Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from New Jersey for an excellent statement and for his long-time dedication to this very important issue. The point he makes he makes very well. We are dealing with real people here. Sometimes when we come to the Senate floor, we don't know the consequences of our actions. But this is a case when we came here and the Senate passed, by a very, very substantial margin, this amendment and put it into the ISTEA bill. We knew what the consequences were. As I said at the time, before the vote, this is one of the few times when you can come to the Senate floor and know that if you cast a yes vote as a Member of the U.S. Senate, that yes vote is going to save lives. You will never know whose life will be saved, but you can be assured that hundreds and hundreds of people will live because of that law that is getting ready to be passed that you were voting on. The majority of the Members of the Senate, by a big margin, did in fact agree with that. I would like to, as I did a moment ago, focus on individuals and on real stories. I did that a moment ago when I talked about the woman who had been convicted of DUI in the State of Ohio and tested at a high level. The same highway patrol officer arrested her again a few months later. This time, she tested ``only'' .08. Under Ohio law, the prosecutor did not feel they could go forward with the DUI, so she was ultimately charged with reckless operation. Then, of course, the tragic end to that story, as I related a moment ago, is that it wasn't too long after that when she showed up in San Diego, and this time deaths occurred as a result of her drinking and driving, and the family had to suffer that horrible, horrible tragedy. Let me tell another story, and this is true. This happened a couple of weeks ago. Just a couple of weeks ago in Ohio, on March 1, in Montgomery County, OH, a Dodge Ram pickup truck collided with the rear of a stopped Honda Prelude. The Dodge Ram rode up right on top of the Honda and turned over on its side. The Honda was pushed forward into traffic, where it hit a sheriff's cruiser that was stopped in traffic. The sheriff's cruiser was pushed forward, and it hit a Chevrolet C10 van. How can one car hit another car--a stopped car--so fast that it rides up on top of it and tips over? The answer is simple: The driver of the Dodge Ram was impaired, in this case, with a blood alcohol level of .76. Mr. President, the risk of being in a crash rises gradually with each increase in the blood alcohol level. When a driver reaches or exceeds a .08 blood alcohol level, the risks rise very, very rapidly. They take off at about that point. At .08 a driver's vision, his or her balance, reaction time, hearing, judgment, self-control, are all seriously impaired; critical driving tasks, like concentrated attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear changing, and lane tracking, are also negatively affected. That is why the driver of this Dodge Ram piled on top of a stopped car and caused a four-car pileup that led to the summoning of emergency medics. Just another example, another unnecessary casualty, of a blood alcohol limit that is simply too high. Let me relate to the Members of the Senate several other true stories. We talked in the last several days to another highway patrolman in Ohio, Barry Call of Gallipolis, OH. He has been a highway patrolman for 6 years and has seen about a dozen cases where the driver was clearly impaired but could not be charged because they tested ``only'' between .07 and .09 on the breathalyzer. Trooper Barry Call, in one case, saw a car pulling left of center a couple of times and pulled over the driver. The driver was clearly impaired, and she should not have been behind the wheel of a car. Her breathalyzer test showed a blood alcohol level of .084. Another example: Trooper Richard Donley of Wilmington, OH, has seen fatalities in cases where drunk driving was a factor and the blood alcohol level was .06, .07, or .08. Sadly, says Trooper Donley, the courts, as a matter of practice, generally will throw out any DUI charge under .10, because the reality is that when you set your level, whether it be .08 or 10, or, as it was many years ago, .15, while the law says that if you hit that level and you test that, under most State laws it is a per se violation in and of itself. That level, at the same time, also really sets the standard. So anything below that, even if the officer observes very erratic driving, even if the person fails the sobriety test--what they call ``field test'' out on the road--the reality is that those cases are very difficult to win if the driver does not test over that limit. And so that limit really becomes the standard of the State. As my colleague from New Jersey pointed out so very well, when we say .08, what we have to understand is that an average male, a male of 165 pounds, would have to consume over four beers in an hour on an empty stomach. I think most of us know from our own experience that if we have four beers in an hour on an empty stomach, we absolutely have no business being behind the wheel of an automobile. We know that-- absolutely. Another way of looking at it is to ask a question: If you were at a party--maybe some people were at your house--and you observed a friend of yours have four beers in an hour on an empty stomach, and didn't eat anything, would you put your 5-year-old daughter in the car and let him take her out to get an ice cream cone or something? We all know what the answer to that would be. It would be a very foolish and reckless person that would do that. No one would do that. No one in their right mind would do that. So we know from our own experience that that person who tested .08 simply should not be behind the wheel of a car. What the Senate did, and what I hope the Congress will do, is set this very minimum national standard so that wherever you drive--if you live in Cincinnati, for example, you might be in Kentucky one minute and in Indiana the next minute. We all move around from State to State. If you live in this area, you might be in Washington, DC, and then Virginia, and then Maryland. We move around. There will be some minimum standard so a driver and passengers can be assured that it will be illegal for a driver who is coming at them or who is on the other side of the road to test over .08, no matter where they are, on what road, anyplace in these great 50 States. Let me give some more personal testimonies or examples. We have talked to Ken Betz, whom I have known for a number of years in many capacities. He is now the director of the Coroner's Office in Montgomery County, OH. Of the 36 alcohol-related driving fatalities his office has seen in just the past year, seven of these involved drivers who had a blood alcohol content of .08 or less. I will repeat that. In Montgomery County, OH, there were 36 alcohol-related driving fatalities in the last year. Of those 36, seven of them involved drivers who had a blood alcohol content of .08 or less. One driver lost control of his car late at night and was killed. His blood alcohol level was .06. Another driver was killed when he ran into the back end of a stopped construction truck. His blood alcohol level was under .06. Another person was driving a motorcycle and turned left into an oncoming Ford Mustang. He wasn't wearing a helmet. He was killed. His blood alcohol content was .07. Another driver went off the right side of the road, down into a culvert. He and a passenger were both killed. His blood alcohol level was .07. These are actual cases from Montgomery OH, in the last year. Another driver lost control and struck several steel poles before plowing into a stopped car. He was killed. His blood alcohol level was .08. Mr. President, people who drive at a .08 blood alcohol level are clearly impaired. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The risk of being in a crash rises gradually with each increase in the blood alcohol level, beginning at .01. But when a driver reaches or exceeds the .08 blood alcohol level, the risk rises very, very rapidly. At .08, a driver's vision, balance, reaction time, hearing, judgment, and self- control are all seriously impaired. It is interesting, Mr. President, as this debate continues, and as we read some of the information that is put out by the alcohol industry. They can't really seriously cite or argue that anyone who tests .08 is not appreciably impaired in their reaction time, in their concentration, in their judgment. No one can say that. We all know that for a fact. Moreover, at .08, critical driving tasks like concentrated attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear changing, and lane tracking are all affected. The Senate overwhelmingly passed our legislation. I hope the whole Congress will pass it. It would help America crack down on these impaired drivers and make our roads safer for our children and for our families. That is why I will continue to fight for this lifesaving measure throughout the legislative process.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for the next 8 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Intelligence Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1751, and, further, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Health Care Quality Research Improvement Act. We have been hearing a great deal recently about the quality of health care in this country. Most of the debate, both here in Congress and back home in our States, has been driven, at least in part, by a fear among consumers that efforts to control costs and move people into managed care has compromised quality. This fear has driven legislation such as the bill we passed just last year to provide for 48-hour maternity stays. This year a whole host of health care quality bills have been introduced in the Congress. Even more such legislation has been moving forward at the State level as well. As I have learned more and more about the concerns about the quality of health care, I have tried to focus particular attention on children, how their health care is delivered and whether its quality has been compromised. Frankly, I have learned something that I find very interesting. While the drive to improve quality and reduce cost has driven a great deal of new research over the past several years, relatively little has been done for children in this area. While we are getting better at measuring quality of health care for adults, we have made little such progress for our children. Between 1993 and 1995, only some 5 percent of the health services research study outcomes focused on our children. This is highly alarming because I frankly cannot think of anything more critical to our Nation's future than the quality of our children's health. Clearly we need to correct this serious lack of good health care quality measures. I have spoken with experts in the field of pediatric research and they agree with this assessment. They tell me that we have to do more in this field if we expect to improve the care that our children receive. Many times, frankly, we don't know exactly which treatments are cost effective or best improve a child's quality of life. We don't know how to manage children's complicated health problems in ways that will allow them to lead normal lives We can answer many of these questions if the patient is an adult, but we have far fewer answers for our children. Here is one example. One study recently found that children have three times greater chance of dying after heart surgery at some hospitals than they have at other hospitals--three times. We must fix this. That means we have to find out why, why one hospital loses three times as many children as another. As both a parent and a grandparent, I can speak from firsthand experience about the stress and the uncertainty that goes along with any childhood illness. To think that a parent's choice of a hospital could actually be harmful to a child is certainly a very scary thought for a parent. Another example is asthma. Asthma is the most common chronic health condition in children, affecting 5 million children in this country, and that percentage, tragically, is rising. We are not sure why this has been happening, but we do know that the quality of health care a child receives can dramatically affect the severity of his or her asthma. As a result, the better the quality of health care, the less time that child spends in the hospital, the fewer visits to the emergency room, and the less time a child has to miss from school. If we do not even know what kinds of treatment work best for children or that different treatments work better in different environments, we cannot help. We certainly can't begin to debate how to improve quality if we can't even define it or measure it. For that, we need to conduct research in real world settings. As a means of getting this research into real world settings and improving the quality of health care that our children receive, I am introducing a bill today entitled the Child Health Care Quality Research Improvement Act. This legislation was developed with the help of leaders in the pediatric community, child advocates, and health services researchers. My bill takes a three-pronged approach to address this issue: One, focusing on training; two, research; and three, data collection for child health outcomes and effectiveness research. Let me start with the first one. In order for us to make advances in the study of pediatric health outcomes, it is essential that we have researchers who have received training in this field. This bill I am introducing today promotes research training programs in child health services research at the doctoral, post-doctoral, and junior faculty levels. By bringing professionals into this very important field, we can ensure that issues that affect the lives of children are receiving the attention they deserve. The second component