May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6513 

health and the global competitiveness of the 

state of Wyoming and the entire nation; and 

‘‘Whereas, the highway network is the 

backbone of a transportation system for the 

movement of people, goods, and intermodal 

connections; and 

‘‘Whereas, it is critical to effectively address highway transportation needs through 

appropriate transportation plans and program investments; and 

‘‘Whereas, the 1991 Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) established the concept of a 155,000 mile national highway system which includes the 

interstate system; and 

‘‘Whereas, on December 9, 1994, the United 

States department of transportation transmitted to Congress a 159,000 mile proposed 

national highway system which identified 

104 port facilities, 143 airports, 191 rail-truck 

terminals, 321 Amtrak stations and 319 transit terminals; and 

‘‘Whereas, ISTEA requires that the national highway system and interstate maintenance funds not be released to the states if 

the system is not approved by September 30, 

1995; and 

‘‘Whereas, the uncertainty associated with 

the future of the national highway system 

precludes the possibility of the state to effectively undertake the necessary, properly 

developed planning and programming activities; Now, therefore, be it 

‘‘Resolved by the members of the fifty-third 

Wyoming Legislature; 

‘‘Section 1. That the process for developing 

and approving the national highway system 

should be accelerated and that the Congress 

of the United States of America should pass 

legislation which approves and designates 

the national highway system no later than 

September 30, 1995. 

‘‘Section 2. That the Secretary of State of 

Wyoming transmit copies of this resolution 

to the President of the United States, to the 

President of the Senate and the Speaker of 

the House of Representatives of the United 

States Congress, to the Governor of the state 

of Wyoming and to the Wyoming Congressional Delegation.

f 

’’

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND 

JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first 

and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: 

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. 

LEVIN, Mr. ROTH, Mr. GLENN, and Mr. 

COHEN): 

S. 790. A bill to provide for the modification or elimination of Federal reporting requirements; read the first time. 

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. 

LOTT): 

S. 791. A bill to provide that certain civil 

defense employees and employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency may be 

eligible for certain public safety officers 

death benefits, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Governmental Affairs. 

By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself, 

Mr. BURNS, and Mr. ROBB): 

S. 792. A bill to recognize the National 

Education Technology Funding Corporation 

as a nonprofit corporation operating under 

the laws of the District of Columbia, to provide authority for Federal departments and 

agencies to provide assistance to such corporation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 

By Mr. SIMPSON (for himself, Mr. 

MOYNIHAN, and Mr. KYL): 

S. 793. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption 

from income tax for certain common investment funds; to the Committee on Finance. 

By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. 

INOUYE, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. CRAIG, 

Mr. COHEN, Mr. MACK, Mr. PRESSLER, 

Mr. BURNS, Mr. KERREY, Mr. GRAHAM, 

Mr. COATS, Mr. GORTON, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. DORGAN, 

Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. 

DOLE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. HELMS, Mr. 

BOND, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. JOHNSTON, 

Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. SNOWE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. 

HATCH, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. HATFIELD, 

Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. 

COCHRAN, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. DASCHLE, 

Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. 

LOTT, and Mr. CONRAD): 

S. 794. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to facilitate the minor use of a pesticide, and for 

other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. 

By Mr. COHEN: 

S. 795. A bill for the relief of Pandelis 

Perdikis; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. 

ASHCROFT): 

S. 796. A bill to provide for the protection 

of wild horses within the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and prohibit the 

removal of such horses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

By Mr. KENNEDY: 

S. 797. A bill to provide assistance to 

States and local communities to improve 

adult education and family literacy, to help 

achieve the National Education Goals for all 

citizens, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 

By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. 

CHAFEE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. BRADLEY, 

and Mr. ROCKEFELLER): 

S. 798. A bill to amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to improve the provision of 

supplemental security income benefits, and 

for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. 

f 

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. 

LEVIN, Mr. ROTH, Mr. GLENN, 

and Mr. COHEN): 

S. 790. A bill to provide for the modification or elimination of Federal reporting requirements; read the first 

time. 

FEDERAL REPORTS ELIMINATION AND SUNSET

ACT

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator LEVIN and myself, I’m 

pleased to introduce the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 

1995. This legislation would terminate 

or modify the statutory requirement 

for over 200 mandatory reports to Congress, and sunset most other mandatory reports after 4 years. This legislation would also require the President 

to identify which reports he feels are 

unnecessary or wasteful in his next 

budget submission of Congress, which 

will hopefully spur Congress to swiftly 

dispose of those specific reports. 

This legislation is a combination of 

two separate bills that Senator LEVIN

and I have previously introduced, both 

of which were passed by the Senate as 

amendments to S. 244, The Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The intent of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset 

Act is to end the needless expense of 

hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year on many Federal reports 

that are of minor value to the Congress 

and our constituents. 

Mr. President, by passing this legislation the Senate can help bring to an 

end one of Congress’ most unessential 

and burdensome practices. Each year 

members of Congress add layer upon 

layer of onerous paperwork requirements upon Executive Branch agencies 

by mandating various reports. This 

problem has a very real and substantive cost to taxpayers in terms of 

wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, 

in addition to taking up untold numbers of work-hours by federal employees, and untold amounts of other agency resources that could be far better 

utilized in more worthy endeavors. 

It is astounding that in 1993 the Congress required the Office of the President and Executive branch agencies to 

prepare over 5,300 reports! This is a 

problem that is reaching truly epic 

proportions of unnecessary and wasteful paper shuffling! This practice has 

been criticized by both Vice President 

Gore in his ‘‘National Performance Review,’’ and the Senate’s members of the 

Joint Committee on the Organization 

of Congress. The Joint Committee stated that: 

These reports should not continue in perpetuity without some clear evidence that the 

report serves a useful policy purpose. The 

proliferation of mandatory agency reports 

has been a matter of wide concern in the 

Congress and in the Executive Branch. 

Furthermore, in 1992 the GAO found 

that: 

In the 101st Congress, a single House 

committee received over 800 reports 

from Federal agencies in response to 

mandates from the Congress; 

Another 600 reports were sent to the 

same committee in the 102d Congress; 

The Office of Management and Budget had to submit 38 reports to a single 

House committee just to comply with 

the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act; 

Are these reports necessary? Does 

Congress really need to force every 

Federal agency to keep a small army of 

bureaucrats on the payroll solely to 

satisfy its insatiable appetite for reports? I think the answer is clearly no, 

and I’m confident most people sincerely interested in reducing the size 

and cost of Government will agree. 

While I firmly believe we should sunset most annual or semi-annual mandatory reporting requirements, I in no 

way wish to contend that there are not 

many reports required by Congress 

that are vitally important. The recurring flow of timely and accurate information from the executive branch to 

the Congress is essential to our oversight responsibilities as Members, and 

as a legislative body. However, I will 

strongly contend that the cumulative 

weight and cost of the reporting mandates we’ve enacted year after year has 

gotten totally out of hand. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6514 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

The problem of foisting massive reporting requirements on Federal agencies is not only very real, it’s extremely expensive. The Department of 

Agriculture alone spent over $40 million in taxpayers money in 1993 to 

produce the 280 reports it was required 

to submit to the Congress. That is astounding, Mr. President—$40 million in 

taxpayer dollars spent by a single department last year on reports mandated by the Congress. The Department 

of Agriculture isn’t even the leader in 

this respect, however, because the Department of Defense has estimated 

that it must prepare 600 reports each 

year for Congress! At a time when our 

country is struggling to alleviate the 

burdens of the middle class and also address the urgent needs of our citizenry, 

this is an especially egregious waste of 

money. 

Let’s consider this startling cost of 

reports at the USDA in another context: the money the Congress forced 

the Department of Agriculture to fritter away on reporting mandates last 

year could have provided services to an 

additional 100,000 low-income women 

and children under the USDA’s WIC 

program. Think about that, Mr. President; an additional 100,000 women and 

children could have been provided vital 

nutritional and health services with 

the funds the USDA had to spend researching and preparing hundreds of reports! That same $40 million could have 

enrolled another 10,000 disadvantaged 

children in Head Start, as well! Imagine what the cost to taxpayers was to 

produce the more than 5,300 reports 

that the Congress required of Federal 

agencies in 1993! 

Furthermore, this problem is getting 

worse and worse with each passing 

year. The GAO stated that in 1970, the 

Congress mandated only 750 recurring 

reports from Federal agencies. Now we 

have spiralled well past 5,300, and the 

GAO determined that ‘‘Congress imposes about 300 new requirements on 

Federal agencies each year!’’ Clearly, 

Mr. President, the wasteful blizzard of 

paperwork that Vice President Gore 

criticized is becoming an avalanche, 

and it’s time for the Senate to take decisive action to remedy it. 

This legislation would terminate the 

statutory requirement for all annual or 

recurring congressionally-mandated reports four years after it is signed into 

law, with two specific exceptions. The 

reports to be exempted are those required under the Inspector Generals 

Act of 1978 and the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. The Inspector Generals Act requires the Congress to be 

advised of activities regarding investigations into waste, fraud, and abuse 

in Federal agencies; and the CFO Act 

requires agencies to provide financial 

information about their short and 

long-term management of agency resources. 

I believe the reports required by 

these two laws are very important and 

merit continuation, and I also recognize that there are many other reports 

that my colleagues feel have great 

value because of the information they 

provide to Congress. Such reports can 

simply be reauthorized at any time in 

the 4 years before this legislation 

would sunset them. 

I want to commend my colleague, 

Senator LEVIN, for his considerable 

contribution to this legislation. Senator LEVIN and his staff worked for 

months in developing a list of over 200 

mandatory reports that should either 

be promptly eliminated or modified in 

order to lessen the burdens and costs 

that the Congress has placed on Federal agencies. The provisions of this 

bill that he developed will terminate 

the production of some of the most dubious examples of unnecessary paperwork shuffling by Federal agencies, 

and I thank him for his valuable work 

in this area. The combined impact of 

the legislation we are introducing 

today will certainly help remove the 

millstone of unnecessary and costly paperwork that Congress has hung 

around the neck of the Federal Government for too long. 

Mr. President, I am very pleased that 

the chairman and ranking member of 

the Governmental Affairs Committee, 

Senator ROTH and Senator GLENN, respectively, are cosponsors of this legislation. I further want to thank both 

Senator ROTH and Senator GLENN for 

clearing this bill to be placed directly 

on the Senate Calendar upon introduction, so that no further action by the 

committee is necessary. I hope it will 

be passed by the full Senate in the near 

future. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to introduce along with Senators MCCAIN, ROTH, GLENN, and COHEN

the Federal Reports Elimination and 

Sunset Act of 1995, which eliminates 

and modifies over 200 outdated or unnecessary congressionally mandated 

reporting requirements and also places 

a sunset on those reports with an annual, semi-annual, or other regular 

periodic reporting requirement 4 years 

after the bill’s enactment. The legislation is designed to improve the efficiency of agency operations by eliminating paperwork generated and staff 

time spent in producing unnecessary 

reports to Congress. 

The legislation that we are introducing today is similar to the bill Senator COHEN and I introduced last year, 

and is the product of a thorough effort 

to identify those congressionally-mandated agency reporting requirements 

that have outlived their usefulness and 

now serve only as an unnecessary drain 

on agency resources—resources that 

could be devoted to more important 

program use. The Congressional Budget 

Office estimates that enactment of this 

legislation could result in savings of up 

to $5 to $10 million without even factoring in the savings from the sunset 

provision. 

In 1985, when a previous Reports 

Elimination Act was passed, there were 

approximately 3,300 reporting requirements. The 1985 act affected only 23 of 

these reports. Today, there are over 

5,300 reporting requirements. Some estimates of the annual cost of meeting 

these reporting requirements are as 

high as $240 million a year, and the 

GAO reports that Congress imposes 

close to 300 new requirements every 

year. 

This bill is the product of an extensive process that started with recommendations from executive and 

independent agencies. Senator COHEN

and I wrote to all 89 executive and 

independent agencies and asked that 

they identify reports required by law 

that they believe are no longer necessary or useful and, therefore, that 

could be eliminated or modified. We 

stressed the importance of a clear and 

substantiated justification for each 

recommendation made. We received responses from about 80 percent of the 

agencies. For the most part, the agencies made a serious effort to review and 

recommend a respectable number of reporting requirements for elimination. 

We then went to the chairman and 

ranking member of each of the relevant Senate committees—for their review and comment—the recommendations made by the agencies under their 

respective jurisdictions. We also asked 

that the committees provide us with 

any additional recommendations for 

eliminations or modifications that 

they might have. 

Many of the committees responded to 

the request. Those responses were generally supportive of the subcommittee’s efforts and most contained only a 

few changes to the agency recommendations. Those changes were 

primarily requests by committees to 

retain reports under their jurisdiction 

because the information contained in 

the report is of use to the committee 

or, in some cases, of use to outside organizations. 

After this extensive review and comment period, Senator COHEN and I introduced S. 2156, the Federal Reports 

Elimination and Modification Act, on 

May 25, 1994. As introduced, the bill 

contained nearly 300 recommendations 

for eliminations or modifications. Senators GLENN, ROTH, STEVENS, and 

MCCAIN cosponsored that bill. Shortly 

after the introduction of S. 2156, Senator COHEN and I again wrote to all the 

committees and asked for comments 

on the bill as introduced. 

S. 2156 was unanimously approved by 

the Governmental Affairs Committee 

on August 2, 1994. Unfortunately, the 

Senate was unable to act on S. 2156 before the end of the 103d Congress. But I 

am more hopeful that both Houses of 

Congress will pass this very timely 

piece of legislation this year. In fact, in 

March 1995, the Senate agreed to include the language of this bill in the 

form of two separate amendments to 

the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, S. 

244. 

The amendments, however, were 

struck in conference. The chairman of 

the House Committee on Government 

Reform and Oversight agreed, however, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6515 

to support similar legislation in a freestanding bill. 

Under this bill, 157 reports will be 

eliminated and 61 will be modified. The 

legislation also includes a modified 

version of Senator MCCAIN’s sunset 

provision which will facilitate 

Congress’s review of these reports. 

Rather than undergoing the same 

lengthy process of assessing the usefulness of each and every reporting requirement on a periodic basis, the sunset provision will eliminate those reports with a annual, semi-annual, or 

regular periodic reporting requirement 

4 years after the bill’s enactment, 

while allowing Members of Congress to 

re-authorize those reports it deems 

necessary in carrying out effective congressional oversight. The sunset provision does not apply to any reports required under the Inspector General Act 

of 1978 or the Chief Financial Officers 

Act of 1990. 

Because the Senate had already 

passed similar legislation earlier this 

year, we will be seeking to place the 

bill directly on the calendar for the 

Senate’s immediate consideration. 

The enactment of this legislation is 

long overdue. Congressional staffers 

are being inundated with reports that 

are never read and are simply dropped 

into file cabinets or wastebaskets, 

never to be seen again. We are introducing this bipartisan legislation in 

the hopes that Congress will act quickly to plug this drain on needed resources caused by unnecessary and extraneous reporting requirements. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to be an original cosponsor of 

S. 790, the Federal Reports Elimination 

and Sunset Act of 1995, legislation to 

eliminate or modify over 200 statutory 

reporting requirements that have outlived their usefulness and sunset many 

others. 

Senators LEVIN, MCCAIN, and I offered the text of this bill as two separate amendments, which were accepted 

by the Senate, during the debate on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act earlier this 

year. Because of the concerns of House 

conferees that the House Committees 

had not had adequate time to review 

the various reports targeted for elimination or sunset, the amendments were 

dropped in conference. The House conferees assured us, however, that the 

House would act quickly to take up 

separate legislation combining the two 

amendments. 

The issue of eliminating unnecessary 

government reporting requirements is 

an area that Senator LEVIN and I have 

worked on for a number of years in our 

capacity as chairman and ranking minority member of the Governmental 

Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management. The text of 

the amendment that Senator LEVIN

and I offered to the Paperwork Reduction Act was based on legislation we 

introduced last Congress which CBO estimated would reduce agencies’ reporting costs by $5 million to $10 million 

annually. The legislation was the product of more than a year’s worth of discussions with Government agencies 

and congressional committees. 

An example of the type of report this 

legislation will eliminate is an annual 

Department of Energy report on naval 

petroleum and oil shale reserves production. The same data in this report 

is included in the Naval Petroleum Reserves Annual Report. Other provisions 

of the bill will consolidate information 

to reduce the number of reports required. For example, the Department 

of Labor’s annual report will be modified to include the Department’s audited financial statements and, thereby, eliminate the need for a separate 

annual report for all money received 

and disbursed by the Department. Finally, the bill will also eliminate reports that are simply no longer necessary—reports that were useful at the 

time they were required but stopped 

serving a useful purpose and were kept 

on the books because no one was looking closely enough at them. 

The bill also sunsets in 4 years reports made on a regular basis. Under 

the bill, the sunset will not apply to reports triggered by specific events such 

as a report to Congress required under 

the War Powers Act as a result of certain actions. The sunset will also not 

apply to reporting requirements required by the Inspector General Act or 

the Chief Financial Officers Act. The 

sunset provision will force Congress to 

periodically review mandated reporting 

requirements and reauthorize those 

that are still serving a valid purpose. 

The sunset is based on legislation introduced by Senator MCCAIN and will 

save additional taxpayers’ dollars. 

In closing, I believe this legislation is 

a reasonable approach to eliminating 

unnecessary reporting requirements 

and it is consistent with efforts by the 

Congress to reinvent Government and 

make it more efficient. The legislation 

is intended to reduce the paperwork 

burdens placed on Federal agencies, 

streamline the information that flows 

from these agencies to the Congress, 

and save millions of taxpayers’ dollars. 

I hope the congress will act expeditiously to pass this legislation. 

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself 

and Mr. LOTT): 

s. 791. A bill to provide that certain 

civil defense employees and employees 

of the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency may be eligible for certain public safety officers death benefits, and 

for other purposes; to the Committee 

on Governmental Affairs. 

PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS BENEFITS ACT

EXTENSION

∑ Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today 

I am introducing legislation to extend 

coverage under the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act to employees of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] and employees of State and 

local emergency management and civil 

defense agencies who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. 

The Public Safety Officers Benefits 

Act provides benefits to eligible survivors of a public safety officer whose 

death is the direct result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of 

duty. The act also provides benefits to 

those officers who are permanently and 

totally disabled as the direct result of 

a catastrophic personal injury sustained in the line of duty. 

The act now covers State and local 

law enforcement officers and fire fighters, Federal law enforcement officers 

and fire fighters, and Federal, State, 

and local rescue squads and ambulance 

crews. However, an employee of a State 

or local emergency management, or 

civil defense agency, or an employee of 

FEMA, who is killed or permanently 

disabled performing his or her duty in 

responding to a disaster is not covered 

under the act. 

The legislation I am introducing 

today will remedy this situation by extending the act to those employees. 

This will ensure that the survivors and 

family members of an employee killed 

in the line of duty will receive benefits 

and that an employee permanently and 

totally disabled as a result of injury 

sustained in the line of duty will also 

receive the benefits of the act. 

During his confirmation hearing in 

the last Congress, FEMA Director 

James Lee Witt said that emergency 

management and civil defense employees put their lives on the line almost 

every time they respond to an event. 

Enactment of this legislation will provide them with some assurance that, 

should death or disabling injury result 

from the performance of their duty, 

their families will receive survivor benefits or they will receive disability benefits. 

I hope my colleagues will carefully 

consider this legislation and join me in 

support of its enactment.∑ 

By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for 

herself, Mr. BURNS, and Mr. 

ROBB): 

S. 792. A bill to recognize the National Education Technology Funding 

Corporation as a nonprofit corporation 

operating under the laws of the District of Columbia, to provide authority 

for Federal departments and agencies 

to provide assistance to such corporation, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

FUNDING CORPORATION ACT

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I introduce the National Education Technology Funding Corporation Act, legislation designed to connect public schools and public libraries 

to the information superhighway. 

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Mr. President, if there is any objective that should command complete 

American consensus, it is to ensure 

that every American has a chance to 

succeed. That is the core concept of the 

American dream—the chance to 

achieve as much and to go as far as 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

your ability and talent will take you. 

Public education has always been a 

part of that core concept. In this country, the chance to be educated has always gone hand in hand with the 

chance to succeed. 

Yet, as I have stated time and time 

again, education is more than a private 

benefit, it is also a public good. My experiences as a legislator have shown 

me that the quality of public education 

affects the entire community. Education prepares our work force to compete in the emerging global economy. 

It increases our productivity and competitive advantages in world markets. 

It also promotes our economy and the 

standard and quality of living for our 

people. 

TECHNOLOGY

Nonetheless, I am convinced that it 

will be difficult if not impossible for us 

to prepare our children to compete in 

the emerging global economy unless we 

change the current educational system. 

If American students are to compete 

successfully with their foreign counterparts, systemic school reform must 

occur. And that means taking into account and addressing all aspects of the 

educational system. 

Mr. President, the increased competition created by the emerging global 

economy requires teachers and students to transform their traditional 

roles in many ways. It requires teachers to act as facilitators in the classroom, guiding student learning rather 

than prescribing it. It also requires 

students to construct their own knowledge, based on information and data 

they manipulate themselves. 

Technology can help teachers and 

students play the new roles that are 

being required of them. Technology can 

help teachers report and chart student 

progress on a more individualized 

basis. It can also allow them to use resources from across the globe or across 

the street to create different learning 

environment for their students without 

ever leaving the classroom. On the 

other hand, technology can allow students to access the vast array of material available electronically and to engage in the analysis of real world problems and questions. 

FIRST GAO REPORT

A recent report released by the General Accounting Office concluded that 

our Nation’s education technology infrastructure is not designed or sufficiently equipped to allow our children 

to take advantage of the benefits technology offers. 

Last year, I asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to conduct a 

comprehensive, nationwide study of 

the condition of our Nation’s public 

schools. In responding to my request, 

the General Accounting Office surveyed a random sample of our Nation’s 

15,000 school districts and 80,000 public 

schools from April to December 1994. 

Based on responses from 78 percent of 

the schools sampled, GAO began preparing five separate reports on the condition of our Nation’s public schools. 

The first GAO report, which was released on February 1, 1995, examined 

the education infrastructure needs for 

our Nation’s public elementary and 

secondary schools. As expected, this report made clear what most of us already knew; that our schools are deteriorating and we need to fix them. 

More specifically, the GAO report concluded that our Nation’s public schools 

need $112 billion to restore their facilities to good overall condition. 

SECOND GAO REPORT

The most recent GAO report, which 

was released on April 4, 1995, concluded 

that more than half of our Nation’s 

public schools lack six or more of the 

technology elements necessary to reform the way teachers teach and students learn including: computers, 

printers, modems, cable TV, laser disc 

players, VCR’s, and TV’s. 

In fact, the GAO report found that 

more of our Nation’s schools do not 

have the education technology infrastructure necessary to support these 

important audio, video, and data systems. For example, their report states 

that: 86.8 percent of all public schools 

lack fiber-optic cable; 46.1 percent lack 

sufficient electrical wiring; 34.6 percent 

lack sufficient electrical power for 

computers; 51.8 percent lack sufficient 

computer networks; 60.6 percent lack 

sufficient conduits and raceways; 61.2 

percent lack sufficient phonelines for 

instructional use; and 55.5 percent lack 

sufficient phonelines for modems. 

LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES

Mr. President, these results are simply unacceptable. There is absolutely 

no reason why, in 1995, all of our Nation’s children should not have access 

to the best education technology resources in the world. 

The most recent GAO report did find 

that students in some schools are taking advantage of the benefits associated with education technology. For 

example, advanced chemistry students 

at Centennial High School in Champaign, IL, are developing experiments 

that allow them to move parts of molecules on their computer screens in response to their own computer commands. In one simulation, students 

watch the orbitals of electrons in reaction to imposed actions. Another simulation demonstrates the ionization of 

atoms—how the size of atoms changes 

when ions are added or subtracted. 

