my undergraduate 
     loan debt, the cost of paying taxes on the amount has 
     prohibited me from doing so.
       When I entered AmeriCorps two years ago, I did so for the 
     service. I also anticipated that approximately 75 percent of 
     my undergraduate loan debt would be paid within three years 
     of graduation, something that helped justify the financial 
     cost of living on only the minimal stipend. Instead, I will 
     enter graduate school in the fall, my undergraduate loans 
     will continue to accrue interest and I will likely acquire 
     additional loans to cover some expenses because I can simply 
     not afford to use and pay taxes on my educational awards 
     while I am a student.
       I know that I am not alone in this predicament. Many alumni 
     with whom I served are either students or completing 
     additional years of service, solely responsible for 
     educational and living expenses. Many of us do not have 
     additional income to pay taxes on the educational awards nor 
     the ability to ask friends or relatives to assist us.
       I have given two years to serve my fellow citizens of the 
     nation and the Commonwealth and would never give up those 
     experiences. However, I should not now be punished for this 
     choice by the burden of additional taxes.

  Similar situations arise with other programs. Congress has recognized 
these inequities and acted to address them. For example, this summer's 
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act would have specifically provided that 
scholarships received through the National Health Service Corps, the 
Armed Forces Health Professions program, and the National Institutes of 
Health Undergraduate program are tax exempt. Let's do the same for the 
thousands of volunteers who, through the AmeriCorps program, give up 
two years of their lives to make a difference in communities across our 
nation.
  The AmeriCorps Scholarship Fairness Act clarifies that AmeriCorps 
education awards should receive the same tax treatment as a traditional 
college scholarship. Under the proposal, amounts received by an 
individual as part of a national service education award would be 
eligible for tax-free treatment as a qualified scholarship under 
section 117 of the tax code, without regard to the fact that the 
recipient of the scholarship has provided services as a condition for 
receiving the scholarship. The Joint Tax Committee estimates the cost 
in lost revenue would be $2 million the first year, $15 million over 
five years, and $32 million over ten years.
  The government should cherish, not punish, volunteerism and public 
service. I hope my colleagues will join me in enacting this simple but 
meaningful legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
three letters from Massachusetts constituents be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1820

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

     SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF NATIONAL SERVICE EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to qualified scholarships) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Qualified National Service Educational Awards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Gross income for any taxable year shall 
     not include any qualified national service educational award.
       ``(2) Qualified national service educational award.--For 
     purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified national service 
     educational award' means any amount received by an individual 
     in a taxable year as a national service educational award 
     under section 148 of the National and Community Service Act 
     of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12604) to the extent (except as provided 
     in subparagraph (C)) such amount does not exceed the 
     qualified tuition and related expenses (as defined in 
     subsection (b)(2)) of the individual for such taxable year.
       ``(B) Determination of expenses.--The total amount of the 
     qualified tuition and related expenses (as so defined) which 
     may be taken into account under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to an individual for the taxable year shall be reduced (after 
     the application of the reduction provided in section 
     25A(g)(2)) by the amount of such expenses which were taken 
     into account in determining the credit allowed to the 
     taxpayer or any other person under section 25A with respect 
     to such expenses.
       ``(C) Exception to limitation.--The limitation under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any portion of a national 
     service educational award used by such individual to repay 
     any student loan described in section 148(a)(1) of such Act 
     or to pay any interest expense described in section 148(a)(4) 
     of such Act.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1999.
                                  ____



                                                   AmeriCorps,

                                    Sunderland, MA, July 20, 1999.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry, My name is Maleah Thorpe. I am a two 
     year alumna of AmeriCorps, serving with City Year Rhode 
     Island (1997--98) and most recently as a VISTA with 
     Massachusetts Campus Compact (1998-99) working at the 
     University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
       My experiences with AmeriCorps have been life-changing, 
     introducing me to so many opportunities and a new 
     appreciation of both the diversity and strength of people in 
     our nation. These past two years have left an immeasurable 
     impact on my life, changed my perspective on many things, and 
     even altered

[[Page 27434]]

     my future plans; in September I will begin graduate studies 
     at UMass Amherst.
       I consider myself fortunate and am thankful that I will 
     have not one, but two, Educational Awards should I need to 
     use them. However, I am at the same time dreading the out-of-
     pocket expense that will accompany their use. I had a small 
     preview of what is to come last December when I used my 
     Interest Payment option from my first year of AmeriCorps 
     service. For choosing to use this ``benefit'' of $543, I was 
     required to pay an unexpected $120 in state and (mostly) 
     federal taxes. While this may seem like a small sum, I assure 
     you that it is not to someone living on a VISTA stipend where 
     every penny is accounted for to cover basic living expenses.
       Although I was anxious to use the Educational Award earned 
     during my first year of service to reduce my undergraduate 
     loan debt, the cost of paying taxes on the amount has 
     prohibited me from doing so.
       When I entered AmeriCorps two years ago, I did so for the 
     service. I also anticipated that approximately 75% of my 
     undergraduate loan debt would be paid within three years of 
     graduation, something that helped justify the financial cost 
     of living on only the minimal stipend. Instead, I will enter 
     graduate school in the fall, my undergraduate loans will 
     continue to accrue interest and I will likely acquire 
     additional loans to cover some expenses because I can simply 
     not afford to use and pay taxes on my Educational Awards 
     while I am a student.
       I know that I am not alone in this predicament. Many alumni 
     with whom I served are either students or completing 
     additional years of service, solely responsible for 
     educational and living expenses. Many of us do not have 
     additional income to pay taxes on the Educational Awards nor 
     the ability to ask friends or relatives to assist us.
       I have given two years to serve my fellow citizens of the 
     nation and the Commonwealth and would never give up those 
     experiences. However, I should not now be punished for this 
     choice by the burden of additional taxes. As a citizen of the 
     Commonwealth and on behalf of those who have served and will 
     serve in the future, I ask that you work to remove this 
     burden of taxation of the AmeriCorps Educational Awards.
       Thank you for your time and efforts.
           Sincerely,
     Maleah F. Thorpe.
                                  ____

                                          Ware, MA, July 19, 1999.
       To Whom it May Concern: My name is Jamie Rutherford and I 
     am a resident of Ware, Massachusetts. Following graduation 
     from the University of Hartford in 1996, I entered the 
     AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps. I served two 
     10-month terms in the program, 1996--97 in Denver, CO, and 
     1997-98 in Charleston, SC.
       My motivation for joining AmeriCorps included my desire to 
     travel, to learn new skills, to lend myself to the community, 
     and to earn an educational award that I would be able to 
     apply toward my substantial student loans. I greatly enjoyed 
     my experience the first year in Denver, and had very little 
     difficulty deciding to reapply for a second year in South 
     Carolina. Over those two years I took part in fourteen 
     separate projects pertaining to the environment, education, 
     public safety, and unmet human needs. I traveled to nine 
     states and enjoyed experiences ranging from inner city 
     tutoring, to midwestern trailbuilding, to even Gulf Coast 
     erosion control.
       My experiences in AmeriCorps were wonderful, and have 
     instilled in me a great appreciation for national service. I 
     did, however, face several daunting challenges during my term 
     of service. The most difficult challenges usually involved 
     personal finance. The living stipend provided to us was 
     minimal, and it was often quite difficult to get by on such 
     meager funds. We did receive additional allotments for food 
     and travel, however, and got by as well as possible. Upon 
     completion of my first year in Denver, I applied my first 
     award to my student loan provider here in Massachusetts. The 
     greatest challenge for me came with the taxation of that 
     award during my second term in South Carolina. When I 
     discovered that I owed $350 to the Internal Revenue Service 
     due to the taxation of the award, I was forced to go on a 
     monthly payment plan during that second term. This was very 
     difficult for me considering our minimal living stipend. I 
     could not then and cannot now understand why the award was 
     taxable as such, or why the taxed amount could not at least 
     be subtracted from the $4,725 award initially.
       Nearly a year after completing my second term and receiving 
     my second award, I still maintain the $4,725 balance of that 
     award. My current finances greatly necessitate the 
     utilization of the award toward my substantial student loan 
     bills. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to do so due to 
     uncertainty for my future financial viability. I fear that I 
     will not be able to afford another heavy taxation. Though the 
     award seems to be so beneficial, it threatens to actually be 
     somewhat detrimental to me.
       My hope and request is that this taxation be abolished. It 
     simply does not seem reasonable that young people devoting 
     themselves to the improvement of our country should be so 
     unjustly penalized. I greatly support AmeriCorps and all the 
     good that it represents. I only wish that this one matter 
     would be reconsidered in order to lift the gray cloud that 
     has fallen over my memories of two wonderful years of 
     national service.
           Thank you.
     James E. Rutherford.
                                  ____

                                 Jamaica Plain, MA, July 20, 1999.
       Dear Senator: My name is Brendan Miller and I am an alumnus 
     of AmeriCorps. I served two years, one with the Northwest 
     Service Academy in Oregon and one with City Year in South 
     Carolina as an AmeriCorps Leader. My AmeriCorps experience 
     changed my life and set me on a path of public service that I 
     now know is my calling.
       I currently live in Boston, Massachusetts. As a supporter 
     of AmeriCorps you surely know a benefit of the AmeriCorps 
     experience is the Education Award that is granted at the end 
     of one's service. I used approximately $6,000 of this award 
     in January to pay off my loans from college. Unfortunately, 
     the Ed Award is considered income for tax purposes, so I will 
     be burdened with significantly higher taxes this year. In 
     fact, I chose not to use my whole Award this year in order to 
     split the tax burden between two years. If I had used the 
     entire Award this year, my financial situation would surely 
     have prevented me from meeting this tax without significant 
     hardship.
       I am working for the Boston Plan for Excellence in 
     Education, which is a non-profit that is seeking to encourage 
     lasting school reform in the Boston schools. Although I 
     receive great satisfaction from this work, it does not pay 
     that well. Since my AmeriCorps experience, I have committed 
     myself to doing work that I feel is really making a 
     difference, but this also means living on a tighter budget.
       I know many of my friends in service have also made similar 
     commitments to a life of service. However, our resolve can be 
     tested by the need to pay our bills. As a graduate of Brown 
     University with a degree in Computer Science, I could be 
     making significantly more money in the for-profit sector, and 
     I am often tempted to break my commitment to a life of 
     service.
       As a supporter of AmeriCorps and national service, I know 
     you want to make it easy as possible for America's citizens 
     to serve their country. I ask you to remove the tax on 
     Education Awards to take a giant step forward in this effort.
       Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any 
     additional questions. I look forward to hearing of your 
     leadership on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Brendan Miller.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 1821. A bill to authorize the United States to recover from a 
third party the value of any housing, education, or medical care or 
treatment furnished or paid for by the United States and provided to 
any victim of lead poisoning; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            the lead poisoning expense recovery act of 1999

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with 
my colleague Senator Torricelli that would give the federal government 
clear authority to recover from the manufacturers of lead-based paint, 
funds spent on the prevention and treatment of childhood lead 
poisoning.
  Our knowledge of lead poisoning dates back to 200 BC, when the Greek 
physician Galen wrote ``lead makes the mind give way.'' Benjamin 
Franklin knew about ``the mischievous effects of lead'' back when he 
wrote those words in 1786. In the late 19th century, scientific studies 
and medical reports began detailing the effects of lead on children. 
And by 1904, the source of those poisonings was identified as white 
lead paint used in housing. Queensland, Australia, was the first to ban 
certain applications of lead-based paint in 1922. Austria, Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, France, Latvia, Poland, 
Romania, Spain, and Sweden followed suit in the mid-1920's. In 1978, 
more than a half of a century later, lead-based paint was banned in the 
United States.
  Today, nearly one million preschoolers nationwide have excessive 
levels of lead in their blood; making lead poisoning the leading 
environmental health disease among children. Even low levels of lead 
exposure can cause serious injury to the developing brain and nervous 
system of children, lost IQ points, learning and reading disabilities, 
hyperactivity, and aggressive or delinquent behavior. At high levels of 
exposure, lead causes mental retardation, coma, convulsions and even 
death.
  Lead-based paint in housing is the major remaining source of exposure

[[Page 27435]]

and is responsible for most cases of childhood lead poisoning. Children 
contract lead poisoning when they come into contact with lead-based 
paint chips, contaminated soil, or dust generated from deteriorated 
paint. An estimated three million tons of lead still coats the walls 
and woodwork of American homes. Approximately half of America's housing 
stock, roughly 64 million units contain some lead-based paint. Twenty 
million of which are considered hazardous because they contain paint 
which is peeling, cracked, or chipped. My home state of Rhode Island 
has the fifth oldest housing stock in the country, and, as a result, 
has a lead poisoning rate that is three times the national average.
  Sadly, this disease is particularly prevalent in those communities 
with the fewest resources to address the problem. Poor children are 
eight times more likely than kids from moderate and upper income 
families to contract lead poisoning. Yet, while lead poisoning is most 
prevalent in low-income communities, 20-25 percent of children who are 
poisoned live in middle- or upper-income homes. They were poisoned by 
exposure to lead released through renovation or repainting activities.
  Taxpayers have already paid billions of dollars to deal with the 
tragic consequences of childhood lead exposure, including large 
expenditures for medical care, special education, and lead abatement in 
housing. However, what has been spent so far is barely a drop in the 
bucket. In Rhode Island alone, we are looking at a bill of $300 million 
to clean up just the most dangerous housing units. There are simply not 
enough grant or loan programs available. Last year, one federal lead 
abatement program had to turn down nine applicants for every grant it 
made.
  Each year, we fight to make childhood lead poisoning a priority in 
Congress, in State legislatures, in cities, and in communities, knowing 
that the real solution is getting rid of the source of a child's 
exposure. At the same time we are frightfully aware that it could be 
decades longer, and millions of poisoned children later, until we 
finally ``get the lead out.''
  The Rhode Island Attorney General recently filed a 10-count lawsuit 
against the manufacturers of lead paint and the industry's trade 
association. The lawsuit documents nearly a century-long record of 
industry culpability. The lead industry aggressively marketed its 
product as safe, despite knowledge of its harmful effects that were 
made apparent by continuous warnings from the medical community. To 
date, an industry that has over $30 billion in assets has yet to make a 
significant contribution to addressing the problems associated with its 
product.
  Clearly, victims of lead poisoning were never given a chance, not 
even a warning. Parents were never told that the product they used to 
beautify their home could prevent their children from achieving their 
fullest potential. Instead, the industry fought regulations in 
California, New York, and Maryland that would have banned the use of 
lead-based paint or required the product to be labeled as poisonous. In 
1954, the Board of Health of New York City proposed a sanitary code 
provision banning the sale of paints containing more than 1 percent 
lead, and requiring lead paint to be labeled as ``poisonous'' and not 
for interior use. The lead industry opposed the proposal as 
``unnecessary and unjustified'' and unduly burdensome. Ultimately, the 
New York City Board of Health dropped the proposed ban of lead paint in 
1955, and adopted a more narrow warning label requirement. This is only 
one example from an extensive record of industry wrongdoing which I 
believe the federal government should have the authority to address.
  That is why Senator Torricelli and I are introducing legislation that 
will ensure that justice is served. Our legislation provides clear 
authority for the Federal government to recover the significant 
resources it has expended to mitigate childhood lead poisoning. This 
includes dollars spent on medical care and treatment, special 
education, and funds spent to make homes lead-safe for children. As 
cities and states stand up and say enough is enough, it is only 
appropriate for the federal government to join them in the effort to 
hold the industry responsible. The severity of childhood lead poisoning 
and the considerable expense borne by taxpayers to clean up the 
industry's mess demands action now. I urge my Senate colleagues to join 
me in supporting this legislation so that we can move aggressively 
towards our goal to end childhood lead poisoning. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1821

       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 ``Lead Poisoning Expense 
     Recovery Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Lead poisoning is the number 1 environmental health 
     threat to young children, affecting an estimated 890,000 
     children.
       (2) Most children are poisoned in their homes through 
     exposure to lead particles when lead-based paint deteriorates 
     or is disturbed during home renovation or repainting.
       (3) Lead paint remains in almost \2/3\ of the housing stock 
     of the United States.
       (4) Lead poisoning may cause serious, long-term harm to 
     children, including reduced intelligence and attention span, 
     behavior problems, learning disabilities, and impaired 
     growth.
       (5) Research shows that children with elevated levels of 
     lead in their blood are 7 times more likely to drop out of 
     high school than children without elevated blood-lead levels.
       (6) Children from low-income families are 8 times more 
     likely to be poisoned by lead than children from high-income 
     families.
       (7) African-American children are 5 times more likely to be 
     poisoned by lead than white children.

     SEC. 3. SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZED.

       (a) In General.--In any case in which the United States is 
     authorized or required to furnish housing, education, or 
     medical care or treatment to an individual who suffers from 
     or is at risk of lead poisoning (or to pay for the housing, 
     education, or medical care or treatment of such an 
     individual) under circumstances creating liability upon any 
     third party, the United States shall have the right to 
     recover (independent of the rights of the injured or diseased 
     individual) the value of the housing (including the cost of 
     lead hazard evaluation and control), education, or medical 
     care or treatment furnished or paid for by the United States 
     before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Amounts Recovered.--Any amount recovered by the United 
     States under subsection (a) shall be available, subject to 
     authorization and appropriations Acts, to enhance childhood 
     lead poisoning prevention and treatment activities, including 
     lead hazard evaluation and control.
       (c) Third Party Defined.--In this section, the term ``third 
     party'' means any manufacturer of lead or lead compound for 
     use in paint or any trade association that represents such a 
     manufacturer.
       (d) Statute of Limitations.--No action may be brought under 
     this section more than 6 years after the later of--
       (1) the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the date on which the United States incurs the expense.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1822. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to require that group and individual health insurance coverage 
and group health plans provide coverage for treatment of a minor 
child's congenital or developmental deformity or disorder due to 
trauma, infection, tumor, or disease; to the Committee on Finance.


            treatment of children's deformities act of 1999

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to address the growing problem of 
HMOs denying insurance coverage for reconstructive surgery for children 
suffering from physical defects and deformities. This legislation would 
require medical plans to cover the medical procedures to reconstruct a 
child's appearance if they are born with abnormal structures of the 
body, including a cleft lip or palate.
  Today, approximately seven percent of American children are born with 
pediatric deformities and congenital defects such as cleft lip, cleft 
palate, missing limbs including ears, and other

[[Page 27436]]

facial deformities. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for 
insurance companies to label reconstructive procedures to correct these 
deformities as cosmetic surgery and deny coverage to help these 
children eradicate or reduce deformities and acquire a normal 
appearance.
  A recent survey of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive 
Surgeons indicated that over half the plastic surgeons questioned have 
had a pediatric patient in the last two years who has been denied, or 
experienced tremendous difficulty in obtaining, insurance coverage for 
reconstructive surgery.
  It is disgraceful that many insurance companies claim that medical 
services to restore to a child some semblance of a normal appearance 
are superfluous and merely for vanity or cosmetic purposes. My 
colleagues may be wondering how such a ludicrous and cruel argument can 
be made when these procedures are clearly reconstructive in nature. 
Helping a child born without ears or with a cleft so severe it extends 
to her hairline is not cosmetic surgery.
  The medical and developmental complications arise from these 
conditions are tremendous. Speech impediments, hearing difficulties and 
dental problems are a few of the physical side effects resulting from a 
child's physical deformity. In addition, the effect of a child's 
deformities on their personal development, confidence, and self-esteem 
and their future aspirations and achievements, is often very far 
reaching.
  A healthy self image is vitally important to develop self esteem and 
confidence. How people see themselves, and how others see them, helps 
determine how a person feels about himself and whether he has the 
strength to cope with difficult challenges, including the taunting of 
peers and disengagement from school activities. As parents, we want our 
children to be armed with a healthy self esteem and confidence. The 
best way to guarantee that happens is to help them develop a strong and 
healthy self image.
  At the same time, I recognize that we live in a society which places 
a high value on physical beauty and often unfairly uses it to measure a 
person's worth, ability or potential in society. It is unrealistic not 
to recognize the unfair obstacles facing children born with deformities 
if they are not provided access to medical services to help them attain 
a more normal physical appearance.
  Some of my colleagues may know that my daughter, Bridget, whom Cindy 
and I adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, was born 
with a severe cleft. We are fortunate to have had the means and 
opportunities to provide the expert medical care necessary to help 
Bridget physically and emotionally. However, we, too, encountered 
numerous obstacles and denials by our insurance providers who did not 
believe that Bridget's medical treatment was necessary. Fortunately, 
Cindy and I were able to afford the reconstructive services Bridget 
needed, despite denials by our health plan. Most hard-working American 
families are not so fortunate. That is why I am introducing this 
important bill to assist all American children.
  This is not a new mandate that could cause health care premiums to 
escalate. What I am proposing simply prohibits plans from frivolously 
ruling that substantial, medically needed reconstructive surgeon for 
children to obtain a relatively normal appearance is cosmetic and 
refusing to pay for the procedures. This bill ensures that all children 
are afforded an opportunity to lead a more normal life and realize 
their full potential.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1822

       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 ``Treatment of Children's 
     Deformities Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF MINOR CHILD'S CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL 
                   DEFORMITY OR DISORDER.

       (a) Group Health Plans.--
       (1) Public health service act amendments.--
       (A) In general.--Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 2707. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MINOR CHILD'S 
                   CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DEFORMITY OR 
                   DISORDER.