of this bill establishes research centers and networks. The goal of the centers and networks will be to foster collaboration among experts in the field of pediatric health care quality and effectiveness. We envision that these centers and networks will bring together pediatric specialists from children's hospitals, physicians in managed care plans, statisticians from schools of public health, and other experts in the field to work together on research projects and to translate these findings into real-world settings where children are receiving health care. Third, and finally, this legislation contains a component that adds supplements to existing national health surveys that are today administered by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau. In addition to not knowing how to measure health care quality in children, other data, like that measuring children's use of health care systems and health care expenditures, are lacking. Adding supplements to existing surveys is a very sensible measure. This bill does not require yet another survey to be administered. Rather, it simply adds questions to existing surveys, to allow us to collect valuable data on children. This is the type of information that we need if we want to look at trends in children's health and what we can do to improve their health. Mr. President, we are all well aware that children have medical conditions and health care needs that are different from those of adults. It doesn't make sense to do health services research for adults and hope that one size fits all--that the things we learn will make sense for children. Federal support for child health quality and effectiveness research is vital to ensure that children are receiving appropriate health care. We owe it to our Nation's children to train health professionals in this important filed, and to support these very important research initiatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for the next 12 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine pertaining to the introduction of S. 1866 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Health Care Quality Research Improvement Act. We have been hearing a great deal recently about the quality of health care in this country. Most of the debate, both here in Congress and back home in our States, has been driven, at least in part, by a fear among consumers that efforts to control costs and move people into managed care has compromised quality. This fear has driven legislation such as the bill we passed just last year to provide for 48-hour maternity stays. This year a whole host of health care quality bills have been introduced in the Congress. Even more such legislation has been moving forward at the State level as well. As I have learned more and more about the concerns about the quality of health care, I have tried to focus particular attention on children, how their health care is delivered and whether its quality has been compromised. Frankly, I have learned something that I find very interesting. While the drive to improve quality and reduce cost has driven a great deal of new research over the past several years, relatively little has been done for children in this area. While we are getting better at measuring quality of health care for adults, we have made little such progress for our children. Between 1993 and 1995, only some 5 percent of the health services research study outcomes focused on our children. This is highly alarming because I frankly cannot think of anything more critical to our Nation's future than the quality of our children's health. Clearly we need to correct this serious lack of good health care quality measures. I have spoken with experts in the field of pediatric research and they agree with this assessment. They tell me that we have to do more in this field if we expect to improve the care that our children receive. Many times, frankly, we don't know exactly which treatments are cost effective or best improve a child's quality of life. We don't know how to manage children's complicated health problems in ways that will allow them to lead normal lives We can answer many of these questions if the patient is an adult, but we have far fewer answers for our children. Here is one example. One study recently found that children have three times greater chance of dying after heart surgery at some hospitals than they have at other hospitals--three times. We must fix this. That means we have to find out why, why one hospital loses three times as many children as another. As both a parent and a grandparent, I can speak from firsthand experience about the stress and the uncertainty that goes along with any childhood illness. To think that a parent's choice of a hospital could actually be harmful to a child is certainly a very scary thought for a parent. Another example is asthma. Asthma is the most common chronic health condition in children, affecting 5 million children in this country, and that percentage, tragically, is rising. We are not sure why this has been happening, but we do know that the quality of health care a child receives can dramatically affect the severity of his or her asthma. As a result, the better the quality of health care, the less time that child spends in the hospital, the fewer visits to the emergency room, and the less time a child has to miss from school. If we do not even know what kinds of treatment work best for children or that different treatments work better in different environments, we cannot help. We certainly can't begin to debate how to improve quality if we can't even define it or measure it. For that, we need to conduct research in real world settings. As a means of getting this research into real world settings and improving the quality of health care that our children receive, I am introducing a bill today entitled the Child Health Care Quality Research Improvement Act. This legislation was developed with the help of leaders in the pediatric community, child advocates, and health services researchers. My bill takes a three-pronged approach to address this issue: One, focusing on training; two, research; and three, data collection for child health outcomes and effectiveness research. Let me start with the first one. In order for us to make advances in the study of pediatric health outcomes, it is essential that we have researchers who have received training in this field. This bill I am introducing today promotes research training programs in child health services research at the doctoral, post-doctoral, and junior faculty levels. By bringing professionals into this very important field, we can ensure that issues that affect the lives of children are receiving the attention they deserve. The second component of this bill establishes research centers and networks. The goal of the centers and networks will be to foster collaboration among experts in the field of pediatric health care quality and effectiveness. We envision that these centers and networks will bring together pediatric specialists from children's hospitals, physicians in managed care plans, statisticians from schools of public health, and other experts in the field to work together on research projects and to translate these findings into real-world settings where children are receiving health care. Third, and finally, this legislation contains a component that adds supplements to existing national health surveys that are today administered by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau. In addition to not knowing how to measure health care quality in children, other data, like that measuring children's use of health care systems and health care expenditures, are lacking. Adding supplements to existing surveys is a very sensible measure. This bill does not require yet another survey to be administered. Rather, it simply adds questions to existing surveys, to allow us to collect valuable data on children. This is the type of information that we need if we want to look at trends in children's health and what we can do to improve their health. Mr. President, we are all well aware that children have medical conditions and health care needs that are different from those of adults. It doesn't make sense to do health services research for adults and hope that one size fits all--that the things we learn will make sense for children. Federal support for child health quality and effectiveness research is vital to ensure that children are receiving appropriate health care. We owe it to our Nation's children to train health professionals in this important filed, and to support these very important research initiatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act of 1998. Mr. President, America's poison control centers do important work-- and they need our help. The number of centers has been declining over the last several years. Their funding has been unstable--and this has resulted in the closing of many of them. Poison control centers manage poisonings over the telephone, direct those that cannot be managed at home to a local hospital for treatment, provide professional and public education and training, and collect data on poisoning exposures. Each year, more than 2 million poisonings are reported to poison control centers throughout the United States. More than 90% of these poisonings happen in the home--and over fifty percent of poisoning victims are children younger than 6 years of age. By providing expert telephone advice to distraught parents, poisoning victims, and health care professionals, poison control centers decrease the severity of illness and prevent deaths. Let me illustrate the value of poison control centers by telling you about two similar poisoning cases that had very different outcomes. In the first case, a 3 year old child swallowed several tablets of aspirin. His mother called the poison control center and was told to give the child syrup of Ipecac (pronounced ip-ah-kak) to make the child vomit before taking him to the emergency room. The boy was examined in the emergency room and sent home. In the second case, another toddler swallowed several aspirin while visiting her grandmother's house. Her family was unaware that aspirin can be very dangerous for children, and did not think to call the poison control center. Nine hours later, the child started to have a seizure. When she arrived at the hospital, she was severely ill and nearly died. She spent almost two weeks in the pediatric intensive care unit. Mr. President, I can tell you that even after eight children, it's often hard to know exactly what to do in these emergencies. In this kind of situation, poison control centers can save lives. They are life-saving--and they are truly cost-effective public health services. For every dollar spent on poison control center services, $7 in medical costs are saved. The average cost from a poisoning exposure call is $31.28, while the average cost if other parts of the health care system are used is $932. In spite of their obvious value, poison control centers are seriously under-funded, and the funding situation threatens to get worse. These centers have so far been financed through unstable arrangements involving a variety of public and private sources. In Ohio, poison control centers are funded primarily by hospitals, with some funds coming from the State. Ohio's poison control centers are working together to coordinate services and consolidate resources, while they continue to look for stable funding sources. Currently, the Federal Government provides 5% of poison control center funding, but reaps most of the cost-savings benefits from poison control center services. It is only fair that the Federal Government pay for its share of the cost burden for poison control center services. This legislation provides Federal dollars to stabilize poison control center funding and improve poison control center services. I have tried to write this legislation so that existing private and state dollars can be leveraged, rather than displaced, by Federal funds. Over the last two decades, the instability and lack of funding has resulted in a steady decline in the number of poison control centers in the United States. In 1978, there were over 600 poison control centers; now, there are 75. This trend has jeopardized the capacity of poison control centers to provide equitable services to all Americans. As a result, more people may die, more people may be injured and the costs for treating poisonings may increase. For example, in 1991, Louisiana closed its poison center and referred all calls to Alabama. After its closing, Louisiana found that ``the cost attributable to unnecessary emergency department visits was more than three times the amount allocated to operate the poison control center each year.'' Louisiana also found that medically treated poisonings, those treated in emergency rooms or by physicians, increased 42%. It reopened its poison control center. My office has consulted with a number of experts on how we can best improve poison control operations on a national scale, and my legislation contains a number of their suggestions. Here's what the bill does. It establishes a national toll-free number to ensure that all Americans have access to poison control center services. This number is then automatically routed to the center designated to cover the caller's region. This system will improve access to poison control center services for everyone. It will also simplify efforts to educate parents and the public about what to do in the event of a poisoning exposure and how to do it quickly. It begins a nationwide media campaign to educate the public and health care providers about poison prevention, and advertise the new, nationwide toll-free number. I've seen the great work done by some non- profit groups, and how effective their public health campaigns have been. That's what I'd like to see here. It establishes a grant program to