The bottom line, however, is that we 

are still failing to provide all of our 

Nation’s children with education technology resources like those being provided at Centennial High School because the American system of public 

education has forced local school districts to maintain our Nation’s education infrastructure primarily with 

local property taxes. 

For a long time, local school districts 

were able to meet that responsibility. 

Local property taxes, however, are now 

all too often an inadequate source of 

funding for public education. What is 

even worse is that this financing mechanism makes the quality of public education all too dependent on local property value. 

As a result, the second GAO report 

found that, on average, only 8 percent 

of local school bond proceeds were 

spent on computers and telecommunications equipment. That is, for the average $6.5 million bond issue, only 

$155,600, or 2 percent was provided for 

the purchase of computers and only 

$381,100, or 6 percent for the purchase of 

telecommunications equipment. 

Yet, most States continue to force 

local school districts to rely increasingly on local property taxes for public 

education, in general, and for education technology, in particular. In Illinois, for example, the local share of 

public education funding increased 

from 48 percent during the 1980–81 

school year to 58 percent during the 

1992–93 school year, while the State 

share fell from 43 to 34 percent during 

this same period. 

The Federal Government must also 

accept a share of the blame for failing 

to provide our Nation’s children with 

environments conducive to learning. 

The Federal Government’s share of 

public education funding has fallen 

from 9.1 percent during the 1980–81 

school year to 5.6 percent during the 

1993–94 school year. 

GOALS 2000

Mr. President, Congress passed the 

goals 2000: Educate America Act which 

President Clinton signed into law on 

March 31, 1994. I support this legislation because it promises to create a coherent, national framework for education reform founded on the national 

education goals. Nonetheless, I firmly 

believe that it is inherently unfair to 

expect our children to meet national 

performance standards if they do not 

have an equal opportunity to learn. 

EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE ACT

That is why I introduced the Education Infrastructure Act last year. 

This legislation addresses the needs 

highlighted in the first GAO report by 

helping local school districts ensure 

the health and safety of students 

through the repair, renovation, alteration, and construction of school facilities. More specifically, this legislation 

authorizes the Secretary of Education 

to make grants to local school districts 

with at least a 15 percent child poverty 

rate and urgent repair, renovation, alteration, or construction needs. 

INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

Mr. President, President Clinton and 

Vice President Gore have taken leadership roles in addressing the needs highlighted in the most recent GAO report. 

On September 15, 1993, the information 

infrastructure task force created by 

the Vice President released its report—

‘‘National Information Infrastructure: 

Agenda for Action.’’ This report urges 

the Federal Government to support the 

development of the information superhighway—the metaphor used to describe the evolving technology infrastructure that will link homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, and libraries 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6517 

to each other and to a vast array of 

electronic information resources. 

On this same day, President Clinton 

issued Executive Order 12864 which created the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council to facilitate private sector input in this area. 

Mr. President, a substantial portion 

of the information superhighway already exists. Approximately 94 percent 

of American households have telephone 

service, 60 percent have cable, 30 percent have computers, and almost 100 

percent have radio and television. 

Local and long-distance telephone 

companies are currently investing 

heavily in fiber-optic cables that will 

carry greater amounts of information; 

cable companies are increasing their 

capacity to provide new services; and 

new wireless personal communications 

systems are under development. One 

prototype, the Internet, connects approximately 15–20 million people worldwide. 

FEDERAL SUPPORT

Nonetheless, the results of the second 

GAO report suggest to me that the 

Federal Government must do more to 

help build the education portion of the 

national information infrastructure. 

Federal support for the acquisition and 

use of technology in elementary and 

secondary schools is currently fragmented, coming from a diverse group of 

programs and departments. Although 

the full extent to which the Federal 

Government currently supports investments in education technology at the 

precollegiate level is not known, the 

Office of Technology Assessment estimated in its report—‘‘Power On!’’—

that the programs administered by the 

Department of Education provided $208 

million for education technology in 

1988. 

COST OF TECHNOLOGY

There is little doubt that substantial 

costs will accompany efforts to bring 

education technologies into public 

schools in any comprehensive fashion. 

In his written testimony before the 

House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee on September 30, 

1994, Secretary of Education, Richard 

Riley, estimated that it will cost anywhere from $3 to $8 billion annually to 

build the education portion of the national information infrastructure. The 

Office of Technology Assessment has 

also estimated that the cost of bringing the students to computer ratio 

down to 3-to-1 would cost $4.2 billion a 

year for 6 years. 

NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

CORPORATION

Mr. President, three leaders in the 

areas of education and finance came 

together recently to help public 

schools and public libraries meet these 

costs. On April 4, John Danforth, 

former U.S. Senator from Missouri, 

Jim Murray, past President of Fannie 

Mae, and Dr. Mary Hatwood Futrell, 

past President of the National Education Association, created the National Education Technology Funding 

Corporation. 

As outlined in its articles of incorporation, the National Education Technology Funding Corporation will stimulate public and private investment in 

our Nation’s education technology infrastructure by providing loans, loan 

guarantees, grants, and other forms of 

assistance to States and local school 

districts. 

LEGISLATION

I am introducing the National Education Technology Funding Corporation Act today to help provide the seed 

money necessary to get this exciting, 

new private sector initiative off the 

ground. Rather than promoting our Nation’s education technology infrastructure by creating another Federal program, this legislation would simply authorize Federal departments and agencies to make grants to the NETFC. 

The National Education Technology 

Funding Corporation Act would not 

create the NETFC or recognize it as an 

agency or establishment of the U.S. 

Government; it would only recognize 

its incorporation as a private, nonprofit organization by private citizens. 

However, since NETFC would be using 

public funds to connect public schools 

and public libraries to the information 

Superhighway, my legislation would 

require NETFC to submit itself and its 

grantees to appropriate congressional 

oversight procedures and annual audits. 

This legislation will not infringe 

upon local control over public education in any way. Rather, it will supplement, augment, and assist local efforts to support education technology 

in the least intrusive way possible by 

helping local school districts build 

their own on-ramps to the Information 

Superhighway. 

Senator BURNS and Senator ROBB has 

endorsed this bill, and it has been endorsed by the National Education Association, the National School Boards 

Association, the American Library Association, the Council for Education 

Development and Research, and Organizations Concerned About Rural Education [OCRE]. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my colleagues to help connect public schools 

and public libraries to the Information 

Superhighway by quickly enacting the 

National Education Technology Funding Corporation Act into law. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 792 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National 

Education Technology Funding Corporation 

Act of 1995’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds as follows: 

(1) CORPORATION.—There has been established in the District of Columbia a private, 

nonprofit corporation known as the National 

Education Technology Funding Corporation 

which is not an agency or independent establishment of the Federal Government. 

(2) BOARD OF DIRECTORS.—The Corporation 

is governed by a Board of Directors, as prescribed in the Corporation’s articles of incorporation, consisting of 15 members, of 

which—

(A) five members are representative of public agencies representative of schools and 

public libraries; 

(B) five members are representative of 

State government, including persons knowledgeable about State finance, technology 

and education; and 

(C) five members are representative of the 

private sector, with expertise in network 

technology, finance and management. 

(3) CORPORATE PURPOSES.—The purposes of 

the Corporation, as set forth in its articles of 

incorporation, are—

(A) to leverage resources and stimulate 

private investment in education technology 

infrastructure; 

(B) to designate State education technology agencies to receive loans, grants or 

other forms of assistance from the Corporation; 

(C) to establish criteria for encouraging 

States to—

(i) create, maintain, utilize and upgrade 

interactive high capacity networks capable 

of providing audio, visual and data communications for elementary schools, secondary 

schools and public libraries; 

(ii) distribute resources to assure equitable 

aid to all elementary schools and secondary 

schools in the State and achieve universal 

access to network technology; and 

(iii) upgrade the delivery and development 

of learning through innovative technologybased instructional tools and applications. 

(D) to provide loans, grants and other 

forms of assistance to State education technology agencies, with due regard for providing a fair balance among types of school 

districts and public libraries assisted and the 

disparate needs of such districts and libraries; 

(E) to leverage resources to provide maximum aid to elementary schools, secondary 

schools and public libraries; and 

(F) to encourage the development of education telecommunications and information 

technologies through public-private ventures, by serving as a clearinghouse for information on new education technologies, 

and by providing technical assistance, including assistance to States, if needed, to establish State education technology agencies. 

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to 

recognize the Corporation as a nonprofit corporation operating under the laws of the District of Columbia, and to provide authority 

for Federal departments and agencies to provide assistance to the Corporation. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

For the purpose of this Act—

(1) The term ‘‘Corporation’’ means the National Education Technology Funding Corporation described in section 2(a)(1); 

(2) the terms ‘‘elementary school’’ and 

‘‘secondary school’’ have the same meanings 

given such terms in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965; and 

(3) the term ‘‘public library’’ has the same 

meaning given such term in section 3 of the 

Library Services and Construction Act. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PURPOSES. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.—Each 

Federal department or agency is authorized 

to award grants or contracts, or provide 

gifts, contributions, or technical assistance, 

to the Corporation to enable the Corporation 

to carry out the corporate purposes described in section 2(a)(3). 

(b) AGREEMENT.—In order to receive any 

assistance described in subsection (a) the 

Corporation shall enter into an agreement 

with the Federal department or agency providing such assistance, under which the Corporation agrees—

(1) to use such assistance to provide funding and technical assistance only for activities which the Board of Directors of the Corporation determines are consistent with the 

corporate purposes described in section 

2(a)(3); 

(2) to review the activities of State education technology agencies and other entities receiving assistance from the Corporation to assure that the corporate purposes 

described in section 2(a)(3) are carried out; 

(3) that no part of the assets of the Corporation shall accrue to the benefit of any 

member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, any officer or employee of the Corporation, or any other individual, except as 

salary or reasonable compensation for services; 

(4) that the Board of Directors of the Corporation will adopt policies and procedures 

to prevent conflicts of interest; 

(5) to maintain a Board of Directors of the 

Corporation consistent with section 2(a)(2); 

(6) that the Corporation, and any entity receiving the assistance from the Corporation, 

are subject to the appropriate oversight procedures of the Congress; and 

(7) to comply with—

(A) the audit requirements described in 

section 5; and 

(B) the reporting and testimony requirements described in section 6. 

(c) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

shall be construed to establish the Corporation as an agency or independent establishment of the Federal Government, or to establish the members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, or the officers and 

employees of the Corporation, as officers or 

employees of the Federal Government. 

SEC. 5. AUDITS. 

(a) AUDITS BY INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Corporation’s financial statements shall be audited annually in 

accordance with generally accepted auditing 

standards by independent certified public accountants who are members of a nationally 

recognized accounting firm and who are certified by a regulatory authority of a State or 

other political subdivision of the United 

States. The audits shall be conducted at the 

place or places where the accounts of the 

Corporation are normally kept. All books, 

accounts, financial records, reports, files, 

and all other papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by the Corporation and 

necessary to facilitate the audit shall be 

made available to the person or persons conducting the audits, and full facilities for 

verifying transactions with the balances or 

securities held by depositories, fiscal agents, 

and custodians shall be afforded to such person or persons. 

(2) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—The report 

of each annual audit described in paragraph 

(1) shall be included in the annual report required by section 6(a). 

(b) AUDITS BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL

OF THE UNITED STATES.—

(1) AUDITS.—The programs, activities and 

financial transactions of the Corporation 

shall be subject to audit by the Comptroller 

General of the United States under such 

rules and regulations as may be prescribed 

by the Comptroller General. The representatives of the Comptroller General shall have 

access to such books, accounts, financial 

records, reports, files and such other papers, 

things, or property belonging to or in use by 

the Corporation and necessary to facilitate 

the audit, and the representatives shall be 

afforded full facilities for verifying transactions with the balances or securities held 

by depositories, fiscal agents, and 

custodians. The representatives of the Comptroller General shall have access, upon request to the Corporation or any auditor for 

an audit of the Corporation under this section, to any books, financial records, reports, 

files or other papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by the Corporation and 

used in any such audit and to papers, 

records, files, and reports of the auditor used 

in such an audit. 

(2) REPORT.—A report on each audit described in paragraph (1) shall be made by the 

Comptroller General to the Congress. The report to the Congress shall contain such comments and information as the Comptroller 

General may deem necessary to inform the 

Congress of the financial operations and condition of the Corporation, together with such 

recommendations as the Comptroller General may deem advisable. The report shall 

also show specifically any program, expenditure, or other financial transaction or undertaking observed or reviewed in the course of 

the audit, which, in the opinion of the Comptroller General, has been carried on or made 

contrary to the requirements of this Act. A 

copy of each such report shall be furnished 

to the President and to the Corporation at 

the time such report is submitted to the 

Congress. 

(c) AUDIT BY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.—The financial 

transactions of the Corporation may also be 

audited by the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce under the same conditions set forth in subsection (b) for audits 

by the Comptroller General of the United 

States. 

(d) RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS; AUDIT

AND EXAMINATION OF BOOKS.—

(1) RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.—The 

Corporation shall ensure that each recipient 

of assistance from the Corporation keeps—

(A) separate accounts with respect to such 

assistance; 

(B) such records as may be reasonably necessary to fully disclose—

(i) the amount and the disposition by such 

recipient of the proceeds of such assistance; 

(ii) the total cost of the project or undertaking in connection with which such assistance is given or used; and 

(iii) the amount and nature of that portion 

of the cost of the project or undertaking supplied by other sources; and 

(C) such other records as will facilitate an 

effective audit. 

(2) AUDIT AND EXAMINATION OF BOOKS.—The 

Corporation shall ensure that the Corporation, or any of the Corporation’s duly authorized representatives, shall have access 

for the purpose of audit and examination to 

any books, documents, papers, and records of 

any recipient of assistance from the Corporation that are pertinent to such assistance. 

Representatives of the Comptroller General 

shall also have such access for such purpose. 

SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORT; TESTIMONY TO THE 

CONGRESS. 

(a) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than April 

30 of each year, the Corporation shall publish 

an annual report for the preceding fiscal 

year and submit that report to the President 

and the Congress. The report shall include a 

comprehensive and detailed evaluation of 

the Corporation’s operations, activities, financial condition, and accomplishments 

under this Act and may include such recommendations as the Corporation deems appropriate. 

(b) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.—The 

members of the Board of Directors, and officers, of the Corporation shall be available to 

testify before appropriate committees of the 

Congress with respect to the report described 

in subsection (a), the report of any audit 

made by the Comptroller General pursuant 

to this Act, or any other matter which any 

such committee may determine appropriate. 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise 

today in support of the legislation introduced by my colleague from Illinois. 

I applaud her for her vision and persistence in looking out for our Nation’s 

most precious resource—our children, 

and I am pleased to join Senator 

MOSELY-BRAUN as an original cosponsor of the National Education Technology Funding Corporation Act. 

During committee consideration of 

the telecommunications bill last year, 

I offered related legislation to ensure 

that every school and classroom in the 

United States has access to telecommunications and information technologies. I proposed an educational 

telecommunications and technology 

fund to support elementary and secondary school access to the information superhighway. Regrettably, last 

year’s telecommunications bill was not 

taken up by the full Senate before adjournment. 

The new telecommunications bill 

that recently passed the Commerce 

Committee has a provision, introduced 

by Senators SNOWE, ROCKEFELLER, and 

BOB KERREY, to make advanced telecommunications more affordable for 

schools. Specifically, the provision allows elementary and secondary 

schools, as well as libraries, to receive 

telecommunications services at affordable monthly rates. Currently, schools 

all over the country, including those in 

my own State of Virginia, are forced to 

pay business rates for access to the information superhighway. That means 

that schools are subsidizing residential 

customers. 

Even with affordable monthly rates, 

many schools have limited or no technological infrastructure. They lack 

modern electrical wiring, a sufficient 

number of plugs, and access to wired or 

wireless technology that would allow 

them internal networking capabilities 

or connections to the Internet. The absence of this infrastructure leaves 

these schools without a technological 

on-ramp to the information superhighway. As a result, American children are left by the wayside. 

This is where the National Education 

Technology Funding Corporation can 

play a critical role. We need a single efficient, expert entity that State and 

local authorities can approach for 

funding so they can join the Internet, 

participate in distance learning, investigate interactive computer learning, 

or explore other innovative technologies. 

A private non-profit is a logical link 

between the public and commercial 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6519 

sectors. It is often difficult for schools 

to identify where to go to request Federal funding for new technologies, or 

where to go simply to learn more about 

technology applications for schools. 

Also, there is much more than can be 

done to promote the use of technologies in schools and to encourage 

private investments and standards. I 

can think of no better way to meet all 

of these needs than a private corporation run by a board that includes representatives from States, from public 

schools and libraries, and from the private sector. 

Many opponents of Federal efforts to 

improve educational technologies 

claim that the private stock will have 

adequate incentives to assist schools 

with educational technologies. Just 

leave it to the private sector, they 

argue. This is a very shortsighted viewpoint. 

There is no question that the private 

sector is doing great things for America’s schools—and libraries—in the 

area of educational technologies. Computers and software are frequently donated by private firms. Internet access 

is provided in some areas. Several 

weeks ago I visited Arlington County 

Central Library, just a few miles from 

here, which MCI had made a generous 

grant to the library to install public 

Internet workstations. As a result, this 

library will be one of the first public 

locations in northern Virginia to offer 

Internet access. More recently, my 

staff visited Chantilly High School in 

Fairfax County to witness a state-ofthe-art Internet lab made possible by 

assistance from the cable company, 

Media General. These are important 

private sector initiatives that will 

hopefully be duplicated time and time 

again across the nation. 

But there are problems with a let the 

free market reign approach. First, 

wealthier schools will receive a disproportionate benefit. Wealthier 

schools can afford advanced educational technologies. Corporations are 

more likely to provide equipment and 

internet access to schools that have already invested in related technologies. 

Corporations are more likely to offer 

services in urban or suburban areas 

that have good telecommunications infrastructures. Yet the rural schools 

gain the most from internet access, 

distance-learning, and a host of other 

educational technologies. It is rural 

schools that are in danger of rapidly 

losing ground to those schools with access to the new technologies. We have 

to put an end to the ever-growing bifurcation of our educational system. As 

set forth in this bill, the corporation 

would encourage equitable technology 

funding to all elementary and secondary schools. 

The second problem is commonality. 

Although we don’t want to constrain 

educational technology development 

by mandating Government standards, 

we don’t want to create a smorgasbord 

of technologies that can’t communicate with each other and can’t be 

shared across school systems. The proposed corporation could play an invaluable role in making sure school technology efforts nationwide are not 

wasteful, incompatible, or duplicative. 

The third problem is time. The technologies are here today. It is a relatively straightforward process to 

make an internet connection or to establish a video link or to learn the 

highly effective software now available 

for education. We shouldn’t rely solely 

on the timetables of the private sector 

to field the technologies that exist 

today for preparing our children for the 

next century. The Educational Technology Corporation would play a key 

role in promoting the use of technologies in education, and could significantly accelerate their introduction into America’s schools. 

For those of our colleagues that have 

any doubts about the value of new educational technologies, I challenge them 

to sit down on a computer with internet access, and surf. They’ll be visiting 

the largest, most up-to-date, and fastest-growing library in the world. You 

can chat with experts from across the 

globe. You can set up a video link with 

teachers at distant schools, using a 

small camera costing as little as $100. 

You can share data or results in a joint 

research effort spanning continents. 

You can take an electronic tour of the 

White House, or visit the so-called 

webb-site of a Member of Congress. You 

can even see images or molecules or 

galaxies. The possibilities are endless. 

In discussions with school administrators, it becomes clear that students 

are fascinated by the internet and 

other educational technologies. Students that might otherwise be indifferent are eagerly pursuing new subjects and sharing their new-found 

knowledge with the global community 

of students. Simply put, the child with 

access will be at a distinct advantage 

and better prepared for future employment. We simply cannot afford to let 

our school systems slip behind those of 

our leading competitors when the technology is at our fingertips—a technology pioneered here in the United 

States. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the most cost-effective education we can offer our Nation’s children. I urge my colleagues to 

cosponsor the National Education 

Technology Funding Corporation Act. 

By Mr. SIMPSON (for himself, 

Mr. MOYNIHAN, and Mr. KYL): 

S. 793. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from income tax for certain 

common investment funds; to the Committee on Finance. 

COMMON FUND LEGISLATION

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise 

today to join my good friends, Senator 

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN and Senator 

JON KYL, in introducing a bill to permit private and community foundations to pool investment assets into a 

‘‘common fund’’ or cooperative organization. This legislation was twice 

passed by the Senate in 1992 as part of 

the comprehensive tax legislation ultimately vetoed by the President. 

This bill would extend to foundations 

the same ‘‘common fund’’ model which 

has proven so successful for colleges 

and universities. The university common fund now manages over $10 billion—with more than 900 educational 

institutions participating. 

Once established, a common fund for 

foundations would allow smaller foundations to increase their total return 

on investment and significantly reduce 

investment management fees by taking 

advantage of economies of scale. Both 

results have the same bottom line: Increased assets and income will then be 

available for private and community 

foundation grants to charitable groups. 

Studies disclose that total investment returns earned by smaller foundations lag substantially behind those 

of many larger foundations. One major 

reason for this difference is that many 

of the best professional investment 

manages demand that new accounts to 

meet certain minimum size requirements. Smaller foundations often do 

not meet the minimum size. 

Second, since management investment fees are based on percentages 

that decline as the size of the account 

increases, smaller foundations are less 

able to take advantage of economies of 

scale and cannot benefit from lower fee 

levels. 

This bill would permit foundations to 

‘‘band together’’ for investment purposes by providing tax-exempt status 

to common funds handling foundation 

investments. This would thus give 

foundation common funds the same tax 

treatment as educational institution 

common funds. 

I feel this is a most appropriate response to a vexing problem. I urge your 

support. 

By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. 

INOUYE, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. 

CRAIG, Mr. COHEN, Mr. MACK, 

Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. BURNS, Mr. 

KERREY, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. 

COATS, Mr. GORTON, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. DOLE, Mr. JEFFORDS, 

Mr. HELMS, Mr. BOND, Mr. 

GRASSLEY, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, 

Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. JOHNSTON, 

Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Ms. SNOWE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. NICKLES, 

Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. 

COCHRAN, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. 

DASCHLE, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. 

COVERDELL, Mr. LOTT, and Mr. 

CONRAD): 

S. 794. A bill to amend the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act to facilitate the minor use of a pesticide, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

THE MINOR USE CROP PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

∑ Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to introduce today the Minor 

Use Crop Protection Act of 1995 to help 

ensure the availability of minor use 

pesticides for farmers and an abundant 

and varied food supply for our Nation. 

This legislation has gained broad bipartisan support as evidenced by the 41 

Senators who have joined as original 

cosponsors. This strong show of support will help us move swiftly toward 

enactment of this bill. 

Minor use pesticides are generally 

used on relatively small acreage or for 

regional pest or disease problems. Manufacturers incur a significant cost to 

develop scientific data to register or 

reregister these products and yet face a 

limited market potential once the pesticide is approved for use. Therefore, 

Minor use pesticides are not being supported or are being voluntarily canceled for economic, not safety reasons. 

This situation has been exacerbated 

by the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s pesticide reregistration requirements. A law enacted in 1988 required that all pesticides, and their 

uses, registered before November 1984, 

be reregistered. 

Loss of minor use pesticides could 

cause substantial production problems 

for many fruit, vegetable, and ornamental crops. Farmers also fear that 

loss of minor use pesticides will put 

them at a competitive disadvantage 

with foreign producers who would still 

have access to the pesticides. 