       ``(a) Requirements for Reconstructive Surgery.--
       ``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, 
     that provides coverage for surgical benefits shall provide 
     coverage for outpatient and inpatient diagnosis and treatment 
     of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, 
     disease, or injury. A minor child shall include any 
     individual up to 21 years of age.
       ``(2) Requirements.--Any coverage provided under paragraph 
     (1) shall be subject to pre-authorization or pre-
     certification as required by the plan or issuer, and such 
     coverage shall include any surgical treatment which, in the 
     opinion of the treating physician, is medically necessary to 
     approximate a normal appearance.
       ``(3) Treatment defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `treatment' 
     includes reconstructive surgical procedures (procedures that 
     are generally performed to improve function, but may also be 
     performed to approximate a normal appearance) that are 
     performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by 
     congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, 
     infection, tumors, or disease, including--
       ``(i) procedures that do not materially affect the function 
     of the body part being treated; and
       ``(ii) procedures for secondary conditions and follow-up 
     treatment.
       ``(B) Exception.--Such term does not include cosmetic 
     surgery performed to reshape normal structures of the body to 
     improve appearance or self-esteem.
       ``(b) Notice.--A group health plan under this part shall 
     comply with the notice requirement under section 713(b) of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with 
     respect to the requirements of this section as if such 
     section applied to such plan.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 2723(c) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-23(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 2704'' and inserting ``sections 2704 and 
     2707''.
       (2) ERISA amendments.--
       (A) In general.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title 
     I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 714. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MINOR CHILD'S 
                   CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DEFORMITY OR 
                   DISORDER.

       ``(a) Requirements for Reconstructive Surgery.--
       ``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, 
     that provides coverage for surgical benefits shall provide 
     coverage for outpatient and inpatient diagnosis and treatment 
     of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, 
     disease, or injury. A minor child shall include any 
     individual up to 21 years of age.
       ``(2) Requirements.--Any coverage provided under paragraph 
     (1) shall be subject to pre-authorization or pre-
     certification as required by the plan or issuer, and such 
     coverage shall include any surgical treatment which, in the 
     opinion of the treating physician, is medically necessary to 
     approximate a normal appearance.
       ``(3) Treatment defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `treatment' 
     includes reconstructive surgical procedures (procedures that 
     are generally performed to improve function, but may also be 
     performed to approximate a normal appearance) that are 
     performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by 
     congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, 
     infection, tumors, or disease, including--
       ``(i) procedures that do not materially affect the function 
     of the body part being treated; and
       ``(ii) procedures for secondary conditions and follow-up 
     treatment.
       ``(B) Exception.--Such term does not include cosmetic 
     surgery performed to reshape normal structures of the body to 
     improve appearance or self-esteem.
       ``(b) Notice Under Group Health Plan.--The imposition of 
     the requirements of this section shall be treated as a 
     material modification in the terms of the plan described in 
     section 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring notice of such 
     requirements under the plan; except that the summary 
     description required to be provided under the last sentence 
     of section 104(b)(1) with respect to such modification shall 
     be provided by not later than 60 days after the first day of 
     the first plan year in which such requirements apply.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Section 731(c) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections 711 and 
     714''.
       (ii) Section 732(a) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191a(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections 711 and 
     714''.

[[Page 27437]]

       (iii) The table of contents in section 1 of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001) is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 713 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 714. Standards relating to benefits for minor child's congenital 
              or developmental deformity or disorder.''.

       (3) Internal revenue code amendments.--Subchapter B of 
     chapter 100 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) in the table of sections, by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 9812 the following new item:

``Sec. 9813. Standards relating to benefits for minor child's 
              congenital or developmental deformity or disorder.''; and

       (B) by inserting after section 9812 the following:

     ``SEC. 9813. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MINOR CHILD'S 
                   CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DEFORMITY OR 
                   DISORDER.

       ``(a) Requirements for Reconstructive Surgery.--
       ``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, 
     that provides coverage for surgical benefits shall provide 
     coverage for outpatient and inpatient diagnosis and treatment 
     of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, 
     disease, or injury. A minor child shall include any 
     individual up to 21 years of age.
       ``(2) Requirements.--Any coverage provided under paragraph 
     (1) shall be subject to pre-authorization or pre-
     certification as required by the plan or issuer, and such 
     coverage shall include any surgical treatment which, in the 
     opinion of the treating physician, is medically necessary to 
     approximate a normal appearance.
       ``(3) Treatment defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `treatment' 
     includes reconstructive surgical procedures (procedures that 
     are generally performed to improve function, but may also be 
     performed to approximate a normal appearance) that are 
     performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by 
     congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, 
     infection, tumors, or disease, including--
       ``(i) procedures that do not materially affect the function 
     of the body part being treated; and
       ``(ii) procedures for secondary conditions and follow-up 
     treatment.
       ``(B) Exception.--Such term does not include cosmetic 
     surgery performed to reshape normal structures of the body to 
     improve appearance or self-esteem.''.
       (b) Individual Health Insurance.--
       (1) In general.--Part B of title XXVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 2752 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 2753. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MINOR CHILD'S 
                   CONGENITAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DEFORMITY OR 
                   DISORDER.

       ``(a) Requirements for Reconstructive Surgery.--
       ``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, 
     that provides coverage for surgical benefits shall provide 
     coverage for outpatient and inpatient diagnosis and treatment 
     of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, 
     disease, or injury. A minor child shall include any 
     individual up to 21 years of age.
       ``(2) Requirements.--Any coverage provided under paragraph 
     (1) shall be subject to pre-authorization or pre-
     certification as required by the plan or issuer, and such 
     coverage shall include any surgical treatment which, in the 
     opinion of the treating physician, is medically necessary to 
     approximate a normal appearance.
       ``(3) Treatment defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `treatment' 
     includes reconstructive surgical procedures (procedures that 
     are generally performed to improve function, but may also be 
     performed to approximate a normal appearance) that are 
     performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by 
     congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, 
     infection, tumors, or disease, including--
       ``(i) procedures that do not materially affect the function 
     of the body part being treated; and
       ``(ii) procedures for secondary conditions and follow-up 
     treatment.
       ``(B) Exception.--Such term does not include cosmetic 
     surgery performed to reshape normal structures of the body to 
     improve appearance or self-esteem.
       ``(b) Notice.--A health insurance issuer under this part 
     shall comply with the notice requirement under section 714(b) 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with 
     respect to the requirements referred to in subsection (a) as 
     if such section applied to such issuer and such issuer were a 
     group health plan.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 2762(b)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-62(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 2751'' and inserting ``sections 2751 and 
     2753''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Group market.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to group health plans for plan years 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2000.
       (2) Individual market.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (b) shall apply with respect to health insurance coverage 
     offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or operated in the 
     individual market on or after such date.
       (d) Coordinated Regulations.--Section 104(1) of Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is 
     amended by striking ``this subtitle (and the amendments made 
     by this subtitle and section 401)'' and inserting ``the 
     provisions of part 7 of subtitle B of title I of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the provisions of 
     parts A and C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service 
     Act, and chapter 100 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWine (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. 
        Dodd):
  S. 1823. A bill to revise and extend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
and Communities Act of 1994; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


           THE SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITIES ACT

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is no secret that drugs and violence 
destroy lives and families. They also can destroy entire neighborhoods 
and communities. More and more, our young people--our children--are 
being exposed to the evils of drugs and the dangers of violence. That 
is why I am introducing legislation today, along with my colleagues 
Senators Dodd and Murray, that would reauthorize the Safe and Drug Free 
Schools program.
  This program funds a wide range of drug education and prevention 
activities. Our bill, which was drafted with the assistance of 
community anti-drug organization representatives, would give states 
greater flexibility on targeting assistance to schools in need; 
increase accountability measures to ensure that assistance is targeted 
to programs that work; and improve coordination of Safe and Drug Free 
programs with other community-based anti-drug programs.
  Mr. President, I have dedicated a great deal of time, both in the 
House and the Senate, to fighting illegal drug use in this country. Way 
back in 1990, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I was on the 
National Commission on Drug Free Schools. From my experience on this 
Commission, and through my work on drug prevention when I was 
Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, I learned that school-based prevention 
efforts must be coordinated and consistent during a child's school 
years. Programs must not have gaps that leave our children vulnerable 
to the lure of drugs.
  Throughout my efforts, I always have emphasized the importance of a 
balanced attack against drug use. We must win the fight against people 
who manufacture and grow drugs, we must put a stop to those who 
transport illegal drugs into, and through, this country, and we must 
fight against the dealers who their trade drugs on our streets and yes, 
even in our schools.
  There are many fronts in the important battle against drugs. The Safe 
and Drug Free Schools program is one area where I think we can improve 
our efforts. I believe we should continue the Safe and Drug Free 
Schools Program, but increase the accountability of federally funded 
programs and focus limited resources on programs that demonstrate an 
actual reduction in drug use. We must provide parents, schools, and 
local communities with the resources and flexibility they need to 
reduce drug use among kids.
  Every child deserves to live and go to school in a drug and violence-
free community. Our bill helps ensure that our children have this 
opportunity. Congress first passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act--the 
precursor to the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act--in 
1986. This legislation was the product of an aggressive, ambitious, and 
comprehensive anti-drug effort, which contributed to a 25% overall 
reduction in adolescent drug use from 1988 to 1992. Unfortunately, over 
the course of this decade, much of that success was lost. Youth drug 
use increased dramatically, including an 80% increase in marijuana use 
by high school seniors, an 80% increase in cocaine use, and a 100% 
increase in heroin use. We

[[Page 27438]]

must reverse this trend. We have an obligation to our kids to reverse 
this trend.
  I believe that our children's disturbing acceptance and 
experimentation of life-destroying drugs is due in large part to the 
Administration's national anti-drug strategy, which has been neither 
balanced nor comprehensive. Reinvesting in an improved Safe and Drug 
Free Schools and Communities program is a critical part of restoring 
effectiveness in and purpose to our national drug policy. Our 
legislation would be a major assault against drugs and violence in our 
schools and communities, by coordinating school-based programs with the 
broader community anti-drug effort.
  Children spend more time at school than at any single place. A 
quality education starts with a quality educational environment. 
Congress can show its commitment to this goal by continuing--and 
improving--our investment in the Safe and Drug Free Schools and 
Communities Program. Specifically, our bill would increase the 
accountability within the program and ensure that only effective, 
researched-based programs receive federal funding. Also, it would 
provide States and Governors with greater flexibility in targeting 
their grants to prevent youth violence and drug use. Each state has 
unique drug prevention challenges and this bill provides the states 
with the flexibility to target funds to all of their schools, focus on 
those schools with the greatest drug/violence problems, or a 
combination of these two groups.
  Our bill would increase community participation in the development 
and implementation of drug and violence prevention programs. Drug abuse 
and violence among young people is a community problem and requires a 
community-based solution. That's why when we drafted this bill, we 
worked closely with the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America. 
Thanks to their input, this bill ensures that the entire community is 
involved in the creation and execution of programs to fight youth drug 
abuse and violence. It would maintain a viable program for all schools 
willing to conduct research-based violence and drug abuse prevention 
programs.
  Mr. President, the threat of violence--and the reality of drug 
abuse--in our schools are all too real. If we get to our kids before 
the drug dealers do--if we have a policy of zero tolerance on drugs--
America's children have a chance. I believe that the Safe and Drug Free 
Schools program empowers America's families and teachers with the 
information, training, and resources they need to help our children 
resist the temptation of drugs.
  Over the coming months, we will be reauthorizing the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. The Safe and Drug Free is an important part of 
that legislation. I look forward to working on this bill and making 
this country's schools safer and drug free for our kids.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1823

       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 ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
     and Communities Reauthorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 
                   ACT OF 1965.

       Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

         ``TITLE IV--SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

     ``SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `Safe and Drug-Free 
     Schools and Communities Act of 1994'.

     ``SEC. 4002. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Every student should attend a school in a drug- and 
     violence-free learning environment.
       ``(2) The widespread illegal use of alcohol and drugs among 
     the Nation's secondary school students, and increasingly by 
     students in elementary schools as well, constitutes a grave 
     threat to such students' physical and mental well-being, and 
     significantly impedes the learning process. For example, data 
     show that students who drink tend to receive lower grades and 
     are more likely to miss school because of illness than 
     students who do not drink.
       ``(3) Drug and violence prevention programs are essential 
     components of a comprehensive strategy to promote school 
     safety, youth development, positive school outcomes, and to 
     reduce the demand for and illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and 
     drugs throughout the Nation. Schools, local organizations, 
     parents, students, and communities throughout the Nation have 
     a special responsibility to work together to combat the 
     continuing epidemic of violence and illegal drug use and 
     should measure the success of their programs against clearly 
     defined goals and objectives.
       ``(4) Drug and violence prevention programs are most 
     effective when implemented within a research-based, drug and 
     violence prevention framework of proven effectiveness.
       ``(5) Research clearly shows that community contexts 
     contribute to substance abuse and violence.
       ``(6) Substance abuse and violence are intricately related 
     and must be dealt with in a holistic manner.
       ``(7) Research has documented that parental behavior and 
     environment directly influence a child's inclination to use 
     alcohol, tobacco or drugs.

     ``SEC. 4003. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this title is to support programs that 
     prevent violence in and around schools and prevent the 
     illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, involve parents, 
     and are coordinated with related Federal, State, school, and 
     community efforts and resources, through the provision of 
     Federal assistance to--
       ``(1) States for grants to local educational agencies and 
     educational service agencies and consortia of such agencies 
     to establish, operate, and improve local programs of school 
     drug and violence prevention, early intervention, 
     rehabilitation referral, and education in elementary and 
     secondary schools (including intermediate and junior high 
     schools);
       ``(2) States for grants to, and contracts with, community-
     based organizations and other public and private nonprofit 
     agencies and organizations for programs of drug and violence 
     prevention including community mobilization, early 
     intervention, rehabilitation referral, and education;
       ``(3) States for grants to local educational agencies and 
     educational service agencies and consortia for the 
     development and implementation of policies that set clear and 
     appropriate standards regarding the illegal use of alcohol, 
     tobacco and drugs, and for violent behavior.
       ``(4) States for development, training, technical 
     assistance, and coordination activities;
       ``(5) public and private nonprofit organizations to provide 
     technical assistance, conduct training, demonstrations, and 
     evaluation, and to provide supplementary services and 
     community mobilization activities for the prevention of drug 
     use and violence among students and youth; and
       ``(6) institutions of higher education to establish, 
     operate, expand, and improve programs of school drug and 
     violence prevention, education, and rehabilitation referral 
     for students enrolled in colleges and universities.

     ``SEC. 4004. FUNDING.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(1) $700,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years, 
     for State grants under subpart 1 of part A;
       ``(2) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years, 
     for national programs under subpart 2 of part A; and
       ``(3) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years, 
     for the National Coordinator Initiative under section 4122.

    ``PART A--STATE GRANTS FOR DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS

  ``Subpart 1--State Grants for Drug and Violence Prevention Programs

     ``SEC. 4011. RESERVATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS.

       ``(a) Reservations.--From the amount made available under 
     section 4004(1) to carry out this subpart for each fiscal 
     year, the Secretary--
       ``(1) shall reserve 1 percent of such amount for grants 
     under this subpart to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin 
     Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, to be allotted in accordance with the Secretary's 
     determination of their respective needs;
       ``(2) shall reserve 1 percent of such amount for the 
     Secretary of the Interior to carry out programs under this 
     part for Indian youth;
       ``(3) may reserve not more than $1,000,000 for the national 
     impact evaluation required by section 4117(a); and
       ``(4) shall reserve 0.2 percent of such amount for programs 
     for Native Hawaiians under section 4118.
       ``(b) State Allotments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall, for each fiscal year, allocate among the 
     States--

[[Page 27439]]

       ``(A) one-half of the remainder not reserved under 
     subsection (a) according to the ratio between the school-aged 
     population of each State and the school-aged population of 
     all the States; and
       ``(B) one-half of such remainder according to the ratio 
     between the amount each State received under part A of title 
     I for the preceding year and the sum of such amounts received 
     by all the States.
       ``(2) Minimum.--For any fiscal year, no State shall be 
     allotted under this subsection an amount that is less than 
     one-half of 1 percent of the total amount allotted to all the 
     States under this subsection.
       ``(3) Reallotment.--The Secretary may reallot any amount of 
     any allotment to a State if the Secretary determines that the 
     State will be unable to use such amount within 2 years of 
     such allotment. Such reallotments shall be made on the same 
     basis as allotments are made under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico.
       ``(B) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' includes educational service agencies and 
     consortia of such agencies.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Amounts appropriated under this section 
     for programs under this subpart shall not be used to carry 
     out national programs under subpart 2.

     ``SEC. 4112. STATE APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--In order to receive an allotment under 
     section 4111 for any fiscal year, a State shall submit to the 
     Secretary, at such time as the Secretary may require, an 
     application that--
       ``(1) contains a comprehensive plan for the use of funds by 
     the State educational agency and the chief executive officer 
     to provide safe, orderly, and drug-free schools and 
     communities;
       ``(2) contains the results of the State's needs assessment 
     for drug and violence prevention programs, which shall be 
     based on the results of on-going State evaluation activities, 
     including data on the incidence and prevalence, age of onset, 
     perception of health risk, and perception of social 
     disapproval of drug use and violence by youth in schools and 
     communities and the prevalence of risk or protective factors, 
     buffers or assets or other research-based variables in the 
     school and community;
       ``(3) contains assurances that the sections of the 
     application concerning the funds provided to the chief 
     executive officer and the State educational agency were 
     developed together, with each such officer or State 
     representative, in consultation and coordination with 
     appropriate State officials and others, including the chief 
     State school officer, the chief executive officer, the head 
     of the State alcohol and drug abuse agency, the heads of the 
     State health and mental health agencies, the head of the 
     State criminal justice planning agency, the head of the State 
     child welfare agency, the head of the State board of 
     education, or their designees, and representatives of 
     parents, students, and community-based organizations;
       ``(4) contains an assurance that the State will cooperate 
     with, and assist, the Secretary in conducting a national 
     impact evaluation of programs required by section 4117(a);
       ``(5) contains assurances that the State education agency 
     and the Governor will develop their respective applications 
     in consultation with an advisory council that includes, to 
     the extent practicable, representatives from school 
     districts, businesses, parent organizations, youth, teachers, 
     administrators, pupil services personnel, private schools, 
     appropriate State agencies, community-based organization, the 
     medical profession, law enforcement, the faith community and 
     other groups with interest and expertise in alcohol, tobacco, 
     drug, and violence prevention;
       ``(6) contains assurances that the State education agency 
     and the Governor involve the representatives described in 
     paragraph (4), on an ongoing basis, to review program 
     evaluations and other relevant material and make 
     recommendations to the State education agency and the 
     Governor on how to improve their respective alcohol, tobacco, 
     drug, and violence prevention programs;
       ``(7) contains a list of the State's results-based 
     performance measures for drug and violence prevention, that 
     shall--
       ``(A) be focused on student behavior and attitudes and be 
     derived from the needs assessment;
       ``(B) include targets and due dates for the attainment of 
     such performance measures; and
       ``(C) include a description of the procedures that the 
     State will use to inform local educational agencies of such 
     performance measures for assessing and publicly reporting 
     progress toward meeting such measures or revising them as 
     needed; and
       ``(8) includes any other information the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(b) State Educational Agency Funds.--A State's 
     application under this section shall also contain a 
     comprehensive plan for the use of funds under section 4113(a) 
     by the State educational agency that includes--
       ``(1) a plan for monitoring the implementation of, and 
     providing technical assistance regarding, the drug and 
     violence prevention programs conducted by local educational 
     agencies in accordance with section 4116
       ``(2) a description of how the State educational agency 
     will use funds under section 4113(b);
       ``(3) a description of how the State educational agency 
     will coordinate such agency's activities under this subpart 
     with the chief executive officer's drug and violence 
     prevention programs under this subpart and with the 
     prevention efforts of other State agencies; and
       ``(4) a description of the procedures the State educational 
     agency will use to review applications from and allocate 
     funding to local educational agencies under section 4115.
       ``(c) Governor's Funds.--A State's application under this 
     section shall also contain a comprehensive plan for the use 
     of funds under section 4114(a) by the chief executive officer 
     that includes--
       ``(1) a description of how the chief executive officer will 
     coordinate such officer's activities under this part with the 
     State educational agency and other State agencies and 
     organizations involved with drug and violence prevention 
     efforts;
       ``(2) a description of how funds reserved under section 
     4114(a) will be used so as not to duplicate the efforts of 
     the State educational agency and local educational agencies 
     with regard to the provision of school-based prevention 
     efforts and services and how those funds will be used to 
     serve populations not normally served by the State 
     educational agency, such as school dropouts and youth in 
     detention centers;
       ``(3) a description of how the chief executive officer will 
     award funds under section 4114(a) and a plan for monitoring 
     the performance of, and providing technical assistance to, 
     recipients of such funds;
       ``(4) a description of the special outreach activities that 
     will be carried out to maximize the participation of 
     community-based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness 
     which provide services in low-income communities; and
       ``(5) a description of how funds will be used to support 
     community-wide comprehensive drug and violence prevention 
     planning and community mobilization activities.
       ``(d) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall use a peer review 
     process in reviewing State applications under this section.
       ``(e) Interim Application.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provisions of this section, a State may submit for fiscal 
     year 2000 a 1-year interim application and plan for the use 
     of funds under this subpart that are consistent with the 
     requirements of this section and contain such information as 
     the Secretary may specify in regulations. The purpose of such 
     interim application and plan shall be to afford the State the 
     opportunity to fully develop and review such State's 
     application and comprehensive plan otherwise required by this 
     section. A State may not receive a grant under this subpart 
     for a fiscal year subsequent to fiscal year 2000 unless the 
     Secretary has approved such State's application and 
     comprehensive plan in accordance with this subpart.