stabilize the funding mechanism and prevent certified regional poison control centers from closing. This program will support activities to prevent and treat poisonings; develop standard education programs; develop standard patient management protocols for commonly encountered toxic exposures; improve and expand the poison control data collection system; and improve national toxin exposure surveillance. Mr. President, I have always been a supporter of the prevention and treatment services provided by poison control centers. As a member of the Congressional Prevention Coalition, I hope to increase awareness of this very important issue. Federal support for poison control centers will help ensure that all Americans continue to have access to quality poison control center services. It will reduce the inappropriate use of emergency medical services and other costly health care services. And, most importantly, it will save lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act of 1998. Mr. President, America's poison control centers do important work-- and they need our help. The number of centers has been declining over the last several years. Their funding has been unstable--and this has resulted in the closing of many of them. Poison control centers manage poisonings over the telephone, direct those that cannot be managed at home to a local hospital for treatment, provide professional and public education and training, and collect data on poisoning exposures. Each year, more than 2 million poisonings are reported to poison control centers throughout the United States. More than 90% of these poisonings happen in the home--and over fifty percent of poisoning victims are children younger than 6 years of age. By providing expert telephone advice to distraught parents, poisoning victims, and health care professionals, poison control centers decrease the severity of illness and prevent deaths. Let me illustrate the value of poison control centers by telling you about two similar poisoning cases that had very different outcomes. In the first case, a 3 year old child swallowed several tablets of aspirin. His mother called the poison control center and was told to give the child syrup of Ipecac (pronounced ip-ah-kak) to make the child vomit before taking him to the emergency room. The boy was examined in the emergency room and sent home. In the second case, another toddler swallowed several aspirin while visiting her grandmother's house. Her family was unaware that aspirin can be very dangerous for children, and did not think to call the poison control center. Nine hours later, the child started to have a seizure. When she arrived at the hospital, she was severely ill and nearly died. She spent almost two weeks in the pediatric intensive care unit. Mr. President, I can tell you that even after eight children, it's often hard to know exactly what to do in these emergencies. In this kind of situation, poison control centers can save lives. They are life-saving--and they are truly cost-effective public health services. For every dollar spent on poison control center services, $7 in medical costs are saved. The average cost from a poisoning exposure call is $31.28, while the average cost if other parts of the health care system are used is $932. In spite of their obvious value, poison control centers are seriously under-funded, and the funding situation threatens to get worse. These centers have so far been financed through unstable arrangements involving a variety of public and private sources. In Ohio, poison control centers are funded primarily by hospitals, with some funds coming from the State. Ohio's poison control centers are working together to coordinate services and consolidate resources, while they continue to look for stable funding sources. Currently, the Federal Government provides 5% of poison control center funding, but reaps most of the cost-savings benefits from poison control center services. It is only fair that the Federal Government pay for its share of the cost burden for poison control center services. This legislation provides Federal dollars to stabilize poison control center funding and improve poison control center services. I have tried to write this legislation so that existing private and state dollars can be leveraged, rather than displaced, by Federal funds. Over the last two decades, the instability and lack of funding has resulted in a steady decline in the number of poison control centers in the United States. In 1978, there were over 600 poison control centers; now, there are 75. This trend has jeopardized the capacity of poison control centers to provide equitable services to all Americans. As a result, more people may die, more people may be injured and the costs for treating poisonings may increase. For example, in 1991, Louisiana closed its poison center and referred all calls to Alabama. After its closing, Louisiana found that ``the cost attributable to unnecessary emergency department visits was more than three times the amount allocated to operate the poison control center each year.'' Louisiana also found that medically treated poisonings, those treated in emergency rooms or by physicians, increased 42%. It reopened its poison control center. My office has consulted with a number of experts on how we can best improve poison control operations on a national scale, and my legislation contains a number of their suggestions. Here's what the bill does. It establishes a national toll-free number to ensure that all Americans have access to poison control center services. This number is then automatically routed to the center designated to cover the caller's region. This system will improve access to poison control center services for everyone. It will also simplify efforts to educate parents and the public about what to do in the event of a poisoning exposure and how to do it quickly. It begins a nationwide media campaign to educate the public and health care providers about poison prevention, and advertise the new, nationwide toll-free number. I've seen the great work done by some non- profit groups, and how effective their public health campaigns have been. That's what I'd like to see here. It establishes a grant program to stabilize the funding mechanism and prevent certified regional poison control centers from closing. This program will support activities to prevent and treat poisonings; develop standard education programs; develop standard patient management protocols for commonly encountered toxic exposures; improve and expand the poison control data collection system; and improve national toxin exposure surveillance. Mr. President, I have always been a supporter of the prevention and treatment services provided by poison control centers. As a member of the Congressional Prevention Coalition, I hope to increase awareness of this very important issue. Federal support for poison control centers will help ensure that all Americans continue to have access to quality poison control center services. It will reduce the inappropriate use of emergency medical services and other costly health care services. And, most importantly, it will save lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. However, Mr. President, there is opposition to this legislation, opposition that I, frankly, do not understand. For the most part, the opposition is driven by a lack of understanding of this particular piece of legislation and a fear that our schools are going to be turned into ``training'' facilities that force children into career tracks. This is simply not true. This is the last thing--let me repeat, the last thing--that this Member of the U.S. Senate would ever propose, would ever push, would ever write or, frankly, would ever vote for. Let me answer now, if I can, the most common questions that have been asked about this bill. The first question: Why is vocational education included in the bill? Let me try to answer that, and I will. While vocational education mainly serves secondary school students between the 7th and 12th grades, it also provides post-high school vocational services to individuals. Those post-high school services are linked to the training system. The education services provided to 7th and 12th grade students are not linked to the training system. Again, this legislation will not--will not--replace traditional education curricula with job training. The reforms that are contained in S. 1186 which affect secondary school students will strengthen vocational education. The students that voluntarily choose to participate in vocational education will receive a strong academic and technical education. The provisions insure that students have the choice, an option, to participate in vocational education. Participation in vocational education under our bill remains voluntary. This bill will not set kids on some kind of preordained career track. It just won't happen. The next question that has been raised is: Does S. 1186 include national testing? Absolutely not, it does not include national testing. This legislation does not authorize national testing. I am opposed to national testing, and I would not introduce legislation that authorizes national testing. The next question that has been asked is this: Does this bill, S. 1186, increase the authority of the Federal Government over education? Again, the answer is no, absolutely not. S. 1186 eliminates numerous Federal requirements and mandatory set-asides. It gives States and localities the flexibility, the authority and the funding to design their own vocation education systems which provide academic and technological education to secondary and post-secondary students who voluntarily choose to participate. S. 1186 streamlines vocational education, reducing the current 20 categorical programs to four. It provides States and localities more flexibility over planning, allowing the State education authority to coordinate post-secondary vocational education with the other programs linked to and coordinated with S. 1186. And, Mr. President, this bill eliminates the Federally required State gender equity coordinator position. Let me turn to another question that has been raised. Does S. 1186 give the Secretary of Education authority to create national educational standards? Again, Mr. President, the answer is no. Absolutely not. This Senator would not support such legislation. I would not write it. I would not vote for it. The Secretary of Education, under this bill, is only given the authority to ``publish'' the performance measures outlined by the legislation. The Secretary of Education cannot arbitrarily mandate standards. The next question that has been asked: Does S. 1186 expand the School to Work Act? No. Absolutely not. School to Work is a completely separate program. Let me again state it. School to Work is a completely separate program that is in no way part of or linked to S. 1186. Section 316(d)(2) clearly states that ``funds . . . shall not be used to carry out activities that duplicate federally funded activities available to youth.'' Mr. President, this provision prohibits States and localities from using S. 1186 funding in any way to expand School to Work. Let me turn now, if I could, Mr. President, to another question that has been asked. Does S. 1186 force students to choose a career path or major? Again, Mr. President, the answer is absolutely not. I would not be on the floor arguing in favor of this legislation. I would not have spent the last several years working on it, or any piece of legislation that would do this. Section 103 of this bill clearly states that ``No funds shall be used--(1) to require any secondary school student to choose or pursue a specific career path or major; and (2) to mandate that any individual participate in a vocational education program, including a vocational education program that requires the attainment of a federally funded skill level or standard.'' Mr. President, I find the idea of forcing students or encouraging students into a career path early in their educational life to be very wrongheaded. I think it is wrong. I think children should have the opportunity to develop, to think about what they want to do. How many of us, even when we got out of high school, knew exactly what we were going to do? Where we were going to go or what our major was going to be? Or, how we were going to spend our life? So the idea that we track children, I find abhorrent, I find to be wrong. This bill does not do that. Let me turn to another question that has been asked. Will participation in summer or year-round activities have a negative impact on a young person's participation in school? Again, the answer is no. S. 1186 does not remove students from the traditional classroom. Section 316(d)(3) of this bill clearly states-- ``No funds . . . shall be used to provide an activity for youth . . . if participation in the activity would interfere with or replace the regular academic requirements of the youth.'' Let me turn to another question. Does S. 1186 transform elementary or secondary schools into job training centers? No is the answer. Absolutely not. While S. 1186 does establish one- stop customer service centers as the local hub for adult training, section 311(d)(2) states that ``Elementary and secondary schools shall not be eligible for designation or certification as one-stop customer service centers . . .'' Let me turn to another question that has been asked. How will S. 1186 affect private, religious, or home schools? Mr. President, on this one the answer is very simple. It will not affect them at all. Section 104 states that ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect of a private, religious, or home school . . .'' Let me turn to another question. Does S. 1186 allow workforce boards to implement school curricula? The answer, Mr. President, is no. No, S. 1186 does not undermine the authority of the State education authority or local school