While this is an important industry, 

fruits and vegetables have also taken 

on a more important role in the diet of 

Americans. Health experts recommend 

increased consumption of fruits and 

vegetables. A reduction in the availability of these foods or an increased 

cost due to less production would have 

a disproportionate impact on the 

health of low income Americans, who 

spend a greater amount of their disposable income on food. 

The bill offers several incentives for 

manufacturers to maintain and develop 

new safe and effective pesticides for 

minor uses without compromising food 

safety or adversely affecting the environment. 

Here are some examples where this 

bill would have a positive impact. Last 

year fire blight posed a serious threat 

to apple and pear production in Washington State. This bill would help to 

encourage registration of new products 

to control fire blight. Exports are also 

impacted by this pest. Japan restricts 

the entry of apples from areas near 

those where fire blight occurs. Last 

year half of the acreage in the State 

initially eligible for exports was later 

denied due to fire blight. 

In my home State of Indiana, alternatives are needed for Dimethenamid 

used for weed control for strawberries. 

The manufacturer has not reregistered 

this product for this use due to economic reasons. Obviously, Indiana is 

not a large strawberry producing 

State. However, strawberry growers 

there still do need products to control 

Lambsquarters and Johnsongrass 

which can lower yields and in some 

cases reduce quality. 

In California, sodium 

orthophenolphenate [OPP] has been 

used for decay control in citrus packinghouses. OPP is used in very small 

amounts and the manufacturers will 

not be supporting this use since the 

costs of reregistration outweigh the 

annual sales volume. This bill could 

help provide funding for additional 

studies required for reregistration if 

growers wanted to band together to 

continue this use and would also help 

encourage the development of additional alternative minor use products. 

This is an important issue for our 

Nation’s farmers and consumers. I 

pledge timely consideration of this bill 

within the Senate Agriculture Committee. I urge my colleagues to join me 

in cosponsorship and support of this 

needed legislation. 

I ask unanimous consent that the bill 

and a summary be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

S. 794 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as 

the ‘‘Minor Use Crop Protection Act of 1995’’. 

(b) REFERENCES TO FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, 

FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT.—Whenever 

in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 

section or other provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 

U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF MINOR USE. 

Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(hh) MINOR USE.—The term ‘minor use’

means the use of a pesticide on an animal, on 

a commercial agricultural crop or site, or for 

the protection of public health if—

‘‘(1)(A) in the case of the use of the pesticide on a commercial agricultural crop or 

site, the total quantity of acreage devoted to 

the crop in the United States is less than 

300,000 acres; or 

‘‘(B) the Administrator, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Agriculture, determines that, based on information provided 

by an applicant for registration or a registrant—

‘‘(i) the use does not provide a sufficient 

economic incentive to support the initial 

registration or continuing registration of a 

pesticide for the use; and 

‘‘(ii)(I) there are not a sufficient number of 

efficacious alternative registered pesticides 

available for the use; or 

‘‘(II) any 1 of the alternatives to the pesticide pose a greater risk to the environment 

or human health than the pesticide; or 

‘‘(III) the pesticide plays, or will play, a 

significant part in managing pest resistance; 

or 

‘‘(IV) the pesticide plays, or will play, a 

significant part in an integrated pest management program; and 

‘‘(2) the Administrator does not determine 

that, based on data existing on the date of 

the determination, the use may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.’’. 

SEC. 3. EXCLUSIVE USE OF MINOR USE PESTICIDES. 

Section 3(c)(1)(F)(i) (7 U.S.C. 

136a(c)(1)(F)(i)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘(i) With respect’’ and inserting ‘‘(i)(I) With respect’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘a period of ten years following the date the Administrator first registers the pesticide’’ and inserting ‘‘the exclusive data use period determined under 

subclause (II)’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(II) Except as provided in subclauses (III) 

and (IV), the exclusive data use period under 

subclause (I) shall be 10 years beginning on 

the date the Administrator first registers 

the pesticide. 

‘‘(III) Subject to subclauses (IV), (V), and 

(VI), the exclusive data use period under subclause (II) shall be extended 1 year for each 

3 minor uses registered after the date of enactment of this subclause and before the 

date that is 10 years after the date the Administrator first registers the pesticide, if 

the Administrator in consultation with the 

Secretary of Agriculture, determines that, 

based on information provided by an applicant for registration or a registrant—

‘‘(aa) there are not a sufficient number of 

efficacious alternative registered pesticides 

available for the use; or 

‘‘(bb) any 1 of the alternatives to the pesticide pose a greater risk to the environment 

or human health than the pesticide; or 

‘‘(cc) the pesticide plays, or will play, a 

significant part in managing pest resistance; 

or 

‘‘(dd) the pesticide plays, or will play, a 

significant part in an integrated pest management program. 

‘‘(IV) Notwithstanding subclause (III), the 

exclusive data use period established under 

this clause may not exceed 13 years. 

‘‘(V) For purposes of subclause (III), the 

registration of a pesticide for a minor use on 

a crop grouping established by the Administrator shall be considered 1 minor use for 

each representative crop for which data are 

provided in the crop grouping. 

‘‘(VI) An extension under subclause (III) 

shall be reduced or terminated if the applicant for registration or the registrant voluntarily cancels the pesticide or deletes from 

the registration a minor use that formed the 

basis for the extension, or if the Administrator determines that the applicant or registrant is not actually marketing the pesticide for a minor use that formed the basis 

for the extension.’’. 

SEC. 4. TIME EXTENSIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT 

OF MINOR USE DATA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF

MINOR USE DATA.—

‘‘(1) SUPPORTED USE.—In the case of a 

minor use, the Administrator shall, on the 

request of a registrant and subject to paragraph (3), extend the time for the production 

of residue chemistry data under subsection 

(c)(2)(B) and subsections (d)(4), (e)(2), and 

(f)(2) of section 4 for data required solely to 

support the minor use until the final date 

under section 4 for submitting data on any 

other use established not later than the date 

of enactment of this subsection. 

‘‘(2) NONSUPPORTED USE.—

‘‘(A) If a registrant does not commit to 

support a minor use of a pesticide, the Administrator shall, on the request of the registrant and subject to paragraph (3), extend 

the time for taking any action under subsection (c)(2)(B) or subsection (d)(6), (e)(3)(A), 

or (f)(3) of section 4 regarding the minor use 

until the final date under section 4 for submitting data on any other use established 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6521 

not later than the date of enactment of this 

subsection. 

‘‘(B) On receipt of the request from the registrant, the Administrator shall publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of the receipt 

of the request and the effective date on 

which the uses not being supported will be 

deleted from the registration under section 

6(f)(1). 

‘‘(3) CONDITIONS.—Paragraphs (1) and (2) 

shall apply only if—

‘‘(A) the registrant commits to support and 

provide data for—

‘‘(i) any use of the pesticide on a food; or 

‘‘(ii) any other use, if all uses of the pesticide are for uses other than food; 

‘‘(B)(i) the registrant provides a schedule 

for producing the data referred to in subparagraph (A) with the request for an extension; 

‘‘(ii) the schedule includes interim dates 

for measuring progress; and 

‘‘(iii) the Administrator determines that 

the registrant is able to produce the data referred to in subparagraph (A) before a final 

date established by the Administrator; 

‘‘(C) the Administrator determines that 

the extension would not significantly delay 

issuance of a determination of eligibility for 

reregistration under section 4; and 

‘‘(D) the Administrator determines that, 

based on data existing on the date of the determination, the extension would not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. 

‘‘(4) MONITORING.—If the Administrator 

grants an extension under paragraph (1) or 

(2), the Administrator shall—

‘‘(A) monitor the development of any data 

the registrant committed to under paragraph 

(3)(A); and 

‘‘(B) ensure that the registrant is meeting 

the schedule provided under paragraph (3)(B) 

for producing the data. 

‘‘(5) NONCOMPLIANCE.—If the Administrator 

determines that a registrant is not meeting 

a schedule provided by the registrant under 

paragraph (3)(B), the Administrator may—

‘‘(A) revoke any extension to which the 

schedule applies; and 

‘‘(B) proceed in accordance with subsection 

(c)(2)(B)(iv). 

‘‘(6) MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION.—The 

Administrator may modify or revoke an extension under this subsection if the Administrator determines that the extension could 

cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. If the Administrator modifies or 

revokes an extension under this paragraph, 

the Administrator shall provide written notice to the registrant of the modification or 

revocation.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

(1) Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(B)) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(vi) Subsection (g) shall apply to this subparagraph.’’. 

(2) Subsections (d)(4), (e)(2), and (f)(2) of 

section 4 (7 U.S.C. 136a–1) are each amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(C) Section 3(g) shall apply to this paragraph.’’. 

(3) Subsections (d)(6) and (f)(3) of section 4 

(7 U.S.C. 136a–1) are each amended by striking ‘‘The Administrator shall’’ and inserting 

‘‘Subject to section 3(g), the Administrator 

shall’’. 

(4) Section 4(e)(3)(A) (7 U.S.C. 136a–

1(e)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘If the registrant’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to section 

3(g), if the registrant’’. 

SEC. 5. MINOR USE WAIVER. 

Section 3(c)(2) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(E) In the case of the registration of a 

pesticide for a minor use, the Administrator 

may waive otherwise applicable data requirements if the Administrator determines 

that the absence of the data will not prevent 

the Administrator from determining—

‘‘(i) the incremental risk presented by the 

minor use of the pesticide; and 

‘‘(ii) whether the minor use of the pesticide 

would have unreasonable adverse effects on 

the environment.’’. 

SEC. 6. EXPEDITING MINOR USE REGISTRATIONS. 

Section 3(c)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(3)) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(C)(i) As expeditiously as practicable 

after receipt, the Administrator shall review 

and act on a complete application that—

‘‘(I) proposes the initial registration of a 

new pesticide active ingredient, if the active 

ingredient is proposed to be registered solely 

for a minor use, or proposes a registration 

amendment to an existing registration solely 

for a minor use; or 

‘‘(II) for a registration or a registration 

amendment, proposes a significant minor 

use. 

‘‘(ii) As used in clause (i): 

‘‘(I) The term ‘as expeditiously as practicable’ means the Administrator shall, to 

the greatest extent practicable, complete a 

review and evaluation of all data submitted 

with the application not later than 1 year 

after submission of the application. 

‘‘(II) The term ‘significant minor use’

means—

‘‘(aa) 3 or more proposed minor uses for 

each proposed use that is not minor; 

‘‘(bb) a minor use that the Administrator 

determines could replace a use that was canceled not earlier than 5 years preceding the 

receipt of the application; or 

‘‘(cc) a minor use that the Administrator 

determines would avoid the reissuance of an 

emergency exemption under section 18 for 

the minor use. 

‘‘(iii) Review and action on an application 

under clause (i) shall not be subject to judicial review. 

‘‘(D) On receipt by the registrant of a denial of a request to waive a data requirement 

under paragraph (2)(E), the registrant shall 

have the full time period originally established by the Administrator for submission 

of the data, beginning on the date of receipt 

by the registrant of the denial.’’. 

SEC. 7. UTILIZATION OF DATA FOR VOLUNTARILY 

CANCELED CHEMICALS. 

Section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d) is amended by 

adding the following: 

‘‘(4) UTILIZATION OF DATA FOR VOLUNTARILY

CANCELED CHEMICALS.—The Administrator 

shall process, review, and evaluate the application for a voluntarily canceled pesticide as 

if the registrant had not canceled the registration, if—

‘‘(A) another application is pending on the 

effective date of the voluntary cancellation 

for the registration of a pesticide that is—

‘‘(i) for a minor use; 

‘‘(ii) identical or substantially similar to 

the canceled pesticide; and 

‘‘(iii) for an identical or substantially similar use as the canceled pesticide; 

‘‘(B) the Administrator determines that 

the minor use will not cause unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment; and 

‘‘(C) the applicant certifies that the applicant will satisfy any outstanding data requirement necessary to support the reregistration of the pesticide, in accordance with 

any data submission schedule established by 

the Administrator.’’. 

SEC. 8. MINOR USE PROGRAMS. 

The Act is amended—

(1) by redesignating sections 30 and 31 (7 

U.S.C. 136x and 136y) as sections 33 and 34, respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after section 29 (7 U.S.C. 

136w–4) the following: 

‘‘SEC. 30. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

MINOR USE PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator 

shall establish a minor use program in the 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 

‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—In carrying out the 

program established under subsection (a), 

the Administrator shall—

‘‘(1) coordinate the development of minor 

use programs and policies; and 

‘‘(2) consult with growers regarding a 

minor use issue, registration, or amendment 

that is submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘SEC. 31. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINOR 

USE PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of 

Agriculture shall establish a minor use program. 

‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—In carrying out the 

program established under subsection (a), 

the Secretary shall coordinate the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture 

related to the minor use of a pesticide, including—

‘‘(1) carrying out the Inter-Regional Research Project Number 4 established under 

section 2(e) of Public Law 89–106 (7 U.S.C. 

450i(e)); 

‘‘(2) carrying out the national pesticide resistance monitoring program established 

under section 1651(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 

(7 U.S.C. 5882(d)); 

‘‘(3) supporting integrated pest management research; 

‘‘(4) consulting with growers to develop 

data for minor uses; and 

‘‘(5) providing assistance for minor use registrations, tolerances, and reregistrations 

with the Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘SEC. 32. MINOR USE MATCHING FUND PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of 

Agriculture, in consultation with the Administrator, shall establish and administer a 

minor use matching fund program. 

‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—In carrying out the 

program, the Secretary shall—

‘‘(1) ensure the continued availability of 

minor use pesticides; and 

‘‘(2) develop data to support minor use pesticide registrations and reregistrations. 

‘‘(c) ELIGIBILITY.—Any person that desires 

to develop data to support a minor use registration shall be eligible to participate in 

the program. 

‘‘(d) PRIORITY.—In carrying out the program, the Secretary shall provide a priority 

for funding to a person that does not directly 

receive funds from the sale of a product registered for a minor use. 

‘‘(e) MATCHING FUNDS.—To be eligible for 

funds under the program, a person shall 

match the amount of funds provided under 

the program with an equal amount of nonFederal funds. 

‘‘(f) OWNERSHIP OF DATA.—Any data developed through the program shall be jointly 

owned by the Department of Agriculture and 

the person that receives funds under this section. 

‘‘(g) STATEMENT.—Any data developed 

under this subsection shall be submitted in a 

statement that complies with section 

3(c)(1)(F). 

‘‘(h) COMPENSATION.—Any compensation received by the Department of Agriculture for 

the use of data developed under this section 

shall be placed in a revolving fund. The fund 

shall be used, subject to appropriations, to 

carry out the program. 

‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.—

There are authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out this section $10,000,000 for each fiscal year.’’. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6522 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

SEC. 9. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO FIFRA 

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents in section 1(b) (7 

U.S.C. prec. 121) is amended—

(1) by adding at the end of the items relating to section 2 the following new item: 

‘‘(hh) Minor use.’’; 

(2) by adding at the end of the items relating to section 3 the following new items: 

‘‘(g) Time extension for development of 

minor use data. 

‘‘(1) Supported data. 

‘‘(2) Nonsupported data. 

‘‘(3) Conditions. 

‘‘(4) Monitoring. 

‘‘(5) Noncompliance. 

‘‘(6) Modification or revocation.’’; 

(3) by adding at the end of the items relating to section 6(f) the following new item: 

‘‘(4) Utilization of data for voluntarily canceled chemicals.’’; 

and 

(4) by striking the items relating to sections 30 and 31 and inserting the following 

new items: 

‘‘Sec. 30. Environmental Protection Agency 

minor use program. 

‘‘(a) Establishment. 

‘‘(b) Responsibilities. 

‘‘Sec. 31. Department of Agriculture minor 

use program. 

‘‘(a) Establishment. 

‘‘(b) Responsibilities. 

‘‘Sec. 32. Minor use matching fund program. 

‘‘(a) Establishment. 

‘‘(b) Responsibilities. 

‘‘(c) Eligibility. 

‘‘(d) Priority. 

‘‘(e) Matching funds. 

‘‘(f) Ownership of data. 

‘‘(g) Statement. 

‘‘(h) Compensation. 

‘‘(i) Authorization for appropriations. 

‘‘Sec. 33. Severability. 

‘‘Sec. 34. Authorization for appropriations.’’.∑ 

SUMMARY—MINOR USE CROP PROTECTION ACT

OF 1995 

Establishes a minor use definition. The use 

of a pesticide on an animal, or on a commercial agricultural crop or site, or for the protection of public health could qualify as a 

minor use if the total acreage of the crop is 

less than 300,000 acres or if the use does not 

provide sufficient economic incentive to the 

manufacturer to support its registration and 

it meets one of four ‘‘public interest’’ criteria. The four public interest criteria are 

that there are insufficient efficacious alternatives available for the use, or the alternatives pose a greater risk to the environment or human health, or the pesticide can 

help manage pest resistance problems or the 

pesticide would be part of an integrated pest 

management program. 

The current 10 year exclusive use protection for registrants of new chemicals could 

be extended one year for each three minor 

uses which a manufacturer registers, up to a 

maximum of three additional years for nine 

or more minor uses registered by EPA. In 

order to receive the extension, new minor 

uses must be approved before the end of the 

original exclusive use period. One of the 

above four ‘‘public interest’’ criteria must 

also be met. Exclusive use is subject to review by EPA to ensure that new minor uses 

are being marketed. 

The time necessary for the development of 

residue chemistry data for a minor use could 

be extended until the final study due date for 

data necessary to support the other registered uses being maintained by the registrant. 

EPA may waive minor use data requirements in certain circumstances where EPA 

can otherwise determine the risk presented 

by the minor use and such risk is not unreasonable. 

EPA is to review and act on minor use registration applications within 1 year if the active ingredient is to be registered solely for 

a minor use, or if there are three or more 

minor uses proposed for every non-minor 

use, or if the minor use would serve as a replacement for any use that has been canceled 

within 5 years of the application or if the approval of the minor use would avoid the 

reissuance of an emergency exemption. 

If a minor use waiver of data requirements 

is submitted to EPA and subsequently denied, the registrant would be given the full 

time period for supplying the data to EPA. 

As a transition measure, the effective date 

of the voluntary cancellation of minor uses 

by a registrant could coincide with the due 

date of the final study required in the reregistration process for those uses being supported by the registrant. 

EPA can consider data from a pesticide 

which has been voluntarily canceled in support of another minor use registration that 

is identical or similar and for a similar use. 

The new registration must be submitted before the voluntary cancellation occurs. Any 

additional data needed would have to be supplied by the new applicant. 

A minor use program within EPA’s Office 

of Pesticide Programs would be established. 

A minor use program within USDA would 

be established. This would include a minor 

use matching fund for the development of 

scientific data to support minor uses. 

By Mr. BOND (for himself and 

Mr. ASHCROFT): 

S. 796. A bill to provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, 

and prohibit the removal of such 

horses, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

OZARK WILD HORSE PROTECTION 

ACT 

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am 

joined by Senator ASHCROFT in introducing the Ozark Wild Horse Protection Act. Since 1990, the citizens in 

southeast Missouri have been engaged 

in a struggle with the Department of 

the Interior’s National Park Service 

[NPS] to prevent a group of about 30 

feral horses from being rounded up by 

the Government and relocated or 

slaughtered. On behalf of these Missouri citizens who have fought to protect these horses, Congressman BILL

EMERSON has tirelessly led the fight to 

stop this action. 

This legislation I introduce today is 

companion legislation to H.R. 238, introduced in the House by Congressman 

EMERSON on January 4, 1995. It prohibits the removal or assistance in the 

removal of, any free-roaming horses 

from the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways [ONSR], except in the case 

of medical emergency or natural disaster. 

Mr. President, unfortunately, this is 

yet another case where the bureaucrats 

think they know best and have blatantly disregarded the perspective, suggestions, and views of the local citizens. St. Louis, MO, conservationist 

and landowner Leo Drey noted that 

these horses were in the park long before the NPS and ‘‘The horses probably 

spend more time loafing on our land 

than they do on the riverways. There’s 

only a few of them and they don’t congregate to the extent they do any serious trampling or damage.’’

A Missouri citizen’s group called the 

Missouri Wild Horse League, which is 

based in Eminence, MO, was created 

several years ago to protect the horses 

from the National Park Service. This 

group has roughly 3,000 members. Mr. 

President, that membership is more 

than six times the number of citizens 

who live in the league’s headquarters 

city of Eminence, MO. 

It has been the contention of the 

NPS that the 30 horses that roam the 

71,000-acre site should be removed because their presence is in conflict with 

the management policies of the NPS 

and their activities threaten plant 

communities. We are talking about a 

site almost two times the size of the 

District of Columbia where the 30 

horses roam. I suggest that the NPS 

would be hard pressed to even find the 

horses on roundup day. 

In 1990, to prevent removal of a part 

of this area’s heritage that the National Park Service is charged to preserve, 1,000 local citizens signed a petition to keep the wild horses in the 

ONSR. That same year, the Missouri 

Senate unanimously passed a resolution objecting to the removal of the 

horses. Still, the NPS ignored the importance of this local treasure to the 

people in this area. 

Subsequently, citizens in Missouri 

filed suit and, in June of 1990, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh issued 

an injunction. The NPS would still not 

yield, appealing the ruling. They would 

not concede in their fight to impose 

the Federal Government’s will on the 

public, notwithstanding the views of 

the local citizens, notwithstanding the 

views of the Missouri Senate, notwithstanding the views of Missouri representatives in Congress, and notwithstanding the decision of a U.S. district 

court judge. The NPS prevailed in the 

higher courts. That is why it is urgently needed for the Congress to intervene and prevent this Governmentmanaged horse rustling. 

At the request of Congressman EMERSON, former ONSR Superintendent Sullivan agreed to delay any roundup 

until there is opportunity to address 

this issue in the 104th Congress. While 

I appreciate this one concession on the 

part of the former superintendent, I 

find it inconceivable that the intransigence of former Superintendent Sullivan has brought this issue before the 

Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Supreme Court, and now before the U.S. 

Congress. It is rare to find Federal field 

personnel as out of touch and acting 

with total disregard for local sentiment—that is typically reserved for 

their bosses in Washington. 

Unfortunately, it is this form of raw 

arrogance that has the Federal Government in such low standing with the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6523 

American citizens—the notion that it 

is the olympians on the hill who know 

what’s best for the peasants in the valley. At this juncture, I believe Congress has no other alternative but to 

pursue this matter as expeditiously as 

possible. The National Parks Subcommittee of the House Committee on 

Resources is scheduled to hold a hearing on May 18 to consider H.R. 238. 

I congratulate Congressman EMERSON

for keeping up the heat on this issue. 

Had he not, I expect the horses would 

already be gone. And, I fear that if we 

cannot expedite action on this bill, 

they will be gone. 

By Mr. KENNEDY: 

S. 797. A bill to provide assistance to 

States and local communities to improve adult education and family literacy, to help achieve the national education goals for all citizens, and for 

other purposes; to the Committee on 

Labor and Human Resources. 

ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY

REFORM ACT

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today 

I am introducing, on behalf of the Clinton administration, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform 

Act of 1995. This measure will reform 

and improve literacy services for 

adults and families. 

As the 1993 National Adult Literacy 

Survey showed, 20 percent of adults 

perform at or below the fifth-grade 

level in reading and math—far below 

the level needed for effective participation in the work force. And because 

parents’ educational level is a strong 

predictor of children’s academic success, the problem seriously affects children as well as adults. 

Despite the clear need for better literacy services for adults, the current 

Federal program serves only a small 

percentage of those who need assistance. While many adults benefit from 

participation in the program, many 

others leave before they achieve any 

significant improvement in literacy. 