     ``SEC. 4113. STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     amount equal to 80 percent of the total amount allocated to a 
     State under section 4111 for each fiscal year shall be used 
     by the State educational agency and its local educational 
     agencies for drug and violence prevention activities in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Exception.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a State has, on or before January 1, 
     1994, established an independent State agency for the purpose 
     of administering all of the funds described in section 5121 
     of this Act (as such section was in effect on the day 
     preceding the date of the enactment of the Improving 
     America's Schools Act of 1994), then--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 80 percent of the total amount 
     allocated to such State under section 4111 for each fiscal 
     year shall be used by the State educational agency and its 
     local educational agencies for drug and violence prevention 
     activities in accordance with this section; and
       ``(ii) an amount equal to 20 percent of such total amount 
     shall be used by such independent State agency for drug and 
     violence prevention activities in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(B) Administrative costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
     amount reserved under subparagraph (A)(ii) may be used for 
     administrative costs of the independent State agency incurred 
     in carrying out the activities described in such 
     subparagraph.
       ``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `independent State agency' means an independent agency with a 
     board of directors or a cabinet level agency whose chief 
     executive officer is appointed by the chief executive officer 
     of the State and confirmed with the advice and consent of the 
     senate of such State.
       ``(b) State Level Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall use not 
     more than 5 percent of the amount available under subsection 
     (a) for activities such as--

[[Page 27440]]

       ``(A) training and technical assistance concerning drug and 
     violence prevention for local educational agencies and 
     educational service agencies, including teachers, 
     administrators, coaches and athletic directors, other staff, 
     parents, students, community leaders, health service 
     providers, local law enforcement officials, and judicial 
     officials;
       ``(B) the development, identification, dissemination, and 
     evaluation of the most readily available, accurate, and up-
     to-date curriculum materials (including videotapes, software, 
     and other technology-based learning resources), for 
     consideration by local educational agencies;
       ``(C) making available to local educational agencies cost 
     effective programs for youth violence and drug abuse 
     prevention;
       ``(D) demonstration projects in drug and violence 
     prevention;
       ``(E) training, technical assistance, and demonstration 
     projects to address violence associated with prejudice and 
     intolerance;
       ``(F) financial assistance to enhance resources available 
     for drug and violence prevention in areas serving large 
     numbers of economically disadvantaged children or sparsely 
     populated areas, or to meet other special needs consistent 
     with the purposes of this subpart; and
       ``(G) the evaluation of activities carried out within the 
     State under this part.
       ``(2) Special rule.--A State educational agency may carry 
     out activities under this subsection directly, or through 
     grants or contracts.
       ``(c) State Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State educational agency may use not 
     more than 4 percent of the amount reserved under subsection 
     (a) for the administrative costs of carrying out its 
     responsibilities under this part.
       ``(2) Uniform management information and reporting 
     system.--In carrying out its responsibilities under this 
     part, a State shall implement a uniform management 
     information and reporting system that includes information on 
     the types of curricula, programs and services provided by the 
     State, Governor, local education agencies, and other 
     recipients of funds under this title.
       ``(d) Local Educational Agency Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall 
     distribute not less than 91 percent of the amount made 
     available under subsection (a) for each fiscal year to local 
     educational agencies in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Distribution.--A State educational agency shall 
     distribute amounts under paragraph (1) in accordance with any 
     one of the following subparagraphs:
       ``(A) Enrollment and baseline approach.--Of the amount 
     distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency 
     shall distribute--
       ``(i) at least 70 percent of such amount to local 
     educational agencies, based on the relative enrollments in 
     public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools 
     within the boundaries of such agencies; and
       ``(ii) not to exceed 30 percent of any amounts remaining 
     after amounts are distributed under clause (i) to each local 
     educational agency in an amount determined appropriate by the 
     State education agency.
       ``(B) Enrollment and need approach.--Of the amount 
     distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency 
     shall distribute--
       ``(i) at least 70 percent of such amount in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A)(i); and
       ``(ii) not to exceed 30 percent of any amounts remaining 
     after amounts are distributed under clause (i) to local 
     educational agencies that the State education agency 
     determines have the greatest need for additional funds to 
     carry out drug and violence prevention programs authorized by 
     this subpart.
       ``(C) Enrollment and combination approach.--Of the amount 
     distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency 
     shall distribute
       ``(i) at least 70 percent of such amount to local 
     educational agencies, based on the relative enrollments in 
     public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools 
     within the boundaries of such agencies; and
       ``(ii) not to exceed 30 percent of any amounts remaining 
     after amounts are distributed under clause (i)--

       ``(I) to each local educational agency in an amount 
     determined appropriate by the State education agency; or
       ``(II) to local educational agencies that the State 
     education agency determines have the greatest need for 
     additional funds to carry out drug and violence prevention 
     programs authorized by this subpart.

       ``(D) Competitive and need approach.--Of the amount 
     distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency 
     shall distribute
       ``(i) not to exceed 70 percent of such amount to local 
     educational agencies that the State agency determines, 
     through a competitive process, have the greatest need for 
     funds to carry out drug and violence prevention programs 
     based on criteria established by the State agency and 
     authorized under this subpart; and
       ``(ii) at least 30 percent of any amounts remaining after 
     amounts are distributed under clause (i) to local education 
     agencies that the State agency determines have a need for 
     additional funds to carry out the program authorized under 
     this subpart.
       ``(3) Consideration of objective data.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (2), in determining which local educational 
     agencies have the greatest need for funds, the State 
     educational agency shall consider objective data which may 
     include--
       ``(A) high rates of alcohol or drug use among youth;
       ``(B) high rates of victimization of youth by violence and 
     crime;
       ``(C) high rates of arrests and convictions of youth for 
     violent or drug- or alcohol-related crime;
       ``(D) the extent of illegal gang activity;
       ``(E) high incidence of violence associated with prejudice 
     and intolerance;
       ``(F) high rates of referrals of youths to drug and alcohol 
     abuse treatment and rehabilitation programs;
       ``(G) high rates of referrals of youths to juvenile court;
       ``(H) high rates of expulsions and suspensions of students 
     from schools;
       ``(I) high rates of reported cases of child abuse and 
     domestic violence;
       ``(J) high rates of drug related emergencies or deaths; and
       ``(K) local fiscal capacity to fund drug use and violence 
     prevention programs without Federal assistance.
       ``(e) Reallocation of Funds.--If a local educational agency 
     chooses not to apply to receive the amount allocated to such 
     agency under subsection (d), or if such agency's application 
     under section 4115 is disapproved by the State educational 
     agency, the State educational agency shall reallocate such 
     amount to one or more of the local educational agencies.
       ``(f) Return of Funds to State Educational Agency; 
     Reallocation.--
       ``(1) Return.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), upon 
     the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date 
     that a local educational agency or educational service agency 
     under this title receives its allocation under this title--
       ``(A) such agency shall return to the State educational 
     agency any funds from such allocation that remain 
     unobligated; and
       ``(B) the State educational agency shall reallocate any 
     such amount to local educational agencies or educational 
     service agencies that have plans for using such amount for 
     programs or activities on a timely basis.
       ``(2) Reallocation.--In any fiscal year, a local 
     educational agency, may retain for obligation in the 
     succeeding fiscal year--
       ``(A) an amount equal to not more than 25 percent of the 
     allocation it receives under this title for such fiscal year; 
     or
       ``(B) upon a demonstration of good cause by such agency or 
     consortium, a greater amount approved by the State 
     educational agency.

     ``SEC. 4114. GOVERNOR'S PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amount equal to 20 percent of the 
     total amount allocated to a State under section 4111(1) for 
     each fiscal year shall be used by the chief executive officer 
     of such State for drug and violence prevention programs and 
     activities in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Administrative costs.--A chief executive officer may 
     use not more than 5 percent of the 20 percent of the total 
     amount described in paragraph (1) for the administrative 
     costs incurred in carrying out the duties of such officer 
     under this section. The chief executive officer of a State 
     may use amounts under this paragraph to award grants to 
     State, county, or local law enforcement agencies, including 
     district attorneys, in consultation with local education 
     agencies or community-based agencies, for the purposes of 
     carrying out drug abuse and violence prevention activities.
       ``(b) Programs Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--A chief executive officer shall use 
     funds made available under subsection (a)(1) for grants to or 
     contracts with parent groups, schools, community action and 
     job training agencies, community-based organizations, 
     community anti-drug coalitions, law enforcement education 
     partnerships, and other public entities and private nonprofit 
     organizations and consortia thereof. In making such grants 
     and contracts, a chief executive officer shall give priority 
     to programs and activities described in subsection (c) for--
       ``(A) children and youth who are not normally served by 
     State or local educational agencies; or
       ``(B) populations that need special services or additional 
     resources (such as preschoolers, youth in juvenile detention 
     facilities, runaway or homeless children and youth, pregnant 
     and parenting teenagers, and school dropouts).
       ``(2) Peer review.--Grants or contracts awarded under this 
     subsection shall be subject to a peer review process.
       ``(c) Authorized Activities.--Grants and contracts under 
     subsection (b) shall be used to carry out the comprehensive 
     State plan as required under section 4112(a)(1) through 
     programs and activities such as--
       ``(1) disseminating information about drug and violence 
     prevention;

[[Page 27441]]

       ``(2) training parents, law enforcement officials, judicial 
     officials, social service providers, health service providers 
     and community leaders about drug and violence prevention, 
     comprehensive health education, early intervention, pupil 
     services, or rehabilitation referral;
       ``(3) developing and implementing comprehensive, community-
     based drug and violence prevention programs that link 
     community resources with schools and integrate services 
     involving education, vocational and job skills training and 
     placement, law enforcement, health, mental health, community 
     service, mentoring, and other appropriate services;
       ``(4) planning and implementing drug and violence 
     prevention activities that coordinate the efforts of State 
     agencies with efforts of the State educational agency and its 
     local educational agencies;
       ``(5) activities to protect students traveling to and from 
     school;
       ``(6) before-and-after school recreational, instructional, 
     cultural, and artistic programs that encourage drug- and 
     violence-free lifestyles;
       ``(7) activities that promote the awareness of and 
     sensitivity to alternatives to violence through courses of 
     study that include related issues of intolerance and hatred 
     in history;
       ``(8) developing and implementing activities to prevent and 
     reduce violence associated with prejudice and intolerance;
       ``(9) developing and implementing strategies to prevent 
     illegal gang activity;
       ``(10) coordinating and conducting school and community-
     wide violence and safety assessments and surveys;
       ``(11) service-learning projects that encourage drug- and 
     violence-free lifestyles;
       ``(12) evaluating programs and activities assisted under 
     this section;
       ``(13) developing and implementing community mobilization 
     activities to undertake environmental change strategies 
     related to substance abuse and violence; and
       ``(14) partnerships between local law enforcement agencies, 
     including district attorneys, and local education agencies or 
     community-based agencies.

     ``SEC. 4115. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     distribution under section 4113(d) for any fiscal year, a 
     local educational agency shall submit, at such time as the 
     State educational agency requires, an application to the 
     State educational agency for approval. Such an application 
     shall be amended, as necessary, to reflect changes in the 
     local educational agency's program.
       ``(2) Development.--
       ``(A) Consultation.--A local educational agency shall 
     develop its application under subsection (a)(1) in 
     consultation with a local or substate regional advisory 
     council that includes, to the extent possible, 
     representatives of local government, business, parents, 
     students, teachers, pupil services personnel, appropriate 
     State agencies, private schools, the medical profession, law 
     enforcement, community-based organizations, and other groups 
     with interest and expertise in drug and violence prevention.
       ``(B) Duties of advisory council.--In addition to assisting 
     the local educational agency to develop an application under 
     this section, the advisory council established or designated 
     under subparagraph (A) shall, on an ongoing basis--
       ``(i) disseminate information about drug and violence 
     prevention programs, projects, and activities conducted 
     within the boundaries of the local educational agency;
       ``(ii) advise the local educational agency regarding--

       ``(I) how best to coordinate such agency's activities under 
     this subpart with other related programs, projects, and 
     activities; and
       ``(II) the agencies that administer such programs, 
     projects, and activities; and

       ``(iii) review program evaluations and other relevant 
     material and make recommendations on an active and ongoing 
     basis to the local educational agency on how to improve such 
     agency's drug and violence prevention programs.
       ``(b) Contents of Applications.--An application under this 
     section shall contain--
       ``(1) an objective analysis of the current use (and 
     consequences of such use) of alcohol, tobacco, and 
     controlled, illegal, addictive or harmful substances as well 
     as the violence, safety, and discipline problems among 
     students who attend the schools of the applicant (including 
     private school students who participate in the applicant's 
     drug and violence prevention program) that is based on 
     ongoing local assessment or evaluation activities;
       ``(2) an analysis, based on data reasonably available at 
     the time, of the prevalence of risk or protective factors, 
     buffers or assets or other research-based variables in the 
     school and community;
       ``(3) a description of the research-based strategies and 
     programs, which shall be used to prevent or reduce drug use, 
     violence, or disruptive behavior, which shall include--
       ``(A) a specification of the objectively measurable goals, 
     objectives, and activities for the program, which may 
     include--
       ``(i) reductions in the use of alcohol, tobacco, and 
     illicit drugs and violence by youth;
       ``(ii) specific reductions in the prevalence of identified 
     risk factors; or
       ``(iii) specific increases in the prevalence of protective 
     factors, buffers, or assets if any have been identified;
       ``(B) a specification for how risk factors, if any, which 
     have been identified will be targeted through research-based 
     programs; and
       ``(C) a specification for how protective factors, buffers, 
     or assets, if any, will be targeted through research-based 
     programs;
       ``(4) a specification for the method or methods by which 
     measurements of program goals will be achieved;
       ``(5) a specification for how the evaluation of the 
     effectiveness of the prevention program will be assessed and 
     how the results will be used to refine, improve, and 
     strengthen the program;
       ``(6) an assurance that the applicant has, or the schools 
     to be served have, a comprehensive safe and drug-free schools 
     plan that includes--
       ``(A) appropriate and effective discipline policies that 
     prohibit disorderly conduct, the possession of firearms and 
     other weapons, and the illegal use, possession, distribution, 
     and sale of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs by students;
       ``(B) security procedures at school and while students are 
     on the way to and from school;
       ``(C) prevention activities that are designed to create and 
     maintain safe, disciplined, and drug-free environments; and
       ``(D) a crisis management plan for responding to violent or 
     traumatic incidents on school grounds; and
       ``(7) such other information and assurances as the State 
     educational agency may reasonably require.
       ``(c) Review of Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--In reviewing local applications under 
     this section, a State educational agency shall use a peer 
     review process or other methods of assuring the quality of 
     such applications.
       ``(2) Considerations.--
       ``(A) In general.--In determining whether to approve the 
     application of a local educational agency under this section, 
     a State educational agency shall consider the quality of the 
     local educational agency's comprehensive plan under 
     subsection (b)(6) and the extent to which the proposed plan 
     provides a thorough assessment of the substance abuse and 
     violence problem, uses objective data and the knowledge of a 
     wide range of community members, develops measurable goals 
     and objectives, and implements research-based programs that 
     have been shown to be effective and meet identified needs.
       ``(B) Disapproval.--A State educational agency may 
     disapprove a local educational agency application under this 
     section in whole or in part and may withhold, limit, or place 
     restrictions on the use of funds allotted to such a local 
     educational agency in a manner the State educational agency 
     determines will best promote the purposes of this part, 
     except that a local educational agency shall be afforded an 
     opportunity to appeal any such disapproval.

     ``SEC. 4116. LOCAL DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Program Requirements.--A local educational agency 
     shall use funds received under this subpart to adopt and 
     carry out a comprehensive drug and violence prevention 
     program which shall--
       ``(1) be designed, for all students and employees, to--
       ``(A) prevent the use, possession, and distribution of 
     tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs by students and to 
     prevent the illegal use, possession, and distribution of such 
     substances by employees;
       ``(B) prevent violence and promote school safety; and
       ``(C) create a disciplined environment conducive to 
     learning;
       ``(2) include activities to promote the involvement of 
     parents and coordination with community groups and agencies, 
     including the distribution of information about the local 
     educational agency's needs, goals, and programs under this 
     subpart;
       ``(3) implement activities which include--
       ``(A) a thorough assessment of the substance abuse violence 
     problem, using objective data and the knowledge of a wide 
     range of community members;
       ``(B) the development of measurable goals and objectives; 
     and
       ``(C) the implementation of research-based programs that 
     have been shown to be effective and meet identified goals;
       ``(4) implement prevention programming activities within 
     the context of a research-based prevention framework; and
       ``(5) include a description of the applicant's tobacco, 
     alcohol, and other drug policies.
       ``(b) Authorized Activities.--A comprehensive drug and 
     violence prevention program carried out under this subpart 
     may include--
       ``(1) age-appropriate, developmentally based drug 
     prevention and education programs for all students, from the 
     preschool level through grade 12, that address the legal, 
     social, personal and health consequences of the use of 
     illegal drugs, promote a sense of individual responsibility, 
     and provide information about effective techniques for 
     resisting peer pressure to use illegal drugs;

[[Page 27442]]

       ``(2) programs of drug prevention, comprehensive health 
     education, early intervention, pupil services, mentoring, or 
     rehabilitation referral, which emphasize students' sense of 
     individual responsibility and which may include--
       ``(A) the dissemination of information about drug 
     prevention;
       ``(B) the professional development of school personnel, 
     parents, students, law enforcement officials, judicial 
     officials, health service providers and community leaders in 
     prevention, education, early intervention, pupil services or 
     rehabilitation referral; and
       ``(C) the implementation of strategies, including 
     strategies to integrate the delivery of services from a 
     variety of providers, to combat illegal alcohol, tobacco and 
     drug use, such as--
       ``(i) family counseling;
       ``(ii) early intervention activities that prevent family 
     dysfunction, enhance school performance, and boost attachment 
     to school and family; and
       ``(iii) activities, such as community service and service-
     learning projects, that are designed to increase students' 
     sense of community;
       ``(3) age-appropriate, developmentally based violence 
     prevention and education programs for all students, from the 
     preschool level through grade 12, that address the legal, 
     health, personal, and social consequences of violent and 
     disruptive behavior, including sexual harassment and abuse, 
     and victimization associated with prejudice and intolerance, 
     and that include activities designed to help students develop 
     a sense of individual responsibility and respect for the 
     rights of others, and to resolve conflicts without violence, 
     or otherwise decrease the prevalence of risk factors or 
     increase the prevalence of protective factors, buffers, or 
     assets in the community;
       ``(4) violence prevention programs for school-aged youth, 
     which emphasize students' sense of individual responsibility 
     and may include--
       ``(A) the dissemination of information about school safety 
     and discipline;
       ``(B) the professional development of school personnel, 
     parents, students, law enforcement officials, judicial 
     officials, and community leaders in designing and 
     implementing strategies to prevent school violence;
       ``(C) the implementation of strategies, such as conflict 
     resolution and peer mediation, student outreach efforts 
     against violence, anti-crime youth councils (which work with 
     school and community-based organizations to discuss and 
     develop crime prevention strategies), and the use of 
     mentoring programs, to combat school violence and other forms 
     of disruptive behavior, such as sexual harassment and abuse; 
     and
       ``(D) the development and implementation of character 
     education programs, as a component of a comprehensive drug or 
     violence prevention program, that are tailored by 
     communities, parents and schools; and
       ``(E) comprehensive, community-wide strategies to prevent 
     or reduce illegal gang activities and drug use;
       ``(5) supporting `safe zones of passage' for students 
     between home and school through such measures as Drug- and 
     Weapon-Free School Zones, enhanced law enforcement, and 
     neighborhood patrols;
       ``(6) acquiring and installing metal detectors and hiring 
     security personnel;
       ``(7) professional development for teachers and other staff 
     and curricula that promote the awareness of and sensitivity 
     to alternatives to violence through courses of study that 
     include related issues of intolerance and hatred in history;
       ``(8) the promotion of before-and-after school 
     recreational, instructional, cultural, and artistic programs 
     in supervised community settings;
       ``(9) other research-based prevention programming that is--
       ``(A) effective in reducing the prevalence of alcohol, 
     tobacco or drug use, and violence in youth;
       ``(B) effective in reducing the prevalence of risk factors 
     predictive of increased alcohol, tobacco or drug use, and 
     violence; or
       ``(C) effective in increasing the prevalence of protective 
     factors, buffers, and assets predictive of decreased alcohol, 
     tobacco or drug use and violence among youth;
       ``(10) the collection of objective data used to assess 
     program needs, program implementation, or program success in 
     achieving program goals and objectives;
       ``(11) community involvement activities including community 
     rehabilitation;
       ``(12) parental involvement and training; and
       ``(13) the evaluation of any of the activities authorized 
     under this subsection.
       ``(c) Limitations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not more than 20 percent of the funds 
     made available to a local educational agency under this 
     subpart may be used to carry out the activities described in 
     paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(2) Special rule.--A local educational agency shall only 
     be able to use funds received under this subpart for 
     activities described in paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection 
     (b) if funding for such activities is not received from other 
     Federal agencies.
       ``(d) Administrative Provisions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provisions of law, any funds expended prior to July 1, 1995, 
     under part B of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 
     1986 (as in effect prior to enactment of the Improving 
     America's Schools Act) for the support of a comprehensive 
     school health program shall be deemed to have been authorized 
     by part B of such Act.

     ``SEC. 4117. EVALUATION AND REPORTING.