boards. S. 1186 does not give any authority over school curricula to workforce boards. In fact, section 316(d)(1) states ``No funds . . . shall be used to develop or implement local school system education curricula.'' Another question, Mr. President, that has been asked is, does S. 1186 allow workforce boards to bypass the authority of State legislatures? Again, the answer is no. S. 1186 does not undermine the authority of the State legislative bodies. Section 380 of this bill states that ``. . . Any funds received by a state . . . shall be subject to appropriation by the state legislature . . .'' This provision, I might point out, Mr. President, is similar to the language contained in the welfare law. Let me turn to another question. Does S. 1186 combine education and job training funds? Again, the answer is no. S. 1186 does not combine education and job training funds. In fact, S. 1186 retains separate funding streams for vocational education, adult education, adult training, and youth activities in recognition of their very distinct functions. The next question, Mr. President, I would like to address is this. Does S. 1186 create a national, State, and local workforce databank by combining the computer databanks of the Department of Education, Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services? Again, Mr. President, the answer is no. S. 1186 does not establish any sort of joint Federal workforce databank. However, S. 1186 does reform the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics employment service information system that is used by all unemployed Americans. Under S. 1186, unemployed Americans will be able to receive quality local data regarding job openings so they can get back to work. Mr. President, throughout my public career, I have advocated giving parents and local communities more control over the education of their children. This legislation does just that. As for training, this legislation reforms the system put in place by two conservative politicians. The Job Training Partnership Act was written by then-Senator Dan Quayle and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. It is my belief, Mr. President, that by removing or reforming outdated rules and regulations, States and localities can move forward, transforming the current patchwork of programs into a comprehensive system, a comprehensive system which will better serve individuals who voluntarily seek assistance. Mr. President, just like welfare reform, job training reform rests on the leadership of States and localities that have shown innovation and initiative. S. 1186 is designed to encourage more State and more local innovations--moving people from welfare to work. Mr. President, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act offers a new foundation, a positive framework for success, a roadmap, if you will, to a better system. If we are to achieve the goals we have set--a stronger economy, a better trained workforce, and true and meaningful welfare reform--then we need to act, and we need to act now. That is why, Mr. President, I am asking for the support of my colleagues today. I am asking for your ideas, your support, and I will continue to push for immediate consideration of this bill by the full Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the Record: a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, a letter from the National Association of Private Industry Councils, a letter from the National Association of Counties-- and I might add to that that each one of these, Mr. President, is an endorsement of the bill--and also a letter from the American Vocational Association and a letter from the State Directors of Vocational Technical Education.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to begin today a discussion on a piece of legislation that I have been working on, and others have been working on, for the past 7 months. I believe this legislation is vitally important to the economic well-being of our country--and I hope the full Senate will have an opportunity to debate this bill in the very near future. The legislation that I am referring to is S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. I have come to the floor on a number of occasions in the past to stress the immediate need to reform the Federal job training system. This need increases each day the Congress does not act. During the numerous oversight hearings held in the Senate over the last 3 years, we have heard that we face in this country a fragmented and duplicative maze of narrowly focused job training and job-training- related programs, programs administered by numerous Federal agencies that lack coordination, lack a coherent strategy to provide training assistance, and lack the confidence of the two key consumers who utilize these services; namely, those seeking the training and those businesses seeking to hire them. Throughout the hearing process, I have heard that reform is needed because the economic future of our country depends on a well-trained work force. Employers at every level are finding it increasingly difficult to locate and attract qualified employees for high-skilled, high-paying jobs, as well as qualified employees for entry-level positions. Let me just give, Mr. President, one example. Right outside the Capital, right outside Washington, DC, in Northern Virginia, there are 19,000 high-tech, high-paying jobs that remain unfilled because individuals lack the skills to fill them. However, even with the shortage of skilled workers in Northern Virginia, you will still hear radio ads during morning drive time urging people to move to North Carolina to fill high-tech jobs down there. Ohio faces a similar problem. Manpower, Incorporated recently released a poll which indicated that the Dayton area had a bright future in terms of job growth. Forty-two percent of area companies plan on hiring more manufacturing workers. However, while employers plan to hire, the availability of skilled workers to fill those jobs remains low. A Cleveland Growth Association survey recently showed that employers are becoming increasingly concerned about the quality and availability of skilled labor which may impede their future growth plans. According to the Manufacturers Alliance's Economic Report published in January, the mismatch between available jobs and available skilled workers is growing. While wages have increased for those who have the skills in demand, many jobs still go unfilled, and the median duration of unemployment for those who lack the skills remains at recession levels. Nationwide, the number of unfilled high-tech jobs is estimated to be 346,000 people. The increasing labor shortage threatens our Nation's economic growth and our productivity. This, in turn, threatens one of our greatest domestic achievements--the historic welfare reform. States and counties under this bill have been given the responsibility of moving people from welfare to work, and this is not an easy task. Many individuals trying to make the transition to work lack the basic skills needed to obtain the available jobs even at the entry level. Mr. President, the Senate needs to act. We need to develop a job training system that is flexible, a system that provides individuals who are voluntarily seeking assistance with comprehensive education and training services. We need a system that is accountable, assuring that the training provides leads to a meaningful, long-term employment. We need a system that provides consumer choice, allowing individuals, not the Government, to choose their education or training provider. And, we need a system that is driven at the State and local level, not from Washington, DC. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act that I introduced was approved unanimously--let me repeat, unanimously--by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee in September. It represents a belief that we can do better, that we can, in fact, achieve these goals. During the committee process, we considered the concerns of various groups who have a stake in this bill--elected officials at the State and local level, the business community, family groups, labor unions, education groups and others. It is my belief that this bill balances all the competing concerns to the best of our ability. Today, we are on the verge of replacing the current system of frustration and providing a framework for success. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act embodies the principles that I have just outlined. The programs incorporated in the legislation include job training, vocational education and adult education. Additionally, it provides strong linkages to welfare to work, the Wagner-Peyser Act, the Older Americans Act, Vocational Rehabilitation, veterans programs, Trade Adjustment Assistance, as well as other training-related programs. It offers a reborn Federal Jobs Corps program. This reborn Federal Jobs Corps program will linked to local communities for the first time in its 30-year history. This bill, in short, is a foundation, a road map to a much better system. Mr. President, while separate funding streams will be maintained for each of the activities under this bill, in recognition of their distinct function, States and localities will be empowered with the tools and the flexibility to implement real reform in order to provide comprehensive services to those seeking assistance.

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent to extend for an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this month--March 1998--is National Eye Donor Month. The purpose of National Eye Donor Month is simple: It is to alert each and every American family to the terrific opportunity each of us has to make a difference in someone else's life. Many Americans don't realize that they have it in their power to give somebody else the ability to see. But it's true. If you declare now that after your passing, you want your eyes to be donated to an eye bank, your eyes can become someone else's gift of sight. Mr. President, this is a great opportunity. Indeed, it is a great responsibility--one that all of us should take very, very seriously. According to the most recent statistics, over 4,000 Americans are waiting for a corneal transplant--an operation that can restore the gift of sight. These Americans could have this operation today--if only there were enough donated eyes available. The purpose of National Eye Donor Month is to remind Americans that we can make those corneas available. Every year, thousands of Americans donate their eyes to eye banks. In 1996, over 87,000 eyes were donated--and over 43,000 transplants were performed. Now, these numbers need some explaining. That seems like a pretty substantial disparity. But there's a good reason for it--a very strict screening process that keeps out those who test positive with HIV, those who have hepatitis, and those with unhealthy cells on their corneas. Those are just a few of the reasons why many corneas are unsuitable for transplantation. But the corneas from these donors are used. They are used in other very important ways. They are used for research and surgical training, and other medical education. It's because of this screening process that I just described that eye transplant operations have such an incredible success rate--over 90 percent. This screening process and this rate of success, however, require a greater number of donations. If we could increase the number of eyes donated to eye banks, we could take care of the 4,545 patients who are still waiting for corneal transplants today, as well as the 40,000 people who join their ranks every year. Mr. President, as I said, this kind of surgery really works. In the 37 years since the founding of the Eye Bank Association of America, EBBA-member eye banks have made possible over half a million corneal transplants. But there simply aren't enough eye donors. The only solution is public education--making the American people aware of what we can do to help out. That's what National Eye Donor Month is all about. This month, let's recommit ourselves--as a nation--to giving the gift of sight to our fellow citizens.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, approximately 25 million students are transported to and from school and school-related activities on buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established a series of federal motor vehicle safety standards to assist those responsible for transporting our school children on school buses. These features include: clearly distinguishable vehicles with built- in passenger restraint systems; flashing red lights that are activated as students enter and leave the school bus; specially trained drivers; and specially designed routes and schedules to minimize the distance that students need to walk to the bus stop. Unfortunately, despite all of these safety features on school buses, more student fatalities and serious injuries occur during the loading and unloading process than occur while students are being transported. As my colleagues know, there are mandates relating to school facilities, teacher salaries, computers, and books. However, in most states, there is no mandate that school districts must provide pupils with transportation to and from school. Because of this, many school systems are being forced to seek alternative, cost-effective means of providing transportation services for students, and a growing number of schools are turning to public transit. In 1994 alone, transit buses provided more than 800 million student-related passenger trips and approximately 2 million students rode transit buses to school. Mr. President, I do not believe that sending children to school on transit buses is necessarily a bad thing. The fact is that I don't know what this trend means in terms of a child's safety. I do know, however, that students are injured or killed most often when entering or exiting school buses--buses with special safety features designed to prevent such tragedies. Moreover, I know that the US Department of Transportation has conflicting requirements with respect to school transportation. On the one hand, NHTSA requires school buses to meet stringent safety standards and has issued guidelines for covering the operational aspects of pupil transportation safety. On the other hand, the Federal Transit Administration provides funding for transit companies that provide transportation to and from school for students each day on vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus safety standards. As more and more schools are forced to decide on cost-saving ways to transport children, schools are forced to make these decisions in a vacuum. We do not know how safe our children are when they board and ride the transit bus to school. After all, we need to know that information when we decide ways for children to get to and from school safely. I've been greatly involved in efforts to improve the safety of school buses--and that effort began with seeking information. I'm proposing that we seek similar information on public transit buses. This amendment, would authorize $400,000 for the Secretary of Transportation to study safety issues related to the transportation of school children by various different modes of transportation. I have worked on this amendment with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and it meets with his approval. I appreciate the assistance of the Senator from Arizona and his staff in this effort. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both sides and I move for its adoption.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to commend the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, and Senators Warner and Baucus for their work on this transportation reauthorization bill. It is not easy to balance the competing interests in this bill, but I believe the managers of this reauthorization bill have been fair and very accommodating. In short, they have done an excellent job in shepherding this bill through the Senate. I would like to bring an issue that is very important to my fellow Ohioans who reside and work in Cuyahoga County to the attention of my friend from Rhode Island. In late 1996, the Ohio Department of Transportation submitted a request to the Federal Highway Administration requesting funding approval for the Cuyahoga River Bridge project in Cleveland through the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program. The project would reduce the volume of heavy industrial traffic in Cuyahoga County by nearly one million miles each year, reducing vehicle emissions and removing thousands of vehicles from crowded city streets. Consequently, construction of this bridge is very important to Northeast Ohio's efforts to remain in compliance with air quality standards. By removing large volumes of industrial traffic from city streets, construction of the bridge would also enhance safety and would save significant sums of money by reducing road maintenance costs to municipalities and the State of Ohio. Unfortunately, FHWA was not able to approve CMAQ funding for construction of this bridge due to statutory restrictions. In a letter dated February 26, 1997, Jane Garvey, then Acting Administrator of FHWA, stated that, ``Because the Cuyahoga River Bridge project involves the construction of a new two-lane bridge that, as proposed, will add capacity for single-occupant vehicles, it does not meet CMAQ criteria for eligibility.'' In other words, despite the obvious environmental benefits of having this bridge, CMAQ funds could not be used because it would add capacity for single-occupant vehicles. Mr. President, this project is very important to Cleveland, Northeast Ohio, and the State of Ohio. I do not believe that, because it does not fall under a set of strict statutory restrictions, it should be abandoned. Last year, when the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked up its ISTEA reauthorization bill, the Committee included language that would allow the Cuyahoga River Bridge to be built using CMAQ funds. This project has broad support and FHWA does not object to the language. I see my friend from Rhode Island on the floor and urge my colleague to accept the House language on this issue when this bill goes to Conference.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act of 1998. I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Coats, Collins, Hutchison, and Gordon Smith. The purpose of this legislation is to expand and improve the supply of well-qualified elementary and secondary school teachers. We would accomplish this goal by encouraging and assisting States to develop and implement programs for alternative routes toward teacher certification or licensure. There are many talented professionals with a high level of subject area competence outside the education profession who may wish to pursue careers in education, but could not meet the current requirements to be certified or licensed as teachers. For example, all of us here in Congress attain an unique knowledge of how our government works. Alternative certification and licensure could provide an opportunity for some of us to become teachers so we could share our knowledge and experiences of how government works with young people. The measure of a good teacher after all is how much and how well their students could learn. Knowledgeable and eager individuals should be helped--not discouraged--to enter the K-12 classroom as teachers. We can achieve this goal by giving States the maximum flexibility and incentives to create alternative certification programs. That's what my bill would do--it would enable the Federal Government to assist States by offering incentives to recruit well-educated people into the teaching profession. This program would be voluntary for the States. States do not need to be burdened by new Federal mandates. This bill would allow qualified individuals to fullfil State certification or licensure requirements, giving school systems the chance to take advantage of the expertise of such professionals and improve the pool of qualified individuals available to local educational agencies. These measures would do a great deal to expand and improve the supply of well-qualified teachers. The bill would provide $15 million each year to be divided among the States based on a student population formula. States would have to apply to the Secretary in order to be considered for funds. The money could be used to either create new alternative certification programs or to fund pre-existing programs. If a State does not apply for funds, then that money is reallocated to those States that most demonstrate the need for the money based on the Secretary of Education's discretion. Alternative certification is nothing new. A study by C. Emily Feistritzer entitled ``Alternative Teacher Certification: a State-by- State Analysis 1997'' reports the following facts: 41 States and the District of Columbia are now implementing alternative routes for certifying teachers. However, virtually all of the States now offer some type of program other than the traditional approved college teacher education program route for initially licensing teachers. 23 States and the District of Columbia have designed alternative licensure programs for the explicit purpose of bringing talented individuals who already have at least a bachelor's degree in a field other than education into teaching--up from just 11 such programs in 1991. 117 programs in the 50 States and the District of Columbia are now available for people who already have a bachelor's degree and want to become licensed to teach. This compares with 91 programs in 1991. Interest in alternative teacher certification continues to escalate. 35 states reported that interest from ``people wanting to get licensed to teach'' has increased in the last five years. Mr. President, it's clear that interest in the alternative certification route is on the increase. Among the talented people we can attract into the teaching profession by this means are military personnel who are nearing retirement, people who have been down-sized and are looking for a second career, business leaders who want to share their knowledge with a new generation of children, housewives who are looking for a new career after their children have moved out of the family home, and people who want to leave the private sector so they can use their college major to make a difference in children's lives. Teacher training has become a very important issue to this Congress and to the Administration. As of today, there have been no fewer than seven teacher training bills introduced in the House and Senate. In fact, President Clinton has requested $1.1 billion in his latest budget to pay for 37,000 new teachers. It is clear that members on both sides of the aisle understand the importance of having quality teachers in the classroom. Therefore, there's clear bipartisan support for programs that encourage and recruit the most knowledgeable individuals to teach our children. It is my hope that we can see bipartisan support for programs that give talented individuals an alternative route into the teaching profession. In order to find the best possible teachers for our children, we need to support programs that are flexible and creative. We need to encourage the brightest minds in our communities to consider teaching as a career. Teachers who have had a previous career can explain to children the importance of a good education. For example, a former engineer could explain to his students the importance of geometry, algebra, and calculus. A doctor can show his students how hard courses in biology can put young people on the path to saving lives. If students can see that what they are learning in school really does prepare them for the future, they will be more willing to learn and grasp new concepts. In this bill, States would be given the flexibility to reach out for new teaching talent and fill specifically hard-to-staff teacher positions. Alternative certification and licensure programs give the best and brightest individuals who would like to teach the chance to do so. We're talking about teachers who can serve not just as mentors to these children, but also as role models to show them how a good education is crucial to their futures. Through these programs, individuals who have a sense of what goals they wish to accomplish can bring their knowledge and experience into the classroom. Mr. President, Federal support for alternative certification and licensure would help ensure that schools continue to attract quality teachers to the classroom. We owe it to all school children to give them the best resources available. That is why we must encourage all States to hire the most capable, knowledgeable, and experienced teachers that are available. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express some serious concerns about what I believe amounts to a crisis in teacher education in the United States. This year, we will consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Therefore, it is appropriate that we not focus on the issue of improving teacher training in the United States. We have to look to new ideas and programs--programs that will help restore America as an academic power. I believe that we must act immediately to find solutions for this crisis, because our children are suffering very serious consequences. Today, I will be offering two pieces of legislation that will serve as the first steps in addressing the future of teacher training and teacher certification. Before I offer a description of the new legislation, Mr. President, I call my colleagues attention to these alarming statistics: 36% of those now teaching core subjects (English, math, science, social studies, foreign languages) neither majored nor minored in those subjects. A study conducted by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future revealed, and I'm quoting from a summary of the report: More than one-quarter of newly hired public school teachers in 1991 lacked the qualifications for their jobs, and nearly one-fourth of all secondary teachers did not even have a minor in their main teaching field. The Commission also found that, quote: 56% percent of high school students taking physical science were being taught by out-of-field teachers, as were 27% of those taking mathematics and 21% of those taking English. The least qualified teachers were most likely to be found in high-poverty and predominantly minority schools and in lower- track classes. In fact, in schools with the highest minority enrollments, students had less than a 50% chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who held a license and a degree in the field he or she taught. Mr. President, this is a travesty--on a truly national scale. No wonder students are doing so poorly on standardized tests. If the teacher does not understand the subject he or she is teaching, then certainly the students will not learn what they need to know. It is inexcusable that in a country as powerful and wealthy as the United States, that we do not give our children the best academic resources available. The United States will not remain a world leader unless we turn this around, and start preparing our children for the future. The process by which we train our teachers needs to be reformed--and I believe that there is a strong bipartisan consensus to support an effort for reform. Recently, I received a memorandum that was signed by members of the Center for Education Reform, Empower America, the Education Leaders Council, Hudson Institute, Progressive Policy Institute, Brookings Institution, and Heritage Foundation that expressed bipartisan interest in strengthening the Federal role in teacher recruitment and preparation. I was impressed that members of each of these diverse groups can all