Current adult education and family 

literacy programs are too diffuse. They 

divert human and financial resources 

from what should be the focus of all 

Federal literacy efforts—the provision 

of high-quality, results-oriented services. 

The problem of illiteracy presents 

the country with a number of serious 

challenges ranging from the way men 

and women function in the workplace 

to whether parents are able to participate effectively in their children’s education. The Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act uses a single 

stream of funding to States and localities to create a partnership designed 

around five broad principles—streamlining, flexibility, quality, targeting, 

and consumer choice. 

The single funding stream recognizes 

the need to eliminate duplication and 

overlap in current programs. The bill is 

a 10-year authorization to encourage 

States to engage in long-range planning. It consolidates 12 existing programs which now have separate line 

items in the Federal budget 

First, the Library Literacy Program, 

which provides small competitive 

grants supporting literacy programs in 

public libraries, 

Second, Workplace Literacy Partnerships, which support partnerships of 

education agencies and employers that 

help employees develop basic skills, 

Third, the Literacy Training for 

Homeless Adults, which funds projects 

for homeless adults in all States, 

Fourth, the Literacy Program for 

Prisoners, a nationally competitive 

grant awarded to correctional education agencies, 

Fifth, Even Start, which provides literacy training to parents of public 

schoolchildren, 

Sixth, adult education State grants, 

which provide funds to State education 

agencies to support programs that assist educationally disadvantaged adults 

in developing basic skills, 

Seventh, gateway grants, which fund 

at least one adult education project in 

a public housing authority in each 

State, 

Eighth, State literacy resource centers, which support Statewide coordination and training, 

Ninth, Literacy for Institutionalized 

Adults, which supports literacy 

projects for adults in State hospitals 

and correctional institutions, 

Tenth, the set-aside for education coordination in title II of the Job Training Partnership Act, which serves eligible adults who have basic education 

needs, 

Eleventh, the National Institute for 

Literacy, as interagency institute 

which provides Federal leadership in 

coordinating and improving literacy 

services, and 

Twelfth, evaluation and technical assistance, which provides Federal aid for 

research and technical assistance. 

The fiscal year 1995 appropriation for 

these programs is $488 million. The bill 

recommends a $490 million authorization for the consolidated programs for 

fiscal year 1996, and such sums as may 

be necessary in future years. 

While consolidating many categorical programs, the proposal requires 

States to ensure that the needs of atrisk populations are met. Under the 

bill, States can continue to use libraries and the workplace as sites for literacy services. It requires States to assess the adult education and family literacy needs of hard-to-serve and mostin-need individuals, and to describe 

how the program will meet those 

needs. Targeting provisions of the bill 

also will ensure that local areas with 

high concentrations of individuals in 

poverty or low levels of literacy, or 

both, receive priority for Federal 

funds. 

This legislation responds to the welldocumented literacy problem in this 

country. I look forward to working 

closely with other Senators to achieve 

the bipartisan support we need in order 

to assist the large number of adults in 

this country who are ready, willing, 

and able to become more productive 

citizens and better parents. What they 

need now is a helping hand, and this 

message will give it to them. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

letter of transmittal, the text of the 

bill, and a section-by-section analysis 

of the bill may be included in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

S. 797 

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

Congress assembled, That this Act may be 

cited as the ‘‘Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Reform Act of 1995.’’

TITLE I—AMENDMENT TO THE ADULT 

EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT 

SECTION 1. The Adult Education Act (20 

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.; hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘the Act’’) is amended in its entirety to read 

as follows: 

‘‘SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS

‘‘SEC. 101. (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may 

be cited as the ‘Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act’. 

‘‘(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of 

contents for this Act is as follows: 

‘‘TABLE OF CONTENTS 

‘‘Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

‘‘Sec. 2. Findings; purpose. 

‘‘Sec. 3. Authorization of appropriations. 

‘‘TITLE I—ADULT EDUCATION AND 

FAMILY LITERACY 

‘‘Sec. 101. Program Authority; Priorities. 

‘‘Sec. 102. State Grants for Adult Education 

and Family Literacy. 

‘‘Sec. 103. State Leadership Activities. 

‘‘Sec. 104. Even Start Family Literacy Program. 

‘‘Sec. 105. State Administration. 

‘‘Sec. 106. State Plan. 

‘‘Sec. 107. Subgrants to Eligible Applicants. 

‘‘Sec. 108. Applications From Eligible Applicants. 

‘‘Sec. 109. State Performance Goals and Indicators. 

‘‘Sec. 110. Evaluation, Improvement, and Accountability. 

‘‘Sec. 111. Allotments; Reallotment. 

‘‘TITLE II—NATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

‘‘Sec. 201. National Leadership Activities. 

‘‘Sec. 202. Awards for National Excellence. 

‘‘Sec. 203. National Institute for Literacy. 

‘‘TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

‘‘Sec. 301. Waivers. 

‘‘Sec. 302. Definitions. 

‘‘FINDINGS; PURPOSE

‘‘SEC. 2. (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds 

that: 

‘‘(1) Our Nation’s well-being is dependent 

on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of all 

of its citizens. 

‘‘(2) Advances in technology and changes in 

the workplace are rapidly increasing the 

knowledge and skill requirements for workers. 

‘‘(3) Our social cohesion and success in 

combatting poverty, crime, and disease also 

depend on the Nation’s having an educated 

citizenry. 

‘‘(4) The success of State and local educational reforms supported by the Goals 2000: 

Educate America Act and other programs 

that State and local communities are implementing requires that parents be well educated and possess the ability to be a child’s 

first and most continuous teacher. 

‘‘(5) There is a strong relationship between 

educational attainment and welfare dependence. Adults with very low levels of literacy 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6524 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

are ten times as likely to be poor as those 

with high levels of literacy. 

‘‘(6) Studies, including the National Adult 

Literacy Survey, have found that more than 

one-fifth of American adults demonstrate 

very low literacy skills that make it difficult for them to enter high-skill, high-wage 

jobs, to assist effectively in their children’s 

education, or to carry out their responsibilities as citizens. 

‘‘(7) National studies have also shown that 

existing federally supported adult education 

programs have assisted many adults in acquiring basic literacy skills, learning 

English, or acquiring a high school diploma 

(or its equivalent), and family literacy programs have shown great potential for breaking the intergenerational cycle of low literacy and having a positive effect on later 

school performance and high school completion, especially for children from low-income 

families. 

‘‘(8) Current adult education programs, 

however, are often narrowly focused on specific populations or methods of service delivery, have conflicting or overlapping requirements, and are not administered in an integrated manner, thus inhibiting the capacity 

of State and local officials to implement programs that meet the needs of individual 

States and localities. 

‘‘(9) The President’s GI Bill for America’s 

Workers, of which this Act is a key component, will help strengthen the capacity of 

States, educational institutions, and businesses, working together, to upgrade the 

skills and literacy levels of youth and adults. 

‘‘(10) The Federal Government can, 

through a performance partnership with 

States and localities based on clear State-developed goals and indicators, increased State 

and local flexibility, improved accountability and incentives for performance, and 

enhanced consumer choice and information, 

assist States and localities with the improvement and expansion of their adult education and family literacy programs. 

‘‘(11) The Federal Government can also assist States and localities by carrying out research, development, demonstration, dissemination, evaluation, capacity-building, 

data collection, professional development, 

and technical assistance activities that support State and local efforts to implement 

successfully services and activities that are 

funded under this Act, as well as adult education and family literacy activities supported with non-Federal resources. 

‘‘(b) PURPOSE.—(1) It is the purpose of this 

Act to create a performance partnership 

with States and localities for the provision 

of adult education and family literacy services so that, as called for in the National 

Education Goals, all adults who need such 

services will, as appropriate, be able to—

‘‘(A) become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills needed to compete in a global 

economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; 

‘‘(B) complete a high school education; 

‘‘(c) become and remain actively involved 

in their children’s education in order to ensure their children’s readiness for, and success in, school. 

‘‘(2) This purpose shall be pursued 

through—

‘‘(A) building on State and local education 

reforms supported by the Goals 2000: Educate 

America Act and other Federal and State 

legislation; 

‘‘(B) consolidating numerous Federal adult 

education and literacy programs into a single, flexible grant; 

‘‘(C) tying local programs to challenging 

State-developed performance goals that are 

consistent with the purpose of this Act; 

‘‘(D) holding States and localities accountable for achieving such goals; 

‘‘(E) building program quality though such 

measures as encouraging greater use of new 

technologies in adult education and family 

literacy programs and better professional development of educators working in those 

programs; 

‘‘(F) integrating adult education and family literacy programs with States’ school-towork opportunities systems, career preparation education services and activities, job 

training programs, early childhood and elementary school programs, and other related 

activities; and 

‘‘(G) supporting the improvement of State 

and local activities through nationally significant efforts in research, development, 

demonstration, dissemination, evaluation, 

capacity-building, data collection, professional development, and technical assistance. 

‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

‘‘SEC. 3. (a) STATE GRANTS FOR ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY.—For the purpose of carrying out this Act there are authorized to be appropriated $490,487,000 for 

fiscal year 1996 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1997 

through 2005. 

‘‘(b) RESERVATIONS.—(1) Except as provided 

in paragraph (2), from the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under subsection 

(a), the Secretary may reserve—

‘‘(A) not more than 5 percent to carry out 

section 202; 

‘‘(B) not more than 3 percent to carry out 

sections 201 and 203; and 

‘‘(C) not more than $5,000,000 for Even 

Start family literacy programs for migratory families and Indian families under section 104(c). 

‘‘(2) The Secretary may reserve funds 

under paragraph (1)(A) beginning in fiscal 

year 1998. 

‘‘TITLE I—ADULT EDUCATION AND 

FAMILY LITERACY 

‘‘PROGRAM AUTHORITY; PRIORITIES

‘‘SEC. 101. (a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—In 

order to prepare adults for family, work, 

citizenship, and job training, and adults and 

their children for success in future learning, 

funds under this title shall be used to support the development, implementation, and 

improvement of adult education and family 

literacy programs at the State and local levels. 

‘‘(b) PROGRAM PRIORITIES.—In using funds 

under this title, States and local recipients 

shall give priority to—

‘‘(1) services and activities designed to ensure that all adults have the opportunity to 

achieve to challenging State performance 

standards for literacy proficiency, including 

basic literacy, English language proficiency, 

and completion of high school or its equivalent; 

‘‘(2) services and activities designed to enable parents to prepare their children for 

school, enhance their children’s language 

and cognitive abilities, and promote their 

own career advancement; and 

‘‘(3) adult education and family literacy 

programs that—

‘‘(A) are built on a strong foundation of research and effective educational practices; 

‘‘(B) effectively employ advances in technology, as well as learning in the context of 

family, work, and the community; 

‘‘(C) are staffed by well-trained instructors, counselors, and administrators; 

‘‘(D) are of sufficient intensity and duration for participants to achieve substantial 

learning gains; 

‘‘(E) establish strong links with elementary and secondary schools, postsecondary 

institutions, one-stop career centers, jobtraining programs, and social service agencies; and 

‘‘(F) offer flexible schedules and, when necessary, support services to enable people, including adults with disabilities or other special needs, to attend and complete programs. 

‘‘STATE GRANTS FOR ADULT EDUCATION AND

FAMILY LITERACY

‘‘SEC. 102. (a) STATE GRANT.—From the 

funds available for State grants under section 3 for each fiscal year, the Secretary 

shall, in accordance with section 111, make a 

grant to each State that has an approved 

State plan under section 106, to assist that 

State in developing, implementing, and improving adult education and family literacy 

programs within the State. 

‘‘(b) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.—From the 

amount awarded to a State for any fiscal 

year under subsection (a), the State—

‘‘(1) may use up to 5 percent, or $80,000, 

whichever is greater, for the cost of administering its program under this title; 

‘‘(2) may use up to 10 percent for leadership 

activities under section 103; 

‘‘(3)(A) may, beginning in fiscal year 1998, 

use up to 5 percent for financial incentives or 

awards to one or more eligible recipients in 

recognition of—

‘‘(i) exemplary quality of innovation in 

adult education or family literacy services 

and activities; or 

‘‘(ii) exemplary services and activities for 

individuals who are most in need of such 

services and activities, or are hardest to 

serve, such as adults with disabilities or 

other special needs; or 

‘‘(iii) both. 

‘‘(B) The incentives or awards made under 

subparagraph (A) shall be determined by the 

State through a peer review process, using 

the performance goals and indicators described in section 109 and, if appropriate, 

other criteria; and 

‘‘(4) shall use the remainder for subgrants 

to eligible applicants under section 107, except that at least 25 percent of the remainder 

shall be used for Even Start family literacy 

programs, under section 104, unless the State 

demonstrates in its State plan under section 

106, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that 

it will otherwise meet the needs of individuals in the State for family literacy programs in a manner that is consistent with 

the purpose of this Act. 

‘‘(c) FEDERAL SHARE.—(1) The Federal 

share of expenditures to carry out a State 

plan under section 106 shall be paid from the 

State’s grant under subsection (a). 

‘‘(2) The Federal share shall be no greater 

than 75 percent of the cost of carrying out 

the State plan for each fiscal year, except 

that with respect to Guam, American 

Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands the Federal share may be 

100 percent. 

‘‘(3) The State’s share of expenditures to 

carry out a State plan submitted under section 106 may be in cash or in kind, fairly 

evaluated, and may include only non-Federal 

funds that are used for adult education and 

family literacy activities in a manner that is 

consistent with the purpose of this Act. 

‘‘(d) Maintenance of Effort.—(1) A State 

may receive funds under this title for any 

fiscal year only if the Secretary finds that 

the aggregate expenditures of the State for 

adult education and family literacy by such 

State for the preceding fiscal year were not 

less than 90 percent of such aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal 

year. 

‘‘(2) The Secretary shall reduce the amount 

of the allocation of funds under section 111 

for any fiscal year in the exact proportion to 

which a State fails to meet the requirement 

of paragraph (1) by falling below 90 percent 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6525 

of the aggregate expenditures for adult education and family literacy for the second 

preceding fiscal year. 

‘‘(3) The Secretary may waive the requirements of this subsection if the Secretary determines that a waiver would be equitable 

due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a natural disaster or a 

precipitous decline in the financial resource 

of the State. 

‘‘(4) No lesser amount of State expenditures under paragraphs (2) and (3) may be 

used for computing the effort required under 

paragraph (1) for subsequent years. 

‘‘STATE LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES

‘‘SEC. 103. (a) STATE LEADERSHIP.—Each 

State that receives a grant under section 

102(a) for any fiscal year shall use funds reserved for State leadership under section 

102(b)(2) to conduct activities of Statewide 

significance that develop, implement, or improve programs of adult education and family literacy, consistent with its State plan 

under section 106. 

‘‘(b) USES OF FUNDS.—States shall use 

funds under subsection (a) for one or more of 

the following—

‘‘(1) professional development and training; 

‘‘(2) disseminating curricula for adult education and family literacy programs; 

‘‘(3) monitoring and evaluating the quality 

of, and improvement in, services and activities conducted with assistance under this 

title, including establishing performance 

goals and indicators under section 109(a), in 

order to assess program quality and improvement; 

‘‘(4) establishing State content standards 

for adult education and family literacy programs; 

‘‘(5) establishing challenging State performance standards for literacy proficiency; 

‘‘(6) promoting the integration of literacy 

instruction and occupational skill training, 

and linkages with employers; 

‘‘(7) promoting the use of and acquiring instructional and management software and 

technology; 

‘‘(8) establishing or operating State or regional adult literacy resource centers; 

‘‘(9) developing and participating in networks and consortia of States that seek to 

establish and implement adult education and 

family literacy programs that have significance to the State or region, and may have 

national significance; and 

‘‘(10) other activities of Statewide significance that promote the purposes of this Act. 

‘‘EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS

‘‘SEC. 104. (a) EVEN START GRANTS.—Each 

State that receives a grant under section 

102(a) for any fiscal year shall use funds reserved under section 102(b)(4) to award subgrants to partnerships described in subsection (b)(5) to carry out Even Start family 

literacy programs. 

‘‘(b) PROGRAM ELEMENTS.—An Even Start 

family literacy program shall—

‘‘(1) provide opportunities (including opportunities for home-based instructional 

services) for joint participation by parents or 

guardians (including parents or guardians 

who are within the State’s compulsory 

school attendance age range, so long as a 

local educational agency provides, or ensures 

the availability of, their basic education), 

other family members, and children; 

‘‘(2) provide developmentally appropriate 

childhood education for children from birth 

through age seven; 

‘‘(3) identify and recruit families that are 

most in need of family literacy services, as 

indicated by low levels of income and adult 

literacy (including limited English proficiency), and such other need-related indicators as may be appropriate; 

‘‘(4) enable participants, including individuals with disabilities or other special needs, 

to succeed through services and activities 

designed to meet their needs, such as support 

services and flexible class schedules; and 

‘‘(5) except as provided in subsection (c), be 

operated by a partnership composed of—

‘‘(A) one or more local educational agencies; and 

‘‘(B) one or more community-based organizations, institutions of higher education, private non-profit organizations, or public 

agencies (including correctional institutions 

or agencies) other than local educational 

agencies. 

‘‘(c) MIGRATORY AND INDIAN FAMILIES.—

From funds reserved under section 3(b)(1)(C) 

for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall, 

under such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall establish, support Even Start 

family literacy programs through grants to, 

or cooperative agreements with—

‘‘(1) eligible applicants under section 107(b) 

for migratory families; and 

‘‘(2) Indian tribes and tribal organizations 

for Indian families. 

‘‘STATE ADMINISTRATION

‘‘SEC. 105. (a) DESIGNATED STATE AGENCY

OR AGENCIES.—A State desiring to receive a 

grant under section 102(a) shall, consistent 

with State law, designate an education agency or agencies that shall be responsible for 

the administration of services and activities 

under this title, including—

‘‘(1) the development, submission, and implementation of the State plan; 

‘‘(2) consultation with other appropriate 

agencies, groups, and individuals that are involved in, or interested in, the development 

and implementation of programs assisted 

under this title, such as business, industry, 

labor organizations, and social service agencies; and 

‘‘(3) coordination with other State and 

Federal education, training, employment, 

and social service programs, and one-step career centers. 

(b) STATE-IMPOSED REQUIREMENTS.—Whenever a State imposes any rule or policy relating to the administration and operation of 

programs funded by this title (including any 

rule or policy based on State interpretation 

of any Federal law, regulation, or guideline), 

it shall identify the rule or policy as a Stateimposed requirement. 

‘‘STATE PLAN

SEC. 106. (A) Five-Year Plans.—(1) Except as 

provided in subsection (f), each State desiring to receive a grant under this title for any 

fiscal year shall submit to, or have on file 

with, the Secretary a five-year State plan in 

accordance with this section. Each State 

plan submitted to the Secretary shall be approved by the designated State agency or 

agencies under section 105(a). 

‘‘(2) The State may submit its State plan 

as part of a comprehensive plan that includes State plan provisions under one or 

more of the following statutes: section 14302 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965; the Carl D. Perkins Career Preparation Education Act of 1995; the Goals 2000: 

Educate America Act; the Job Training 

Partnership Act, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. 

‘‘(b) PLAN ASSESSMENT.—In developing its 

State plan, and any revisions to the State 

plan under subsection (e), the State shall 

base its plan or revisions on a recent, objective assessment of—

‘‘(1) the needs of individuals in the State 

for adult education and family literacy programs, including individuals most in need or 

hardest to serve (such as educationally disadvantaged adults and families, recent immigrants, individuals with limited English 

proficiency, incarcerated individuals, homeless individuals, recipients of public assistance, and individuals with disabilities); 

‘‘(2) the capacity of programs and providers 

to meet those needs, taking into account the 

priorities under section 101 and the State’s 

performance goals under section 109(a). 

‘‘(c) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developing 

its State plan, and any revisions under subsection (e), the State shall consult widely 

with individuals, agencies, organizations, 

and institutions in the State that have an interest in the provision and quality of adult 

education and family literacy, including—

‘‘(1) individuals who currently participate, 

or who want to participate, in adult education and family literacy programs; 

‘‘(2) practitioners and experts in adult education and family literacy, social services, 

and workforce development; and 

‘‘(3) representatives of business and labor. 

‘‘(d) PLAN CONTENTS.—The plan shall be in 

such form and contain such information and 

assurances as the Secretary may require, 

and shall include—

‘‘(1) a summary of the methods used to 

conduct the assessment under subsection (b) 

and the findings of that assessment; 

‘‘(2) a description of how, in addressing the 

needs identified in the State’s assessment, 

funds under this title will be used to establish adult education and family literacy programs, or improve or expand current programs, that will lead to high-quality learning outcomes, including measurable learning 

gains, for individuals in such programs; 

‘‘(3) a statement of the State’s performance goals and indicators established under 

section 109, or, in the first plan, a description 

of how the State will establish such performance goals and indicators; 

‘‘(4) a description of the criteria the State 

will use to award funds under this title or eligible applicants under section 107, including 

how the State will ensure that its selection 

of applicants to operate programs assisted 

under this title will reflect the finds of program evaluations carried out under section 

110(a); 

‘‘(5) a description of how the State will integrate services and activities under this 

Act, including planning and coordination of 

programs, with those of other agencies, institutions, and organizations involved in 

adult education and family literacy, such as 

the public school system, early childhood 

education programs, social service agencies, 

business, labor unions, libraries, institutions 

of higher education, public health authorities, vocational education and special education programs, one-stop career centers, 

and employment or training programs, in 

order to ensure effective us of funds and to 

avoid duplication of services; 

‘‘(6) a description of the leadership activities the State will carry out under section 

103; 

‘‘(7) any comments the Governor may have 

on the State plan; and 

‘‘(8) assurances that—

‘‘(A) the State will comply with the requirements of this Act and the provisions of 

the State plan; 

‘‘(B) the State will use such fiscal control 

and accounting procedures as are necessary 

for the proper and efficient administration of 

this title; and 

‘‘(C) programs funded under this title will 

be of such size, scope, and quality as to give 

realistic promise of furthering the purpose of 

this Act. 

‘‘(e) PLAN REVISIONS.—When changes in 

conditions or other factors require substantial modifications to an approved State plan, 

the designated State agency or agencies 

shall submit a revision to the plan to the 

Secretary. Such a revision shall be approved 

by the designated State agency or agencies. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6526 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

‘‘(C) programs funded under this title will 

be of such size, scope, and quality as to give 

realistic promise of furthering the purpose of 

this Act. 

‘‘(e) PLAN REVISIONS.—When changes in 

conditions or other facets require substantial modifications to an approved State plan, 

the designated State agency or agencies 

shall submit a revision to the plan to the 

Secretary. Such a revision shall be approved 

by the designated State agency or agencies. 

‘‘(f) PLANNING YEAR.—(1) For fiscal year 

1996 only, a State may submit a one year 

State plan to the Secretary that either satisfies the specific requirements of this section 

or describes how the State will complete the 

development of its State plan with respect to 

those specific requirements within the following year. A State may use funds reserved 

under section 102(b)(2) to complete the development of its State plan. 

‘‘(2) A one year plan under this subsection 

shall—

‘‘(A) be developed in accordance with subsection (c); and 

‘‘(B) contain the assurances described in 

subsection (d)(8). 

‘‘(3) In order to receive a grant under section 102(a) of fiscal year 1997, a State that 

submits a one year State plan under this 

subsection shall submit a four year State 

plan that covers fiscal year 1997 and the 

three succeeding fiscal years. 

‘‘(g) CONSULTATION.—The designated State 

agency or agencies shall—

‘‘(1) submit the State plan, and any revision to the State plan, to the Governor for 

review and comment; and 

‘‘(2) ensure that any comments the Governor may have are included with the State 

plan, or revision, when the State plan, or revision, is submitted to the Secretary. 