       ``(a) National Impact Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Biennial evaluation.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with the National Advisory Committee, shall conduct an 
     independent biennial evaluation of the national impact of 
     programs assisted under this subpart and of other recent and 
     new initiatives to combat violence in schools. The evaluation 
     shall report on--
       ``(A) whether funded community and local education agency 
     programs--
       ``(i) provided a thorough assessment of the substance abuse 
     and violence problem;
       ``(ii) used objective data and the knowledge of a wide 
     range of community members;
       ``(iii) developed measurable goals and objectives; and
       ``(iv) implemented a research-based program that has been 
     show to be effective and meet identified needs;
       ``(B) whether funded community and local education agency 
     programs have been designed and implemented in a manner that 
     specifically targets, if relevant to the program--
       ``(i) research-based variables that are predictive of drug 
     use or violence;
       ``(ii) risk factors that are predictive of an increased 
     likelihood that young people will use drugs, alcohol or 
     tobacco or engage in violence or drop out of school; or
       ``(iii) protective factors, buffers, or assets that are 
     known to protect children and youth from exposure to risk, 
     either by reducing the exposure to risk factors or by 
     changing the way the young person responds to risk, and to 
     increase the likelihood of positive youth development; and
       ``(C) whether funded community and local education agency 
     programs have appreciably reduced the level of drug, alcohol 
     and tobacco use and school violence and the presence of 
     firearms at schools.
       ``(2) Data collection.--The National Center for Education 
     Statistics shall collect data to determine the frequency, 
     seriousness, incidence and prevalence, age of onset, 
     perception of health risk, and perception of social 
     disapproval of drug use and violence in elementary and 
     secondary schools in the States. The Secretary shall collect 
     the data using, wherever appropriate, data submitted by the 
     States pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B).
       ``(3) Biennial Report.--Not later than January 1, 2002, and 
     every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     President and Congress a report on the findings of the 
     evaluation conducted under paragraph (1) together with the 
     data collected under paragraph (2).
       ``(b) State Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--By October 1, 2001, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the chief executive officer of the State, in 
     cooperation with the State educational agency, shall submit 
     to the Secretary a report--
       ``(A) on the implementation and outcomes of State programs 
     under section 4114 and section 4113(b) and local educational 
     agency programs under section 4113(d), as well as an 
     assessment of their effectiveness; and
       ``(B) on the State's progress toward attaining its goals 
     for drug and violence prevention under subsections (b)(1) and 
     (c)(1) of section 4112.
       ``(2) Special rule.--The report required by this subsection 
     shall be--
       ``(A) in the form specified by the Secretary;
       ``(B) based on the State's ongoing evaluation activities, 
     and shall include data on the incidence and prevalence, age 
     of onset, perception of health risk, and perception of social 
     disapproval of drug use and violence by youth in schools and 
     communities; and
       ``(C) made readily available to the public.
       ``(c) Local Educational Agency Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each local educational agency receiving 
     funds under this subpart shall submit to the State 
     educational agency such information that the State requires 
     to complete the State report required by subsection (b).
       ``(2) Availability.--Information under paragraph (1) shall 
     be made readily available to the public.
       ``(3) Provision of documentation.--Not later than January 1 
     of each year that a State is required to report under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide to the State 
     education agency all of the necessary documentation required 
     for compliance with this section.

     ``SEC. 4118. PROGRAMS FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS.

       ``(a) General Authority.--From the funds made available 
     pursuant to section 4111(a)(4) to carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall make grants to or enter into cooperative 
     agreements or contracts with organizations primarily serving 
     and representing Native Hawaiians which are recognized by the 
     Governor of the State of Hawaii to plan, conduct, and 
     administer programs, or portions thereof, which are 
     authorized by and consistent with the provisions of this 
     title for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.

[[Page 27443]]

       ``(b) Definition of Native Hawaiian.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term `Native Hawaiian' means any individual 
     any of whose ancestors were natives, prior to 1778, of the 
     area which now comprises the State of Hawaii.

                     ``Subpart 2--National Programs

     ``SEC. 4121. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--From funds made available to 
     carry out this subpart under section 4004(2), the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy, and the Attorney General, shall carry out programs to 
     prevent the illegal use of drugs and violence among, and 
     promote safety and discipline for, students at all 
     educational levels from preschool through the postsecondary 
     level. The Secretary shall carry out such programs directly, 
     or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with 
     public and private nonprofit organizations and individuals, 
     or through agreements with other Federal agencies, and shall 
     coordinate such programs with other appropriate Federal 
     activities. Such programs may include--
       ``(1) the development and demonstration of innovative 
     strategies for training school personnel, parents, and 
     members of the community, including the demonstration of 
     model preservice training programs for prospective school 
     personnel;
       ``(2) demonstrations and rigorous evaluations of innovative 
     approaches to drug and violence prevention;
       ``(3) the provision of information on drug abuse education 
     and prevention to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     for dissemination by the clearinghouse for alcohol and drug 
     abuse information established under section 501(d)(16) of the 
     Public Health Service Act;
       ``(4) the development of curricula related to child abuse 
     prevention and education and the training of personnel to 
     teach child abuse education and prevention to elementary and 
     secondary schoolchildren;
       ``(5) program evaluations in accordance with section 14701 
     that address issues not addressed under section 4117(a);
       ``(6) direct services to schools and school systems 
     afflicted with especially severe drug and violence problems 
     or to support crisis situations and appropriate response 
     efforts;
       ``(7) activities in communities designated as empowerment 
     zones or enterprise communities that will connect schools to 
     community-wide efforts to reduce drug and violence problems;
       ``(8) developing and disseminating drug and violence 
     prevention materials, including video-based projects and 
     model curricula;
       ``(9) developing and implementing a comprehensive violence 
     prevention strategy for schools and communities, that may 
     include conflict resolution, peer mediation, the teaching of 
     law and legal concepts, and other activities designed to stop 
     violence;
       ``(10) the implementation of innovative activities, such as 
     community service projects, designed to rebuild safe and 
     healthy neighborhoods and increase students' sense of 
     individual responsibility;
       ``(11) grants to noncommercial telecommunications entities 
     for the production and distribution of national video-based 
     projects that provide young people with models for conflict 
     resolution and responsible decisionmaking;
       ``(12) the development of education and training programs, 
     curricula, instructional materials, and professional training 
     and development for preventing and reducing the incidence of 
     crimes and conflicts motivated by hate in localities most 
     directly affected by hate crimes; and
       ``(13) other activities that meet unmet national needs 
     related to the purposes of this title.
       ``(b) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall use a peer review 
     process in reviewing applications for funds under this 
     section.

     ``SEC. 4122. NATIONAL COORDINATOR PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     establishment of a National Coordinator Program under which 
     the Secretary shall award grants to local education agencies 
     for the hiring of drug prevention and school safety program 
     coordinators.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     subsection (a) shall be used by local education agencies to 
     recruit, hire, and train individuals to serve as drug 
     prevention and school safety program coordinators in schools 
     with significant drug and school safety problems. Such 
     coordinators shall be responsible for developing, conducting, 
     and analyzing assessments of drug and crime problems at their 
     schools, and administering the safe and drug free grant 
     program at such schools.

     ``SEC. 4123. SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES 
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is hereby established an advisory 
     committee to be known as the `Safe and Drug Free Schools and 
     Communities Advisory Committee' (referred to in this section 
     as the `Advisory Committee') to--
       ``(A) consult with the Secretary under subsection (b);
       ``(B) coordinate Federal school- and community-based 
     substance abuse and violence prevention programs and reduce 
     duplicative research or services;
       ``(C) develop core data sets and evaluation protocols for 
     safe and drug free school- and community-based programs;
       ``(D) provide technical assistance and training for safe 
     and drug free school- and community-based programs;
       ``(E) provide for the diffusion of research-based safe and 
     drug free school- and community-based programs; and
       ``(F) review other regulations and standards developed 
     under this title.
       ``(2) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be 
     composed of representatives from--
       ``(A) the Department of Education,
       ``(B) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
       ``(C) the National Institute on Drug Abuse;
       ``(D) the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol 
     Abuse;
       ``(E) the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention;
       ``(F) the Center for Mental Health Services;
       ``(G) the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention;
       ``(H) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; and
       ``(I) State and local governments, including education 
     agencies.
       ``(3) Consultation.--In carrying out its duties under this 
     section, the Advisory Committee shall annually consult with 
     interested State and local coordinators of school- and 
     community-based substance abuse and violence prevention 
     programs and other interested groups.
       ``(b) Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--From funds made available to carry out 
     this subpart, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Advisory Committee, shall carry out research-based programs 
     to strengthen the accountability and effectiveness of the 
     State, Governor's, and national programs under this title.
       ``(2) Grants, contracts or cooperative agreements.--The 
     Secretary shall carry out paragraph (1) directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with public and 
     nonprofit private organizations and individuals or through 
     agreements with other Federal agencies.
       ``(3) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
     programs under this section with other appropriate Federal 
     activities.
       ``(4) Activities.--Activities that may be carried out under 
     programs funded under this section may include--
       ``(A) the provision of technical assistance and training, 
     in collaboration with other Federal agencies utilizing their 
     expertise and national and regional training systems, for 
     Governors, State education agencies and local education 
     agencies to support high quality, effective programs that--
       ``(i) provide a thorough assessment of the substance abuse 
     and violence problem;
       ``(ii) utilize objective data and the knowledge of a wide 
     range of community members;
       ``(iii) develop measurable goals and objectives; and
       ``(iv) implement research-based activities that have been 
     shown to be effective and that meet identified needs;
       ``(B) the provision of technical assistance and training to 
     foster program accountability;
       ``(C) the diffusion and dissemination of best practices and 
     programs;
       ``(D) the development of core data sets and evaluation 
     tools;
       ``(E) program evaluations;
       ``(F) the provision of information on drug abuse education 
     and prevention to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     for dissemination by the Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug 
     Abuse Information established under section 501(d)(16) of the 
     Public Health Service Act; and
       ``(G) other activities that meet unmet needs related to the 
     purposes of this title and that are undertaken in 
     consultation with the Advisory Committee.

     ``SEC. 4124. HATE CRIME PREVENTION.

       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--From funds made available to 
     carry out this subpart under section 4004(1) the Secretary 
     may make grants to local educational agencies and community-
     based organizations for the purpose of providing assistance 
     to localities most directly affected by hate crimes.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Program development.--Grants under this section may 
     be used to improve elementary and secondary educational 
     efforts, including--
       ``(A) development of education and training programs 
     designed to prevent and to reduce the incidence of crimes and 
     conflicts motivated by hate;
       ``(B) development of curricula for the purpose of improving 
     conflict or dispute resolution skills of students, teachers, 
     and administrators;
       ``(C) development and acquisition of equipment and 
     instructional materials to meet the needs of, or otherwise be 
     part of, hate crime or conflict programs; and
       ``(D) professional training and development for teachers 
     and administrators on the causes, effects, and resolutions of 
     hate crimes or hate-based conflicts.
       ``(2) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section for any fiscal year, a local 
     educational agency, or a

[[Page 27444]]

     local educational agency in conjunction with a community-
     based organization, shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary in such form and containing such information as the 
     office may reasonably require.
       ``(3) Requirements.--Each application under paragraph (2) 
     shall include--
       ``(A) a request for funds for the purposes described in 
     this section;
       ``(B) a description of the schools and communities to be 
     served by the grants; and
       ``(C) assurances that Federal funds received under this 
     section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
     Federal funds.
       ``(4) Comprehensive plan.--Each application shall include a 
     comprehensive plan that contains--
       ``(A) a description of the hate crime or conflict problems 
     within the schools or the community targeted for assistance;
       ``(B) a description of the program to be developed or 
     augmented by such Federal and matching funds;
       ``(C) assurances that such program or activity shall be 
     administered by or under the supervision of the applicant;
       ``(D) proper and efficient administration of such program; 
     and
       ``(E) fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may 
     be necessary to ensure prudent use, proper disbursement, and 
     accurate accounting of funds received under this section.
       ``(c) Award of Grants.--
       ``(1) Selection of recipients.--The Secretary shall 
     consider the incidence of crimes and conflicts motivated by 
     bias in the targeted schools and communities in awarding 
     grants under this section.
       ``(2) Geographic distribution.--The Secretary shall 
     attempt, to the extent practicable, to achieve an equitable 
     geographic distribution of grant awards.
       ``(3) Dissemination of information.--The Secretary shall 
     attempt, to the extent practicable, to make available 
     information regarding successful hate crime prevention 
     programs, including programs established or expanded with 
     grants under this section.
       ``(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress 
     a report every two years which shall contain a detailed 
     statement regarding grants and awards, activities of grant 
     recipients, and an evaluation of programs established under 
     this section.

                    ``Subpart 3--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 4131. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Community-based organization.--The term `community-
     based organization' means a private nonprofit organization 
     which is representative of a community or significant 
     segments of a community and which provides educational or 
     related services to individuals in the community.
       ``(2) Drug and violence prevention.--The term `drug and 
     violence prevention' means--
       ``(A) with respect to drugs, prevention, early 
     intervention, rehabilitation referral, or education related 
     to the illegal use of alcohol and the use of controlled, 
     illegal, addictive, or harmful substances, including 
     inhalants and anabolic steroids;
       ``(B) prevention, early intervention, smoking cessation 
     activities, or education, related to the use of tobacco by 
     children and youth eligible for services under this title; 
     and
       ``(C) with respect to violence, the promotion of school 
     safety, such that students and school personnel are free from 
     violent and disruptive acts, including sexual harassment and 
     abuse, and victimization associated with prejudice and 
     intolerance, on school premises, going to and from school, 
     and at school-sponsored activities, through the creation and 
     maintenance of a school environment that is free of weapons 
     and fosters individual responsibility and respect for the 
     rights of others.
       ``(3) Hate crime.--The term `hate crime' means a crime as 
     described in section 1(b) of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 
     1990.
       ``(4) Nonprofit.--The term `nonprofit', as applied to a 
     school, agency, organization, or institution means a school, 
     agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by 
     one or more nonprofit corporations or associations, no part 
     of the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, 
     to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
       ``(5) Objectively measurable goals.--The term `objectively 
     measurable goals' means prevention programming goals defined 
     through use of quantitative epidemiological data measuring 
     the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, 
     violence, and the prevalence of risk and protective factors 
     predictive of these behaviors, collected through a variety of 
     methods and sources known to provide high quality data.
       ``(6) Protective factor, buffer, or asset.--The terms 
     `protective factor', `buffer', and `asset' mean any one of a 
     number of the community, school, family, or peer-individual 
     domains that are known, through prospective, longitudinal 
     research efforts, or which are grounded in a well-established 
     theoretical model of prevention, and have been shown to 
     prevent alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drug use, as well as 
     violent behavior, by youth in the community, and which 
     promote positive youth development.
       ``(7) Risk factor.--The term `risk factor' means any one of 
     a number of characteristics of the community, school, family, 
     or peer-individual domains that are known, through 
     prospective, longitudinal research efforts, to be predictive 
     of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, as well as violent 
     behavior, by youth in the school and community.
       ``(8) School-aged population.--The term `school-aged 
     population' means the population aged five through 17, as 
     determined by the Secretary on the basis of the most recent 
     satisfactory data available from the Department of Commerce.
       ``(9) School personnel.--The term `school personnel' 
     includes teachers, administrators, guidance counselors, 
     social workers, psychologists, nurses, librarians, and other 
     support staff who are employed by a school or who perform 
     services for the school on a contractual basis.

     ``SEC. 4132. MATERIALS.

       ``(a) `Illegal and Harmful' Message.--Drug prevention 
     programs supported under this part shall convey a clear and 
     consistent message that the illegal use of alcohol and other 
     drugs is illegal and harmful.
       ``(b) Curriculum.--The Secretary shall not prescribe the 
     use of specific curricula for programs supported under this 
     part, but may evaluate the effectiveness of such curricula 
     and other strategies in drug and violence prevention.

     ``SEC. 4133. PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.

       ``No funds under this part may be used for--
       ``(1) construction (except for minor remodeling needed to 
     accomplish the purposes of this part); and
       ``(2) medical services, drug treatment or rehabilitation, 
     except for pupil services or referral to treatment for 
     students who are victims of or witnesses to crime or who use 
     alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.

     ``SEC. 4134. QUALITY RATING.

       ``(a) In General.--The chief executive officer of each 
     State, or in the case of a State in which the constitution or 
     law of such State designates another individual, entity, or 
     agency in the State to be responsible for education 
     activities, such individual, entity, or agency, is authorized 
     and encouraged--
       ``(1) to establish a standard of quality for drug, alcohol, 
     and tobacco prevention programs implemented in public 
     elementary schools and secondary schools in the State in 
     accordance with subsection (b); and
       ``(2) to identify and designate, upon application by a 
     public elementary school or secondary school, any such school 
     that achieves such standard as a quality program school.
       ``(b) Criteria.--The standard referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall address, at a minimum--
       ``(1) a comparison of the rate of illegal use of drugs, 
     alcohol, and tobacco by students enrolled in the school for a 
     period of time to be determined by the chief executive 
     officer of the State;
       ``(2) the rate of suspensions or expulsions of students 
     enrolled in the school for drug, alcohol, or tobacco-related 
     offenses;
       ``(3) the effectiveness of the drug, alcohol, or tobacco 
     prevention program as proven by research;
       ``(4) the involvement of parents and community members in 
     the design of the drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention 
     program; and
       ``(5) the extent of review of existing community drug, 
     alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs before 
     implementation of the public school program.
       ``(c) Request for Quality Program School Designation.--A 
     school that wishes to receive a quality program school 
     designation shall submit a request and documentation of 
     compliance with this section to the chief executive officer 
     of the State or the individual, entity, or agency described 
     in subsection (a), as the case may be.
       ``(d) Public Notification.--Not less than once a year, the 
     chief executive officer of each State or the individual, 
     entity, or agency described in subsection (a), as the case 
     may be, shall make available to the public a list of the 
     names of each public school in the State that has received a 
     quality program school designation in accordance with this 
     section.''.

  +Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I join with Senators DeWine, Dodd, 
and Abraham to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools and Communities Act. This bill sends a strong signal to 
American schools and communities about the importance of creating a 
safe learning environment in the wake of recent tragedies in Littleton, 
Colorado; Springfield, Oregon; Paducah, Kentucky; and Moses Lake, 
Washington. It serves as a reminder that we haven't forgotten these and 
many other tragedies, and that the Senate recognizes all communities 
need funding and tools to effectively reduce violence and drug use.
  The hallmark of the bill is a new emphasis on accountability for 
results in creating safer schools and using research-proven prevention 
strategies. The bill reauthorizes the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
Communities Act, and authorizes funding of $875 million to local school 
districts that they can use flexibly to address local needs

[[Page 27445]]

for the prevention of violence and drug use.
  In exchange, schools must invest in strategies that are shown to be 
effective in reducing drug use, discipline problems, and school 
violence.
  What we've learned from recent school tragedies is that this can 
happen anywhere in America. No school is immune from problems, so every 
school community must take steps to prevent them.
  We know that local educators know best how to prevent these problems, 
whether through offering after-school programs, or working with parent 
groups and law enforcement to reduce gang activity, or getting young 
people more involved in their community activities. This bill gives 
communities the tools to make a measurable difference--and recognizes 
that we won't prevent violence unless we all work together in 
partnership.
  Our legislation is based on more than a year of conversations with 
local educators in Washington state and around the country. I have 
worked closely with Senators Dodd, DeWine, Abraham and other Senators 
from both sides of the aisle to assure that we find areas of agreement 
early, so that we can make real progress in our discussions as we move 
forward. The bill emphasizes results and accountability, but gives 
communities flexibility to get there. Recognizing that no efforts can 
succeed to make young people safe and drug free--inside or outside of 
the classroom--without all elements of the community working together. 
The bill assumes collaboration and communication at all levels and 
across all barriers.
  There are several areas where this bill does not yet reflect a full 
vision of how we can help schools and communities prevent violence and 
drug use. We need to continue working on national activities, on school 
safety planning, on coordination, and on other areas. We need to 
address the concerns of other Members who have not yet participated in 
the debate. However, this bill is a good, bipartisan start to the 
discussion, and represents Senators looking for common goals--something 
that needs to be brought back into the larger debate on education and 
our public schools.
  I want to thank Senators Dodd, DeWine, and Abraham and Suzanne Day 
from Senator Dodd's office and Paul Palagyi from Senator DeWine's 
office for their great work on this so far. I look forward to making 
continued progress in this discussion.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with the distinguished senior 
Senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation that will help 
create safe, orderly and drug-free schools for our nation's youth 
through the reauthorization of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
Communities Act.
  Mr. President, the need for this legislation could not be more clear. 
Littleton, Colorado; Paduka, Kentucky; Springfield, Oregon; Pearl, 
Mississippi, and Jonesboro, Arkansas--up until a year or two ago, these 
towns were likely to appear on a list of nice small towns in America. 
Today, instead, they have been inscribed on our collective memory for 
the horrors of what happened at each school--children shooting down 
other children, families in crisis and communities and a nation 
shattered by grief.
  In the wake of each of these incidents, our nation has struggled to 
come to terms with the tragedies at these schools. And while many 
questions will never be answered, we must rededicate ourselves to 
making our schools safe for learning and to reassuring parents and 
students that schools are a safe haven. We clearly have a long way to 
go in this effort.
  Statistics suggest that there has been some improvement in many areas 
in recent years, but clearly violence and drug and alcohol abuse remain 
all too pervasive in our children's lives.
  Nationwide, from 1992-1994, 63 students ages 5 through 19 were 
murdered at school in 25 different states in communities of all sizes. 
In my own state of Connecticut alone, there were 1,532 juvenile (ages 
10-17) crime arrests made from 1993-1994, illustrating the large number 
of youth involved in some form of crime.
  With regard to substance abuse, by 12th grade, more than three-
fourths of students have used alcohol in their lifetime and more than 
50% have tried an illicit drug. At any given time, 52% of 12th graders 
report being current drinkers and 25% report being current illicit drug 
users. In Connecticut, in 1993, 31% of eighth and tenth grade students 
reported having used alcohol in the past 30 days. Not only do youth 
substance abuse and violence harm our children, but they also drain our 
communities' valuable resources. According to some analyses, the total 
economic costs related to substance abuse added up to $377 billion in 
1995, and the costs of crime directly attributed to drug abuse added up 
to $59 billion.
  These are all alarming statistics, and even more so when the 
interplay between violence and substance abuse is considered. For 
instance, there is compelling evidence that aggressive behavior is 
linked to frequency of marijuana use. Both youth violence and youth 
substance abuse are pressing matters in need of our attention.
  The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is the leading 
federal program in this area. This program, funded at $566 million for 
FY1999, currently reaches 97 percent of school districts and provides 
flexible support for primary prevention activities like conflict 
resolution, peer mediation, and after school activities, as well as 
assistance in purchasing security equipment that has become so common 
in our schools. This program also supports prevention activities aimed 
at substance abuse among our youth. There have been some who have 
raised concerns that this program has not adequately accomplished its 
goals, in that youth violence and substance abuse rates remain high. I 
agree that those rates are still too high. But the proper response is 
to strengthen, no diminish, our commitment to assisting local schools 
in their efforts.
  And let me hasten to add that there has, in fact, been progress. For 
instance, in the area of youth substance abuse, a 1998 national survey 
of student drug use in grades 8, 10, and 12 demonstrated that alcohol 
use slightly declined in grades 8 and 10, from prior years. And, after 
six years of steady increases, drug use among students was found to 
have declined and student opposition to drug use has increased. The 
proportion of students who reported use of illicit drugs during the 12 
months prior to the survey declined at all three grade levels.
  With regard to violence, a 1997 study found that 90 percent of public 
schools reported no incidents of serious violent crime to the police 
and less than half (43 percent) reported no crime at all. Over the past 
five years, school crime generally has decreased, as has the number of 
students being expelled for bringing a firearm to school. Fewer kids, 
in fact, brought weapons to school in 1997 than in 1993. The Centers 
for Disease Control report that between 1991 and 1997, the number of 
students involved in a physical fight decreased by 14 percent, and the 
number of kids carrying a weapon to school decreased by 30 percent.
  Thus, the SDFSCA has made gains in providing students with safe and 
drug-free learning environments. The legislation we have introduced 
today will build on these successes. The program will continue to offer 
states and local districts significant flexibility. We have also added 
strong new accountability measures. States will have the option of 
targeting dollars to areas of greater need, providing them with a 
higher concentration of resources. State and school districts will work 
together in the development of a common plan with shared goals and 
measures of progress. Funded activities will be tied to these plans and 
will be required to be based on community needs assessments and to 
follow strategies found to demonstrate success through rigorous study. 
In addition, districts and schools participating in SDFSCA will be 
guided by a school safety plan to ensure coordinated, effective 
programs.
  Clearly, this legislation is just the first step. Senator DeWine and 
I, along with Senators Murray and Abraham, will work with the other 
members of