agree that there must be some serious change in the current teacher education system. The Progressive Policy Institute has urged: * * * that the President and his advisors remain faithful to the most important achievement in education policy: redefining the goal of school reform as results, not regulation. The Progressive Policy Institute also wrote that instead of spending federal dollars to hire more teachers and support schools of education under the existing system, the Administration should encourage states to open up the teaching profession to talented individuals who can demonstrate mastery of the subject that they intend to teach; implement innovative means of recruiting and training teachers; provide incentives to teach in high-poverty schools; and ensure that institutions, administrators, and teachers are rewarded for high performance and held responsible for failure. Mr. President, I could not agree more. Clearly, we must have more accountability and autonomy in the education system. We can no longer tolerate a system that allows unqualified teachers in the classroom. As schools are held more accountable for their results, the schools must have the autonomy to hire and fire whomever they want, and decide how best to compensate their faculty. Unquestionably, we must support all of the hard-working, dedicated teachers we now have in our classrooms. they deserve our utmost support and respect. Mr. President, I am encouraged that President Clinton has taken an interest in reforming the education system. I do not, however, believe that merely reducing class size and hiring 100,000 new teachers would be a solution for our academic problems. The answer is to only certify quality teachers--and to get quality teachers to teach our neediest kids. All children deserve well-educated teachers, and we need to make that proposition a reality. Now you might ask what the Federal role should be in teacher training. Unquestionably, states are, and should remain, the primary actors in public education. Any new Federal programs should be voluntary for states, which should not be burdened by new Federal mandates. However, the Federal government can have a role--by helping the states focus on hiring quality teachers. The Federal government needs to break the education school monopoly on teacher preparation. Too often, these education schools have weak academic standards--and focus on teaching methods over knowledge of subject matter. The students who enroll in teacher education programs in U.S. colleges tend to have lower scores on SAT and ACT exams than those in virtually all other programs of study. Federal funds that are set aside for teacher training should be made available to any program that trains teachers--as long as the program is held accountable for producing students that can demonstrate subject matter competence in the classes that they plan to teach. All teacher- training programs should be held accountable for results: producing teachers who know their subject well and know how to teach it. Their results are what matter, not their intentions or their resources or their requirements, or their accreditation. The Federal government can assist the states by forgiving student loans or offering other financial incentives for well-educated people who teach in hard-to staff schools. For example, I introduced legislation last year that would provide loan forgiveness to individuals who obtain a college degree in early childhood education who then go on to teach in accredited child-care centers. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act is a great example of how the Federal government can provide incentives to students to become teachers. All children, from pre-K to 12th grade, deserve the chance to have a qualified teacher that will help them reach their academic potential. Today, Mr. President, I am proposing legislation that addresses the need for better teacher training programs. While it is important to stem the tide of unqualified teachers reaching the classroom, we must also focus on helping teachers that are already in the classroom and need assistance in becoming the best teachers that they can be. Today, therefore, I am introducing the Teacher Quality Act of 1998. This legislation calls for the creation of teacher training programs across the United States that will help train teachers that are already in the classroom or about to enter the teaching profession. This bill is common-sense legislation that will assist school districts in their struggle to maintain the highest possible academic standards for their children. My idea for this legislation developed out of my admiration for the Mayerson Academy in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Mayerson Academy was established in 1992 as a partnership between the Cincinnati business community and its schools. The mission of the Mayerson Academy is to provide the highest quality training and professional development opportunities to the men and women responsible for educating the children of Cincinnati. Its motto is ``All Children Can Learn.'' The doors of the academy are open for business from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, fifty weeks per year. The non-profit Mayerson Academy has a 10-year contract with Cincinnati Public Schools and also has training agreements with Princeton City Schools, Lakota Local School District, and the Oak Hills School District. The Mayerson Academy has advanced labs on how to learn math. Classes on how to use computers. Socratic discussions on how to organize and manage. Teachers can take advantage of core courses, through which they can earn graduate-level equivalency credits, or take one-time special-topic ``action labs.'' The Mayerson Academy also utilizes all the latest breakthroughs in technology to get their message out across the country through the use of distance learning instruction. Teachers in Cincinnati Public Schools are eligible for a $750 raise after 100 hours of training--and it counts toward Ohio's mandatory continuing education requirement for a teaching license. The Mayerson Academy raised its start-up funds from generous private contributions from local banks, private foundations, and businesses such as Federated Department Stores, General Electric, and Procter and Gamble. Cincinnati's school district pays $1.6 million a year to purchase 66,000 hours of training from Mayerson--and the teachers attend for free. However, the program is such a great success that this school year, the Academy will provide 160,000 hours of staff training, far exceeding the 66,000 hours of annual staff training time called for by the academy's agreement with the district. The Mayerson Academy is separate from the school system, in order to ensure independent evaluation of its results and a consistent base of support. This status also allows it to benefit from the perspectives and experience of the business leadership. My legislation will establish a competitive grant program that will ask school districts to form public-private partnerships to establish teacher training programs. I believe that this legislation will assist in establishing teacher training centers like Mayerson--facilities that will help teachers gain subject matter mastery and give our children the best training teachers in the world. The second piece of legislation that I am introducing today will expand and improve the supply of well-qualified elementary and secondary school teachers. This goal can be accomplished by encouraging and assisting States to develop and implement programs for alternative routes toward alternative certification or licensure. The Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act will give individuals who would like to teach the chance to do so. We're talking about teachers who can serve not just as mentors to these children, but also as role models to show them how a good education can make a huge positive difference in their future. Through these programs, individuals who have a sense of what goals they wish to accomplish can bring their knowledge and experience into the classroom--and make a difference in children's lives. There are many talented professionals with a high level of subject area competence outside the education profession who may wish to pursue careers in education, but could not meet the current requirements to be certified or licensed as teachers. For example, a former engineer could explain to his students the importance of geometry, algebra, and calculus. A doctor can show his students how hard courses in biology can put young people on the path to saving lives. If students can see that what they are learning in school really does prepare them for the future, they will be more willing to learn and grasp new concepts. Mr. President, individuals on both sides of the aisle realize that alternative certification is an effective method to attract more qualified teachers into the classroom. The Progressive Policy Institute has written that ``states should be eligible to use federal funds to establish meaningful alternative certification programs that have more than a marginal effect on teacher supply.'' There is also a study that shows that individuals who become certified through alternative certification programs are more likely to be minorities, specialize in science and mathematics, and teach in hard-to-staff inner-city districts than traditionally certified teachers. Mr. President, both pieces of legislation that I am introducing today are targeted on improving American teaching. The Teacher Quality Act is solid legislation that answers the question, ``How do we train teachers that are already in the field?'' The Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act answers the question, ``How are we going to attract qualified individuals into the teaching field?'' I strongly believe that both of these initiatives can serve as the bedrock on which to enact real reforms in the teacher education system in America. To conclude, Mr. President, I believe that improving educational opportunities for children has to be a top priority for this Congress. I ask my colleagues in the House and Senate to work together to forge a bipartisan approach that will ensure that our children are being taught by the most qualified teachers in the world. There is no question that we must develop a system that will draw students into the teaching profession. The Federal government and the States need to work together to provide incentives for people to become teachers, and build a sense of pride to this profession. We can no longer tolerate failure if we wish to keep America strong. Now is the time to address this issue--and I ask that members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and the Senate Labor Committee, work diligently to come up with the best answer for our children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express some serious concerns about what I believe amounts to a crisis in teacher education in the United States. This year, we will consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Therefore, it is appropriate that we not focus on the issue of improving teacher training in the United States. We have to look to new ideas and programs--programs that will help restore America as an academic power. I believe that we must act immediately to find solutions for this crisis, because our children are suffering very serious consequences. Today, I will be offering two pieces of legislation that will serve as the first steps in addressing the future of teacher training and teacher certification. Before I offer a description of the new legislation, Mr. President, I call my colleagues attention to these alarming statistics: 36% of those now teaching core subjects (English, math, science, social studies, foreign languages) neither majored nor minored in those subjects. A study conducted by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future revealed, and I'm quoting from a summary of the report: More than one-quarter of newly hired public school teachers in 1991 lacked the qualifications for their jobs, and nearly one-fourth of all secondary teachers did not even have a minor in their main teaching field. The Commission also found that, quote: 56% percent of high school students taking physical science were being taught by out-of-field teachers, as were 27% of those taking mathematics and 21% of those taking English. The least qualified teachers were most likely to be found in high-poverty and predominantly minority schools and in lower- track classes. In fact, in schools with the highest minority enrollments, students had less than a 50% chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who held a license and a degree in the field he or she taught. Mr. President, this is a travesty--on a truly national scale. No wonder students are doing so poorly on standardized tests. If the teacher does not understand the subject he or she is teaching, then certainly the students will not learn what they need to know. It is inexcusable that in a country as powerful and wealthy as the United States, that we do not give our children the best academic resources available. The United States will not remain a world leader unless we turn this around, and start preparing our children for the future. The process by which we train our teachers needs to be reformed--and I believe that there is a strong bipartisan consensus to support an effort for reform. Recently, I received a memorandum that was signed by members of the Center for Education Reform, Empower America, the Education Leaders Council, Hudson Institute, Progressive Policy Institute, Brookings Institution, and Heritage Foundation that expressed bipartisan interest in strengthening the Federal role in teacher recruitment and preparation. I was impressed that members of each of these diverse groups can all agree that there must be some serious change in the current