‘‘(h) PLAN APPROVAL.—(1) The Secretary 

shall approve a State plan, or a revision to 

an approved State plan, if it meets the requirements of this section and is of sufficient 

quality to meet the purpose of this Act, and 

shall not finally disapprove a State plan, or 

a revision to an approved State plan, except 

after giving the State reasonable notice and 

an opportunity for a hearing. 

‘‘(2) The Secretary shall establish a peer 

review process to make recommendations regarding approval of State plans and revisions 

to the State plans. 

‘‘SUBGRANTS TO ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

‘‘SEC. 107. (a). AUTHORITY.—(1) From funds 

available under section 102(b)(4), States shall 

make subgrants to eligible applicants under 

subsection (b) to develop, implement, and 

improve adult education and family literacy 

programs within the State. 

‘‘(2) To the extent practicable, States shall 

make multi-year subgrants under this section. 

‘‘(b) ELIGIBILITY.—(1) Except as provided 

for subgrants for Even Start family literacy 

programs under section 104, the following entities shall be eligible to apply to the State 

for a subgrant under this section: 

‘‘(A) local education agencies 

‘‘(B) community-based organizations; 

‘‘(C) institutions of higher education; 

‘‘(D) public and private nonprofit agencies 

(including State and local welfare agencies, 

corrections agencies, public libraries, and 

public housing authorities); and 

‘‘(E) consortia of such agencies, organizations, institutions, or partnerships, including consortia that include one or more forprofit agencies, organizations, or institutions, if such agencies, organizations, or institutions can make a significant contribution to attaining the objectives of this Act. 

‘‘(2) Each State receiving funds under this 

title shall ensure that all eligible applicants 

described under subsection (b)(1) receive equitable consideration for subgrants under 

this section. 

‘‘APPLICATIONS FROM ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

‘‘SEC. 108. (a) APPLICATION.—Any eligible 

applicant under sections 104(a) or 107(b)(1) 

that desires a subgrant under this title shall 

submit an application to the State containing such information and assurances as 

the State may reasonably require, including—

‘‘(1) a description of the applicant’s current 

adult education and family literacy programs, if any; 

‘‘(2) a description of how funds awarded 

under this title will be spent; 

‘‘(3) a description of how the applicant’s 

program will help the State address the 

needs identified in the State’s assessment 

under section 106(b)(1); 

‘‘(4) the projected goals of the applicant 

with respect to participant recruitment, retention, and educational achievement, and 

how the applicant will measure and report to 

the State regarding the information required 

in section 110(a); and 

‘‘(5) any cooperative arrangements the applicant has with others (including arrangements with social service agencies, one-stop 

career centers, business, industry, and volunteer literacy organizations) that have been 

made to deliver adult education and family 

literacy programs. 

‘‘(b) FUNDING.—In determining which applicants receive funds under this title, the 

State shall—

‘‘(1) give preference to those applicants 

that serve local areas with high concentrations of individuals in poverty or with low 

levels of literacy (including English language proficiency), or both; 

‘‘(2) consider—

‘‘(A) the results of the evaluations required 

under section 110(a), if any; and 

‘‘(B) the degree to which the applicant will 

coordinate with and utilize other literacy 

and social services available on the community. 

‘‘STATE PERFORMANCE GOALS AND INDICATORS

‘‘SEC. 109. (a) STATE-ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE GOALS AND INDICATORS.—Any 

State desiring to receive a grant under section 102(a), in consultation with individuals, 

agencies, organizations, and institutions described in section 106(c), shall—

‘‘(1) identify performance goals that define 

the level of student achievement to be attained by adult education and family literacy programs, and express such goals in an 

objective, quantifiable, and measurable 

form; 

‘‘(2) identify performance indicators that 

State and local recipients will use in measuring or assessing progress toward achieving 

such goals; and 

‘‘(3) by July 1, 1997, ensure that the State 

performances indicators include, at least—

‘‘(i) achievement in linguistic skills, including English language skills; 

‘‘(ii) receipt of a high school diploma or its 

equivalent; 

(iii) entry into a postsecondary school, job 

training program, employment, or career advancement; and 

‘‘(iv) successful transition of children to 

school. 

‘‘(b) TRANSITION.—Except as provided in 

subsection (a)(3), each State receiving funds 

under this title may continue to use the indicators of program quality it developed 

under section 331(a)(2) of the Adult Education Act as in effect before the date of enactment of the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Reform Act of 1995, to the extent 

that they are consistent with the State’s 

performance goals. 

‘‘(c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to 

States regarding the development of the 

State’s performance goals and indicators 

under subsection (a). Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, the Secretary may 

use funds reserved under section 3(b)(1)(B) to 

provide technical assistance under this section. 

‘‘EVALUATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND

ACCOUNTABILITY

‘‘SEC. 110. (a) LOCAL EVALUATION.—Each recipient of a subgrant under this title shall 

biennially evaluate, using the performance 

goals and indicators established under section 109, the programs supported under this 

title and report to the State regarding the 

effectiveness of its programs in addressing 

the priorities under section 101 and the needs 

identified in the State assessment under section 106(b)(1). 

‘‘(b) IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES.—If a State 

determines, based on the applicable performance goals and indicators established under 

section 109 and the evaluations under subsection (a), that a subgrant recipient is not 

making substantial progress in achieving the 

purpose of this Act, the State may work 

jointly with the local recipient to develop an 

improvement plan. If, after not more than 

two years of implementation of the improvement plan, the State determines that the recipient is not making substantial progress, 

the State shall take whatever corrective action it deems necessary, which may include 

termination of funding or the implementation of alternative service arrangements, 

consistent with State law. The State shall 

take corrective action under the preceding 

sentence only after it has provided technical 

assistance to the recipient and shall ensure 

that any corrective action it takes allows for 

continued services and activities to the recipient’s students. 

‘‘(c) STATE REPORT.—The State shall biennially report to the Secretary on the quality 

and effectiveness of the adult education and 

family literacy programs funded through its 

subgrants under this title, based on the performance goals and indicators under section 

109(a) and the needs identified in the State 

assessment under section 106(b)(1). 

‘‘(d) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—If the Secretary determines that the State is not properly implementing its responsibilities under 

subsection (b), or is not making substantial 

progress in meeting the purpose of this Act, 

based on its performance goals and indicators under section 109(a), the Secretary shall 

work with the State to implement improvement activities. 

‘‘(e) WITHHOLDING OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—If, 

after a reasonable time, but not earlier than 

one year after implementing activities described in subsection (d), the Secretary determines that the State is not making sufficient progress, based on its performance 

goals and indicators under section 109(a), the 

Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity 

for a hearing, withhold from the State all, or 

a portion, of the State’s allotment under this 

title. The Secretary may use funds withheld 

under the preceding sentence to provide, 

through alternative arrangements, services 

and activities within the State that meet the 

purposes of this Act. 

‘‘ALLOTMENTS; REALLOTMENT

‘‘SEC. 111. (a) ALLOTMENT TO STATES.—(1) 

Subject to subsection (b), from the funds 

available under section 102(a) for each fiscal 

year, the Secretary shall allot to each 

State—

‘‘(A) a sum that bears the same ratio to 

one-half that amount as the number of individuals in the State who are 16 years of age 

or older and not enrolled, or required to be 

enrolled, in secondary school and who do not 

possess a high school diploma or its equivalent, bears to the number of such individuals 

in all the States; and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6527 

‘‘(B) a sum that bears the same ratio to 

one-half that amount as the number of individuals in the State who are 18 years of age 

or older and who are living at or below poverty bears to the number of such individuals 

in all the States. 

‘‘(2)(A) The Secretary shall allot to the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico an amount 

equal to 2.95 percent of the funds available 

under section 102(a) for each fiscal year. 

‘‘(B) For the purpose of the subsection, the 

term ‘State’ shall be deemed to exclude the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

‘‘(3) The numbers of individuals specified 

in paragraph (1) shall be determined by the 

Secretary on the basis of the latest estimates available to the Department that are 

satisfactory to the Secretary. 

‘‘(b) HOLD-HARMLESS.—(1) Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law and subject to 

paragraph (2)—

‘‘(A) for fiscal year 1996, no State shall receive under title I of this Act less than 90 

percent of the sum of the payments made to 

the State for the fiscal year 1995 for programs authorized by section 313 of the Adult 

Education Act, section 1202 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

and sections 202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) of 

the Job Training Partnership Act, as they 

were in effect prior to the enactment of the 

Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act of 1995; and 

‘‘(B) for fiscal year 1997, no State shall receive under title I of this Act less than 90 

percent of the amount it received under title 

I for fiscal year 1996. 

‘‘(2) If for any fiscal year the amount available for allotment under this section is insufficient to satisfy the provisions of paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ratably reduce 

the payments to all States for such services 

and activities as necessary. 

‘‘(c) REALLOTMENT.—If the Secretary determines that any amount of a State’s allotment under this section for any fiscal year 

will not be required for carrying out the program for which such amounts has been allotted, the Secretary shall make such amount 

available for reallotment to one or more 

other States on a basis that the Secretary 

determines would best serve the purposes of 

this Act. Any amount reallotted to a State 

under this subsection shall be deemed to be 

part of its allotment for the fiscal year in 

which it is obligated. 

‘‘(d) REPORT.—The Secretary shall, by September 30, 2000—

‘‘(1) conduct a study to determine the 

availability and reliability of statistical 

data on the number of immigrants and limited English proficient individuals in each 

State; and 

‘‘(2) report to the Congress on the feasibility and advisability of including such populations as factors in the formula under subsection (a)(1). 

‘‘TITLE II—NATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

‘‘NATIONAL LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES

‘‘SEC. 201. (a) AUTHORITY.—From the 

amount reserved under section 3(b)(1)(B) for 

any fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized 

to establish a program of national leadership 

and evaluation activities to enhance the 

quality of adult education and family literacy nationwide. 

‘‘(b) METHOD OF FUNDING. The Secretary 

may carry out national leadership and evaluation activities directly or through grants, 

contracts, and cooperative agreements. 

‘‘(c) USES OF FUNDS.—Funds used under 

this section may be used for—

‘‘(1) research and development; 

‘‘(2) demonstration of model and innovative programs; 

‘‘(3) dissemination; 

‘‘(4) evaluations and assessments, including independent assessments of services and 

activities assisted under this Act and of the 

condition and progress of literacy in the 

United States; 

‘‘(5) capacity building at the State and 

local levels; 

‘‘(6) data collection; 

‘‘(7) professional development; 

‘‘(8) technical assistance; and 

‘‘(9) other activities designed to enhance 

the quality of adult education and family literacy nationwide. 

‘‘AWARDS FOR NATIONAL EXCELLENCE

‘‘SEC. 202. The Secretary may, from the 

amount reserved under section 3(b)(1)(A) for 

any fiscal year after fiscal year 1997, and 

through a peer review process, make performance awards to one or more States that 

have—

‘‘(1) exceeded in an outstanding manner 

their performance goals under section 109(a); 

‘‘(2) made exemplary progress in developing, implementing, or improving their 

adult education and family literacy programs in accordance with the priorities described in section 101; or 

‘‘(3) provided exemplary services and activities for those individuals within the 

State who are most in need of adult education and family literacy services, or are 

hardest to serve. 

‘‘NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY

‘‘SEC. 203. (a) PURPOSE.—The National Institute for Literacy shall—

‘‘(1) provide national leadership; 

‘‘(2) coordinate literacy services; and 

‘‘(3) be a national resource for adult education and family literacy, by providing the 

best and most current information available 

and supporting the creation of new ways to 

offer improved services. 

‘‘(b) ESTABLISHMENT.—(1) There shall be a 

National Institute for Literacy (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Institute’’). The Institute shall be administered under the 

terms of an interagency agreement entered 

into by the Secretary with the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services (in this section referred to 

as the ‘‘Interagency Group’’). The Secretary 

may include in the Institute any research 

and development center, institute, or clearinghouse established within the Department 

of Education whose purpose is determined by 

the Secretary to be related to the purpose of 

the Institute. 

‘‘(2) The Interagency Group shall consider 

the recommendations of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board (the 

‘Board’) under subsection (e) in planning the 

goals of the Institute and in the implementation of any programs to achieve such goals. 

The daily operations of the Institute shall be 

carried out by the Director. 

‘‘(c) DUTIES.—(1) In order to provide leadership for the improvement and expansion of 

the system for delivery of literacy services, 

the Institute is authorized, to—

‘‘(A) establish a national electronic data 

base of information that disseminates information to the broadest possible audience 

within the literacy and basic skills field, and 

that includes—

‘‘(i) effective practices in the provision of 

literacy and basic skills instruction, including the integration of such instruction with 

occupational skills training; 

‘‘(ii) public and private literacy and basic 

skills programs and Federal, State,and local 

policies affecting the provision of literacy 

services at the national, State, and local levels; 

‘‘(iii) opportunities for technical assistance, meetings, conferences, and other opportunities that lead to the improvement of 

literacy and basic skills services; and 

‘‘(iv) a communication network for literacy programs, providers, social service 

agencies, and students; 

‘‘(B) coordinate support for the provision 

of literacy and basic skills services across 

Federal agencies and at the State and local 

levels; 

‘‘(C) coordinate the support of research and 

development on literacy and basic skills in 

families and adults across Federal agencies, 

especially with the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and carry out basic 

and applied research and development on 

topics that are not being investigated by 

other organizations or agencies; 

‘‘(D) collect and disseminate information 

on methods of advancing literacy that show 

great promise; 

‘‘(E) work with the National Education 

Goals Panel, assist local, State, and national 

organizations and agencies in making and 

measuring progress towards the National 

Education Goals, as established by P.L. 103–

227; 

‘‘(F) coordinate and share information 

with national organizations and associations 

that are interested in literacy and workforce 

development; and 

‘‘(G) inform the development of policy with 

respect to literacy and basic skills. 

‘‘(2) The Institute may enter into contracts 

or cooperative agreements with, or make 

grants to, individuals, public or private institutions, agencies, organizations, or consortia of such institution, agencies, or organizations to carry out the activities of the 

Institute. Such grants, contracts, or agreements shall be subject to the laws and regulations that generally apply to grants, contracts, or agreements entered into by Federal agencies. 

‘‘(d) LITERACY LEADERSHIP.—(1) The Institute may, in consultation with the Board, 

award fellowships, with such stipends and allowances that the Director considers necessary, to outstanding individuals pursuing 

careers in adult education or literacy in the 

areas of instruction, management, research, 

or innovation. 

‘‘(2) Fellowships awarded under this subsection shall be used, under the auspices of 

the Institute, to engage in research, education, training, technical assistance, or 

other activities to advance the field of adult 

education or literacy, including the training 

of volunteer literacy providers at the national, State, or local level. 

‘‘(3) The Institute, in consultation with the 

Board, is authorized to award paid and unpaid internships to individuals seeking to assist in carrying out the Institute’s mission 

and to accept assistance from volunteers. 

‘‘(e) NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD.—(1)(A) There shall be a National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board 

(the ‘Board’), which shall consist of 10 individuals appointed by the President. 

‘‘(B) The Board shall comprise individuals 

who are not otherwise officers or employees 

of the Federal Government and who are representative of such entities as—

‘‘(i) literacy organizations and providers of 

literacy services, including nonprofit providers, providers of English as a second language programs and services, social service 

organizations, and providers receiving assistance under this Act; 

‘‘(ii) businesses that have demonstrated interest in literacy programs; 

‘‘(iii) literacy students, including those 

with disabilities; 

‘‘(iv) experts in the area of literacy research; 

‘‘(v) State and local governments; and 

‘‘(vi) organized labor. 

‘‘(2) The Board shall—

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6528 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

‘‘(A) make recommendations concerning 

the appointment of the Director and staff of 

the Institute; and 

‘‘(B) provide independent advice on the operation of the Institute. 

‘‘(3)(A) Appointments to the Board made 

after the date of enactment of the ‘Adult 

Education and Family Literacy Reform Act 

of 1995’ shall be for three-year terms, except 

that the initial terms for members may be 

established at one, two, or three years in 

order to establish a rotation in which onethird of the members are selected each year. 

‘‘(B) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the 

term for which the member’s predecessor 

was appointed shall be appointed only for the 

remainder of that term. A member may 

serve after the expiration of that members’

term until a successor has taken office. 

‘‘(4) The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson 

of the Board shall be elected by the members. 

‘‘(5) The Board shall meet at the call of the 

Chairperson or a majority of its members. 

‘‘(f) GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND DEVISES.—(1) 

The Institute may accept, administer, and 

use gifts or donations of services, money, or 

property, whether real or personal, tangible 

or intangible. 

‘‘(2) The responsible official shall establish 

written rules setting forth the criteria to be 

used by the Institute in determining whether 

the acceptance of contributions of services, 

money, or property whether real or personal, 

tangible or intangible services would reflect 

unfavorably upon the ability of the Institute 

or any employee to carry out its responsibilities or official duties in a fair and objective 

manner, or would compromise the integrity 

or the appearance of the integrity of its programs or any official involved in those programs. 

‘‘(g) MAILS.—The Board and the Institute 

may use the United States mails in the same 

manner and under the same conditions as 

other departments and agencies of the 

United States. 

‘‘(h) STAFF.—The Interagency Group, after 

considering recommendations made by the 

Board, shall appoint and fix the pay of a Director. 

‘‘(i) APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN CIVIL SERVICE LAWS.—The Director and staff of the Institute may be appointed without regard to 

the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 

governing appointments in the competitive 

service, and may be paid without regard to 

the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 

III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 

except that an individual so appointed may 

not receive pay in excess of the annual rate 

of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule. 

‘‘(j) EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.—The Institute may procure temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 

United States Code. 

‘‘(k) REPORT.—The Institute shall submit a 

biennial report to the Interagency Group and 

the Congress. 

‘‘(1) FUNDING.—Any amounts appropriated 

to the Secretary, the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, or 

any other department that participates in 

the Institute for purposes that the Institute 

is authorized to perform under this section 

may be provided to the Institute for such 

purposes. 

‘‘TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

‘‘WAIVERS

‘‘SEC. 301. (a)(1) REQUEST FOR WAIVER.—

Any State may request, on its own behalf or 

on behalf of a local recipient, a waiver by the 

Secretary of Education, the Secretary of the 

Interior, or the Secretary of Labor, as appropriate, of one or more statutory or regulatory provisions described in subsection (c) 

in order to carry out adult education and 

family literacy programs under title I more 

effectively. 

‘‘(2) An Indian tribe or tribal organization 

may request a waiver by a Secretary described in subsection (a)(1), as appropriate, 

of one or more statutory or regulatory provisions described in subsection (c) in order to 

carry out an Even Start family literacy program under section 104(c) more effectively. 

‘‘(b) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—(1) Except as 

provided in subsection (d), a Secretary described in subsection (a)(1) may waive any 

requirement of a statute listed in subsection 

(c), or of the regulations issued under that 

statute, for a State that requests such a 

waiver—

‘‘(A) if, and only to the extent that, the 

Secretary determines that such requirement 

impedes the ability of the State or a 

subgrant recipient under title I to carry out 

adult education and family literacy programs or activities in an effective manner; 

‘‘(B) if the State waives, or agrees to 

waive, any similar requirements of State 

law; 

‘‘(C) if, in the case of a statewide waiver, 

the State—

‘‘(i) has provided all subgrant recipients of 

assistance under this title I in the State 

with notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the State’s proposal to request a 

waiver; and 

‘‘(ii) has submitted the comments of such 

recipients to the Secretary; and 

‘‘(D) if the State provides such information 

as the Secretary reasonably requires in order 

to make such determinations. 

‘‘(2) A Secretary shall act promptly on any 

request submitted under paragraph (1). 

‘‘(3) Each waiver approved under this subsection shall be for a period not to exceed 

five years, except that a Secretary may extend such period if the Secretary determines 

that the waiver has been effective in enabling the State to carry out the purpose of 

this Act. 

‘‘(c) EDUCATION PROGRAMS.—(1) The statutes subject to the waiver authority of the 

Secretary of Education under this section 

are—

‘‘(A) this Act; 

‘‘(B) part A of title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (authorizing programs and activities to help disadvantaged children meet high standards); 

‘‘(C) part B of title II of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Dwight 

D. Eisenhower Professional Development 

Program); 

‘‘(D) title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Innovative 

Education Program Strategies); 

‘‘(E) part C of title VII of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Emergency Immigrant Education Program); 

‘‘(F) the School-to-Work Opportunities Act 

of 1994, but only with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of Labor; and 

‘‘(G) the Carl D. Perkins Career Preparation Education Act of 1995. 

‘‘(2) The Secretary of Interior may waive 

under this section the provisions of part B of 

the Education Amendments of 1978. 

‘‘(3) The statutes subject to the waiver authority of the Secretary of Labor under this 

section are—

‘‘(A) the Job Training Partnership Act; and 

‘‘(B) the School-to-Work Opportunities Act 

of 1994, but only with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of Education. 

‘‘(d) WAIVERS NOT AUTHORIZED.—A Secretary may not waive any statutory or regulatory requirement of the programs listed in 

subsection (c) relating to—

‘‘(1) the basic purposes or goals of the affected programs; 

‘‘(2) maintenance of effort; 

‘‘(3) comparability of services; 

‘‘(4) the equitable participation of students 

attending private schools; 

‘‘(5) parental participation and involvement; 

‘‘(6) the distribution of funds to States or 

to local recipients; 

‘‘(7) the eligibility of an individual for participation in the affected programs; 

‘‘(8) public health or safety, labor standards, civil rights, occupational safety and 

health, or environmental protection; or 

‘‘(9) prohibitions or restrictions relating to 

the construction of buildings or facilities. 

‘‘(e) TERMINATION OF WAIVERS.—A Secretary shall periodically review the performance of any State or local recipient for which 

the Secretary has granted a waiver under 

this section and shall terminate such waiver 

if the Secretary determines that the performance of the State affected by the waiver 

has been inadequate to justify a continuation of the waiver, or the State fails to 

waive similar requirements of State law in 

accordance with subsection (b)(1)(B). 

‘‘DEFINITIONS

‘‘SEC. 302. For the purpose of this Act: 

‘‘(1) the term ‘adult’ means an individual 

who is 16 years of age, or beyond the age of 

compulsory school attendance under State 

law, and who is not enrolled, or required to 

be enrolled, in secondary school; 

‘‘(2) the term ‘adult education’ means services or instruction below the college level for 

adults who—

‘‘(A) lack sufficient education or literacy 

skills to enable them to function effectively 

in society; or 

‘‘(B) do not have a certificate of graduation 

from a school providing secondary education 

and who have not achieved an equivalent 

level of education; 

‘‘(3) the term ‘community-based organization’ means a private nonprofit organization 

that is representative of a community or significant segments of a community and that 

provides education, vocational rehabilitation, job training, or internship services and 

programs; 

‘‘(4) the term ‘family literacy program’

means a program that integrates adult education, parenting education, and early childhood education into a unified set of services 

and activities for low-income families that 

are most in need of such services and activities, and that is designed to help break the 

cycle of intergenerational poverty and 

undereducation; 

‘‘(5) the terms ‘Indian tribes’ and ‘tribal organizations’ have the meaning given such 

terms in section 3 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act; 

‘‘(6) the term ‘individual of limited English 

proficiency’ means an adult or out-of-school 

youth who has limited ability in speaking, 

reading, writing, or understanding the 

English language and—

‘‘(A) whose native language is a language 

other than English; or 

‘‘(B) who lives in a family or community 

environment where a language other than 

English is the dominant language; 

‘‘(7) the term ‘institution of higher education’ means any such institution as defined by section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965; 

‘‘(8) the term ‘literacy’ means an individual’s ability to read, write, and speak in 

English, and compute and solve problems at 

levels of proficiency necessary to function on 

the job and in society, to achieve one’s goals, 

and develop one’s knowledge and potential; 

‘‘(9) the term ‘local educational agency’

means a public board of education or other 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6529 

public authority legally constituted within a 

State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function 

for, public elementary or secondary schools 

in a city, county, township, school district, 

or other political subdivision of a State, or 

such combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary or 

secondary schools, except that, if there is a 

separate board or other legally constituted 

local authority having administrative control and direction of adult education in public schools therein, such term means such 

other board or authority; 

‘‘(10) the term ‘migratory family’ means a 

family with a migratory child as defined in 

section 1309(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; 

‘‘(11) the term ‘public housing authority’

means a public housing agency, as defined in 

42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6), that participates in public housing, as defined in 42 U.S.C. 