[[Page 27446]]

the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, other colleagues, 
and other interested in this important effort to continue to improve 
this bill as we craft the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. I am interested in particular in looking more 
closely at the idea of a National School Safety Center, which I believe 
could provide districts and schools with invaluable advice and services 
as they struggle to confront violence in their schools. A related idea 
is the one proposed by the Administration to authorize Project SERV to 
assist schools when there is a sudden and serious event at the school. 
In addition, I think we should work at additional ways to strengthen 
interagency cooperation, including developing and funding initiatives 
like the Safe Schools/Healthy Students program that is making such a 
difference in my state and so many others. Finally, I am very 
interested in considering ways to support prevention very early on in 
children's life through character education and training of parents, 
preschool teachers and other professionals in violence prevention.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Senator DeWine for his leadership, 
commitment and involvement in this issue, as well as Senator Murray 
with whom we have worked very closely over the past few months. I am 
very pleased to co-sponsor this bill with such dedicated leaders, and I 
look forward to working with them and other of our colleauges for its 
enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
  S. 1824. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to enhance 
the efficient use of spectrum by non-federal government users; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                   private wireless spectrum use act

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator 
from Washington, Mr. Gorton, in introducing the Private Wireless 
Spectrum Use Act. This legislation will help the more than 300,000 U.S. 
companies, both large and small, that have invested $25 billion in 
internally owned and operated wireless communications systems. It will 
provide these companies with critically needed spectrum and will do so 
through an equitable lease fee system.
  The private wireless communications community includes industrial, 
land transportation, business, educational, and philanthropic 
organizations that own and operate communications systems for their 
internal use. The top 10 U.S. industrial companies have more than 6,000 
private wireless licenses. Private wireless systems also serve 
America's small businesses in the utility, contracting, taxi, and 
livery industries.
  These internal-use communications facilities greatly enhance the 
quality of American life. They also support global competitiveness for 
American firms. For example, private wireless systems support: the 
efficient production of goods and services; the safe transportation of 
passengers and products by land and air; the exploration, production, 
and distribution of energy; agricultural enhancement and production; 
the maintenance and development of America's infrastructure; and 
compliance with various local, State, and Federal operational 
government statutes.
  Current regulatory policy inadequately recognizes the public interest 
benefits which private wireless licensees provide to the American 
public. Consequently, allocations of spectrum to these private wireless 
users have been deficient. Private wireless entities received spectrum 
in 1974 and 1986 when the FCC allocated channels in the 800 megahertz 
and 900 megahertz bands. Over time, however, the FCC has significantly 
reduced the number of channels available to industrial and business 
entities in those allocations. Private wireless entities now have 
access to only 299 channels, or 32 percent of the channels of the 
original allocation.
  Spectrum auctions have done a great job of speeding up the licensing 
of interpersonal communications services and have generated significant 
revenues for the U.S. Treasury. They have also unfortunately skewed the 
spectrum allocation process toward subscriber-based services and away 
from critical radio services such as private wireless which are 
exempted from auctions. Nearly 200 megahertz of spectrum has been 
allocated for the provision of commercial telecommunications services, 
virtually all of which has been assigned by the FCC through competitive 
bidding.
  Competitive bidding is not the proper assignment methodology for 
private wireless telecommunications users. Private wireless operations 
are site-specific systems which vary in size based on a user's 
particular needs, and are seldom mutually exclusive from other private 
wireless applicants. Auctions, which depend on mutually exclusive 
applications and use market areas based on population, simply cannot be 
designed for private wireless systems.
  Under this legislation, the FCC would allocate no less than 12 
megahertz of new spectrum for private wireless use as a measure to 
maintain our industrial and business competitiveness in the global 
arena, as well as to protect the welfare of the employees in the 
American workplace. Research indicates that private wireless companies 
are willing to pay a reasonable fee in return for use of spectrum. They 
recognize that their access to spectrum increases with their 
willingness to pay fair value for the use of this national asset.
  This bill grants the FCC legislative authority to charge efficiency-
based spectrum lease fees in this new spectrum allocation. These lease 
fees should encourage the efficient use of spectrum by the private 
wireless industry, generate recurring annual revenues as compensation 
for the use of spectrum, and retain spectrum ownership by the public. 
Furthermore, the fee should be easy for private frequency advisory 
committees to calculate and collect.
  Mr. President, there may be some who believe this bill does not 
adequately address all their concerns. I assure all interested parties 
that I will work with them through the legislative process to address 
their concerns. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill 
and ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1824

       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 ``Private Wireless Spectrum 
     Use Act.''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Competent management of the electromagnetic radio 
     spectrum includes continued availability of spectrum for 
     private wireless entities because of such entities' unique 
     ability to achieve substantial efficiencies in their use of 
     this important and finite public resource. A private wireless 
     system licensee or entity is able to customize communications 
     systems to meet the individual needs of that licensee or end 
     user while using engineering solutions and other cooperative 
     arrangements to share spectrum with other private system 
     licensees and entities without causing harmful interference 
     or other degradation of quality or reliability to such other 
     licensees or entities. Accordingly, spectrum allocations for 
     the shared use of private wireless systems achieve a high 
     level of spectrum use efficiency and contribute to the 
     economic and social welfare of the United States.
       (2) Wireless communication systems dedicated to the 
     internal communication needs of America's industrial, land 
     transportation, energy (including utilities and pipelines), 
     and other business enterprises are critical to the 
     competitiveness of American industry and business in 
     international commerce; increase corporate productivity; 
     enhance the safety and welfare of employees; and improve the 
     delivery of products and services to consumers in the United 
     States and abroad.
       (3) During the past decade, the Federal Communications 
     Commission allocation and licensing policies have led to 
     dramatic increases in spectrum available for commercial 
     mobile radio services while the spectrum available for 
     private mobile radio systems has decreased, even though the 
     Commission recognizes the spectrum use efficiencies and other 
     public benefits of such private systems and the substantial 
     increases in the use of such systems.
       (4) Spectrum auctions are designed to select among 
     competing applications for spectrum licenses when engineering 
     solutions,

[[Page 27447]]

     negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations, 
     and other cooperative means employed by the Commission are 
     not able to prevent mutual exclusivity among such 
     applications. Private wireless systems, on the other hand, 
     avoid mutual exclusivity through cooperative, multiple uses 
     generally achieved by the Commission, the users, or the 
     frequency advisory committees. Accordingly, the requirements 
     of such private wireless systems are accommodated within the 
     spectrum bands allocated for private uses. Since there is no 
     mutual exclusivity among private wireless system 
     applications, there is no need for the Commission to employ a 
     mechanism, such as auctions, to select among applications. 
     Auction valuation principles also do not apply to the private 
     wireless licensing process because the private wireless 
     spectrum is not used on a commercial, interconnected basis. 
     Rather, such private allocations are used for internal 
     communications applications to enhance safety, efficiency and 
     productivity. Nonetheless, there should be some payment 
     associated with the assignment of new private wireless 
     spectrum, and the Commission can and should develop a payment 
     mechanism for this purpose.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (33) through (52) as 
     paragraph (35) through (54); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (32) the following:
       ``(33) Private Wireless System.--The term `private wireless 
     system' means an infrastructure of telecommunications 
     equipment and customer premises equipment that is owned by, 
     and operated solely to meet the internal wireless 
     communication needs of, an industrial, business, 
     transportation, education, or energy (including utilities and 
     pipelines) entity, or other licensee.
       ``(34) Private Wireless Provider.--The term `private 
     wireless provider' means an entity that owns, operates, or 
     manages an infrastructure of telecommunications equipment and 
     customer premises equipment that is--
       ``(A) used solely for the purpose of meeting the internal 
     communications needs of another entity that is an industrial, 
     business, transportation, education, or energy (including 
     utilities and pipelines) entity, or similar end-user;
       ``(B) neither a commercial mobile service (as defined in 
     section 332(d)(1)) nor used to provide public safety services 
     (as defined in section 337(f)(1)); and
       ``(C) not interconnected with the public switched 
     network.''.

     SEC. 4. ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM.

       Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 301) is amended by inserting after section 337 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 338. ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF SPECTRUM FOR PRIVATE 
                   WIRELESS USES.

       ``(a) Rulemaking Required.--Within 120 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Private Wireless Spectrum Use Act, the 
     Commission shall initiate a rulemaking designed to identify 
     and allocate at least 12 megahertz of electromagnetic 
     spectrum located between 150 and 2,000 megahertz for use by 
     private wireless licensees on a shared-use basis. The new 
     spectrum proposed to be reallocated shall be available and 
     appropriate for use by private wireless communications 
     systems and shall accommodate the need for paired allocations 
     and for proximity to existing private wireless spectrum 
     allocations. In accommodating the various private wireless 
     system needs in this rulemaking, the Commission shall reserve 
     at least 50 percent of the reallocated spectrum for the use 
     of private wireless systems. The remaining reallocated 
     spectrum shall be available for use by private wireless 
     providers solely for the purpose described in section 
     3(34)(A).
       ``(b) Order Required.--Within 180 days after the Commission 
     initiates the rulemaking required by subsection (a), the 
     Commission, in consultation with its frequency advisory 
     committees, shall--
       ``(1) issue an order reallocating spectrum in accordance 
     with subsection (a); and
       ``(2) issue licenses for the reallocated spectrum in a 
     timely manner.''.

     SEC. 5. REIMBURSEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM ALLOCATED FOR 
                   PRIVATE WIRELESS SYSTEM USE.

       Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     309 (j)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (14) the 
     following:
       ``(15) Spectrum efficiency for shared spectrum.--
       ``(A) Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Private Wireless Spectrum Use Act, the Commission shall 
     initiate a rulemaking to devise a schedule of payment to the 
     Treasury by private wireless systems, and by private wireless 
     providers for the purpose described in section 3(34)(A), in 
     return for a license or other ability to use a portion of the 
     spectrum reallocated under section 338. The schedule shall be 
     designed to promote the efficient use of those frequencies.
       ``(B) Within 180 days after the Commission initiates the 
     rulemaking required by subparagraph (A), the Commission, 
     after consultation with its frequency advisory committees and 
     after opportunity for comment, shall adopt a schedule of 
     payment in accordance with subparagraph (A) and which it 
     determines to be in the public interest.
       ``(C) In adopting the schedule of payments referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), the Commission--
       ``(i) may not base a finding of public interest, 
     convenience, and necessity on the expectation of Federal 
     revenues for the use of such schedule of payment; and
       ``(ii) shall take into account the private nature of the 
     systems, the safety and efficiencies realized by the public 
     as a result of these private uses, the amount of bandwidth 
     and coverage area and geographic location of the license, and 
     the degree of frequency-sharing.''.

     SEC. 6. SPECTRUM SHARING

       Section 309(j)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 309(j)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G);
       (2) by striking ``Act.'' in subparagraph (H) and inserting 
     ``Act; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) be construed to permit the Commission to take any 
     action to create mutual exclusivity where it does not already 
     exist.''

     SEC. 7. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Private Mobile Service.--Section 332(d) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (1);
       (2) by striking ``(c)(1)(B); and'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``(c)(1)(B).''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3).
       (b) Application of Spectrum-use Payment Schedule to New 
     Licenses.--Section 337(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 337(a)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or 
     spectrum use payment schedule'' after ``competitive 
     bidding''.
       (c) Exemption from Competitive Bidding.--Section 309(j)(2) 
     of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking ``Act.'' in subparagraph (C) and inserting 
     ``Act; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(D) for private wireless systems, and for private 
     wireless providers for the purpose described in section 
     3(34)(A), that--
       ``(i) are used to enhance the productivity or safety of 
     business or industry; and
       ``(ii) are not made commercially available to the public, 
     except for that purpose.''.
       (d) Technical Amendment.--Section 271(c)(1)(A) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``3(47)(A),'' and inserting 
     ``3(49)(A),''.

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, in introducing a bill to rationalize 
the federal management of spectrum that is used by entities for their 
internal wireless communication needs. The legislation does essentially 
three things. First, it recognizes that auctions are not an appropriate 
means of allocating spectrum for these private users, and so exempts 
from auction that spectrum that is used for private wireless 
applications. Second, it directs the FCC to reallocate an additional 12 
megahertz of spectrum to private wireless users, who, over the years, 
and despite the efficiencies they have obtained through shared use, 
have lost spectrum and currently do not have enough to meet demands in 
some areas. Third, the legislation authorizes the FCC to collect lease 
fees for the use of the 12 MHZ to be reallocated.
  One of the biggest challenges in preparing this bill, Mr. President, 
has been to define the class of beneficiaries, that is, to identify 
what is a ``private wireless'' system. The definition in the measure we 
are introducing today may not be perfect, and I look forward to working 
with all interested parties to ensure that the definition covers the 
appropriate class of users. The intent, however, and one that I believe 
is captured in the current definition, is that we recognize that there 
are thousands of corporations, utilities, farmers, and other entities, 
that use spectrum purely for their internal communication needs, with 
applications that range from reading utility meters from a distance, to 
operating sprinkler or irrigation systems, to communicating over hand-
held radios in the middle of the woods, a factory floor, or a 
construction site. This use of the spectrum, Mr. President, is 
economically vital to our economy, as it enhances the productivity of 
all of these users and, in many cases, makes their operations possible.
  A distinguishing characteristic of private wireless users, and a 
reason

[[Page 27448]]

that we are proposing that they be treated differently than other 
spectrum users, is that the private wireless users' application of the 
spectrum is often specifically tailored to the needs of that user, that 
is, it is a unique application that is not offered by commercial 
wireless providers.
  Currently, private wireless users are licensed on a site-by-site 
basis by the FCC. Their license applications are coordinated by 
spectrum managers who attempt to maximize the efficiency of the 
spectrum and eliminate mutually exclusive applications by requiring 
that the spectrum be shared by multiple users. In this way, hundreds of 
different users can and do operate their internal wireless 
communications systems within a given geographic area. When the users' 
needs change, as they frequently do, as companies open new production 
facilities, begin work at new construction sites, or extend their 
service area, the spectrum coordinators, (spectrum allowing), will 
propose a new sharing arrangement and obtain a new site-specific 
license for the user.
  The geographic based auction concept that the FCC is currently 
proposing for some of the spectrum now being used by private wireless, 
makes little sense for these private users. Unlike a commercial 
wireless provider, whose service must be operational within the 
entirety of a broad geographical license area, an individual private 
wireless user may require use of the spectrum only at single site 
within the area proposed to be auctioned. Moreover, private wireless 
system users are not in the business of providing communications 
services, and don't want to be--so it is not in their interest to 
acquire, through auction, exclusive rights to the use of spectrum in a 
large fixed geographic area, when they will use only a small fraction 
of it, their site may change, and they lack both the expertise or the 
desire to rent out what they do not need.
  Recognizing that auctions are ill-suited as a means of allocating 
spectrum to private wireless users, however, is not to say that the 
public should receive no compensation for the use of this public 
resource. Unfortunately, the desire to raise revenue from the sale of 
spectrum appears to have overtaken the need to ensure that spectrum is 
used efficiently and that current, economically valuable applications, 
are not disrupted by a rush to sell in order to raise revenue. The 
proposal in this measure to allow the Federal Communications Commission 
to collect lease fees for the use of private wireless spectrum is, I 
believe, a way to reintroducing some rationality into our spectrum 
management policies, while ensuring a return for the taxpayer.
  The legislation we are introducing today, Mr. President, is not a 
final product. It stakes out, however, a very important claim, and that 
is the importance of the private wireless spectrum users to the smooth 
and efficient operation of our economy. I look forward to working with 
all interested parties to improve, and pass swiftly, this important 
measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1825. A bill to empower telephone consumers, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                      the phone bill fairness act

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Phone 
Bill Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1825

       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 ``Phone Bill Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Customer bills for telecommunications services are 
     unreasonably complicated, and many Americans are unable to 
     understand the nature of services provided to them and the 
     charges for which they are responsible.
       (2) One of the purposes of the Telecommunications Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-104) was to unleash competitive and 
     market forces for telecommunications services.
       (3) Unless customers can understand their 
     telecommunications bills they cannot take advantage of the 
     newly competitive market for telecommunications services.
       (4) Confusing telecommunications bills allow a small 
     minority of providers of telecommunications services to 
     commit fraud more easily. The best defense against 
     telecommunications fraud is a well informed consumer. 
     Consumers cannot be well informed when their 
     telecommunications bills are incomprehensible.
       (5) Certain providers of telecommunications services have 
     established new, specific charges on customer bills commonly 
     known as ``line-item charges''.
       (6) These line-item charges have proliferated and are often 
     described with inaccurate and confusing names.
       (7) These line-item charges have generated significant 
     confusion among customers regarding the nature and scope of 
     universal service and of the fees associated with universal 
     service.
       (8) The National Association of Regulatory Utility 
     Commissioners adopted a resolution in February 1998 
     supporting action by the Federal Communications Commission to 
     require interstate telecommunications carriers to provide 
     accurate customer notice regarding the implementation and 
     purpose of end-user charges for telecommunications services.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to require the 
     Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade 
     Commission to protect and empower consumers of 
     telecommunications services by assuring that 
     telecommunications bills, including line-item charges, issued 
     by telecommunications carriers nationwide are both accurate 
     and comprehensible.

     SEC. 3. INVESTIGATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER BILLING 
                   PRACTICES.

       (a) Investigation.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Federal Communications Commission and 
     the Federal Trade Commission shall jointly conduct an 
     investigation of the billing practices of telecommunications 
     carriers.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the investigation is to 
     determine whether the bills sent by telecommunications 
     carriers to their customers accurately assess and correctly 
     characterize the services received and fees charged for such 
     services, including any fees imposed as line-item charges.
       (b) Determinations.--In carrying out the investigation 
     under subsection (a), the Federal Communications Commission 
     and the Federal Trade Commission shall determine the 
     following:
       (1) The prevalence of incomprehensible or confusing 
     telecommunications bills.
       (2) The most frequent causes for confusion on 
     telecommunications bills.
       (3) Whether or not any best practices exist, which, if 
     utilized as an industry standard, would reduce confusion and 
     improve comprehension of telecommunications bills.
       (4) Whether or not telecommunications bills that impose 
     fees through line-item charges characterize correctly the 
     nature and basis of such fees, including, in particular, 
     whether or not such fees are required by the Federal 
     Government or State governments.
       (c) Review of Records.--
       (1) Authority.--For purposes of the investigation under 
     subsection (a), the Federal Communications Commission and the 
     Federal Trade Commission may obtain from any 
     telecommunications carrier any record of such carrier that is 
     relevant to the investigation, including any record 
     supporting such carrier's basis for setting fee levels or 
     percentages.
       (2) Use.--The Federal Communications Commission and the 
     Federal Trade Commission may use records obtained under this 
     subsection only for purposes of the investigation.
       (d) Disciplinary Actions.--
       (1) In general.--If the Federal Communications Commission 
     or the Federal Trade Commission determines as a result of the 
     investigation under subsection (a) that the bills sent by a 
     telecommunications carrier to its customers do not accurately 
     assess or correctly characterize any service or fee contained 
     in such bills, the Federal Communications Commission or the 
     Federal Trade Commission, as the case may be, may take such 
     action against such carrier as such Commission is authorized 
     to take under law.
       (2) Characterization of fees.--If the Federal 
     Communications Commission or the Federal Trade Commission 
     determines as a result of the investigation under subsection 
     (a) that a telecommunications carrier has characterized a fee 
     on bills sent to its customers as mandated or otherwise 
     required by the Federal Government or a State and that such 
     characterization is incorrect, the Federal Communications 
     Commission or the Federal Trade Commission, as the case may 
     be, may require the carrier to discontinue such 
     characterization.
       (3) Additional actions.--If the Federal Communications 
     Commission or the Federal Trade Commission determines that 
     such Commission does not have authority under

[[Page 27449]]

     law to take actions under paragraph (1) that would be 
     appropriate in light of a determination described in 
     paragraph (1), the Federal Communications Commission or the 
     Federal Trade Commission, as the case may be, shall notify 
     Congress of the determination under this paragraph in the 
     report under subsection (e).
       (e) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission 
     and the Federal Trade Commissions shall jointly submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the investigation under 
     subsection (a). The report shall include the determination, 
     if any, of either Commission under subsection (d)(3) and any 
     recommendations for further legislative action that such 
     Commissions consider appropriate.

     SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF MISLEADING TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILLS AND 
                   TELECOMMUNICATIONS RATE PLANS.

       (a) Federal Trade Commission.--The Federal Trade Commission 
     shall treat any telecommunications billing practice or 
     telecommunications rate plan that the Commission determines 
     to be intentionally misleading as an unfair business practice 
     under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et 
     seq.).
       (b) Federal Communications Commission.--The Federal 
     Communications Commission shall, upon finding that any holder 
     of a license under the Commission has repeatedly and 
     intentionally engaged in a telephone billing practice, or has 
     repeatedly and intentionally utilized a telephone rate plan, 
     that is misleading, treat such holder as acting against the 
     public interest for purposes of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL BILLS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) Average Per Minute Rate Calculation.--Each 
     telecommunications carrier shall display on the first page of 
     each customer bill for telecommunications services the 
     average per-minute charge of telecommunications services of 
     such customer for the billing period covered by such bill.
       (b) Calling Patterns.--Each telecommunications carrier 
     shall display on the first page of each customer bill for 
     telecommunications services the percentage of the total 
     number of telephone calls of such customer for the billing 
     period covered by such bill as follows:
       (1) That began on a weekday.
       (2) That began on a weekend.
       (3) That began from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m..
       (4) That began from 8:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m..
       (5) That were billed to a calling card.
       (c) Average Per-Minute Charge Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``average per-minute charge'', in the case of a bill 
     of a customer for a billing period, means--
       (1) the sum of--
       (A) the aggregate amount of monthly or other recurring 
     charges, if any, for telecommunications services imposed on 
     the customer by the bill for the billing period; and
       (B) the total amount of all per-minute charges for 
     telecommunications services imposed on the customer by the 
     bill for the billing period; divided by
       (2) the total number of minutes of telecommunications 
     services provided to the customer during the billing period 
     and covered by the bill.

     SEC. 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS IMPOSING 
                   CERTAIN CHARGES FOR SERVICES.

       (a) Billing Requirements.--Any telecommunications carrier 
     shall include on the bills for telecommunications services 
     sent to its customers the following:
       (1) An accurate name and description of any covered charge.
       (2) The recipient or class of recipients of the monies 
     collected through each such charge.
       (3) A statement whether each such charge is required by law 
     or collected pursuant to a requirement imposed by a 
     governmental entity under its discretionary authority.
       (4) A specific explanation of any reduction in charges or 
     fees to customers, and the class of telephone customer that 
     such reduction, that are related to each such charge.
       (b) Universal Service Contributions and Receipts.--Not 
     later than January 31 each year, each telecommunications 
     carrier required to contribute to universal service during 
     the previous year under section 254(d) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)) shall submit to the Federal 
     Communications Commission a report on following:
       (1) The total contributions of the carrier to the universal 
     service fund during the previous year.
       (2) The total receipts from customers during such year 
     designed to recover contributions to the fund.
       (c) Action on Universal Service Contributions and Receipts 
     Data.--
       (1) Review.--The Federal Communications Commission shall 
     review the reports submitted to the Commission under 
     subsection (b) in order to determine whether or not the 
     amount of the contributions of a telecommunications carrier 
     to the universal service fund in any year is equal to the 
     amount of the receipts of the telecommunications carrier from 
     its customers in such year for purposes of contributions to 
     the fund.
       (2) Additional contributions.--If the Commission determines 
     as a result of a review under paragraph (1) that the amount 
     of the receipts of a telecommunications carrier from its 
     customers in a year for purposes of contributions to the 
     universal service fund exceeded the amount contributed by the 
     carrier in such year to the fund, the Commission shall have 
     the authority to require the carrier to deposit in the fund 
     an amount equal to the amount of such excess.
       (d) Covered Charges.--For purposes of subsection (a), a 
     covered charge shall include any charge on a bill for 
     telecommunications services that is separate from a per-
     minute rate charge, including a universal service charge, a 
     subscriber line charge, and a presubscribed interexchange 
     carrier charge.

     SEC. 7. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``telecommunications carrier'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 3(44) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153(44)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1826. A bill to provide grants to the State of Alaska for the 
purpose of assisting that State in fulfilling its responsibilities 
under sections 803, 804, and 805 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce 
legislation regarding the State of Alaska's sovereign right to manage 
its fish and game resources. It is a sad day that I come to the floor 
of the United States Senate to inform my colleagues that for the first 
time since Alaska became a state it no longer has sole authority to 
manage its fisheries on federal lands.
  For everyone of my colleagues their respective states right to manage 
fish and game is absolute--every state but Alaska manages all its own 
fish and game. As of October 1, in Alaska, this is not the case, and 
therefore, action must be taken to try and provide the opportunity for 
the state to regain this authority back as swiftly as possible.
  Some background is in order here.
  When Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act (ANILCA) in 1980, Title VIII required the State of Alaska to 
provide a rural subsistence hunting and fishing preference on federal 
``public lands.'' If the State fails to provide the required preference 
by State statute, the law provided that the federal government would 
step in to manage the subsistence uses of fish and game resources on 
federal lands.
  The Alaska State Legislature passed such a subsistence preference law 
in 1978 which was upheld by referendum in 1982. The law was slightly 
revised in 1986, and remained on the books until it was struck down by 
the Alaska Supreme Court in 1989 as unconstitutional because of the 
Alaska Constitution's common use of fish and game clause. It is easy to 
see how there would be a conflict between a federal law that requires 
the state to provide a preference for rural Alaskans for fish and game 
resources and a state constitution that provides for equal access. When 
the state statutes were struck down, the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Secretary of Agriculture, for Forest Service lands, took over 
management of fish and game resources on federal public lands in 
Alaska.
  For the most part the early focus was on game management and little 
was done to impact Alaska's fisheries. That all changed in 1995 when a 
decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Katie John v. United 
States extended the law far beyond its original scope to apply not just 
to ``federal lands'' but to navigable waters owned by the State of 
Alaska. Hence State and private lands were impacted too. The theory 
espoused by the Court was that the ``public lands'' includes navigable 
waters in which the United States has reserved water rights. If 
implemented, the courts decision would mean all fisheries in Alaska 
could effectively be managed by the federal government. In April of 
1996, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture published an 
``Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' which identified about half 
of the state as subject to federal authority to regulate fishing 
activities.
  These regulations were so broad they could have affected not only 
fishing activities, but virtually all activities on state and federal 
lands that may have

[[Page 27450]]

an impact on subsistence uses. There is no precedent in any other State 
in the Union for this kind of overreaching into State management 
prerogatives. For that reason Congress acted in 1996 to place a 
moratorium on the federal government from implementing those 
regulations and assuming control of Alaska's fisheries. This moratorium 
was provided mainly to allow the State time to make appropriate changes 
to the constitution and relevant statutes in order to comply with the 
federal law. The moratorium was extended three times by Congress and 
just recently expired October 1, 1999.
  The Governor, and the majority of the State legislators have worked 
to try and resolve this issue by adopting an amendment to the State 
constitution that would allow them to pass State statutes to come into 
compliance with the federal law and provide a subsistence priority. 
Unfortunately, the State of Alaska's Constitution is not easily amended 
and these efforts have fallen short of the necessary votes needed to 
place the issue before the Alaska voters. In fact, in the most recent 
special session a majority of the legislators voted to do just this. 
Unfortunately they were just two votes shy in the State Senate of the 
2/3 majority needed to place the necessary amendment before the voters.
  With the failure of the legislature to place a constitutional 
amendment on the ballot prior to October 1, 1999, we now find ourselves 
in a situation where the federal government has assumed control of 
subsistence fisheries in Alaska. Therefore, absent a lawsuit or major 
change to federal law, the only way the State can now regain management 
of the subsistence fisheries is if the Secretary were to certify that 
the citizens of Alaska voted on, and approved, a constitutional 
amendment and the State Legislature had approved appropriate State 
statutes to conform with ANILCA. Under the most optimistic 
circumstances, the absolute earliest this could occur would be after 
the general election in November of 2000--and more likely it would not 
occur until 2001 or 2002. This just cannot be allowed to continue 
without some effort to return management to Alaska as soon as possible.
  The proposal I am introducing today would minimize the duration of 
federal control if the State legislature passes a constitutional 
amendment that would allow them to adopt laws to come into compliance 
with the federal law. This would continue to make sure the focus of a 
resolve remains on State action and not in the ill-placed hopes of some 
action by Congress.
  Specifically, the proposal would do the following:
  Provide that the State can regain management authority as soon as the 
Secretary certifies the State legislature has approved a constitutional 
amendment that would allow the State to comply with ANILCA.
  As soon as the Secretary certifies the amendment, any unexpended 
funds that were provided to the Secretary as a result of the 
legislature's failure to act by October 1, 1999 are turned over to the 
State.
  In order to continue to retain management the State must place the 
amendment on the ballot at the earliest date possible under State law.
  The Secretary could manage subsistence again if the amendment is not 
adopted by the voters or if it is adopted but the State fails to adopt 
the needed state statutes at the end of the first legislative session 
after passage of the constitutional amendment.
  At any time that the Secretary is managing subsistence fisheries in 
Alaska, he must comply with section 1308 of ANILCA which requires local 
hire.
  Mr. President, I along with most Alaskans, believe that subsistence 
uses of fish and game should have a priority over other uses in the 
State. We have provided for such uses in the past, I have hunted and 
fished under those regulations and I respected and supported them and 
continue to do so now. I believe the State can again provide for such 
uses without significant interruption to the sport or commercial 
fisherman.
  I also believe that Alaska's rural residents should play a greater 
role in the management and enforcement of fish and game laws in Alaska. 
They understand and live with the resources in rural Alaska. They see 
and experience the fish and game resources day in and day out. And, 
they are most directly impacted by the decisions made about use of 
those resources. They should bear their share of the responsibility for 
formulating fish and game laws as well as enforcing them.
  It is my intention to ensure that at anytime the Secretary is 
managing any of Alaska's wildlife resources that he maximize the 
expertise of Alaska's Native people. I also hope the State would 
provide Alaska's rural residents a greater role as it seeks to resolve 
the subsistence dilemma once and for all. But until that happens, I 
cannot stand by and watch the federal government move into the State 
and assume control of the Alaska fish and game resources for an 
extended period of time. That is why I am providing for the earliest 
opportunity for the State to regain management.
  I've lived under federal management during Alaska's territorial days 
and it does not work. In 1959 Alaskan's caught just 25.1 million 
salmon. Under State management we caught 218 million salmon in 1995.
  Federal control would again be a disaster for the resource and those 
that depend on it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 1827. A bill to provide funds to assist high-poverty school 
districts meet their teaching needs; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                       transition to teaching act

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which is 
entitled ``Transition to Teaching. This legislation starts from a 
personal experience.
  Bill Aradine is a first-year teacher. He tells me he is greatly 
enjoying his experience in the classroom. He has 150 students from the 
9th to the 12th grade at North Marion High School near Ocala, FL. Mr. 
Aradine teaches automobile mechanics. He has sparked an interest in 
students that may lead many of them to rewarding, lucrative, and 
challenging careers. I know Mr. Aradine because I did one of my 
workdays--in fact, my most recent workday--at North Marion High School. 
It is the story I learned that day at North Marion that brings me to 
the Senate floor today.
  Up to this point, it may not seem that unusual of a story--a 
beginning teacher facing new challenges--but Mr. Aradine brings 
something else to his first year at North Marion High School. He brings 
a previous career of 11 years on-the-job experience. He has years of 
experience in a local Chevrolet car dealership. He is now starting a 
second career as a teacher. The students look to him with a different 
perspective. When he says, you will need to know this if you are going 
to get the job done, they know he knows what he is talking about. 
Having just come directly from the industry, he teaches at the cutting 
edge.
  The information he brings to his students is what he was actually 
doing in the workplace not that long ago. Mr. Aradine is also a bridge. 
He is a bridge between North Marion High School students and the world 
of employment. He offers them advice, counsel, and real-life 
connections to future jobs.
  Mr. Aradine learned of the opening at the high school when one of the 
automobile mechanic's teachers retired. He applied for the job. He was 
allowed to obtain a temporary teaching certificate based on his prior 
work experience. He will take four courses over the next 3 years to 
obtain a permanent teaching certificate. North Marion High School 
principal, Walter Miller, could not be more pleased with the situation. 
Mr. Aradine is doing an excellent job with the students. North Marion 
High School was able to fill a vacancy and ease its teacher shortage.
  More and more schools will be turning to teachers who are in their 
second career. The Washington Post of October 4 of this year remarks on 
the trend of professionals entering teaching after years of work in a 
nonacademic job.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks, 
a

[[Page 27451]]

copy of an article entitled, ``Disillusioned Find Renewal in 
Classroom,'' be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Every August and September, another school year begins. 
Thousands of young Americans enter the classroom. Almost every year at 
this time, I hear from school districts throughout Florida about 
teacher shortages. What did I hear in 1999? I heard from Miami Dade 
that they had hired 1,700 new teachers for the 1999 school year but 
still had 300 vacancies to fill on the first day of classes. 
Hillsborough County, Tampa, hired 1,493 teachers for the start of the 
school year. They were still 238 teachers short when the first school 
bell rang. Orange County, Orlando, needed 1,300 teachers for the new 
year and still had 50 vacancies a month after school started.
  These concerns will only get worse. Forty percent of current 
schoolteachers are over the age of 50. They are nearing retirement. Who 
will be the future role models to the next generation of Americans? Who 
will take their places in the classroom? The importance of having high 
quality teachers in sufficient numbers is crucial, if we are to look at 
the challenges facing education in the future.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article by Dr. Robert McCabe entitled, ``A Twenty-First Century 
Challenge: Underprepared Americans.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       A Twenty First Century Challenge: Underprepared Americans

                         (By Robert H. McCabe)

       The essential mission for higher education in the new 
     America of the 21st Century will be creating opportunity for 
     new populations. Higher education will be more important than 
     every before, but the scope of services will be very 
     different and should be dramatically expanded to match the 
     changed environment. In short, the current emphasis on 
     exclusion must shift to inclusion.
       In the new America, we will be older, less white, and more 
     diverse. Our workforce will shrink. Information technology 
     will impact everything and everybody. Business will function 
     in a global economy and unskilled jobs will be exported to 
     low wage developing nations. The gap between the skills and 
     competencies of Americans, and those required for an 
     Information Age workforce will continue to widen, threatening 
     the very well being of our nation.
       As we enter the 21st Century we face three critical 
     challenges: remaining competitive in a global economy; 
     reversing the growth of a seemingly permanent and 
     disenfranchised underclass; and developing a broad based 
     workforce possessing Information Age skills. Whether or not 
     we successfully meet these challenges will depend on the 
     achievement of our educational system. The public schools, 
     however, face ever greater difficulties. Increasing numbers 
     of diverse children will enter the schools with significant 
     educational and life deficiencies. Despite the school reforms 
     that are sweeping the nation, it is virtually certain that 
     increasing numbers of individuals will reach adulthood 
     unprepared for 21st Century life and employment. Failure to 
     educate these individuals would result in a catastrophic 
     decline in our economy and standard of living. The role of 
     higher education is critical. It must provide leadership in 
     reshaping an educational system that is significantly more 
     successful at all levels. Colleges will experience 
     extraordinary enrollment growth from previously undeserved 
     and underprepared populations. They must assist these 
     Americans in achieving the higher order competencies 
     necessary to succeed in the Information Age. To reach this 
     goal, colleges must partner with public schools to 
     participate in school reform. They must also insure that 
     strengthened and well-supported college remedial education 
     programs are available, primarily in community colleges, to 
     rescue underprepared adults for their own benefit and to the 
     benefit of the nation as a whole.
       The following is a review of factors that will redefine the 
     mission of higher education in the new America of the 21st 
     Century.


                       business/industry and work

       In a global economy, business and industry will get its 
     work done where it is least costly. Manufacturing is already 
     moving from the United States to less developed nations where 
     wages are lower. This trend will continue. Sustaining 
     America's current prosperity will depend on its ability to 
     lead and develop knowledge industries, which are based on a 
     highly skilled and a more productive workforce. Brainpower 
     and technology can multiply individual productivity, thus, 
     compensating for higher wages and helping America to retain 
     global competitiveness.
       Experts believe--judging from successful economies already 
     functioning in the new global environment--the countries that 
     remain competitive in the next century are those with the 
     highest overall literacy and educational levels--that is, 
     nations, such as Germany and Japan, that have a strong 
     ``bottom third.'' This should be a compelling wake up call 
     for America because demographic trends indicate that the 
     future U.S. work force will be increasingly composed of 
     groups such as minorities and immigrants, who have 
     disproportionately high rates of illiteracy and educational 
     underachievement (Immerwahr et al. 1991 p. 15).
       Beyond the basics, workers need additional skills to meet 
     workforce demands--even if they hold the same job. Regardless 
     of the product or service offered, the competitive workplace 
     of today is a high-skill environment designed around 
     technology and people who are technically competent.
       A 1997 National Alliance of Business report, ``Job Cuts 
     Out, High Skills In,'' states: ``With the explosion of 
     technology in the workplace, skill level requirements are 
     being ratcheted up by employers. Inventory, sales, marketing, 
     expense analysis, communications, and correspondence are 
     being one faster, better and cheaper, and with greater 
     efficiency in the workplace'' (National Alliance of Business, 
     p. 1).
       Through turbulent years of reorganization, companies have 
     raised skill requirements in order to hire employees with the 
     competencies they need to be more competitive. More highly 
     skilled workers have replaced employees with lower or 
     outdated skills. Job elimination and downsizing have declined 
     to their lowest levels in the decade, as companies are 
     prepared for increased productivity and profitability. 
     ``We're seeing the payoff after a decade of pain,'' says Eric 
     Greenberg, director of management studies for the American 
     Management association. ``The same forces that were costing 
     jobs in the earlier years, such as restructuring, re-
     engineering and automation are now creating jobs that demand 
     high skill levels. The people going out the door don't have 
     them, the people coming in do'' (National Alliance of 
     Business, 1997, p. 6).
       At the same time that necessary skill levels are rising, 
     the skills of American workers are declining--a bleak picture 
     indeed. In 1995, The National Workforce Collabative estimated 
     that the incidence of low basic workplace skills among U.S. 
     workers ranging from 20 to 40 percent.
       Business and Industry estimates that 80 percent of the 21st 
     Century workforce will need some post-secondary education. In 
     addition, they will need higher order information 
     competencies as a base for life long continuing education. 
     Today, fewer than half of Americans have achieved this level 
     of competence and demographic changes indicate that in the 
     future even fewer will be as well prepared.


                          DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES

       As the millennium approaches, stores analyzing the state of 
     the nation and predicting its future fill the public 
     discourse. Demographers can accurately describe what Newsweek 
     magazine termed the ``face of the future'' (Morganthau 1997). 
     In the 21st Century, the United States will become more 
     ethnically diverse, more crowded and much older.
       The greatest changes will occur in the Hispanic population. 
     Today, Hispanics make up nearly 30 million people and 11 
     percent of the population. With high birthrates and high 
     legal and illegal immigration, this share will continue to 
     increase. Hispanic Americans average 2.4 to 2.9 children per 
     couple, compared to white Americans average of just under two 
     children per couple (Sivy 1997). In addition, the majority of 
     today's immigrants are Hispanic, a trend that is expected to 
     continue. Within the next seven years, Hispanics will 
     overtake African Americans as the nation's largest minority. 
     By 2005, Hispanics will number more than 36 million people 
     compared to a projected 35.5 million African Americans. 
     (Holmes 1998). By 2050, they are expected to comprise nearly 
     one quarter of the total population, almost 96 million 
     people. (Morganthau 1997). This growth is remarkable 
     considering that in 1970 Hispanic accounted for just nine 
     million citizens or roughly four percent of the national 
     population (Population Reference Bureau 1999).
       Virtually all of our growth will be from minorities, 
     principally Hispanics. These groups are disproportionately 
     poor, and thus, disproportionately educationally 
     underprepared. To illustrate, African Americans are 13 
     percent of the general population and 40 percent of welfare 
     recipients while Hispanics are 11 percent of the population 
     and 22 percent of welfare recipients.