teacher education system. The Progressive Policy Institute has urged: * * * that the President and his advisors remain faithful to the most important achievement in education policy: redefining the goal of school reform as results, not regulation. The Progressive Policy Institute also wrote that instead of spending federal dollars to hire more teachers and support schools of education under the existing system, the Administration should encourage states to open up the teaching profession to talented individuals who can demonstrate mastery of the subject that they intend to teach; implement innovative means of recruiting and training teachers; provide incentives to teach in high-poverty schools; and ensure that institutions, administrators, and teachers are rewarded for high performance and held responsible for failure. Mr. President, I could not agree more. Clearly, we must have more accountability and autonomy in the education system. We can no longer tolerate a system that allows unqualified teachers in the classroom. As schools are held more accountable for their results, the schools must have the autonomy to hire and fire whomever they want, and decide how best to compensate their faculty. Unquestionably, we must support all of the hard-working, dedicated teachers we now have in our classrooms. they deserve our utmost support and respect. Mr. President, I am encouraged that President Clinton has taken an interest in reforming the education system. I do not, however, believe that merely reducing class size and hiring 100,000 new teachers would be a solution for our academic problems. The answer is to only certify quality teachers--and to get quality teachers to teach our neediest kids. All children deserve well-educated teachers, and we need to make that proposition a reality. Now you might ask what the Federal role should be in teacher training. Unquestionably, states are, and should remain, the primary actors in public education. Any new Federal programs should be voluntary for states, which should not be burdened by new Federal mandates. However, the Federal government can have a role--by helping the states focus on hiring quality teachers. The Federal government needs to break the education school monopoly on teacher preparation. Too often, these education schools have weak academic standards--and focus on teaching methods over knowledge of subject matter. The students who enroll in teacher education programs in U.S. colleges tend to have lower scores on SAT and ACT exams than those in virtually all other programs of study. Federal funds that are set aside for teacher training should be made available to any program that trains teachers--as long as the program is held accountable for producing students that can demonstrate subject matter competence in the classes that they plan to teach. All teacher- training programs should be held accountable for results: producing teachers who know their subject well and know how to teach it. Their results are what matter, not their intentions or their resources or their requirements, or their accreditation. The Federal government can assist the states by forgiving student loans or offering other financial incentives for well-educated people who teach in hard-to staff schools. For example, I introduced legislation last year that would provide loan forgiveness to individuals who obtain a college degree in early childhood education who then go on to teach in accredited child-care centers. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act is a great example of how the Federal government can provide incentives to students to become teachers. All children, from pre-K to 12th grade, deserve the chance to have a qualified teacher that will help them reach their academic potential. Today, Mr. President, I am proposing legislation that addresses the need for better teacher training programs. While it is important to stem the tide of unqualified teachers reaching the classroom, we must also focus on helping teachers that are already in the classroom and need assistance in becoming the best teachers that they can be. Today, therefore, I am introducing the Teacher Quality Act of 1998. This legislation calls for the creation of teacher training programs across the United States that will help train teachers that are already in the classroom or about to enter the teaching profession. This bill is common-sense legislation that will assist school districts in their struggle to maintain the highest possible academic standards for their children. My idea for this legislation developed out of my admiration for the Mayerson Academy in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Mayerson Academy was established in 1992 as a partnership between the Cincinnati business community and its schools. The mission of the Mayerson Academy is to provide the highest quality training and professional development opportunities to the men and women responsible for educating the children of Cincinnati. Its motto is ``All Children Can Learn.'' The doors of the academy are open for business from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, fifty weeks per year. The non-profit Mayerson Academy has a 10-year contract with Cincinnati Public Schools and also has training agreements with Princeton City Schools, Lakota Local School District, and the Oak Hills School District. The Mayerson Academy has advanced labs on how to learn math. Classes on how to use computers. Socratic discussions on how to organize and manage. Teachers can take advantage of core courses, through which they can earn graduate-level equivalency credits, or take one-time special-topic ``action labs.'' The Mayerson Academy also utilizes all the latest breakthroughs in technology to get their message out across the country through the use of distance learning instruction. Teachers in Cincinnati Public Schools are eligible for a $750 raise after 100 hours of training--and it counts toward Ohio's mandatory continuing education requirement for a teaching license. The Mayerson Academy raised its start-up funds from generous private contributions from local banks, private foundations, and businesses such as Federated Department Stores, General Electric, and Procter and Gamble. Cincinnati's school district pays $1.6 million a year to purchase 66,000 hours of training from Mayerson--and the teachers attend for free. However, the program is such a great success that this school year, the Academy will provide 160,000 hours of staff training, far exceeding the 66,000 hours of annual staff training time called for by the academy's agreement with the district. The Mayerson Academy is separate from the school system, in order to ensure independent evaluation of its results and a consistent base of support. This status also allows it to benefit from the perspectives and experience of the business leadership. My legislation will establish a competitive grant program that will ask school districts to form public-private partnerships to establish teacher training programs. I believe that this legislation will assist in establishing teacher training centers like Mayerson--facilities that will help teachers gain subject matter mastery and give our children the best training teachers in the world. The second piece of legislation that I am introducing today will expand and improve the supply of well-qualified elementary and secondary school teachers. This goal can be accomplished by encouraging and assisting States to develop and implement programs for alternative routes toward alternative certification or licensure. The Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act will give individuals who would like to teach the chance to do so. We're talking about teachers who can serve not just as mentors to these children, but also as role models to show them how a good education can make a huge positive difference in their future. Through these programs, individuals who have a sense of what goals they wish to accomplish can bring their knowledge and experience into the classroom--and make a difference in children's lives. There are many talented professionals with a high level of subject area competence outside the education profession who may wish to pursue careers in education, but could not meet the current requirements to be certified or licensed as teachers. For example, a former engineer could explain to his students the importance of geometry, algebra, and calculus. A doctor can show his students how hard courses in biology can put young people on the path to saving lives. If students can see that what they are learning in school really does prepare them for the future, they will be more willing to learn and grasp new concepts. Mr. President, individuals on both sides of the aisle realize that alternative certification is an effective method to attract more qualified teachers into the classroom. The Progressive Policy Institute has written that ``states should be eligible to use federal funds to establish meaningful alternative certification programs that have more than a marginal effect on teacher supply.'' There is also a study that shows that individuals who become certified through alternative certification programs are more likely to be minorities, specialize in science and mathematics, and teach in hard-to-staff inner-city districts than traditionally certified teachers. Mr. President, both pieces of legislation that I am introducing today are targeted on improving American teaching. The Teacher Quality Act is solid legislation that answers the question, ``How do we train teachers that are already in the field?'' The Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act answers the question, ``How are we going to attract qualified individuals into the teaching field?'' I strongly believe that both of these initiatives can serve as the bedrock on which to enact real reforms in the teacher education system in America. To conclude, Mr. President, I believe that improving educational opportunities for children has to be a top priority for this Congress. I ask my colleagues in the House and Senate to work together to forge a bipartisan approach that will ensure that our children are being taught by the most qualified teachers in the world. There is no question that we must develop a system that will draw students into the teaching profession. The Federal government and the States need to work together to provide incentives for people to become teachers, and build a sense of pride to this profession. We can no longer tolerate failure if we wish to keep America strong. Now is the time to address this issue--and I ask that members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and the Senate Labor Committee, work diligently to come up with the best answer for our children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act of 1998. I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Coats, Collins, Hutchison, and Gordon Smith. The purpose of this legislation is to expand and improve the supply of well-qualified elementary and secondary school teachers. We would accomplish this goal by encouraging and assisting States to develop and implement programs for alternative routes toward teacher certification or licensure. There are many talented professionals with a high level of subject area competence outside the education profession who may wish to pursue careers in education, but could not meet the current requirements to be certified or licensed as teachers. For example, all of us here in Congress attain an unique knowledge of how our government works. Alternative certification and licensure could provide an opportunity for some of us to become teachers so we could share our knowledge and experiences of how government works with young people. The measure of a good teacher after all is how much and how well their students could learn. Knowledgeable and eager individuals should be helped--not discouraged--to enter the K-12 classroom as teachers. We can achieve this goal by giving States the maximum flexibility and incentives to create alternative certification programs. That's what my bill would do--it would enable the Federal Government to assist States by offering incentives to recruit well-educated people into the teaching profession. This program would be voluntary for the States. States do not need to be burdened by new Federal mandates. This bill would allow qualified individuals to fullfil State certification or licensure requirements, giving school systems the chance to take advantage of the expertise of such professionals and improve the pool of qualified individuals available to local educational agencies. These measures would do a great deal to expand and improve the supply of well-qualified teachers. The bill would provide $15 million each year to be divided among the States based on a student population formula. States would have to apply to the Secretary in order to be considered for funds. The money could be used to either create new alternative certification programs or to fund pre-existing programs. If a State does not apply for funds, then that money is reallocated to those States that most demonstrate the need for the money based on the Secretary of Education's discretion. Alternative certification is nothing new. A study by C. Emily Feistritzer entitled ``Alternative Teacher Certification: a State-by- State Analysis 1997'' reports the following facts: 41 States and the District of Columbia are now implementing alternative routes for certifying teachers. However, virtually all of the States now offer some type of program other than the traditional approved college teacher education program route for initially licensing teachers. 23 States and the District of Columbia have designed alternative licensure programs for the explicit purpose of bringing talented individuals who already have at least a bachelor's degree in a field other than education into teaching--up from just 11 such programs in 1991. 