1437a(b)(1). 

‘‘(12) except under section 301, the term 

‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of Education; and 

‘‘(13) except as provided in section 

111(a)(2)(B), the term ‘State’ means each of 

the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 

American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.’’. 

TITLE II—EFFECTIVE DATE; 

TRANSITION 

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 201. This Act shall take effect on July 

1, 1996. 

TRANSITION

SEC. 202. Nothwithstanding any other provisions of law—

(1) upon enactment of the Adult Education 

and Family Literacy Reform Act of 1995, a 

State or local recipient of funds under the 

Adult Education Act, the Even Start Family 

Literacy Programs of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, and sections 202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) of the Job 

Training Partnership Act, as they were in effect prior to the enactment of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act of 

1995, may use any such unexpended funds to 

carry out services and activities that are authorized by those statutes or the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act; and 

(2) a State or local recipient of funds under 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy 

Act for the fiscal year 1996 may use such 

funds to carry out services and activities 

that are authorized by either such Act or 

were authorized by the Adult Education Act, 

the Even Start Family Literacy Programs of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, and sections 202(c)(1)(A) and 

262(c)(1)(C) of the Job Training Partnership 

Act, as they were in effect prior to the enactment of the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Reform Act of 1995. 

TITLE III—REPEALS OF OTHER ACTS 

REPEALS

SEC. 301 (a) EVEN START.—Part B of title I 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6361 et seq.) is repealed. 

(b) NATIONAL LITERACY ACT.—The National 

Literacy Act of 1991 (20 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) is 

repealed. 

(c) GRANTS TO STATES FOR WORKPLACE AND

COMMUNITY TRANSITION TRAINING FOR INCARCERATED YOUTH OFFENDERS.—Part E of title 

X of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1135g) is repealed. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

Washington, DC, May 8, 1995. 

Hon. ALBERT GORE, JR., 

President of the Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Enclosed for consideration of the Congress is the ‘‘Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act of 

1995,’’ the Administration’s plan to create a 

comprehensive strategy for meeting our Nation’s adult education and family literacy 

needs. Also enclosed is a section-by-section 

analysis summarizing the contents of the 

bill. I am sending an identical letter to the 

Speaker of the House. 

As part of the G.I. Bill for America’s Workers, the Administration is consolidating and 

restructuring nearly 70 separate programs 

into a streamlined system to empower youth 

and adults to acquire the education and 

skills they need for new and better jobs. The 

Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act is central to this goal. 

Results from the 1993 National Adult Literacy Survey reveal a literacy crisis in this 

country. More than 20 percent of adults performed at or below a 5th-grade level in reading and math—far below the level needed for 

effective participation in the workforce. And 

because parents’ educational level is a strong 

predictor of children’s academic success, the 

effects of this crisis extend beyond adults to 

their children. Despite the obvious need for 

literacy services among our Nation’s adults, 

the recent National Evaluation of Adult 

Education Programs found that the current 

Adult Education program serves only small 

percentage of adults in need of services and 

that, while many adults benefit from participation in the program, many leave before 

they achieve any literacy gains. Overall, the 

current configuration of adult education and 

family literacy programs is too diffuse and 

diverts human and financial resources from 

what should be the focus of all Federal literacy efforts: the provision of high-quality, 

results-oriented services. 

The Administration recognizes that adults 

who need to improve their educational skills 

will be hindered in the workplace, and in 

promoting their children’s progress in 

school, if they do not have access to adult 

education and family literacy programs that 

meet their needs. In response, the enclosed 

bill creates a performance partnership designed around give broad principles—streamlining, flexibility, quality, targeting, and 

consumer choice—described in detail below. 

First, our strategy would streamline a 

dozen existing adult education and family 

literacy programs into a single State grant 

that has a clear purpose and is aimed at high 

standards. In addition, the enclosed bill 

would cut in half the number of State planning requirements. These changes would 

save States time and money and allow them 

to focus more attention on improving the 

quality of their programs. 

Our second principle is flexibility. To place 

decision-making in the hands of the States, 

the bill would eliminate several restrictions 

on the use of funds, such as the current mandatory set-aside for services to institutionalized individuals, the requirement that States 

make ‘‘Gateway Grants’’ to public housing 

authorities, and the cap on State expenditures for adult secondary education. States 

could use Federal funds to support a range of 

services in the mix that they—not the Federal Government—determine would best 

meet the needs of adults in their States. 

These services would include parenting education, basic skills education, high school 

equivalency instruction, early childhood 

education, and English classes for adults who 

speak other languages. 

Because the Even Start Family Literacy 

Program has shown exceptional promise as a 

family literacy model, the bill would set 

aside 25 percent of the funds available for 

subgrants for Even Start Family Literacy 

Programs. However, if a State is already 

meeting the family literacy needs of its residents through a program of comparable quality, the Secretary could modify or waive this 

requirement. 

We have also built in other flexibility provisions. For example, a new waiver authority 

would permit States to request, for themselves or for the local service providers, 

waivers of statutory or regulatory provisions 

of related Federal programs, such as Part A 

of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, the School-to-Work 

Opportunities Act of 1994, the Job Training 

Partnership Act, and the proposed Carl D. 

Perkins Career Preparation Education Act, 

in order to facilitate more effective implementation of adult education and family literacy programs. 

Third, the Administration believes that 

strong accountability provisions must go 

hand-in-hand with increased flexibility and 

that, combined, these elements improve the 

overall quality of education programs. To 

this end, the bill would build on current accountability provisions in Adult Education 

and Even Start by requiring States to develop or modify their own performances 

goals and indicators and describe them in 

their State plans. States would use these 

goals and indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of local programs. The Department 

would assist States in developing their performance goals and indicators by providing 

technical assistance. If, after a reasonable 

period of time, and the opportunity for a 

hearing, the Secretary determines that a 

State is not making sufficient progress toward its performance goals, the bill would 

authorize the Secretary to withhold Federal 

funds. 

Solid evaluation requirements are also key 

to building better programs. While the Adult 

Education Act requires States to evaluate 

annually 20 percent of their grant recipients, 

it neither requires nor encourages subgrantees to evaluate themselves. Our bill 

would require a biennial local evaluation, 

whose results local providers would describe 

in their applications for subgrants. States 

would then consider those results in awarding funds to applicants seeking to provide 

services in various localities. 

The bill also includes incentives for exceptional State and local performance. The new 

Act would authorize the Secretary to use up 

to five percent of the appropriation to make 

National Excellence Awards to States with 

exemplary adult education and family literacy programs. States could also reward exemplary local programs by using up to five 

percent of their allotments for financial incentive awards. 

The bill includes additional quality-enhancing provisions. A reservation of up to 

ten percent of State funds for leadership activities, including professional development 

and training, and the development, acquisition, and promotion of advanced technologies, would encourage program improvement. Research and development, evaluation, and demonstration of model and innovative programs would take place at the 

Federal level through the National Leadership authority. Such activities would expand 

our understanding of what works in adult 

education programs, thereby helping States 

to improve the effectiveness of their programs. The bill would also authorize the National Institute for Literacy to continue in 

its current role as a national resource on literacy issues. 

Fourth, our bill would target funds to 

States and local areas with the greatest need 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6530 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

for adult education and family literacy services. A new funding formula would distribute 

50 percent of the funds based on the adult 

education population (excluding in-school 

students) and 50 percent based on adults living in poverty. In making determinations regarding local applications, States would be 

required to give preference for funding to 

those applicants that serve local areas with 

the highest concentrations of individuals in 

poverty or with low levels of literacy, or 

both. 

Our final principle is consumer choice. In 

addition to allowing States flexibility to 

choose the services they offer, the enclosed 

bill would also expand adult learners’

choices. By encouraging States to establish 

strong links with one-stop career centers, 

job-training programs, and social service 

agencies, the Administration’s bill would facilitate the dissemination of information 

about the availability, services, and student 

outcomes of adult education and literacy 

programs. As learners make more informed 

choices about the programs they enter, the 

likelihood of their success in adult education 

and family literacy programs should improve. 

I encourage Congress to act swiftly on our 

bill. By creating a single funding stream to 

States, the bill responds to concerns regarding the potential duplication of adult education and literacy programs. In doing so, 

the bill consolidates separate discretionary 

programs for library literacy, workplace literacy, and literacy programs for prisoners 

and the homeless. Although the Administration’s bill would eliminate many narrow, 

categorical programs, we have taken steps to 

ensure that needy populations and promising 

practices are emphasized in our proposal. 

The bill permits States to continue to use libraries and the workplace as sites for the 

provision of services. It also requires States 

to assess the adult education and family literacy needs of hard-to-serve and most-inneed individuals, such as the homeless and 

the incarcerated, and describe programs’ capacity to meet those needs. Targeting provisions of the bill also would ensure that local 

areas with high concentrations of individuals 

in poverty or low levels of literacy, or both, 

receive priority for Federal funds. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this proposal to Congress and that 

its adoption would be in accord with the program of the President. 

Yours sincerely, 

RICHARD W. RILEY, 

The Secretary. 

ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY REFORM ACT OF 1995—SECTION-BY-SECTION

ANALYSIS

TITLE I OF THE BILL—AMENDMENTS TO THE

ADULT EDUCATION ACT

Section 101. Amendment. Section 101 of the 

bill would amend the Adult Education Act 

(‘‘current law’’) in its entirety, as described 

below. 

In general, this amendment would consolidate the current Adult Education programs, 

eliminating the many separate and prescriptive categorical programs, and the Even 

Start program under Title I, Part B of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 into a simplified, flexible, comprehensive, performance partnership between Federal and State and local providers of adult 

education and family literacy services. 

States would build on their accomplishments 

under current law and establish their own 

performance goals and indicators. The Federal Government would support State and 

local efforts with national leadership and 

evaluation activities, national performance 

awards to States, and waivers from specific 

statutory and regulatory rules. 

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (the 

‘‘Act’’) 

Section 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Section 1 of the Act would propose that the 

amended Adult Education Act be cited as the 

‘‘Adult Education and Family Literacy Act’’

(‘‘the Act’’). This section would also set 

forth a table of contents for the Act. 

Section 2. Declaration of policy, findings, 

and purpose. Section 2 of the Act would set 

forth the findings and purpose of the Act. 

Subsection (a) would set forth congressional findings. 

Subsection (b) would state that the purpose of the Act is to create a performance 

partnership with States and localities for the 

provision of adult education and family literacy services so that, as called for in the 

National Education Goals, all adults who 

need such services will, as appropriate, be 

able to: (1) become literate and obtain the 

knowledge and skills needed to compete in a 

global economy and exercise the rights and 

responsibilities of citizenship; (2) complete a 

high school education; (3) become and remain actively involved in their children’s 

education in order to ensure their children’s 

readiness for, and success in, school. This 

purpose would be pursued through: (1) building on State and and local education reforms 

supported by Goals 2000: Educate America 

Act and other Federal and State legislation; 

(2) consolidating numerous Federal adult 

education and literacy programs into a single, flexible grant; (3) tying local programs 

to challenging State-developed performance 

goals that are consistent with the purpose of 

this Act; (4) holding States and localities accountable for achieving such goals; (5) building program quality though such measures 

as encouraging greater use of technologies in 

adult education and family literacy programs and better professional development 

of educators working in those programs; (6) 

integrating adult education and family literacy programs with States’ school-to-work 

opportunities systems, career preparation 

education services and activities, job training programs, early childhood and elementary school programs, and other related activities; and (7) supporting the improvement 

of State and local activities through nationally significant efforts in research, development, demonstration, dissemination, evaluation, capacity-building, data collection, professional development, and technical assistance. 

Section 3. Authorization of appropriations. 

Section 3 of the Act would establish a tenyear authorization of appropriations for 

State and national programs. A ten-year authorization would facilitate stable growth 

and reform of the program. 

Subsection (a) would authorize $490,487,000 

for fiscal year 1996 and such sums as may be 

necessary for each of fiscal years 1997 

through 20005 to carry out the Act. Subsection (b) would, from the amount appropriated in any fiscal year, authorize the Secretary to reserve not more than 3 percent to 

carry out sections 201 (national leadership 

activities) and 203 (National Institute for 

Literacy) of the Act, and not more than 

$5,000,000 for Even Start family literacy programs for migratory and Indian families 

under section 104(c) of the Act. Beginning in 

fiscal year 1998, the Secretary would also be 

authorized to reserve not more than 5 percent of section 202 (national performance 

awards). 

TITLE I OF THE ACT—ADULT EDUCATION AND

FAMILY LITERACY

Section 101. Priorities. Section 101 of the 

Act would require that, in order to prepare 

adults for family, work, citizenship, and job 

training, and adults and their children for 

success in future learning, funds under this 

title must be used to support the development, implementation, and improvement of 

adult education and family literacy programs at the State and local levels. 

In using funds under the title, States and 

local recipients would be required to give 

priority to: (1) services and activities designed to ensure that all adults have the opportunity to achieve to challenging State 

performance standards for literacy proficiency, including basic literacy, English 

language proficiency, and completion of high 

school or its equivalent; (2) services and activities designed to enable parents to prepare 

their children for school, enhance their children’s language and cognitive abilities, and 

promote their own career advancement; and 

(3) adult education and family literacy programs that are built on a strong foundation 

of research and effective educational practices; effectively employ advances in technology, as well as learning in the context of 

family, work, and the community; are 

staffed by well-trained instructors, counselors and administrators; are of sufficient 

intensity and duration for participants to 

achieve substantial learning gains; establish 

strong links with elementary and secondary 

schools, postsecondary institutions, one-stop 

career centers, job-training programs, and 

social service agencies; and offer flexible 

schedules and, when necessary, support services to enable people to attend and complete 

programs. 

Section 102. State grants for adult education and family literacy. Section 102(a) of 

the Act would require the Secretary, from 

funds available for State grants under section 3 for each fiscal year and in accordance 

with section 111 of the Act, to make a grant 

to each State that has an approved State 

plan under section 106 of the Act, to assist 

that State in developing, implementing, and 

improving adult education and family literacy programs within the State. 

Section 102(b) of the Act would authorize a 

State, from the amount awarded to it for 

any fiscal year under subsection (a), to use: 

(1) up to 5 percent, or $80,000, whichever is 

greater, for the cost of administering its program under this title; (2) up to 10 percent for 

leadership activities under section 103 of the 

Act; and (3) beginning in fiscal year 1998, 5 

percent for financial incentives or awards to 

one or more eligible recipients in recognition 

of exemplary quality or innovation in adult 

education or family literacy services and activities, or exemplary services and activities 

for individuals who are most in need of such 

services and activities, or are hardest to 

serve, or both. Such incentives or awards 

would be determined by the State through a 

peer review process, using the performance 

goals and indicators described in section 108 

and, if appropriate, other criteria. 

Section 102(b) would also require that the 

remainder of the State’s funds be used for 

subgrants to eligible applicants under section 107, except that at least 25 percent of 

such remainder would be required to be used 

for Even Start family literacy programs 

under section 104 of the Act, unless the State 

demonstrates in its State plan under section 

106 of the Act, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that it will otherwise meet the needs 

of individuals in the State for family literacy programs in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of this Act. 

Section 102(c) of the Act would require 

that the Federal share of expenditures to 

carry out a State plan under section 106 of 

the Act be paid from the State’s grant under 

subsection (a). However, such Federal share 

could be no greater than 75 percent of the 

cost of carrying out the State plan for each 

fiscal year, except that with respect to 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6531 

Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, 

and the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federal share could be 100 percent. Section 102(c) 

of the Act would permit the State’s share of 

expenditures in carrying out its State plan 

to be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including only non-Federal funds that are used 

for adult education and family literacy activities in a manner that is consistent with 

the purpose of this Act. 

Section 102(d) of the Act would require 

State-level maintenance of effort. Under subsection (d)(1), a State would be permitted to 

receive funds under the title for any fiscal 

year only if the Secretary finds that the aggregate expenditures of the State for adult 

education and family literacy by such State 

for the preceding fiscal year were not less 

than 90 percent of such aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year. 

The Secretary would be required to reduce 

the amount of the allocation of funds to a 

State, under section 102(a), for any fiscal 

year in the exact proportion to which a 

State falls below 90 percent of the aggregate 

expenditures for the second preceding fiscal 

year. Subsection (d)(3) would permit the Secretary to waive the maintenance-of-effort requirements if the Secretary determines that 

such a waiver would be equitable due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, 

such as a natural disaster or a precipitous 

decline in the financial resource of the 

State. Subsection (d)(4) would state that no 

lesser amount of State expenditures under 

paragraphs (2) and (3) could be used for computing the effort required under subsection 

(d)(1) for subsequent years. 

Section 103. State leaderships activities. 

Section 103 of the Act would require States 

to use their State leadership funds to conduct activities of Statewide significance that 

develop, implement, or improve programs of 

adult education and family literacy, consistent with the State plan under section 106. 

Such activities would include one or more of 

the following: (1) professional development 

and training; (2) disseminating curricula for 

adult education and family literacy programs; (3) monitoring and evaluating the 

quality of, and improvement in, services and 

activities conducted with assistance under 

this title, including establishing performance goals and indicators under section 

109(a) of the Act, in order to assess program 

quality and improvement; (4) establishing 

State content standards for adult education 

and family literacy programs; (5) establishing challenging State performance standards for literacy proficiency; (6) promoting 

the integration of literacy instruction and 

occupational skill training, and linkages 

with employers; (7) promoting the use of and 

acquiring instructional and management 

software and technology; (8) establishing or 

operating State or regional adult literacy resource centers; (9) developing and participating in networks and consortia of States 

that seek to establish and implement adult 

education and family literacy programs that 

have significance to the State or region, and 

may have national significance; and (10) 

other activities of Statewide significance 

that promote the purposes of the Act. 

Section 104. Even Start Family Literacy 

Programs. Section 104 of the Act would require each State that receives a grant under 

section 102(a) of the Act for any fiscal year 

to use the funds reserved under section 

102(b)(4) of the Act (unless the State demonstrates to the Secretary that it will otherwise meet the needs of individuals in the 

State for family literacy programs) to award 

Even Start family literacy subgrants to 

partnerships composed of one or more local 

educational agencies and one or more community-based organizations, institutions of 

higher education, private non-profit organizations, or public agencies (other than local 

educational agencies). Such Even Start family literacy programs must: (1) provide opportunities (including home-based instructional services) for joint participation by 

parents or guardians (including parents or 

guardians who are within the State’s compulsory school attendance age range, so long 

as a local educational agency provides, or 

ensures the availability of, their basic education), other family members, and children; 

(2) provide developmentally appropriate 

childhood education for children from birth 

through age seven; (3) identify and recruit 

families that are most in need of family literacy services, as indicated by low levels of 

income and adult literacy (including limited 

English proficiency), and such other need-related indicators as may be appropriate; and 

(4) enable participants to succeed through 

services and activities designed to meet 

their needs, such as support services and 

flexible class schedules. 

From funds reserved under section 

3(b)(1)(C) of the Act for any fiscal year, the 

Secretary would be required, under such 

terms and conditions as he or she establishes, to support Even Start family literacy 

programs through grants to, or cooperative 

agreements with, eligible applicants under 

section 107(b) of the Act for migratory families and with Indian tribes and tribal organizations for Indian families. Assistance to Indian tribes and tribal organizations for Indian families under this Act could be integrated with other programs under the Indian 

Employment Training and Related Services 

Demonstration Act of 1992. 

Section 105. State Administration. Section 

105 of the Act would require a State desiring 

to receive a grant under section 102(a) of the 

Act to designate, consistent with State law, 

an education agency or agencies that shall 

be responsible for the administration of services and activities under this title, including 

the development, submission, and implementation of the State plan; consultation with 

other appropriate agencies, groups, and individuals that are involved in, or interested in, 

the development and implementation of programs assisted under this title; and coordination with other State and Federal education and training programs. 

Section 105(b) of the Act would require 

that whenever a State imposes any rule or 

policy relating to the administration and operation of programs funded by this title, it 

must identify the rule or policy as a Stateimposed requirement. 

Section 106. State Plan. Section 106(a) of 

the Act would require, except as provided in 

subsection (f), each State desiring to receive 

a grant under this title for any fiscal year to 

submit to, or have on file with, the Secretary a five-year State plan that is approved by the designated State agency or 

agencies under section 105(a) of the Act. A 

State may submit its State plan as part of a 

comprehensive plan that includes State plan 

provisions under one or more of the following statutes: section 14302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; 

the Carl D. Perkins Career Preparation Education Act of 1995; the Goals 2000: Educate 

America Act; the Job Training Partnership 

Act; and the School-to-Work Opportunities 

Act of 1994. 

Section 106(b) of the Act would require the 

State, in developing its State plan, and any 

revisions to the plan, to base its plan or revisions on a recent, objective assessment of: (1) 

the needs of individuals in the State for 

adult education and family literacy programs, including individuals most in need or 

hardest to serve; and (2) the capacity of programs and providers to meet those needs, 

taking into account the priorities under section 101 of the Act and the State’s performance goals under section 109(a) of the Act. 

Section 106(c) of the Act would require the 

State, in developing its State plan, and any 

revisions to the plan, to consult widely with 

individuals, agencies, organizations, and institutions in the State that have an interest 

in the provision and quality of adult education and family literacy. 

Section 106(d) of the Act would require the 

State plan to be in such form and contain 

such information and assurances as the Secretary may require, and include: (1) a summary of the methods used to conduct the assessment under subsection (b) and the findings of that assessment; (2) a description of 

how, in addressing the needs identified in the 

State’s assessment, funds under this title 

will be used to establish adult education and 

family literacy programs, or improve or expand current programs, that will lead to 

high-quality learning outcomes, including 

measurable learning gains, for individuals in 

such programs; (3) a statement of the State’s 

performance goals and indicators established 

under section 109, or in the first such plan a 

description of how the State will establish 

such performance goals and indicators; (4) a 

description of the criteria the State will use 

to award funds under this title to eligible applicants under section 107, including a description of how the State will ensure that 

its selection of applicants to operate programs assisted under this title will reflect 

the findings of program evaluations carried 

out under section 110(a); (5) a description of 

how the State will integrate services and activities under this Act, including planning 

and coordination of programs, with those of 

other agencies, institutions, and organizations involved in adult education and family 

literacy in order to ensure effective use of 

funds and to avoid duplication of services; (6) 

a description of the leadership activities the 

State will carry out under section 103; and 

(7) any comments the Governor may have on 

the State plan. Section 106(d) of the Act 

would also require the State plan to provide 

assurances that: (1) the State will comply 

with the requirements of this Act and the 

provisions of the State plan; (2) the State 

will use such fiscal control and accounting 

procedures as are necessary for the proper 

and efficient administration of this title; and 

(3) programs funded under this title will be 

of such size, scope, and quality as to give realistic promise of furthering the purpose of 

this Act. 

