```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6513-S6537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          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.
  [[Page S6514]] 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, 

[[Page S6515]] to support similar legislation in a free-standing 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 
[[Page S6516]] 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 
[[Page 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 technology-based 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.
     [[Page S6518]] 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 
[[Page 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-of-the-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.
        [[Page S6520]] 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 
     [[Page 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 non-Federal 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.''.

[[Page S6522]]

     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 Government-managed 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.
  [[Page S6523]] Unfortunately, it is this form of raw arrogance that 
has the Federal Government in such low standing with the 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 at-risk 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 most-in-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 well-documented 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.
       [[Page S6524]] ``(5) There is a strong relationship between 
     educational attainment and welfare dependence. Adults with 
     very low levels of literacy 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-to-work 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, 
     job-training 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 
     [[Page S6525]] of paragraph (1) by falling below 90 percent 
     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 State-imposed 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.
       [[Page S6526]] ``(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 for-profit 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
       [[Page 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--
       [[Page S6528]] ``(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 one-
     third 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 
     [[Page 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 
     [[Page S6530]] 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-in-need 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 ten-year 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 
     [[Page 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 State-imposed 
     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.
       [[Page S6532]] 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) community-based 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 
     [[Page 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 
     [[Page S6534]] 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 
[[Page 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-year-
old 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 low-income 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 
     [[Page S6536]] 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 
[[Page 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 self-sufficiency. 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's SSI system.

                          ____________________
```