117 programs in the 50 States and the District of Columbia are now available for people who already have a bachelor's degree and want to become licensed to teach. This compares with 91 programs in 1991. Interest in alternative teacher certification continues to escalate. 35 states reported that interest from ``people wanting to get licensed to teach'' has increased in the last five years. Mr. President, it's clear that interest in the alternative certification route is on the increase. Among the talented people we can attract into the teaching profession by this means are military personnel who are nearing retirement, people who have been down-sized and are looking for a second career, business leaders who want to share their knowledge with a new generation of children, housewives who are looking for a new career after their children have moved out of the family home, and people who want to leave the private sector so they can use their college major to make a difference in children's lives. Teacher training has become a very important issue to this Congress and to the Administration. As of today, there have been no fewer than seven teacher training bills introduced in the House and Senate. In fact, President Clinton has requested $1.1 billion in his latest budget to pay for 37,000 new teachers. It is clear that members on both sides of the aisle understand the importance of having quality teachers in the classroom. Therefore, there's clear bipartisan support for programs that encourage and recruit the most knowledgeable individuals to teach our children. It is my hope that we can see bipartisan support for programs that give talented individuals an alternative route into the teaching profession. In order to find the best possible teachers for our children, we need to support programs that are flexible and creative. We need to encourage the brightest minds in our communities to consider teaching as a career. Teachers who have had a previous career can explain to children the importance of a good education. For example, a former engineer could explain to his students the importance of geometry, algebra, and calculus. A doctor can show his students how hard courses in biology can put young people on the path to saving lives. If students can see that what they are learning in school really does prepare them for the future, they will be more willing to learn and grasp new concepts. In this bill, States would be given the flexibility to reach out for new teaching talent and fill specifically hard-to-staff teacher positions. Alternative certification and licensure programs give the best and brightest individuals who would like to teach the chance to do so. We're talking about teachers who can serve not just as mentors to these children, but also as role models to show them how a good education is crucial to their futures. Through these programs, individuals who have a sense of what goals they wish to accomplish can bring their knowledge and experience into the classroom. Mr. President, Federal support for alternative certification and licensure would help ensure that schools continue to attract quality teachers to the classroom. We owe it to all school children to give them the best resources available. That is why we must encourage all States to hire the most capable, knowledgeable, and experienced teachers that are available. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am delighted to join Senator Collins today in the introduction of the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act. This bill, as my colleague has explained, would repeal section 605 of the Internal Revenue Code, thereby eliminating responsibility of schools to file returns to the IRS on behalf of their students. Now, the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education has recommended that the most direct way to minimize the regulatory burden on colleges and universities would be to repeal the sections of law that impose reporting requirements. What is the problem? Here is the problem: Current law relating to the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning tax credit requires all colleges and universities to comply with very burdensome and costly regulations. Beginning with tax year 1998, schools will be expected to provide the IRS with information regarding its students, including the following: name, address, Social Security number of the students, whether the student was in attendance at least half-time during the academic period, whether the student was enrolled exclusively in a program leading to a graduate-level educational credential, the person to contact at the institution in case there are questions, the amount of qualified tuition and gift aid a student receives--on and on. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that we are amending today contained a provision requiring colleges, universities, and trade schools to begin issuing annual reports to students and to the Internal Revenue Service detailing the students' tuition payments in case they apply for the new education tax credit. Preliminary analysis shows the reporting requirements will cost 6,000 colleges in America more than $125 million to implement and tens of millions of dollars annually to maintain. The bill that Senator Collins and I are introducing will free colleges, universities, and trade schools from complying with these very burdensome and costly requirements. Under our bill, taxpayers will now simply claim the new education tax credits on their income tax returns as they do with other tax credits and deductions. Now, Mr. President, in my home State of Ohio, I have heard from many colleges. They have told me that the reporting requirement will place a significant financial and human resource burden on colleges and universities that will ultimately lead to an increase in the cost of higher education. Ohio institutions such as Cleveland State, Bowling Green State University, Shawnee State University, and North Central Technical College have all written me and told me these requirements place schools in a very difficult position, putting them between students and parents and the IRS, because the schools are required under the current law to collect information that, frankly, they would not otherwise have to collect. While these schools are very supportive of the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit, the burden placed on universities will increase the cost of higher education, which, of course, reduces the benefit of the tax credit to the students. The bill that my colleague from Maine and I are introducing is commonsense legislation that will eliminate an unfunded mandate placed upon colleges and universities. In realistic terms, if the new reporting requirement is not lifted off the backs of colleges and universities, those schools will be forced to raise tuition costs to cover this unfunded mandate. In effect, students and families will not benefit from passage of the Hope Scholarship because the money received from the tax credit will be used to pay this higher tuition. I support the Hope Scholarship, and I am excited that students will be given a financial boost in their plans to attain a higher education. However, the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit will not be as beneficial if it means that colleges and universities will raise their tuition to cover the costs of this unfunded mandate. Trying to pay for an unfunded mandate shifts a school's focus away from its primary goal, which, of course, is giving the students the best possible education. Now, similar legislation to our bill has already been introduced in the House of Representatives. The House bill is supported by a bipartisan coalition of Members of the House. In addition, Mr. President, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, representing 425 of the largest colleges and universities in the country, and also the American Association of Community Colleges, representing 1,200 community colleges, have both endorsed this initiative. Mr. President, I conclude today by asking my colleagues to take a closer look at how this legislation will benefit students and families in this country. I invite any of my colleagues to join us today to cosponsor this bill. Passage of the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit was a good beginning, but we must now assure that universities and colleges will not raise tuition costs simply to cover the costs of this unfunded mandate. Our bill, then, is simple. It is simple, fair legislation that will greatly benefit any person who wants to obtain a higher education in this country.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am delighted to join Senator Collins today in the introduction of the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act. This bill, as my colleague has explained, would repeal section 605 of the Internal Revenue Code, thereby eliminating responsibility of schools to file returns to the IRS on behalf of their students. Now, the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education has recommended that the most direct way to minimize the regulatory burden on colleges and universities would be to repeal the sections of law that impose reporting requirements. What is the problem? Here is the problem: Current law relating to the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning tax credit requires all colleges and universities to comply with very burdensome and costly regulations. Beginning with tax year 1998, schools will be expected to provide the IRS with information regarding its students, including the following: name, address, Social Security number of the students, whether the student was in attendance at least half-time during the academic period, whether the student was enrolled exclusively in a program leading to a graduate-level educational credential, the person to contact at the institution in case there are questions, the amount of qualified tuition and gift aid a student receives--on and on. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that we are amending today contained a provision requiring colleges, universities, and trade schools to begin issuing annual reports to students and to the Internal Revenue Service detailing the students' tuition payments in case they apply for the new education tax credit. Preliminary analysis shows the reporting requirements will cost 6,000 colleges in America more than $125 million to implement and tens of millions of dollars annually to maintain. The bill that Senator Collins and I are introducing will free colleges, universities, and trade schools from complying with these very burdensome and costly requirements. Under our bill, taxpayers will now simply claim the new education tax credits on their income tax returns as they do with other tax credits and deductions. Now, Mr. President, in my home State of Ohio, I have heard from many colleges. They have told me that the reporting requirement will place a significant financial and human resource burden on colleges and universities that will ultimately lead to an increase in the cost of higher education. Ohio institutions such as Cleveland State, Bowling Green State University, Shawnee State University, and North Central Technical College have all written me and told me these requirements place schools in a very difficult position, putting them between students and parents and the IRS, because the schools are required under the current law to collect information that, frankly, they would not otherwise have to collect. While these schools are very supportive of the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit, the burden placed on universities will increase the cost of higher education, which, of course, reduces the benefit of the tax credit to the students. The bill that my colleague from Maine and I are introducing is commonsense legislation that will eliminate an unfunded mandate placed upon colleges and universities. In realistic terms, if the new reporting requirement is not lifted off the backs of colleges and universities, those schools will be forced to raise tuition costs to cover this unfunded mandate. In effect, students and families will not benefit from passage of the Hope Scholarship because the money received from the tax credit will be used to pay this higher tuition. I support the Hope Scholarship, and I am excited that students will be given a financial boost in their plans to attain a higher education. However, the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit will not be as beneficial if it means that colleges and universities will raise their tuition to cover the costs of this unfunded mandate. Trying to pay for an unfunded mandate shifts a school's focus away from its primary goal, which, of course, is giving the students the best possible education. Now, similar legislation to our bill has already been introduced in the House of Representatives. The House bill is supported by a bipartisan coalition of Members of the House. In addition, Mr. President, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, representing 425 of the largest colleges and universities in the country, and also the American Association of Community Colleges, representing 1,200 community colleges, have both endorsed this initiative. Mr. President, I conclude today by asking my colleagues to take a closer look at how this legislation will benefit students and families in this country. I invite any of my colleagues to join us today to cosponsor this bill. Passage of the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit was a good beginning, but we must now assure that universities and colleges will not raise tuition costs simply to cover the costs of this unfunded mandate. Our bill, then, is simple. It is simple, fair legislation that will greatly benefit any person who wants to obtain a higher education in this country.