Section 106(e) of the Act would require the 

designated State agency or agencies, when 

changes in conditions or other factors require substantial modifications to an approved State plan, to submit a revision to 

the plan to the Secretary. Such a revision 

would have to be approved by the designated 

State agency or agencies. 

Section 106(f) of the Act would authorize a 

State, for fiscal year 1996 only, to submit a 

one year State plan to the Secretary that either satisfies the specific requirements of 

this section or describes how the State will 

complete the development of its State plan 

with respect to those specific requirements 

within the following year. A State may use 

funds reserved under section 102(b)(2) to complete the development of its State plan. A 

one year State plan under this subsection 

would have to be developed in accordance 

with subsection (c); and contain the assurances described in subsection (d)(8). In order 

to receive a grant under section 102(a) for fiscal year 1997, a State that submits a one year 

State plan under this subsection would have 

to submit a four year State plan that covers 

fiscal year 1997 and the three succeeding fiscal years. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6532 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

Section 106(g) of the Act would require the 

designated State agency or agencies to submit the State plan, and any revisions to the 

State plan, to the Governor for review and 

comment; and ensure that any comments the 

Governor may have are included with the 

State plan, or revision, when the State plan, 

or revision, is submitted to the Secretary. 

Section 106(h) of the Act would require the 

Secretary to approve a State plan, or a revision to an approved State plan, if it meets 

the requirements of this section and is of 

sufficient quality to meet the purpose of this 

Act. The subsection would also prohibit the 

Secretary from finally disapproving a State 

plan, or a revision to an approved State plan, 

except after giving the State reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The 

Secretary would be required to establish a 

peer review process to make recommendations regarding approval of State plans and 

revisions to the State plans. 

Section 107. Subgrants to eligible applicants. Section 107(a) of the Act would require 

States, from funds available under section 

102(b)(4) of the Act, to make subgrants to eligible applicants to develop, implement, and 

improve adult education and family literacy 

programs within the State. To the extent 

practicable, States would make multi-year 

subgrants. 

Under section 107(b), except for subgrants 

for Even Start family literacy programs 

under section 104, entities eligible to apply 

to the State for a subgrant would be: (1) 

local educational agencies; (2) communitybased organizations; (3) institutions of higher education; (4) public and private nonprofit 

agencies (including State and local welfare 

agencies, corrections agencies, public libraries, and public housing authorities); and (5) 

consortia of such agencies, organizations, institutions, or partnerships, including consortia that include one or more for-profit 

agencies, organizations, or institutions, if 

such agencies, organizations, or institutions 

can make a significant contribution to attaining the objectives of the Act. Each State 

receiving funds under title I would be required to ensure that all the above-mentioned eligible applicants receive equitable 

consideration for subgrants under this section. 

Section 108. Applications from eligible applicants. Section 108 of the Act would require 

any eligible applicant under sections 104(a) 

(Even Start partnerships) or 107(b)(1) (other 

eligible applicants) that desires a subgrant 

under title I to submit an application to the 

State containing such information and assurances as the State may reasonably require. Such information must include: (1) a 

description of the applicant’s current adult 

education and family literacy programs, if 

any; (2) a description of how funds awarded 

under this title will be spent; (3) a description of how the applicant’s program will help 

the State address the needs identified in the 

State’s assessment under section 106(b)(1); (4) 

the projected goals of the applicant with respect to participant recruitment, retention, 

and educational achievement, and how the 

applicant will measure and report to the 

State regarding the information required in 

section 110(a); and (5) any cooperative arrangements the applicant has with others 

(including arrangements with social service 

agencies, one-stop career centers, business, 

industry, and volunteer literacy organizations) that have been made to deliver adult 

education and family literacy programs. 

In determining which applicants receive 

funds under this title, section 108(b) of the 

Act would require the State to give preference to those applicants that serve local 

areas with the high concentrations of individuals in poverty, or with low levels of literacy (including English language proficiency), or both, and to consider the results 

of the evaluations required under section 

110(a), if any, and the degree to which the applicant will coordinate with and utilize other 

literacy and social services available in the 

community. 

Section 109. State performance goals and 

indicators. Section 109(a) of the Act would 

require any State desiring to receive a grant 

under section 102(a) of the Act, in consultation with individuals, agencies, organizations, and institutions described in section 

106(c), to: (1) identify performance goals that 

define the level of student achievement to be 

attained in adult education and family literacy programs funded under title I, and express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form; and (2) identify 

performance indicators that State and local 

recipients will use in measuring or assessing 

progress toward achieving such goals. By 

July 1, 1997, such performance indicators 

must include, at least: (1) achievement in 

linguistic skills, including English language 

skills; (2) receipt of a high school diploma or 

its equivalent; (3) entry into a postsecondary 

school, job training program, employment, 

or career advancement; and (4) successful 

transition of children to school. 

Section 109(b) of the Act would authorize a 

State, except as provided in subsection (a)(3), 

to continue to use the indicators of program 

quality that it developed under section 

331(a)(2) of current law, to the extent they 

are consistent with the State’s performance 

goals. 

Section 109(c) of the Act would require the 

Secretary to provide technical assistance to 

States regarding the development of such 

performance goals and indicators and authorize the Secretary to use funds reserved 

under section 3(b)(1)(B) of the Act to provide 

such technical assistance. 

Section 110. Evaluation, improvement, and 

accountability. Section 110(a) of the Act 

would require each recipient of a subgrant 

under title I of the Act to evaluate biennially, using the performance goals and indicators established under section 109(a) of the 

Act, the programs supported under title I 

and report to the State regarding the effectiveness of its programs in addressing the 

priorities under section 101 and the needs 

identified in the State assessment under section 106(b)(1). 

Section 110(b) of the Act would provide 

that if a State determines, based on the applicable performance goals and indicators 

and the evaluations under subsection (a), 

that a subgrant recipient is not making substantial progress in achieving the purpose of 

this Act, the State may, but is not required 

to, work jointly with the local recipient to 

develop an improvement plan. If, after not 

more than two years of implementation of 

the improvement plan, the State determines 

that the recipient is not making substantial 

progress, the State must take whatever corrective action it deems necessary, which 

may include termination of funding or the 

implementation of alternative service arrangements, consistent with the State law. 

The State could take such corrective action 

only after it provided technical assistance to 

the recipient and ensured that corrective action allowed for continued services and activities to the recipient’s students. The 

State would have to report biennially to the 

Secretary on the quality and effectiveness of 

the adult education and family literacy programs funded through its subgrants under 

title I, based on the performance goals and 

indicators under section 109(a) and the needs 

identified in the State assessment under section 106(b)(1). 

Section 110(d) of the Act would require 

that if the Secretary determines that the 

State is not properly implementing its responsibilities under subsection (b), or is not 

making substantial progress in meeting the 

purpose of this Act based on its goals and indicators under section 109, he or she must 

work with the State to implement improvement activities. If, after a reasonable time, 

but not earlier than one year after the State 

implements such activities, the Secretary 

determines that the State is not making sufficient progress, based on its performance 

goals and indicators, the Secretary would be 

required, after notice and opportunity for a 

hearing, to withhold from the State all, or a 

portion, of the State’s allotment under this 

title. The Secretary would be given the authority to use funds withheld to provide, 

through alternative arrangements, services 

and activities within the State that meet the 

purposes of this Act. 

Section 111. Allotments; reallocation. Section 111(a) of the Act would, subject to the 

hold-harmless provisions in subsection (b), 

from the funds available under section 102(a) 

for each fiscal year, require the Secretary to 

allot to each State: (1) a sum that bears the 

same ratio to one-half that amount as the 

number of individuals in the State who are 

16 years of age or older and not enrolled, or 

required to be enrolled, in secondary school 

and who do not possess a high school diploma or its equivalent bears to the number 

of such individuals in all the States; and (2) 

a sum that bears the same ratio to one-half 

that amount as the number of individuals in 

the State who are 18 years of age or older 

and who are living at or below poverty bears 

to the number of such individuals in all the 

States. The Secretary would be required to 

allot to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

an amount equal to 2.95 percent of the funds 

available under section 102(a) for each fiscal 

year. For the purpose of subsection (a), the 

term ‘State’ would be deemed to exclude the 

Puerto Rico. The numbers of individuals 

specified in paragraph (1) would be determined by the Secretary on the basis of the 

latest estimates available to the Department 

that are satisfactory to the Secretary. 

Section 111(b)(1) of the Act would provide 

that, notwithstanding any other provision of 

law and subject to paragraph (2): (1) for fiscal 

year 1996, no State shall receive under title 

I of this Act less than 90 percent of the sum 

of the payments made to the State for the 

fiscal year 1995 for programs authorized by 

the section 313 of the Adult Education Act, 

section 1202 (Even Start) of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and 

sections 202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) of the 

Job Training Partnership Act, as those statutes were in effect prior to the enactment of 

this bill; and (2) for fiscal year 1997, no State 

shall receive under Title I of this Act less 

than 90 percent of the amount it received 

under Title I for fiscal year 1996. Section 

111(b)(2) of the Act would provide that, if for 

any fiscal year the amount available for allotment under this section is insufficient to 

satisfy the provisions of subsection (b)(1), 

the Secretary is to ratably reduce the payments to all States for such services and activities as necessary. 

Section 111(c) of the Act would provide for 

reallotment of any unneeded portion of a 

State’s allotment under subsection (a) for 

any fiscal year. 

Section 111(d) of the Act would require the 

Secretary, by September 30, 2000, to conduct 

a study to determine the availability and reliability of statistical data on the number of 

immigrant and limited English proficient individuals in each State, and report to the 

Congress on the feasibility and advisability 

of including such population as a factor in 

the formula under subsection (a)(1). 

TITLE II OF THE ACT—NATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Section 201. National Leadership Activities. Section 201 of the Act would authorize 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6533 

the Secretary, from the amount reserved 

under section 3(b)(1)(B) of the Act for any fiscal year, to establish a program of national 

leadership and evaluation activities to enhance the quality of adult education and 

family literacy nationwide. The Secretary 

would be authorized to carry out such activities directly or through grants, contracts, 

and cooperative agreements. Funds under 

this section could be used for: (1) research 

and development; (2) demonstration of model 

and innovative programs; (3) dissemination; 

(4) evaluations and assessments, including 

independent assessments of services and activities assisted under this Act and of the 

condition and progress of literacy of the 

United States; (5) capacity building at the 

State and local levels; (6) data collection; (7) 

professional development; (8) technical assistance; and (9) other activities designed to 

enhance the quality of adult education and 

family literacy nationwide. 

Section 202. Awards for National Excellence, Section 202 of the Act would authorize 

the Secretary, from the amount reserved 

under section 3(b)(1)(A) of the Act for any 

fiscal year after fiscal year 1997, and through 

a peer review process, to make performance 

awards to one or more States that have: (1) 

exceeded in an out-standing manner their 

performance goals established under section 

109(a) the Act; (2) made exemplary progress 

in developing, implementing, or improving 

their adult education and family literacy 

programs in accordance with the priorities 

described in section 101 of the Act; or (3) provided exemplary services and activities for 

those individuals within the State who are 

most in need of adult education and family 

literacy services, or are hardest to serve. 

Section 203. National Institute for Literacy. Section 203 of the Act would reauthorize the National Institute for Literacy (the 

‘‘Institute’’). 

Subsection (a) would clarify the purpose of 

the Institute by requiring it to: (1) provide 

national leadership; (2) coordinate literacy 

services; and (3) be a national resource for 

adult education and family literacy, by providing the best and most current information available and supporting the creation of 

new ways to offer improved services. 

Subsection (b) would establish the Institute, to be administered by the terms of an 

interagency agreement entered into by the 

Secretaries of Education, Labor, and Health 

and Human Services (the ‘‘Interagency 

Group’’). The Secretary could include in the 

Institute any research and development center, institute, or clearinghouse established 

within the Department of Education whose 

purpose is determined by the Secretary to be 

related to the purpose of the Institute. 

Under subsection (b), the Interagency 

Group would consider the recommendations 

of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board in planning the goals of the Institute and in implementing any programs to 

achieve such goals. The daily operations of 

the Institute would be carried out by the Director. 

Subsection (c) would authorize the Institute to: (1) establish a national electronic 

data base that disseminates information to 

the broadest possible audience within the literacy and basic skills field; (2) coordinate 

support for the provision of literacy and 

basic skills services across Federal agencies 

and at the State and local levels; (3) coordinate the support of research and development on literacy and basic skills in families 

and adults across Federal agencies, especially with the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and carry out basic 

and applied research and development on 

topics that are not being investigated by 

other organizations investigated by other organizations or agencies; (4) collect and disseminate information on methods of advancing literacy that show great promise; (5) 

work with the National Education Goals 

Panel in making and measuring progress towards the National Education Goals, as established by P.L. 103–227; (6) coordinate and 

share information with national organizations and associations that are interested in 

literacy and workforce development; and (7) 

inform the development of policy with respect to literacy and basic skills; 

Subsection (c) would also authorize the Institute to enter into contracts or cooperative 

agreements with, or make grants to, individuals, public or private institutions, agencies, 

organizations, or consortia of such institutions, agencies, or organizations to carry out 

the activities of the Institute. Such grants, 

contracts, or agreements would be subject to 

the laws and regulations that generally 

apply to grants, contracts, or agreements entered into by Federal agencies. 

Subsection (d) would authorize the Institute, in consultation with the Board, to 

award fellowships, with such stipends and allowances that the Director considers necessary, to outstanding individuals pursuing 

careers in adult education or literacy in the 

areas of instruction, management, research, 

or innovation. Such fellowships would have 

to be used, under the auspices of the Institute, to engage in research, education, training, technical assistance, or other activities 

to advance the field of adult education or literacy, including the training of volunteer 

literacy providers at the national, State, or 

local level. Subsection (d) would also authorize the Institute, in consultation with the 

Board, to award paid and unpaid internships 

to individuals seeking to assist in carrying 

out the Institute’s mission and to accept assistance from volunteers. 

Subsection (e) would establish the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board 

(the ‘Board’), consisting of 10 individuals appointed by the President who are not otherwise officers or employees of the Federal 

Government and who are representative of 

such entities as: (1) literacy organizations 

and providers of literacy services; (2) businesses that have demonstrated interest in 

literacy programs; (3) literacy students, including those with disabilities; (4) experts in 

the area of literacy research; (5) State and 

local governments; and (6) organized labor. 

Subsection (e) would require the Board to: 

(1) make recommendations concerning the 

appointment of the Director and staff of the 

Institute; and (2) provide independent advice 

on the operation of the Institute. Subsection 

(e) would also provide for staggering the 

terms of appointment for Board members, 

filling vacancies on the Board, electing a 

Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the 

Board by the members, and calling Board 

meetings. 

Subsection (f) would authorize the Institute to accept, administer, and use gifts or 

donations of services, money, or property, 

whether real or personal, tangible or intangible. Subsection (f) would also require the 

responsible official to establish written rules 

setting forth the criteria to be used in determining whether the acceptance of such gifts 

or donations reflect unfavorably upon the 

ability of the Institute or any employee to 

carry out its responsibilities or official duties in a fair and objective manner, or compromise the integrity or the appearance of 

the integrity of its programs or any official 

involved in those programs. 

Subsection (g) would authorize the Board 

and the Institute to use the United States 

mails in the same manner and under the 

same conditions as other departments and 

agencies of the United States. 

Subsection (h) requires the Interagency 

Group, after considering recommendations 

made by the Board, to appoint and fix the 

pay of a Director. 

Subsection (i) would permit the Director 

and staff of the Institute to be appointed 

without regard to the provisions of title 5, 

United States Code, governing appointments 

in the competitive service, and to be paid 

without regard to the provisions of chapter 

51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of that 

title relating to classification and General 

Schedule pay rates, except that an individual 

so appointed may not receive pay in excess 

of the annual rate of basic pay payable for 

level IV of the Executive Schedule. 

Subsection (j) would allow the Institute to 

procure temporary and intermittent services 

under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 

Code. 

Subsection (k) would require the Institute 

to submit a biennial report to the Interagency Group and the Congress. 

Subsection (l) would permit any amounts 

appropriated to the Secretary of Education, 

the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services, or any other department that participates in the Institute 

for purposes that the Institute is authorized 

to perform under this section, to be provided 

to the Institute for such purposes. 

TITLE III OF THE ACT—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 301. Waivers. Section 301 of the Act 

sets forth waiver provisions, in order to provide the flexibility States need to carry out 

adult education and family literacy programs. 

Subsection (a)(1) provides that any State 

may request a waiver by the Secretary of 

Education, the Secretary of the Interior, or 

the Secretary of Labor, as appropriate, of 

one or more statutory or regulatory provisions in order to carry out adult education 

and family literacy programs under title I 

more effectively. Subsection (a) (2) provides 

that an Indian tribe or tribal organization 

may request a waiver by a Secretary described in subsection (a) (1), as appropriate, 

of one or more statutory or regulatory provisions described in subsection (c) in order to 

carry out an Even Start family literacy program under section 104(c) more effectively. 

Subsection (b) would, with some exceptions, authorize a Secretary described in subsection (a) (1) to waive any requirement of 

any statute listed in subsection (c), or of the 

regulations issued under that statute. In 

both cases, the Secretary would be authorized to grant a waiver to a State that requests one: (1) if, and only to the extent that, 

the Secretary determines that the requirement impedes the State’s or subgrant recipient’s ability to carry out adult education 

and family literacy programs or activities in 

an effective manner; (2) if the State waives, 

or agrees to waive, any similar requirements 

of State law; (3) if, in the case of a statewide 

waiver, the State has provided all subgrant 

recipients of assistance under title I in the 

State with notice of, and an opportunity to 

comment on, the State’s proposal to request 

a waiver and has submitted these comments 

to the Secretary; and (4) if the State provides such information as the Secretary reasonably requires in order to make such determinations. 

Subsection (b) would require a Secretary 

to act promptly on any waiver request. This 

subsection would also provide that each 

waiver shall be for no longer than five years. 

However, a Secretary may extend the period 

if the Secretary determines that the waiver 

has been effective in enabling the State to 

carry out the purpose of the Act. 

Subsection (c)(1) would list the following 

statutes as subject to waiver by the Secretary of Education: (1) this Act; (2) part A 

of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (authorizing programs 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6534 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

and activities to help disadvantaged children 

meet high standards); (3) part B of title II of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development program); (4) title VI of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (Innovative Education Program 

Strategies); (5) part C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (Emergency Immigrant Education program); (6) the School-to-Work Opportunities 

Act of 1994, but only with the concurrence of 

the Secretary of Labor; and (7) the Carl D. 

Perkins Career Preparation Education Act of 

1995. 

Subsection (c) (2) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to waive the provisions 

of part B of the Education Amendments of 

1978. 

Subsection (c) (3) would list the following 

statutes as subject to waiver by the Secretary of Labor: (1) the Job Training Partnership Act; and (2) the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, but only with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of Education. 

It is not necessary to include Head Start 

programs in the waiver authority section of 

this bill, because there already exists sufficient authority in Head Start legislation for 

a wide range of collaborative and coordination efforts with adult education and family 

literacy programs. 

Subsection (d) would prohibit the Secretary from waiving any statutory or regulatory requirement of the programs listed in 

subsection (c) that relate to: (1) the basic 

purposes or goals of the affected programs; 

(2) maintenance of effort; (3) comparability 

of services; (4) the equitable participation of 

students attending private schools; (5) parental participation and involvement; (6) the 

distribution of funds to States or to local recipients; (7) the eligibility of an individual 

for participation in the affected programs; 

(8) public health or safety, labor standards, 

civil rights, occupational safety and health, 

or environmental protection; or (9) prohibitions or restrictions relating to the construction of buildings or facilities. 

Subsection (e) would require a Secretary to 

review periodically the performance of any 

State or local recipient for which the Secretary has granted a waiver and to terminate 

the waiver, if the Secretary determines that 

the performance of the State affected by the 

waiver or the State fails to waive similar requirements of State law. 

Section 302. Definitions. Section 302 would 

define the terms ‘‘adult,’’ ‘‘adult education,’’

‘‘community-based organization,’’ ‘‘family 

literacy,’’ ‘‘Indian tribes’’ and ‘‘tribal organizations,’’ ‘‘individual of limited English 

proficiency,’’ ‘‘institution of higher education,’’ ‘‘literacy,’’ ‘‘local educational agency,’’ ‘‘migratory family,’’ ‘‘public housing 

authority,’’ ‘‘Secretary,’’ and ‘‘State’’ for the 

purpose of the Act. 

TITLE II OF THE BILL—EFFECTIVE DATES; 

TRANSITION

Section 201. Effective date. Section 201 of 

the bill would provide that the Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act of 

1995 would take effect on July 1, 1996. 

Section 202. Transition. Section 202 of the 

bill would provide that, notwithstanding any 

other provisions of law, upon enactment of 

this bill, a State or local recipient of funds 

under the Adult Education Act, the Even 

Start Family Literacy Programs of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, and sections 202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) 

of the Job Training Partnership Act, as they 

were in effect prior to the enactment of this 

bill, could use any unexpended funds to carry 

out services and activities that were authorized in by those statutes or by the Adult 

Education and Family Literacy Act. A State 

or local recipient of funds under this Act for 

fiscal year 1996 could use those funds to 

carry out services and activities that are authorized by either this Act or the Adult Education Act, the Even Start Family Literacy 

Programs of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, and sections 

202(c)(1)(C) and 262(c)(1)(C) of the Job Training Partnership Act, as they were in effect 

prior to the enactment of this bill. 

TITLE III OF THE BILL—REPEAL OF OTHER ACTS

Section 301. Repeals. Section 301 of the bill 

would repeal Part B (Even Start) of title I of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, the National Literacy Act of 

1991, and Part E (Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training 

for Incarcerated Youth Offenders) of title X 

of the Higher Education Act. 

By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. 

CHAFEE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. 

BRADLEY, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER): 

S. 798. A bill to amend title XVI of 

the Social Security Act to improve the 

provisions of supplemental security income benefits, and for the purposes; to 

the Committee on Finance. 

THE CHILDREN’S SSI ELIGIBILITY REFORM ACT

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the Children’s SSI 

Eligibility Reform Act. 

As my colleagues know, the welfare 

reform bill passed by the House of Representatives attempted to address 

criticisms that have been leveled 

against the SSI program. But the 

House went too far. 

SSI is the program of last resort for 

850,000 children with severe disabilities 

who live in low income families. The 

cash assistance provided to these children’s families enables them to meet 

the added costs the disability imposes 

on the family—whether those costs result from necessary modifications to 

the home; day care for siblings while 

the child in question receives therapy; 

basic necessities like food, shelter, 

clothing and utilities; transportation 

expenses in making frequent trips to a 

therapist or hospital; or the cost of 

foregoing one parent’s income in order 

to care for a child with a disability. 

SSI also provides for the basic necessities of low income families, in order 

to maximize the likelihood that a child 

with a disability can remain at home. 

But the SSI program is not without 

its faults. SSI as it relates to children 

has been poorly defined since its inception. There is concern that children 

who are not sufficiently disabled to 

merit assistance are making their way 

onto the SSI rolls. There have been allegations that some parents have 

coached their children to feign a disability in order to obtain benefits. And 

there is concern that SSI does nothing 

to promote the improvement of those 

children with disabilities who could 

improve with proper assistance. 

Because of these issues and my concern that the House enacted an ill-conceived, sweeping proposal with insufficient data on its impact, I convened a 

series of psychiatric and disability experts to help me develop the Children’s 

SSI Eligibility Reform Act. And I am 

extremely pleased that Senators 

CHAFEE, JEFFORDS and BRADLEY have 

joined me in this effort. 