                              IMMIGRATION

       Changing patterns of immigration are rearranging the face 
     of America. Immigrants make up a significant portion of 
     population growth. These new Americans differ in origin from 
     those of earlier years. Between 1820 and 1967, 40 million of 
     America's 44 million immigrants came from European countries. 
     From 1968 to 1994, only three million of the 18 million 
     immigrants came from Europe--a decrease from 90 percent to 17 
     percent. Today's immigrants come primarily from Latin

[[Page 27452]]

     America and Asia, and most importantly, from underdeveloped 
     nations. Unfortunately, the immigrant population that is a 
     major source of future workers also adds to our underprepared 
     population. In the early 20th Century, most European 
     immigrants were also unskilled. At that time, however, work 
     was predominantly unskilled, and the immigrants provided much 
     needed unskilled manpower. Circumstances are now quite 
     different. Less than 20 percent of today's jobs are 
     unskilled. Few new immigrants arrive on our shores with the 
     job skills that business and industry need, yet these ``new 
     workers'' represent a key source of potential employees 
     needed to fill the void created by retiring ``Baby Boomers''.


                          THE AGING OF AMERICA

       In 1900, the average life expectancy was 48. Today it is 
     76. In addition, America's fertility rate has dropped below 
     the 2.1 children per woman population replacement rate. In 
     1950, the average age of Americans was 21 while today it is 
     37. Demographer Samuel Preston reports that the population is 
     rapidly growing older and will continue to do so in the next 
     half century (1996). Between 1995 and 2010, the number of 
     people 65 and older will grow slowly from 33.5 million to 
     39.4 million, as people born in the 1930s and early 1940s 
     (when fertility was low) grow older. By contrast, between 
     2010 and 2030, with the ``Baby Boomers'' aging, the number 
     will soar from 39.4 million to 69.3 million. Meanwhile, the 
     population in the prime working ages of 20 to 59 will remain 
     stationary at about 160 million. In 1900, there were 10 times 
     as many children below 18 as there were adults over 65. By 
     2030, there will be slightly more people over 65 than under 
     18.
       Most discussion about the aging of Americans has focused on 
     the viability of Social Security and Medicare. The Social 
     Security system uses a pay-as-you-go model whereby payments 
     by current workers are used to pay benefits to retirees. The 
     concept was that when current workers retire, new workers 
     would be available to pay into the system to support their 
     retirement. That is history. In the future, it will simply no 
     longer be the case. When the system began, 17 to 20 workers 
     paid in for each retired worker receiving benefits. By 1960, 
     the ratio had fallen to five workers for each retiree. Today 
     it is 3.4 to one and by 2020 there will only be two workers 
     for each retiree. While this forecasts serious problems, they 
     are not nearly as severe as the problem of a declining 
     percentage of the population in the workforce. Quite simply, 
     to sustain our economy, everyone in their prime work years 
     will need to be in the workforce. They must be highly skilled 
     and extremely productive to support more retirees.


                                POVERTY

       With our high standard of living and prosperity, America 
     continues to have a persistent underclass with more 
     individuals living in poverty than other developed nations. 
     This is an unacceptable, deeply imbedded and seemingly 
     unresolvable American problem. In the 1950s and 1960s, a near 
     national consensus believed that the problem of poverty and 
     equal opportunity for all could and should be resolved. 
     Today, cynicism has replaced optimism. People living in 
     poverty feel there is no way out and that the system is 
     rigged against them. Those supporting the dependent 
     population are frustrated and angry and increasingly blame 
     those who live in poverty for their own poor circumstances.
       Politicans applaud the apparent successes of welfare reform 
     efforts intended to quickly remove individuals from the 
     welfare rolls. A closer look, however, reveals that the 
     successes are more a result of a robust economy than 
     successful reform programs. Many have only progressed from 
     poverty to joining the working poor. Persistent poverty 
     appears to be impervious to every attempt at improvement.
       From kindergarten to college, poverty correlates more 
     closely with academic deficiency than any other factor. The 
     strong relationship between socio-economic status and 
     educational achievement and the rising skill levels required 
     for employment result in growing numbers from impoverished 
     neighborhoods being undereducated for 21st Century jobs. 
     These underprepared individuals add to the nation's 
     unemployed, are dependent on the society and expand the gap 
     between the haves and have nots--a destructive and dangerous 
     situation.


                        THE NEW AMERICAN FAMILY

       Today, nearly half of all American children experience the 
     breakup of their parents' marriage. Family arrangements are 
     diverse, and increasingly, do not involve a full-time father. 
     In 1963, 77 percent of white children, 65 percent of Hispanic 
     children, and 36 percent of African American children lived 
     in two-parent families. By 1991, only half of the United 
     States' children and teens lived in a traditional nuclear 
     family. Fifth percent of white children live with a divorced 
     mother; while 54 percent of African American children and 33 
     percent of Hispanic children have mothers who have never 
     married (McCabe and Day 1998, p. 7). More children are born 
     to unmarried women, 33 percent in 1994 compared with 5 
     percent in 1960 (Preston 1996). Even those children from a 
     two-parent household spend less family time together. About 
     70 percent of mothers with children at home are working 
     (Edmondson 1997). Children are often shuttled between day 
     care centers, baby sitters, and extended family members.
       According to Prather (1995), ``There are three problems 
     that impact the learning abilities of young children that are 
     exacerbated by the changing structures of families: 
     Insufficient parenting, poor prenatal care, and inadequate 
     health care.'' One-fourth of the pregnant women in America, 
     particularly those who live in poverty, receive no prenatal 
     care. Problems in the womb often lead to learning 
     disabilities and other cognitive disorders.
       Recent brain development research indicate that ``wiring'' 
     of neurons occurs after birth, and that experience during 
     infancy and early childhood plays a critical role in defining 
     an individual's capacity to learn. The child's brain and 
     central nervous system develop rapidly during the first three 
     years of life in response to parental attention and 
     stimulation, such as talking, seeing and playing. Absence of 
     these critical early child care experiences, can result in 
     permanent loss of learning capacity. This obviously occurs 
     more frequently in single parent families because there is 
     less time available for the children.
       Children who suffer from inadequate economic resources and 
     parental attention are children at risk of school failure. 
     When these students progress into secondary schools, they are 
     often tucked away in a holding pattern in general studies 
     programs, and other programs that set lower expectations and 
     develop less information competency. These students are 
     destined to become underprepared adults.
       The decline in the traditional family and the rising 
     percentage of children born into poverty raises the question 
     of whether children of the 21st Century will be sufficiently 
     nurtured and prepared to mature to the productive adults that 
     America needs.
       At the heart of the United States' future will be the 
     changing concept of family--a kind of new social 
     demographics. Tomorrow's family will be less traditional and 
     more complex. The 1950s nuclear family with the father as the 
     sole breadwinner will be a distant memory. Instead, family 
     life will be plagued by much of the same problems it suffers 
     from today--divorce, single parenting, and a fractured and 
     harried household.
       Taken together--an analysis of demographics and family 
     structure--we have a clear picture of the 21st Century. The 
     United States will be crowded, diverse, older, and Americans 
     will be less well prepared for employment. But what then does 
     all this really mean? How will these changes influence 
     everyday life? How well will we prepare our children for the 
     future? What challenges will they face? How will we care for 
     our elderly, infirm, and needy?


                  EDUCATING A MAJORITY MINORITY NATION

       The demographic realities--particularly the growing 
     diversity--will have the greatest impact on our education 
     system. We know that by 2020 half of the nation's youth will 
     be ``minority.'' But what is most striking about this 
     statistic is the shifting concept of minority. Demographer 
     Hodgkinson explains that educating tomorrow's minority will 
     be more complicated because of who they are. Between 1820 and 
     1945, the nations that sent us the largest numbers of 
     immigrants were (in rank order): Germany, Italy, Ireland, 
     United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Canada, and Sweden. The nations 
     that send us the most immigrants now and through the year 
     2000 are (in rank order): Mexico, Philippines, Korea, China/
     Taiwan, India, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Canada, 
     Vietnam, United Kingdom, and Iran (Hodgkinson 1993).
       This shift indicates a clear transformation. The United 
     States has gone from a nation of Europeans with a common 
     European culture to a nation of the world. Students from all 
     over the world will be in the same classrooms--making our 
     schools truly international in composition (Hodgkinson 1993). 
     The change brings with it a set of unique instructional 
     problems. In the past, schools could use the European 
     commonality to socialize immigrant children. Today, children 
     come to classrooms with different diets, different religions, 
     different individual and group loyalties, different music, 
     and different languages.
       Tommorrow's students will be problematic for an even more 
     profound reason--their lack of academic skills. Teachers will 
     not only struggle with their diversity but also with their 
     poor language skills and lack of educational attainment. 
     Minorities have traditionally lagged behind academically. 
     Educational policy makers often view them as an 
     afterthought--gearing their decisions to the more successful 
     white majority. As the demographics shift, however, educators 
     will face a nation dominated by struggling students, at the 
     same time more must complete their education with higher 
     order skills.
       The statistics illustrate a wide educational gap between 
     minorities and non-minorities. In 1996, 30 percent of 
     Hispanics had less than a ninth grade education, compared 
     with 10 percent of African Americans and only about five 
     percent of whites. Little more than one-half (53 percent) of 
     Hispanics ages 25 or older had completed high school, and 
     less than 10 percent had at least a bachelor's degree. Nearly 
     85 percent of non-Hispanic adults

[[Page 27453]]

     were high school graduates, and nearly 25 percent were 
     college graduates (del Pinal 1997). The high school dropout 
     rate--the percentage of people, ages 16 to 24, who do not 
     have a high school diploma--reflects a similar disparity. In 
     1993, 27.5 percent of Hispanic students, 13.6 percent of 
     African American students, and 7.9 percent of white students 
     fell into this category (Coley 1995).
       Minority children start two or three steps behind their 
     white counterparts. They start elementary school with fewer 
     social skills and lower language skills than their white 
     counterparts (del Pinal 1997). Their path of underachievement 
     then continues throughout their academic career.


                                summary

       A series of circumstances are converging to create a 21st 
     Century American dilemma that threatens the nation's economic 
     and societal well being. The global economy is forcing 
     manufacturing and businesses that utilize less skilled labor 
     out of the country. The nation's hope for continued 
     prosperity is to be the leader of the world's knowledge 
     industries. This requires a highly skilled, highly productive 
     workforce. Formidable obstacles must be overcome to reach 
     that goal. With the aging population, the percentage of 
     individuals in their primary work years will decline. It is, 
     therefore, necessary to insure that the maximum number of 
     Americans are well prepared and in the workforce. They will 
     have to be more productive both to offset the competitive low 
     salaries in less developed countries and to support the 
     growing number of elderly. America does not have any one to 
     waste!
       Virtually all of our population growth will be from groups 
     that are disproportionately underprepared--immigrants mostly 
     from Third World countries, and minorities, principally 
     Hispanic, who are disproportionately poor. Changes in the 
     American family will also contribute to underpreparation. 
     Changing family and work circumstances result in poor 
     parenting practices that are linked to early children sensory 
     deprivation and learning disabilities. Due to the hardships 
     of growing numbers of single parent families, children's 
     social, physical and educational progress is impeded.
       The workforce could be both undersized and 
     disproportionately underskilled. It would be unable to 
     sustain a knowledge based economy and our quality of life.
       America must depend on education to avert this pending 
     national crisis. Despite reforms and hoped for improvements 
     in the public schools, more Americans will reach adulthood 
     underprepared. States are now taking school reform seriously 
     and there is evidence of some improvement. The task, however, 
     is monumental. The public schools cannot be expected to solve 
     it alone.
       The following graph dramatically demonstrates the scope of 
     the problem. Currently, 85 percent of young Americans 
     graduate from high school, 56 percent enter college and, 
     unfortunately, only 39 percent are prepared for college work. 
     This means that unless there is tremendous improvement, less 
     than 40 percent of young Americans will be prepared for the 
     80 percent of high skill jobs. Sixty percent will only be 
     prepared for the 20 percent of low skill jobs. It will be the 
     essential and daunting task of public schools and college 
     remedial programs to raise the 39 percent prepared to 80 
     percent. Substantially more students need to achieve higher 
     skills at the same time large numbers of children will enter 
     the educational system with serious life and educational 
     deficiencies.
       The great strength of America is the belief in the value of 
     every individual and the commitment to equal opportunity for 
     all. Higher education can do nothing more important and more 
     difficult than helping the underprepared achieve educational 
     parity. Higher education leadership is essential in meeting 
     this challenge. Colleges must join with public schools in 
     unified efforts to raise the educational achievements of all 
     children. They must also insure the availability of quality 
     remedial education programs, primarily in community colleges. 
     This will assure that the critical final bridge to full 
     participants in our society is available to everyone.


                               references

       Cassidy, J. ``Who Killed the Middle Class?'' The New 
     Yorker, October 16, 1995.
       Coley, Richard, Dreams Deferred: High School Dropouts in 
     the United States. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing 
     Service, 1995.
       Del Pinal, Jorge. ``Generations of Diversity: Latinos in 
     the United States,'' Population Reference Bureau, October 
     1997.
       Hodgkinson, H. Bringing Tomorrow Into Focus, Washington DC; 
     The Institute for Educational Leadership, 1996.
       Immerwahr, John Johnson, Jean and Kerman-Schloss, Adam. 
     Cross Talk: The public, Experts and Competitiveness 
     (February). A Research Report from the Business-Higher 
     Education Forum and the Public Agenda Foundation.
       McCabe, Robert and Day, Philip. Developmental Education: A 
     Twenty-First Century Social and Economic Imperative. Mission 
     Viejo: League for Innovation in the Community College, 1998.
       Mitchell, S. ``The Diversity Generation: Demography's 
     Roller Coaster Brings an Echo Boom into Your Classrooms,'' 
     The American School Board Journal, April, 1996.
       National Alliance of Business. ``Job Cuts Out, High Skill 
     in,'' Work America, Vol. 14, November/December 1997.
       National Alliance of Business. ``Enhancing Education and 
     Training Through Technology, Workforce Economic Trends, 
     December, 1997.
       Prather, J.E. ``Presidential Address: What Sociologists Are 
     Learning About the Next Generation of Students: Are We 
     Prepared To Teach in the 21st Century?'' Sociological 
     Perspectives, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1995.
       Preston, S.H. ``Children Will Pay, Demography's Crystal 
     Ball Shows that 21st Century America Will be Older, Wiser and 
     More Ethnically Diverse. But Kids Face Trouble.'' New York 
     Times Magazine, September 29, 1996.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Dr. McCabe raises several crucial demographic and 
societal changes that will affect American education in the coming 
years. Let me mention two of these issues.
  First, the American family structure will change in the coming 
decades. Half of all children will spend some of their childhood in 
single-parent homes and are more likely to live in poverty.
  Of the children who grow up in a nuclear family, very often both of 
their parents will work; thus, they will be less able to be involved in 
the child's school and schoolwork. That is what is happening to 
American families. That is what will increasingly in the family 
environment from which American schoolchildren will enter the 
classroom. But as they exit the classroom, societal expectations for 
students upon graduation will be greater.
  In the middle of this century, 50 years ago, 20 percent of American 
jobs required a specific skill. At the end of this century, today, 80 
percent of jobs need skilled workers. Thus, the American student will 
need to graduate from school better prepared for the high-tech world 
than ever before; but single-parent families and dual-income families, 
in general, will face more challenges in being able to be actively 
involved in the support of that child's education.
  These challenges, and others, will face the American educational 
system. I rise today to take one step forward in easing the nationwide 
teacher shortage and offering challenging new opportunities for 
America's professional working people by introducing the Transition to 
Teaching Act of 1999.
  Senator Kennedy is to be commended for his work in including similar 
language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization 
Bill. Representatives Jim Davis of Florida and Tim Roemer of Indiana 
have taken the lead in the House of Representatives on this issue.
  We have a very successful model on which to build the Transition to 
Teaching program. Since 1994, the Troops to Teachers program has 
brought more than 3,000 retired military personnel to our classrooms, 
particularly as math, science, and technology teachers.
  Schools in my State of Florida have benefitted by more than 270 
individuals who have successfully completed the Troops to Teachers 
program, and are bringing their life experience to the classroom today.
  Troops to Teachers, and now Transition to Teaching, assist in 
overcoming two of the main obstacles that mid-career professionals face 
when they want to become a teacher. It is not impossible to do this 
now, as Mr. Aradine has shown; but this legislation will assist with 
and simplify the process.
  The first issue that is addressed involves teaching colleges within 
universities. These teaching colleges are often set up for the 
traditional students in their early twenties, right out of high school, 
just starting their new lives.
  These programs are generally taken over a multiyear period as a full-
time college student. This legislation encourages teaching colleges to 
develop curriculum suitable for an individual who already has many 
years of experience. These programs are more streamlined, more flexible 
in school hours, and recognize that the mid-career student brings more 
life and work experience than does a traditional college student.
  By developing such programs, teaching colleges can maintain high 
standards, but allow a mid-career worker, making the change into 
teaching to become certified in a more efficient, streamlined manner.

[[Page 27454]]

  Teaching colleges are also asked to develop programs to maintain 
contact with and support for these new teachers during at least their 
first year in the classroom.
  Second, Transition to Teaching will assist teachers who come to the 
profession in mid-career in a very tangible way.
  Grants will be awarded, up to $5,000 per participant, to offset the 
costs of becoming a certified teacher. Why are these grants 
appropriate? The traditional college student comes directly from a 
family setting. They typically have limited personal or family 
financial obligations. In contrast, people like Mr. Aradine have their 
own families, spouses, children, and they have a house and car 
payments. They have the kind of financial obligations that would be 
typical of any mid-career adult. They would need this financial 
assistance in order to give them that little degree of support and help 
that will allow them to make this transition to become a certified 
teacher and move into a second career in the classroom.
  Thus, this legislation deals with two of the biggest obstacles to 
becoming a teacher in mid-career. The certification process is 
streamlined, and stipends are provided to offset the cost of this 
additional education.
  The success can be highlighted best with a personal story--a personal 
story, not like Mr. Aradine who is in his first year, but the personal 
story of a man who is already well into his second career. Ronald 
Dyches grew up in a military family. His father was a noncommissioned 
officer. When Mr. Dyches attended college at Sam Houston State, he 
followed in his family's military footsteps and enrolled in the ROTC.
  When he graduated, he became a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. 
For more than 21 years, Mr. Dyches served our Nation as an Army 
intelligence officer, living throughout the United States and Europe. 
He feels the highlight of his career were the three years he spent on 
General Norman Schwartzkopf's staff at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa 
during the Gulf war. Mr. Dyches retired from the Army in 1995. But you 
can say his service to the country did not end.
  With the help of the Troops to Teachers program, Mr. Dyches began a 
second career teaching social studies at Bloomingdale High School in 
Brandon, FL. He has been on the faculty at Bloomingdale since 1995--and 
this year he is teaching three periods of Honors World History and two 
periods of an elective class that he created: The History of the 
Vietnam War.
  Mr. Dyches' military experiences are an integral part of his 
classroom teaching. In addition to developing new elective courses, 
such as the one on the Vietnam war, Mr. Dyches uses the wealth of 
knowledge acquired living and working twelve years in Europe with the 
military to enliven his World History class. With his background, he 
offers advice and counsel to students including those considering a 
military career or wishing to attend one of the Nation's service 
academies.
  Mr. Dyches feels that this classroom experience would not have been 
possible without the Troops to Teachers program. It rekindled his 
interest in teaching from his college days, and it opened doors to 
certification that would have been closed to him.
  In some sense, Troops to Teachers helps make ``perfect marriages.'' 
Bloomingdale High School needed a social studies teacher. Ron Dyches 
needed a challenging, rewarding second career. He, the school, and all 
of Bloomingdale's students have benefited from this perfect marriage.
  Other professionals, other workers, should be allowed to follow in 
the footsteps of the retired military personnel like Mr. Dyches, who 
have set such a shining example for us and the students that they 
serve.
  Law enforcement, attorneys, business leaders, scientists, 
entrepreneurs, technically competent men and women, and others in the 
private sector should be encouraged to share their wisdom with 
students.
  As I mentioned, under the Transition to Teaching Act, colleges and 
universities would be awarded grants to design educational programs 
modeled after Troops to Teachers to train mid-career professionals, and 
others, to become teachers.
  Individuals would be eligible for grants of up to $5,000 to pay for 
the courses and training they need to become qualified teachers.
  In return for the training, the new teachers would agree to teach in 
low-income schools, determined by the percentage of title I students in 
the school population, for three years.
  This legislation is timely. We are on the cusp of retirement of 
millions of baby boomers.
  By encouraging recent retirees, or mid-career professionals, to 
become certified through Transition To Teaching and spend a few years 
in the classroom, we will bring the life skills of experienced 
professionals to our youngest citizens.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Our nation's children deserve our best efforts to provide them with a 
world class education that they will need in the 21st century.

                               Exhibit 1

Disillusioned Find Renewal in Classroom--New Teachers Coming From Other 
                              Professions

                            (By Liz Seymour)

       To become a teacher, Mary Ann Richardson left a $113,000-a-
     year job lobbying Congress as a U.S. deputy assistant 
     secretary in the Labor Department.
       Now she's a 46-year-old intern at Falls Church High School, 
     a substitute teacher in history, government and civics 
     without her own classroom or even her own desk. Next year, 
     after she receives her master's degree in education, she will 
     be applying for teaching jobs that pay about $80,000 a year 
     less than what she used to earn.
       She grapples with a new identity and the loss of family 
     income that she worked 16 years to get and will never see 
     again. But, she said, ``when those kids look up to you or 
     they're having a crisis and you can help . . . I can tell you 
     right now, I have found a purpose.''
       The teaching profession, shunned for decades by college 
     graduates in search of higher pay and prestige, is attracting 
     a growing number of people who started their careers in 
     another field. Some are downsized corporate executives who've 
     heard about the national teacher shortage and are enticed by 
     the job security. Others, like Richardson, are disenchanted 
     lawyers and lobbyists who found that their high salaries did 
     not make up for job pressures.
       They are being lured, too, by an easing of teacher 
     licensing requirements for career-switchers in many states 
     and school districts, a trend that is likely to continue as 
     the national teacher shortage worsens.
       About 55 percent of the students currently enrolled in 
     post-undergraduate teaching programs started their careers in 
     another field, according to a study to be released this week 
     by the National Center for Education Information, a 
     Washington-based think tank. The study also found that 27 
     percent of universities have programs solely for second-
     career teachers, up from 3 percent in 1984.
       Officials in several Washington area school districts said 
     they are seeing more people like Richardson, although they do 
     not keep such figures.
       ``People used to be driven by the financial rewards of 
     their career,'' said Kevin North, the director of employment 
     for Fairfax County schools. ``People are starting to step 
     back and say, `Other things are more important to me, and I 
     want something more fulfilling.' ''
       Second-career teachers are appealing job candidates in 
     several respects, said Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of 
     education at Stanford University and director of the National 
     Commission on Teaching & America's Future. They are more 
     mature than first-career teachers and often have experience 
     with children through parenting. And because their decision 
     to teach usually requires a substantial pay cut, they tend to 
     have a deeper commitment to public education, she said.
       Jerome ``Rick'' Peck, 55, a first-year science teacher at 
     Loudoun County's Seneca Ridge Middle School, said the biggest 
     attribute he brings to the classroom is ``the ability to say 
     to the kids--and to mean it and to know it--`Hey, this is 
     something you're going to need later in life.' ''
       A certified public accountant with a master's degree in 
     business administration from the Wharton School, Peck was 
     earning a six-figure salary as chief financial officer of a 
     magazine publishing company until it was sold a few years 
     ago. He was financially secure and his decision to teach was 
     ``really selfish,'' Peck insists, because he saw it as 
     something he would enjoy.
       Five weeks into the school year, he still feels that way. 
     But the transition hasn't been easy. He is mired in more 
     paperwork than he expected. Many of his students fared poorly 
     on the first test he gave, about the

[[Page 27455]]

     metric system, and some complained that he was lecturing too 
     fast.
       ``When it comes to teaching, I'm definitely still 
     learning,'' Peck said.
       James R. Fields, 38, a former supervisor at United Parcel 
     Service, is studying for his master's degree in education at 
     George Washington University and substitute teaching at Sligo 
     Middle School in Silver Spring.
       Fields was earning $59,000 a year after 14 years at UPS. 
     But when he moved from the Miami area to Montgomery County to 
     get married, the company wouldn't transfer him.
       He probably won't earn more than $35,000 a year when he 
     gets a full-time teaching job next year. Fields said he is 
     lucky that his wife, a gynecologist, has a salary that allows 
     him to pursue teaching.
       Fields, who is African American, said he hopes to be a 
     strong influence on young black males. But right now, his 
     main goal is to learn the routines of running a classroom. He 
     said it's a challenge sometimes just to get his students to 
     settle down--never mind actually paying attention and 
     comprehending his lessons.
       ``It's kind of tough as a sub--[the students] think it's a 
     field day,'' Fields said. ``In a sense I see that as a plus; 
     you quickly develop some classroom management skills.''
       Tom Brannan, 52, quit his $83,000-a-year job as an 
     assistant city manager in Alexandria to enroll in the 
     master's degree program at George Washington. He enjoyed many 
     aspects of his job but not the long hours and frenetic pace. 
     Time with his family was often cut short, he said.
       In just a few weeks as a substitute teacher at Fairfax's 
     George Marshall High School, Brannan already has seen 
     rewards. One day, he was assigned on short notice to teach a 
     history class, with little time to prepare a lesson. After 
     sweating out the period, the bell rang and the students filed 
     out. One stopped to ask him: ``Are you gonna be back any time 
     soon?''
       Career-switchers typically take fewer education courses 
     than students who go into teaching as a first career but 
     often get more field work in schools.
       Despite the growing calls from politicians and school 
     officials to streamline the certification process for second-
     career teachers, they may still face challenges getting 
     hired, said C. Emily Feistritzer, president of the National 
     Center for Education Information.
       Some may possess several advanced degrees, which would put 
     them at a higher pay scale than most beginning teachers. 
     Feistritzer said she has spotted another hurdle: Principals 
     are sometimes less inclined to put older adults on their 
     teaching staff because they won't be as easy to supervise as 
     a 22-year-old college graduate.
       Amy Harris is 26, younger than many of the other teachers 
     who started in a different profession. She gave up a job at a 
     brokerage firm in Minneapolis to lead 27 fifth-graders at 
     Loudoun's Cool Spring Elementary School. Although she didn't 
     take much of a pay cut to become a teacher, she eventually 
     would have earned far more if she'd stayed in financial 
     services.
       She acknowledges that she second-guesses her decision once 
     a month, when she writes a check to pay down $25,000 in debt 
     from graduate school loans. But she is energized by her 
     students. ``I really enjoy their wit and their cleverness,'' 
     she said.
       Richardson's journey toward teaching began last year, when 
     her mother was dying. She came to live with Richardson for 
     the last four months of her life, during which mother and 
     daughter had many soul-searching talks about careers, family 
     and, above all, happiness.
       ``She said, `Look, you've got about 20 years [of working] 
     left--you need to do what you think is important and what you 
     want to do.' '' Richardson recalled.
       Richardson, whose husband is an archivist, has put her two 
     children on strict allowances to reduce household expenses 
     since she quit her high-paying Labor Department job.
       The worst of it, she said, is being viewed as an 
     inexperienced newcomer at age 46.
       ``I worry that when I get done with this program, I have to 
     start over and sell myself again,'' she said. ``If I get 
     through this, they should want me!''
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk the legislation and ask 
for its appropriate reference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (by request):
  S. 1828. A bill to protect and provide resources for the Social 
Security System, to reserve surpluses to protect, strengthen and 
modernize the Medicare Program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


        the strengthen social security and medicare act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following letter of transmittal from the White House be printed in the 
Record, following the text of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1828

       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 ``Strengthen Social Security 
     and Medicare Act of 1999.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Social Security system is one of the cornerstones 
     of American national policy and has allowed a generation of 
     Americans to retire with dignity. For 30 percent of all 
     senior citizens, Social Security benefits provide almost 90 
     percent of their retirement income. For 66 percent of all 
     senior citizens, Social Security benefits provide over half 
     of their retirement income. Poverty rates among the elderly 
     are at the lowest level since the United States began to keep 
     poverty statistics, due in large part to the Social Security 
     system. The Social Security system, together with the 
     additional protections afforded by the Medicare system, have 
     been an outstanding success for past and current retirees and 
     must be preserved for future retirees.
       (2) The long-term solvency of the Social Security and 
     Medicare trust funds is not assured. There is an estimated 
     long-range actuarial deficit in the Social Security trust 
     funds. According to the 1999 report of the Board of Trustees 
     of the Social Security trust funds, the accumulated balances 
     in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are currently 
     projected to become unable to pay benefits in full on a 
     timely basis starting in 2034. The Medicare system faces more 
     immediate financial shortfalls, with the Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund projected to become exhausted in 2015.
       (3) In addition to preserving Social Security and Medicare, 
     the Congress and the President have a responsibility to 
     future generations to reduce the Federal debt held by the 
     public. Significant debt reduction will contribute to the 
     economy and improve the Government's ability to fulfill its 
     responsibilities and to face future challenges, including 
     preserving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare.
       (4) The Federal Government is now in sound financial 
     condition. The Federal budget is projected to generate 
     significant surpluses. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, there 
     were unified budget surpluses--the first consecutive 
     surpluses in more than 40 years. Over the next 15 years, the 
     Government projects the on-budget surplus, which excludes 
     Social Security, to total $2.9 trillion. The unified budget 
     surplus (including Social Security) is projected by the 
     Government to total $5.9 trillion over the next 15 years.
       (5) The surplus, excluding Social Security, offers an 
     unparalleled opportunity to: preserve Social Security; 
     protect, strengthen, and modernize Medicare; and 
     significantly reduce the Federal debt held by the public, for 
     the future benefit of all Americans.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to protect the 
     Social Security surplus for debt reduction, to extend the 
     solvency of Social Security, and to set aside a reserve to be 
     used to protect, strengthen, and modernize Medicare.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS TO FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND 
                   SURVIVORS INSURANCE TRUST FUND AND FEDERAL 
                   DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUND.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assure that 
     the interest savings on the debt held by the public achieved 
     as a result of Social Security surpluses from 2000 to 2015 
     are dedicated to Social Security solvency.
       (b) Additional Appropriation to Trust Funds.--Section 201 
     of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Additional Appropriation to Trust Funds.
       ``(1) In addition to the amounts appropriated to the Trust 
     Funds under subsections (a) and (b), there is hereby 
     appropriated to the Trust Funds, out of any moneys in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
       ``(A) for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and 
     for each fiscal year thereafter through the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2016, an amount equal to the prescribed 
     amount for the fiscal year; and
       ``(B) for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and 
     for each fiscal year thereafter through the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2044, and amount equal to the prescribed 
     amount for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
       ``(2) The amount appropriated by paragraph (1) in fiscal 
     year shall be transferred in equal monthly installments.
       ``(3) The amount appropriated by paragraph (1) in each 
     fiscal year shall be allocated between the Trust Funds in the 
     same proportion as the taxes imposed by chapter 21 (other 
     than sections 3101(b) and 3111(b)) of Title 26 with respect 
     to wages (as defined in section 3121 of Title 26) reported to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate pursuant to 
     subtitle F of Title 26, and the taxes imposed by chapter 2 
     (other than section 1401(b)) of Title 26 with respect to 
     self-employment income (as defined in section 1402 of Title 
     26) reported to the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate 
     pursuant to subtitle F of Title 26, are allocated between the 
     Trust

[[Page 27456]]

     Funds in the calendar year that begins in the fiscal year.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the ``prescribed 
     amount'' for any fiscal year shall be determined by 
     multiplying:
       ``(a) the excess of:
       ``(i) the sum of:

       ``(I) the face amount of all obligations of the United 
     States held by the Trust Funds on the last day of the fiscal 
     year immediately preceding the fiscal year of determination 
     purchased with amounts appropriated or credited to the Trust 
     Funds other than any amount appropriated under paragraph (1); 
     and
       ``(II) the sum of the amounts appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) and transferred under paragraph (2) through the last day 
     of the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year of 
     determination, and an amount equal to the interest that would 
     have been earned thereon had those amounts been invested in 
     obligations of the United States issued directly to the Trust 
     Funds under subsections (d) and (f)

     .``over--
       ``(ii) the face amount of all obligations of the United 
     Sates held by the Trust Funds on September 30, 1999,

     ``times--
       ``(B) a rate of interest determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, at the beginning of the fiscal year of 
     determination, as follows:
       ``(i) if there are any marketable interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States then forming a part of the 
     pubic debt, a rate of interest determined by taking into 
     consideration the average market yield (computed on the basis 
     of daily closing market bid quotations or prices during the 
     calendar month immediately preceding the determination of the 
     rate of interest) on such obligations; and
       ``(ii) if there are no marketable interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States then forming a part of the 
     public debt, a rate of interest determined to be the best 
     approximation of the rate of interest described in clause 
     (i), taking into consideration the average market yield 
     (computed on the basis of daily closing market bid quotations 
     or prices during the calendar month immediately preceding the 
     determination of the rate of interest) on investment grade 
     corporate obligations selected by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, less an adjustment made by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to take into account the difference between the 
     yields on corporate obligations comparable to the obligations 
     selected by the Secretary of the Treasury and yields on 
     obligations of comparable maturities issued by risk-free 
     government issuers selected by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.''.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) Points of Order to Protect Social Security Surpluses.--
     Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Points of Order to Protect Social Security 
     Surpluses.--
       ``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not 
     be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to 
     consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or 
     conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would 
     set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
       ``(2) Subsequent legislation.--It shall not be in order in 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference 
     report if--
       ``(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
       ``(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       ``(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form 
     recommended in that conference report,

     would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal 
     year.
       ``(3) Budget resolution baseline.--(A) For purposes of this 
     section, ``set forth an on-budget deficit'', with respect to 
     a budget resolution, means the resolution set forth an on-
     budget deficit for a fiscal year and the baseline budget 
     project of the surplus or deficit for such fiscal year on 
     which such resolution is based projects an on-budget surplus, 
     on-budget balance, or an on-budget deficit that is less than 
     the deficit set forth in the resolution.
       ``(B) For purposes of this section, ``cause or increase an 
     on-budget deficit'' with respect to legislation means causes 
     or increases an on-budget deficit relative to the baseline 
     budget project.
       ``(C) For purposes of this section, the term ``baseline 
     budget projection'' means the projection described in section 
     257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 of current year levels of outlays, receipts, and the 
     surplus or deficit into the budget year and future years, 
     except that--
       ``(i) if outlays for programs subject to discretionary 
     appropriations are subject to discretionary statutory 
     spending limits, such outlays shall be projected at the level 
     of any applicable current adjusted statutory discretionary 
     spending limits;
       ``(ii) if outlays for programs subject to discretionary 
     appropriations are not subject to discretionary spending 
     limits, such outlays shall be projected as required by 
     section 257 beginning in the first fiscal year following the 
     last fiscal year in which such limits applied; and
       ``(iii) with respect to direct spending or receipts 
     legislation previously enacted during the current calendar 
     year and after the most recent baseline estimate pursuant to 
     section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1995, the net extent (if any) by which all 
     such legislation is more than fully paid for in one of the 
     applicable time periods shall count as a credit for that time 
     period against increases in direct spending or reductions in 
     net revenue.''.
       (b) Content of Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
     Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 
     (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) the receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, combined, 
     established by title II of the Social Security Act;''.
       (c) Super Majority Requirement.--
       (1) Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.
       (2) Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.

     SEC. 5. PROTECTION OF MEDICARE.

       (a) Points of Order To Protect Medicare.--
       (1) Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Point of Order to Protect Medicare.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference 
     report on the resolution) that would decrease the on-budget 
     surplus for the total of the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2009 below the level of the Medicare surplus reserve 
     for those fiscal years as calculated in accordance with 
     section 3(11).
       ``(2) Inapplicability.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     legislation that--
       ``(A) appropriates a portion of the Medicare reserve for 
     new amounts for prescription drug benefits under the Medicare 
     program as part of or subsequent to legislation extending the 
     solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; or
       ``(B) appropriates new amounts from the general fund to the 
     Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.''.
       (2) Section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Enforcement of the Medicare Surplus Reserve.--
       ``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     together with associated interest costs would decrease the 
     on-budget surplus for the total of the period of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2009 below the level of the Medicare surplus 
     reserve for those fiscal years as calculated in accordance 
     with section 3(11).
       ``(B) Inapplicability.--This paragraph shall not apply to 
     legislation that--
       ``(i) appropriates a portion of the Medicare reserve for 
     new amounts for prescription drug benefits under the Medicare 
     program as part of or subsequent to legislation extending the 
     solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; or
       ``(ii) appropriates new amounts from the general fund to 
     the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) The term `Medicare surplus reserve' means one-third 
     of any on-budget surplus for the total of the period of the 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2009, as estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office in the most recent initial report 
     for a fiscal year pursuant to section 202(e).''.
       (c) Super Majority Requirement.--
       (1) Section 904(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``301(i),''.
       (2) Section 904(d)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``301(i),''.

     SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Extension of Limits.--Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended, 
     in the matter before paragraph (A), by deleting ``2002'', and 
     inserting ``2014''.
       (b) Extension of Amounts.--Section 251(c) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by striking paragraphs (4), (5), (6) and (7), and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(4) With respect to fiscal year 2000,
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $535,368,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $543,257,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $24,574,000,000 in outlays;

[[Page 27457]]

       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $4,117,000,000 in 
     outlays; and
       ``(D) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $4,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,564,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(5) With respect to fiscal year 2001,
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $573,004,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $564,931,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $26,234,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $4,888,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(6) With respect to fiscal year 2002,
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $584,754,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $582,516,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $26,655,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $5,384,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(7) With respect to fiscal year 2003,
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $590,800,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $587,642,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $27,041,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $6,124,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(8) With respect to fiscal year 2004, for the 
     discretionary category: $604,319,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $634,039,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(9) With respect to fiscal year 2005, for the 
     discretionary category: $616,496,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $653,530,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(10) With respect to fiscal year 2006, for the 
     discretionary category: $630,722,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $671,530,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(11) With respect to fiscal year 2007, for the 
     discretionary category: $644,525,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $687,532,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(12) With respect to fiscal year 2008, for the 
     discretionary category: $663,611,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $704,534,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(13) With respect to fiscal year 2009, for the 
     discretionary category: $678,019,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $721,215,000,000 in outlays, ``as adjusted in 
     strict conformance with subsection (b).
       ``With respect to fiscal year 2010 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, the term ``discretionary spending limit'' means, 
     for the discretionary category, the baseline amount 
     calculated pursuant to the requirements of Section 257(c), as 
     adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSION AND CLARIFICATION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Section 252 of the Balanced Budget And Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (a) in subsection (a), by striking ``October 1, 2002'' and 
     inserting ``October 1, 2014'' and by adding ``or decreases 
     the surplus'' after ``increases the deficit'';
       (b)(1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``October 1, 2002'' and inserting ``October 1, 2014'' and by 
     adding ``or any net surplus decrease'' after ``any net 
     deficit increase'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) of subsection (b),
       (i) in the header by adding ``or surplus decrease'' after 
     ``deficit increase'';
       (ii) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by adding ``or 
     surplus'' after ``deficit''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or surplus'' after 
     ``net deficit''; and
       (3) in the header of subsection (c), by adding ``or surplus 
     decrease'' after ``deficit increase''.

     SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT 
                   CONTROL ACT.--

       Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     2002' and inserting ``September 30, 2014'' and by striking 
     ``September 30, 2006'' and inserting ``September 30, 2018''.

     SEC. 9. EXTENSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FIREWALL IN 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.--

       Section 904(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2002'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2014''.

     SEC. 10. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY INTEREST SAVINGS 
                   TRANSFERS.

       (a) Definition of Deficit and Surplus Under Budget 
     Enforcement Act.--Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended in paragraph 
     (1) by adding `` `surplus','' before ``and `deficit' ''.
       (b) Reduction or Reversal of Social Security Transfers Not 
     To Be Counted As Pay-As-You-Go Offset.--Any legislation that 
     would reduce, reverse or repeal the transfers to the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund made by Section 201(n) of the 
     Social Security Act, as added by Section 3 of this Act, shall 
     not be counted on the pay-as-you-go scorecard and shall not 
     be included in any pay-as-you-go estimates made by the 
     Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Management and 
     Budget under Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (c) Conforming Change.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended, in 
     paragraph (4) of subsection (d), by--
       (1) striking ``and'' after subparagraph (A),
       (2) striking the period after the subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``; and'', and
       (3) adding the following:
       ``(C) provisions that reduce, reverse or repeal transfers 
     under Section 201(n) of the Social Security Act.''.

     SEC. 11. CONFORMING CHANGES.

       (a) Reports.--Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``or surplus'' after 
     ``deficit'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``or surplus'' after 
     ``deficit''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or surplus decrease'' 
     after ``deficit increase'';
       (2) in paragraph (4) of subsection (f), by adding ``or 
     surplus'' after ``deficit''; and
       (3) in subparagraph A of paragraph (2) of subsection (f), 
     by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2009''.
       (b) Orders.--Section 258A(a) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended in the first 
     sentence by adding ``or increase the surplus'' after 
     ``deficit''.
       (c) Process.--Section 258(C)(a) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by adding ``or surplus increase'' 
     after ``deficit reduction'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by adding ``or increase in the 
     surplus'' after ``reduction in the deficit''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4), by adding ``or surplus increase'' 
     after ``deficit reduction''.
                                  ____

                                                  The White House,


                                Office of the Press Secretary,

                                                 October 26, 1999.
To the Congress of the United States:
  I transmit herewith for your immediate consideration a legislative 
proposal entitled the ``Strengthen Social Security and Medicare Act of 
1999.''
  The Social Security system is one of the cornerstones of American 
national policy and together with the additional protections afforded 
by the Medicare system, has helped provide retirement security for 
millions of Americans over the last 60 years. However, the long-term 
solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds is not 
guaranteed. The Social Security trust fund is currently expected to 
become insolvent starting in 2034 as the number of retired workers 
doubles. The Medicare system also faces significant financial 
shortfalls, with the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund projected to become 
exhausted in 2015. We need to take additional steps to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare for future generations of Americans.
  In addition to preserving Social Security and Medicare, the Congress 
and the President have a responsibility to future generations to reduce 
the debt held by the public. Paying down the debt will produce 
substantial interest savings, and this legislation proposes to devote 
these entirely to Social Security after 2010. At the same time, by 
contributing to the growth of the overall economy debt reduction will 
improve the Government's ability to fulfill its responsibilities and to 
face future challenges, including preserving and strengthening Social 
Security and Medicare.
  The enclosed bill would help achieve these goals by devoting the 
entire Social Security surpluses to debt reduction, extending the 
solvency of Social Security to 2050, protecting Social Security and 
Medicare funds in the budget process, reserving one-third of the non-
Social Security surplus to strengthen and modernize Medicare, and 
paying down the debt by 2015. It is clear and straightforward 
legislation that would strengthen and preserve Social Security and 
Medicare for our children and grandchildren. The bill would:
  Extend the life of Social Security from 2034 to 2050 by reinvesting 
the interest savings from the debt reduction resulting from Social 
Security surpluses.
  Establish a Medicare surplus reserve equal to one-third of any on-
budget surplus for the total of the period of fiscal years 2000 through 
2009 to strengthen and modernize Medicare.
  Add a further protection for Social Security and Medicare by 
extending the budget enforcement rules that have provided the 
foundation for our fiscal discipline, including the discretionary caps 
and pay-as-you-go budget rules.
  I urge the prompt and favorable consideration of this proposal.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, October 26, 1999.




                          ____________________