This is a bipartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike want to do 

the right thing when it comes to severely disabled children. That’s why we 

should make every effort to repair the 

defects in the SSI program, but do so 

in a way that protects children with severe disabilities. 

The House of Representatives, out of 

frustration with repeated reports of 

abuse under the program, went too far. 

The House wiped out the Individualized 

Functional Assessment that was developed to protect children with disabilities after the Supreme Court’s Zebley 

decision. And as a result, the vast majority of the 250,000 children who currently receive SSI by virtue of the assessment would lose all benefits—both 

SSI cash benefits and Medicaid. 

The proposal Senator CHAFEE, Senator JEFFORDS, Senator BRADLEY and I 

are introducing, on the other hand, 

takes a surgical approach to improving 

SSI. It targets the problems, not the 

kids. 

But none of us can pretend that SSI 

reform will not eliminate some children from the rolls. Obviously, it will. 

Given that fact, our goal should be to 

remove those who should not be on the 

program in the first place. 

In order to accomplish this, our proposal takes several approaches. First, 

it clarifies the purpose of the program, 

which critics argue was never sufficiently defined. It ensures that the purpose of SSI is not only covering the additional costs of caring for children 

with disabilities and maintaining them 

at home, but also providing basic necessities and enhancing the opportunity for these children to develop 

into independent adults. 

Second, our proposal modifies SSI’s 

medical listings and Individualized 

Functional Assessment to ensure that 

only children with severe disabilities 

are drawing SSI benefits. 

This is not a modification I take 

lightly. Members of Congress, for the 

most part, must acknowledge our ignorance in making clinical diagnoses relating to mental illness and other disabilities. Any modifications we make 

to the diagnostic tools of clinicians 

should respect both what we know and 

do not know, so we do not harm innocent children. 

Therefore, while our proposal modifies the medical listings and increases 

the level of severity required under the 

Individualized Functional Assessment, 

it also requires an evaluation of these 

changes by the Social Security Administration. 

Mr. Chairman, much attention has 

been paid in this debate to children 

with mental disorders, and the degree 

to which they should be eligible for 

SSI. 

I think we need to be very careful to 

avoid denying eligibility to someone 

who doesn’t look disabled. And as 

much as we must reform this program 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6535 

to insure its integrity, we must also 

avoid making decisions based only on 

anecdotal evidence. A child who may 

not ‘‘look’’ disabled to the average person may suffer from a severe disability 

that is just as costly for the family as 

a physically disabled child. 

Let me give you an example from 

North Dakota. The mother of a 6-yearold child named Garrett recently visited my office. 

When Garrett was 4, he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—ADHD. A medication 

was prescribed for him after he experienced a series of seizures. But the 

medication caused brain damage which 

has deprived Garrett of the ability to 

control his negative emotions. 

Because Garrett has no neurological 

control, he is incapable of exercising 

choice in his actions and requires constant supervision. Garrett’s aggressive 

disorders have resulted in harm to himself, the members of his family, and 

their home. 

SSI not only has enabled the family 

to make household repairs when Garrett has damaged the house, but also to 

pay for day care for their younger 

daughter when Garrett’s mother has 

had to take him to therapy. There is no 

day care for a youngster like Garrett. 

Garrett is just one example of the 

kind of child who should not be removed from SSI. I am hopeful that this 

Congress will see fit to take a balanced 

approach to this issue to ensure that 

we clean up this program in a way that 

is tough, honest and fair. 

Mr. President, in addition to making 

the changes to SSI that I have already 

mentioned, our proposal also: 

Increases the use of standardized 

tests to make it virtually impossible 

for anyone to feign a disability; 

Expands and better targets SSI continuing disability reviews; 

Expands civil penalties for those who 

coach children to act inappropriately 

in order to receive benefits; 

Graduates the level of benefits that 

families receive when they have more 

than one child on SSI; 

Changes the SSI policy regarding retroactive lump sum benefits; 

Requires parents to demonstrate that 

they have sought appropriate treatment to alleviate their child’s disability; and several other important 

provisions. 

Mr. President, while a great deal of 

time and effort has gone into developing this legislation, I would be the 

first to acknowledge that there may be 

room for improvement. For example, 

the Slattery Commission on Childhood 

Disability appears ready to recommend 

that Medicaid coverage continue for 

children who leave SSI because their 

condition improves, but need continued 

medical assistance to ensure their condition does not worsen. Although this 

provision is not in our bill, I believe it 

is one the Congress should consider. 

I also want to call to my colleagues’

attention a new report by the National 

Academy of Social Insurance entitled 

‘‘Restructuring the SSI Disability Program for Children and Adolescents.’’

The Academy’s study, conducted by a 

nonpartisan group of national experts, 

is an extremely thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of the approach 

Congress should take to reform SSI. 

And it contains many parallels to the 

legislation we are introducing today. 

The report recommends strengthening 

eligibility criteria, preserving the cash 

benefit, graduating the amount of benefits families receive when they have 

more than one child on SSI, encouraging measures to foster independence 

among those youngsters who can become independent, and several other 

items. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From National Academy of Social 

Insurance, May 8, 1995] 

EXPERT GROUP RECOMMENDS STEPS TO RESTRUCTURE SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY DISABILITY PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS

WASHINGTON, DC.—A nonpartisan group of 

national experts, responding to a study request from the House Ways and Means Committee in the 102nd Congress, said today that 

‘‘there is a strong rationale for the payment 

of cash benefits to families with disabled 

children, while suggesting specific steps to 

restructure the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability program whose future 

is currently being debated in the Congress. 

The Committee on Childhood Disability of 

the National Academy of Social Insurance 

released its findings in a study entitled ‘‘Restructuring the SSI Disability Program for 

Children and Adolescents.’’ The study, one 

year in the making, also considered the 

views of 12 additional experts in government, 

academia, and the private sector who contribute to the Academy’s Disability Policy 

Panel. 

The population of children with disabilities is small, but significant, and varies depending on the definition of ‘‘disability.’’

The National Health Interview Survey estimates in 1991 that children who had a ‘‘limitation in their major activity’’—which 

means attending school for children age 5–17, 

or playing for younger children—numbered 

2.7 million or 4.2 percent of children under 18. 

In December of 1994, there were 837,000 lowincome children under 18 receiving SSI due 

to their disabilities. 

Jerry Mashaw, the Panel chair and Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University, explained that ‘‘cash payments must be seen in 

the context of needs for family support. 

There are myriad special burdens placed on 

families of children with severe disabilities. 

Cash support can ease those burdens, even if 

it cannot remove them. Low-income families, already at the margin, face particular 

difficulties meeting the added costs associated with their child’s disability.’’

The Committee, though clearly in support 

of cash benefits for disabled children, said 

that these benefits should be made ‘‘only in 

appropriate cases’’ and that they should not 

be excessive in the modest number of cases 

where families have more than one disabled 

child. Most importantly, they argued, ‘‘the 

approach to the support of disabled children 

through the SSI program should be reoriented toward an emphasis on the medical recovery, physical and mental development 

and job readiness of children with disabilities.’’

The rapid growth in SSI childhood disability awards between 1989 and 1993 has leveled off and actually declined in 1994. According to Mashaw, the growth appears to be 

a ‘‘wave’’ rather than a long term trend. The 

‘‘wave’’ was attributed to four factors: updates of the listing of disabling childhood 

mental impairments in late 1990; implementation of a 1990 Supreme Court decision that 

expanded SSI eligibility criteria for children; 

legislatively mandated outreach activities 

by the Social Security Administration as 

well as efforts by States and private organizations to enroll eligible children in the SSI 

program; and an economic recession in 1990–

91 that caused more families with disabled 

children to meet the program’s low-income 

criteria. 

The report also makes clear that allegations of widespread abuse have not been substantiated in any of the studies that have 

been done. The data show that children who 

receive SSI have very significant disabilities, and that those who are suspected of 

‘‘gaming the system’’ are denied benefits. 

Further, the Social Security Administration 

has put in place rigorous new systems to investigate all such allegations and assure 

that benefits are not improperly paid. 

The Academy’s expert group identified five 

themes that define sound disability policy 

for children and adolescents: 

Family preservation. ‘‘The basic purpose of 

cash benefits is to support and preserve the 

capacity of families to care for their disabled 

children in their own homes.’’ This can be 

done by providing for some of the additional, 

non-medical, but disability-related, costs of 

raising a disabled child; by compensating for 

some of the income lost because of the everyday necessities of caring for a disabled child; 

and by meeting the child’s basic needs for 

food, clothing, and shelter. 

‘‘Without these supports,’’ they argue, 

‘‘disabled children would be at a much greater risk of losing both a secure home environment and the opportunity for integration 

into community life, including the world of 

work.’’

Strengthened eligibility criteria. The Committee urged that ‘‘maladaptive behavior’’

be eliminated as a separate ‘‘functional domain’’ for evaluating childhood mental disorders that qualify one for SSI. Further, 

they called for increased use of standardized 

tests to assess functioning for children with 

mental disorders. And, they called for revamping the ‘‘individualized functional assessment’’ required by the Supreme Court to 

make it a more accurate barometer of both 

physical and mental disabilities, that is not 

so closely tied to mental disorders. 

The Committee said that ‘‘new regulations 

should be developed expeditiously to 

strengthen the childhood eligibility criteria. 

At the same time, care should be taken not 

to repeat the tumult of the early 1980s, when 

radical retrenchment in Federal disability 

policy brought widespread individual hardship and judicial challenges. States were at 

first reluctant, and then refused, to implement the harsh policies because it left them 

with the burden of care for vulnerable populations whose Federal benefits were denied 

or terminated. 

Limiting family benefits when there is 

more than one eligible child in the household. With appropriate exceptions for children who need round-the-clock nursing care 

or foster care, and for adopted special-needs 

children, SSI benefits for families with more 

than one disabled child should be limited to 

1.5 times the individual benefit for two children and two times the benefit for three or 

more children, according to the Committee’s 

recommendations. No disabled child should 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6536 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

lose Medicaid eligibility because of this 

limit on cash benefits. 

Encourage a work track for teens with disabilities. At age 14, teenagers on SSI, together with their parents and special education advisors, should begin setting career 

goals and developing transition plans out of 

SSI and into financial independence whenever possible, according to the study group. 

While these children are pursuing their goals 

for work or further education after high 

school, they would have assurance of SSI 

benefits until they reached age 18, even if 

they began to demonstrate work skills. 

Encourage energetic measures by States, 

localities, and the private sector to limit the 

period when cash support is needed for infants and young children with disabilities. 

Children’s progress should be tracked and periodically reviewed to ensure that those who 

recover do not remain on the SSI disability 

rolls, and that those whose disabilities persist are linked to services appropriate to 

their changing needs as they grow older. 

The Disability Policy Panel will issue a report providing a fundamental review of the 

Social Security Disability programs for 

adults later this fall. Today’s report on children and the SSI disability program is available from the National Academy of Social 

Insurance. The Academy is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization devoted to furthering 

knowledge and understanding of Social Security and related public and private social 

programs. The Disability Project is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts, The 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and corporate members of the Health Insurance Association of America that offer long-term 

disability insurance. 

MAY 11, 1995. 

Hon. KENT CONRAD, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CONRAD: The undersigned 

national organizations are writing to express 

our full support for the bill you, Senator 

Chafee, Senator Jeffords and Senator Bradley are sponsoring, to make sensible reforms 

to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 

program for children with disabilities. 

The SSI program is a lifeline for families 

who have children with disabilities. Over 

900,000 children with severe impairments living in low-income families now receive cash 

benefits to meet their basic needs (which 

often cost more for children with disabilities), compensate for their extraordinary 

expenses, and offset loss of income because a 

parent must remain unemployed or underemployed to care for their child. 

The SSI program for children has been maligned by allegations that parents are 

‘‘coaching’’ their children to appear disabled 

and that SSA is qualifying children with 

mild impairments. The program has been intensively examined by the Social Security 

Administration, the HHS Office of Inspector 

General and the General Accounting Office. 

While they criticized some aspects of the 

program, they could not substantiate the allegations of widespread fraud or maladministration. Nevertheless, the House enacted 

legislation, H.R. 4, which throws 170,000 children off the program immediately, denies 

benefits to 400,000 others over the next five 

years, and replaces cash benefits to future eligible children with a vague set of services 

administered by the states. The House bill 

cuts by 35% estimated SSI spending for the 

children over the next five years. 

Your bill represents sensible reform. It addresses the issues raised by the program’s 

critics without decimating the program. It 

clarifies and raises the SSI eligibility standards, expands the definition of fraud to include ‘‘coaching’’ children to pass disability 

tests, requires periodic reviews to assure 

that children who are no longer disabled are 

removed from the program and improves incentives to encourage children to move toward independence. 

We are happy to support your legislation 

and look forward to working with you to assure its passage in the Senate and ultimate 

enactment into law. 

Sincerely, 

Joseph Manes; Rhoda Schulzinger, 

Bazelon Center Mental Health Law; 

Martha Ford, The Arc; Al Guida, National Mental Health Association; on 

behalf of: American Academy of Child 

and Adolescent Psychiatry; American 

Association of Children’s Residential 

Centers; American Association on Mental Retardation; American Association 

for Partial Hospitalization; American 

Association of Pastoral Counselors; 

American Association of Private Practice Psychiatrists; American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children; American Board of Examiners in 

Clinical Social Work; American Counseling Association; American Counseling Association; American Family 

Foundation; American Occupational 

Therapy Association; Orthopsychiatric 

Association; American Psychoanalytic 

Association; American Psychological 

Association; American Rehabilitation 

Association; Anxiety Disorders Association of America, Association of 

Mental Health Administrators; Bazelon 

Center for Mental Health Law; Corporation for the Advancement of Psychiatry; Cult Awareness Network; Epilepsy Foundation of America; Family 

Service America; Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health; 

International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services; Legal 

Action Center; National Association of 

Protection and Advisory Systems; National Association of Psychiatric 

Health Systems; National Association 

of Psychiatric Treatment for Children; 

National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Social Workers; National Association of 

State Directors of Development Disabilities Services, Inc.; National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors; National Community 

Mental Healthcare Council; National 

Depressive and Manic Depressive Association; National Easter Seal Society; 

National Federation of Societies for 

Clinical Social Work; National Head 

Injury Foundation; National Mental 

Health Association; National Organization of State Associations for Children; 

National Organization for Rare Disorders; The Arc; United Cerebral Palsy 

Association; World Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am 

pleased today to join Senator CONRAD

in introducing the Childhood SSI Eligibility Act. This legislation makes important reforms to the children’s SSI 

program without completely dismantling this critical cash assistance program for low- income families with disabled children. 

It is important to point out from the 

outset that, contrary to the many sensational stories we have seen in the 

press, 80 percent of children receiving 

SSI payments are severely disabled. 

They suffer from severe physical disabilities such as cystic fibrosis and cerebral palsy, or from significant developmental retardation. The other 20 percent have other mental impairments 

such as childhood autism or schizophrenia. 

The families of such children need 

cash assistance in addition to medical 

services. In many of these cases, one 

parent must remain home with the 

child; in this case, the program serves 

as income replacement for a parent 

who must quit working. If these families were to lose their SSI cash benefits, many would not have the resources to care for their children at 

home resulting in a significant increase in institutionalization. Mr. 

President, if there is one thing we can 

all agree on it is that, whenever possible, children should remain at home 

with their families and in the community instead of in institutions. This 

legislation continues to make that possible. 

The cash is also used for other critical supports, such as specially trained 

child care providers, specially equipped 

vehicles to transport children who use 

wheelchairs, home modifications and 

adaptations, special telecommunication services, and family support 

services. 

Having said that, I also recognize 

that there are some problems with the 

children’s SSI program, and that is 

why we are introducing legislation 

today. There has been rapid growth in 

the SSI program for children over the 

last 5 years. In 1989 the program was 

providing cash assistance to 300,000 

children; by 1994 it was serving 890,000 

children. During this same period the 

cost of the children’s SSI program grew 

from $1.2 billion to $4.5 billion. 

The growth in the program has now 

leveled out, but clearly, we need to ask 

ourselves why the program suddenly 

exploded and how we can prevent this 

from happening in the future. There 

are a couple of reasons for the sudden 

growth. First, the recession in the 

early 1990’s resulted in many people 

falling into poverty, precipitating an 

increased need for government assistance. Second, in 1989 the Congress directed the Social Security Administration [SSA] to conduct outreach for the 

first time to potentially eligible families with children who have severe disabilities. Third, there was a change 

made to the mental impairment listings. And, finally, the 1990 Supreme 

Court decision, the so-called Zebley decision required SSA to change its 

childhood disability determination 

process to evaluate the child’s level of 

functioning in addition to his or her 

medical condition. It was estimated at 

that time that 1 million additional 

children will meet the new criteria 

under Zebley. 

We have all heard and read about the 

stories of parents gaming the system 

and coaching their children to act disabled in some fashion to qualify for 

SSI. And I do not question that some of 

this occurs. But is it rampant? The 

GAO finds no solid evidence of parents 

coaching their children, although it 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6537 

does recommend that we take a serious 

look at certain aspects of the eligibility determination process. And that 

is what our legislation does. 

First, the legislation tightens eligibility to ensure that only children with 

severe and persistent impairments, 

which substantially limit their ability 

to function, receive benefits. Second, it 

increases and better targets continuing 

disability reviews to ensure that only 

those who remain eligible actually continue to receive benefits. Third, it expands penalties for coaching children 

to act inappropriately in order to receive benefits. Finally, it imposes graduated payments for additional children, like other cash assistance programs such as AFDC. 

Mr. President, I think this legislation is a fair and balanced approach. It 

acknowledges and corrects abuses in 

the system while reinforcing the purpose of the program: to enable children 

with disabilities to remain at home or 

in another appropriate and cost-effective setting and to cover the additional 

costs of caring for and raising such a 

child. 

Who is this money serving? Children 

like Juan, a 9-year-old youngster in my 

home State of Rhode Island. Juan has 

been on SSI since birth, confined to a 

wheelchair and dependent on medical 

technology to survive. Without the 

cash assistance he receives under SSI, 

Juan’s mother would be forced to put 

him into a residential facility at a cost 

of almost $200,000 per year. Compare 

this to the maximum SSI benefit of 

$438 a month. It seems to me that we 

are getting a pretty good deal, and that 

families like Juan’s deserve every 

nickel they get. 

The Finance Committee will be taking up this issue in the coming weeks 

as part of welfare reform. Many of my 

colleagues are familiar with the provision in the House-passed welfare reform bill which would eliminate cash 

assistance for all children unless they 

would be otherwise institutionalized. 

In my view, this should be rejected. I 

sincerely hope that my colleagues on 

the Finance Committee will consider 

the legislation we are introducing 

today as an alternative which provides 

effective reforms without removing 

disabled children from the rolls who 

are truly in need. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise 

today in support of Senator CONRAD’S

Childhood Supplemental Security Income [SSI] Eligibility Reform Act. I 

am pleased to be an original cosponsor 

of this bill. I would like to begin by acknowledging and thanking my colleague Senator CONRAD for his hard 

work and dedication on drafting this 

bill to cure the problems in the children’s SSI program. I am hopeful for 

this bill’s quick consideration and 

adoption. 

In the welfare reform bill passed earlier this year by our colleagues in the 

House, substantial changes were made 

in the children’s SSI program. However, I believe that the House version 

of this bill fails to address the criticisms leveled towards this program 

while at the same time ensuring that 

the children and families that rely on 

and need these benefits receive them. 

For example, a family I know of in 

Vermont has two young children with 

cystic fibrosis. They live in a very 

rural area of Vermont about 2 hours 

away from the specialty clinic and hospital they go to. This distance creates 

a constant expense of travel to this 

clinic and hospital. In addition, the 

medication costs for the two children 

are very high. The infant had growth 

problems related to malabsorption 

which required special formula. The 

older child had severe malabsorption 

that required surgery and requires subsequent close follow-up of his nutritional status. 

The father of these children works 

full time, but has to take time off to 

attend the clinics with the children 

and to transport and visit them in the 

hospital. Some of the time off is unpaid 

because he has limited vacation time. 

The children’s mother had intended 

to return to work after they were born 

but cannot find a day care provider 

who is comfortable with the children’s 

medical care needs. She undoubtedly 

would also have difficulty finding an 

employer who would allow her the necessary time off for appointments, hospitalizations, and so forth. 

Mr. President, this family has a clear 

need for the Medicaid coverage and 

extra income that SSI provides. It is 

difficult to imagine how they could 

continue to provide the medical care 

that their children need without these 

benefits. They are a hard-working and 

tax-paying couple who struggle to do 

the best that they can for their children. The effect of the House bill on 

this family would be devastating, while 

our bill would ensure that this family 

that needs to receive these benefits 

would still receive them. 

I believe that the bill being introduced today will meet both of these 

goals: preserve the essential parts of 

the children’s SSI program, while, at 

the same time, addressing the concerns 

raised by its critics. I would now like 

to address the valid criticisms of the 

SSI program, and our specific solutions 

in the bill to these criticisms. 

First, our bill will address the issue 

that SSI’s purpose for children with 

disabilities was never sufficiently defined. By defining the program as 

maintaining children with disabilities 

in the most appropriate and cost effective setting, and enhancing such children’s opportunities to develop into 

independent adults, our bill will combat the old once-disabled-always-disabled way of thinking. 

This bill will also combat the current 

problem that children who are not severely disabled are drawing benefits. 

By tightening the SSI eligiibility requirements, our bill will ensure that 

children and families that truly need 

these benefits will be receiving them. 

In addition, by increasing penalties 

to parents and guardians that knowingly and willfully coach children to 

act in ways that render them eligible 

for SSI, and requiring greater use of 

standardized testing, our bill will stem 

the practice of children who should be 

ineligible for benefits being found to be 

eligible for SSI. 

Further, our bill will graduate payments to families for each additional 

child in the family receiving SSI benefits. This provision will ensure that 

families with multiple kids receiving 

SSI benefits will not be receiving the 

maximum benefit for each child. 

Finally, our bill will help children receiving SSI benefits move toward selfsufficiency. I, for one, find this to be 

one of the most important provisions 

of the bill. By ensuring that we move 

people toward self-sufficiency, we are 

helping reduce the number of children 

receiving SSI benefits, while increasing 

the possibility that these individuals 

will not require future governmental 

support. 

Mr. President, I believe that our bill 

changes what is wrong with the SSI 

program while maintaining legitimate 

benefits that children and their families rely on. We don’t want to go back 

to a much more costly system that institutionalizes children rather than affording them an opportunity for productive and self-sufficient lives. Thus, I 

feel confident in stating that this bill 

will ensure that continued support of 

SSI benefits to families, like the one 

from Vermont I described earlier, while 

solving some of the problems currently 

plaguing the children

f 

’s SSI system. 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 234

At the request of Mr. CAMPBELL, the 

name of the Senator from Colorado 

[Mr. BROWN] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 234, a bill to amend title 23, 

United States Code, to exempt a State 

from certain penalties for failing to 

meet requirements relating to motorcycle helmet laws if the State has in 

effect a motorcycle safety program, 

and to delay the effective date of certain penalties for States that fail to 

meet certain requirements for motorcycle safety laws, and for other purposes. 

S. 240

At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, the 

name of the Senator from Montana 

[Mr. BAUCUS] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 240, a bill to amend the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 to establish a filing deadline and to provide certain 

safeguards to ensure that the interests 

of investors are well protected under 

the implied private action provisions of 

the Act. 

S. 256

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the 

names of the Senator from Utah [Mr. 

HATCH] and the Senator from North 

Carolina [Mr. FAIRCLOTH] were added 

as cosponsors of S. 256, a bill to amend 

title 10, United States Code, to establish procedures for determining the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS