[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11294-S11313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2117. A bill to enhance the administrative authority of the 
president of Haskell Indian Nations University, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


  THE HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS ACT OF 
                                  1996

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Haskell 
Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act of 1996. I am 
pleased to have the vice-chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, 
Senator Inouye, as a cosponsor. The purpose of this bill is to give 
Haskell Indian Nations University the authority and flexibility it 
needs to make a successful transition

[[Page S11295]]

from a junior college to a 4-year university.
  Founded in 1884 as the U.S. Indian Industrial Training School, 
Haskell provided agricultural education in grades one through five. Ten 
years later, the school had changed its name to Haskell Institute and 
expanded its academic training beyond the eighth grade. By 1927 the 
secondary curriculum had been accredited, and in 1970 the school became 
Haskell Indian Junior College. In October 1993, after receiving 
accreditation to offer a bachelor of science degree in elementary 
teacher education, the school changed its name to Haskell Indian 
Nations University.
  Haskell is a Kansas treasure and an institution cherished by native 
Americans and Alaska Natives. At any one time, as many as 175 tribes 
are represented in the student body. Integrating the perspectives of 
various native American cultures have assured Haskell's growth and 
success. As the first baccalaureate class graduates in May 1997, 
Haskell Indian Nations University is developing 4-year programs in 
other fields and continues to accept the challenge of enriching the 
lives of young native Americans and Alaska Natives.
  As the school has changed, so should the system by which it is 
administered. Haskell's ability to make a successful transition from a 
junior college to a 4-year university is being compromised by the 
present system under which the Bureau of Indian Affairs must approve 
its appointments and the Office of Personnel Management establishes 
rankings for its professors.
  This legislation allows the school to remain within the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and its employees to continue to participate in Federal 
retirement and health benefit programs. However, the Haskell president 
and Board of Regents will have authority over organizational structure, 
the classification of positions, recruitment, procurement, and 
determination of all human resource policies and procedures. This 
legislation will give Haskell the autonomy enjoyed by the tribally 
controlled community colleges and BIA elementary and secondary schools. 
This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Representative Jan Meyers.
  Mr. President, I am aware that we are near adjournment and it is 
unlikely that we can get this bill passed in the time remaining. 
However, I wanted to introduce it now because I am convinced that such 
legislation is essential to the success of Haskell Indian Nations 
University and that it should be a priority in the next Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2117

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Haskell Indian Nations 
     University Administrative Systems Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the provision of culturally sensitive curricula for 
     higher education programs at Haskell Indian Nations 
     University is consistent with the commitment of the Federal 
     Government to the fulfillment of treaty obligations to Indian 
     tribes through the principle of self-determination and the 
     use of Federal resources; and
       (2) giving a greater degree of autonomy to Haskell Indian 
     Nations University, while maintaining the university as an 
     integral part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, will 
     facilitate the transition of the university to a 4-year 
     university.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) University.--The term ``Haskell Indian Nations 
     University'' or ``university'' means the Haskell Indian 
     Nations University, located in Lawrence, Kansas.

     SEC. 4. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Inapplicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--
     Chapters 51, 53, and 63 of title 5, United States Code 
     (relating to classification, pay, and leave, respectively) 
     and the provisions of such title relating to the appointment, 
     performance evaluation, promotion, and removal of civil 
     service employees shall not apply to applicants for 
     employment with, employees of, or positions in or under the 
     university.
       (b) Alternative Personnel Management Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--The president of the university shall by 
     regulation prescribe such personnel management provisions as 
     may be necessary, in order to ensure the effective 
     administration of the university, to replace the provisions 
     of law that are inapplicable with respect to the university 
     by reason of subsection (a).
       (2) Procedural requirements.--The regulations prescribed 
     under this subsection shall--
       (A) be prescribed in consultation with the board of regents 
     of the university and other appropriate representative 
     bodies;
       (B) be subject to the requirements of subsections (b) 
     through (e) of section 553 of title 5, United States Code; 
     and
       (C) not take effect without the prior written approval of 
     the Secretary.
       (c) Specific Substantive Requirements.--Under the 
     regulations prescribed under this subsection--
       (1) no rate of basic pay may, at any time, exceed--
       (A) in the case of an employee who would otherwise be 
     subject to the General Schedule, the maximum rate of basic 
     pay then currently payable for grade GS-15 of the General 
     Schedule (including any amount payable under section 5304 of 
     title 5, United States Code, or other similar authority for 
     the locality involved); or
       (B) in the case of an employee who would otherwise be 
     subject to subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 5, United 
     States Code (relating to prevailing rate systems), the 
     maximum rate of basic pay which (but for this section) would 
     then otherwise be currently payable under the wage schedule 
     covering such employee;
       (2) the limitation under section 5307 of title 5, United 
     States Code (relating to limitation on certain payments) 
     shall apply, subject to such definitional and other 
     modifications as may be necessary in the context of the 
     alternative personnel management provisions established under 
     this section;
       (3) procedures shall be established for the rapid and 
     equitable resolution of grievances;
       (4) no university employee may be discharged without notice 
     of the reasons therefor and opportunity for a hearing under 
     procedures that comport with the requirements of due process, 
     except that this paragraph shall not apply in the case of an 
     employee serving a probationary or trial period under an 
     initial appointment; and
       (5) university employees serving for a period specified in 
     or determinable under an employment agreement shall, except 
     as otherwise provided in the agreement, be notified at least 
     30 days before the end of such period as to whether their 
     employment agreement will be renewed.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     considered to affect--
       (1) the applicability of any provision of law providing 
     for--
       (A) equal employment opportunity;
       (B) Indian preference; or
       (C) veterans' preference; or
       (2) the eligibility of any individual to participate in any 
     retirement system, any program under which any health 
     insurance or life insurance is afforded, or any program under 
     which unemployment benefits are afforded, with respect to 
     Federal employees.
       (e) Labor-Management Provisions.--
       (1) Collective-bargaining agreements.--Any collective-
     bargaining agreement in effect on the day before the 
     effective date specified under subsection (f)(1) shall 
     continue to be recognized by the university until altered or 
     amended pursuant to law.
       (2) Exclusive representative.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     affect the right of any labor organization to be accorded (or 
     to continue to be accorded) recognition as the exclusive 
     representative of any unit of university employees.
       (3) Other provisions.--Matters made subject to regulation 
     under this section shall not be subject to collective 
     bargaining, except in the case of any matter under chapter 63 
     of title 5, United States Code (relating to leave).
       (f) Effective Date.--
       (1) Alternative personnel management provisions.--The 
     alternative personnel management provisions under this 
     section shall take effect on such date as may be specified in 
     the regulations, except that such date may not be later than 
     1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Provisions made inapplicable by this section.--
     Subsection (a) shall take effect on the date specified under 
     paragraph (1).
       (g) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the alternative personnel management provisions 
     under this section shall apply with respect to all applicants 
     for employment with, all employees of, and all positions in 
     or under the university.
       (2) Current employees not covered except pursuant to a 
     voluntary election.--
       (A) In general.--A university employee serving on the day 
     before the effective date specified under subsection (f)(1) 
     shall not be subject to the alternative personnel management 
     provisions under this section (and shall instead, for all 
     purposes, be treated in the same way as if this section had 
     not been enacted, notwithstanding subsection (a)) unless, 
     before the end of the 5-year period beginning on such 
     effective date, such employee elects to be covered by such 
     provisions.
       (B) Procedures.--An election under this paragraph shall be 
     made in such form and in such manner as may be required under 
     the regulations, and shall be irrevocable.
       (3) Transition provisions.--

[[Page S11296]]

       (A) Provisions relating to annual and sick leave.--Any 
     individual who--
       (i) makes an election under paragraph (2), or
       (ii) on or after the effective date specified under 
     subsection (f)(1), is transferred, promoted, or reappointed, 
     without a break in service of 3 days or longer, to a 
     university position from a non-university position with the 
     Federal Government or the government of the District of 
     Columbia,

     shall be credited, for the purpose of the leave system 
     provided under regulations prescribed under this section, 
     with the annual and sick leave to such individual's credit 
     immediately before the effective date of such election, 
     transfer, promotion, or reappointment, as the case may be.
       (B) Liquidation of remaining leave upon termination.--
       (i) Annual leave.--Upon termination of employment with the 
     university, any annual leave remaining to the credit of an 
     individual within the purview of this section shall be 
     liquidated in accordance with section 5551(a) and section 
     6306 of title 5, United States Code, except that leave earned 
     or accrued under regulations prescribed under this section 
     shall not be so liquidated.
       (ii) Sick leave.--Upon termination of employment with the 
     university, any sick leave remaining to the credit of an 
     individual within the purview of this section shall be 
     creditable for civil service retirement purposes in 
     accordance with section 8339(m) of title 5, United States 
     Code, except that leave earned or accrued under regulations 
     prescribed under this section shall not be so creditable.
       (C) Transfer of remaining leave upon transfer, promotion, 
     or reemployment.--In the case of any university employee who 
     is transferred, promoted, or reappointed, without a break in 
     service of 3 days or longer, to a position in the Federal 
     Government (or the government of the District of Columbia) 
     under a different leave system, any remaining leave to the 
     credit of that individual earned or credited under the 
     regulations prescribed under this section shall be 
     transferred to such individual's credit in the employing 
     agency on an adjusted basis in accordance with regulations 
     which shall be prescribed by the Office of Personnel 
     Management.
       (4) Work-study.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     considered to apply with respect to a work-study student, as 
     defined by the president of the university in writing.

     SEC. 5. DELEGATION OF PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY.

       The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent consistent with 
     applicable law and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations therefor, delegate to the president of the 
     university procurement and contracting authority with respect 
     to the conduct of the administrative functions of the 
     university.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     1997, and for each fiscal year thereafter--
       (1) the amount of funds made available by appropriations as 
     operations funding for the administration of the university 
     for fiscal year 1996; and
       (2) such additional sums as may be necessary for the 
     operation of the university pursuant to this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself and Mr. Helms:)

  S. 2118. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
casualty loss deduction for disaster losses without regard to the 10-
percent adjusted gross income floor; to the Committee on Finance.


                      Disaster Losses Legislation

 Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, joined by my colleague from 
North Carolina, Mr. Helms, I introduce a bill that addresses a real 
concern for millions of middle-class people in disaster-prone areas.
  The Tax Code permits the deduction of uninsured casualty losses. The 
Tax Code, however, requires these losses to total more than 10 percent 
of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. Consequently, although a large 
number of middle-class taxpayers are faced with large repair and 
cleanup bills, these bills often fall short of the 10 percent of 
adjusted gross income threshold.
  Mr. President, 43 North Carolina counties--home to more than half of 
the State population--were declared Federal disaster areas as a result 
of Hurricane Fran. Thousands of houses were destroyed and tens of 
thousands of houses suffered serious damage. These losses are clearly 
substantial enough to fall within the scope of the deduction.
  However, there are hundreds of thousands of North Carolina families 
that suffered uninsured damage that, although substantial, falls short 
of the 10 percent limitation.
  In fact, Mr. President, homeowners' insurance policies cover removal 
of trees that strike the house, but these policies do not otherwise 
cover downed or damaged trees. Further, insurance payments for tree 
removal are often capped far below the real cost of these efforts, 
which leaves insured homeowners, too, with a large bill.
  It is estimated that Hurricane Fran caused $500 million in tree 
damage in North Carolina. The foresters estimate that the hurricane 
downed between 1 and 25 percent of the trees in affected areas.
  I drove back to Sampson County, NC, during the hurricane, and the 
roads were littered with trees and branches. It was a sight of pure 
devastation.
  Unfortunately, standard insurance policies do not cover much of this 
damage, so homeowners face some large and unexpected bills for cleanup 
costs.
  For example, in the city of Raleigh, which is more than 100 miles 
inland, thousands of homeowners lost trees. Families across North 
Carolina face tree removal bills that range from $1,000 to $3,000 and 
upward. In fact, Mr. President, many families were required to hire 
crane crews to remove downed trees. The tree loss was remarkable in 
much of North Carolina.
  These are middle-class families that earn under $50,000 per year. 
These tree removal bills are a real hit. However, because these bills 
often do not quite reach the 10 percent threshold, the deduction is 
unavailable.
  As you know, Mr. President, an unanticipated $3,000 bill is a 
tremendous blow for most middle-class families. Consequently, many 
families are forced to dip into their savings, and others are required 
to borrow thousands of dollars.
  It is a shame to see these people forced to raid their savings due to 
the 10 percent floor on the uninsured loss deduction. The Tax Code 
acknowledges that uninsured casualty losses are appropriate deductions. 
This bill, however, further acknowledges the burdens of catastrophic 
storms on the families that live in these areas.
  This legislation thus eliminates the 10-percent requirement in 
Federal disaster areas. It permits working Americans to hold on to a 
bit more of their own earnings in the wake of a catastrophic storm.
  Many families enjoy incomes sufficient enough to disqualify them for 
Federal grant assistance. These middle-class families do not want 
handouts. This bill, however, represents an acknowledgment of the 
special burdens on hard-working families in Federal disaster areas.
  I think that this is reasonable legislation, Mr. President, and I 
hope that my colleagues will join me and Senator Helms in this 
effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):

  S. 2119. A bill to establish the Commission to Study the Federal 
Statistical System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


   THE COMMISSION TO STUDY THE FEDERAL STATISTICAL SYSTEM ACT OF 1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, legislation that would establish a 
Commission To Study the Federal Statistical System.
  The United States has the oldest and by and large finest data 
gathering system in the world. Statistics are part of our 
constitutional arrangement, which provides for a decennial census that, 
among other purposes, is the basis for apportionment of membership in 
the House of Representatives. I quote from article I, section I:

       . . . enumeration shall be made within three Years after 
     the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and 
     within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as 
     they shall by Law direct.

  But, while the Constitution directed that there be a census, there 
was, initially, no Census Bureau. The earliest censuses were conducted 
by U.S. marshals. Later on, statistical bureaus in State governments 
collected the data, with a Superintendent of the Census overseeing from 
Washington. It was not until 1902 that a permanent Bureau of the Census 
was created by the Congress, housed initially in the Interior 
Department. In 1903 the Bureau was transferred to the newly established 
Department of Commerce and Labor.
  The Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service, 
which was originally an independent body, began collecting data in 
1866. It too was transferred to the new Department of Commerce and 
Labor in 1903, but

[[Page S11297]]

then was put in the Treasury Department in 1913 following ratification 
of the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the power to impose an 
income tax.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics, created in 1884, was also initially 
in the Interior Department. The first Commissioner of the BLS, 
appointed in 1885, was Col. Carroll D. Wright, a distinguished Civil 
War veteran of the New Hampshire Volunteers. A self-trained social 
scientist, Colonel Wright pioneered techniques for collecting and 
analyzing survey data on income, prices, and wages. He had previously 
served as chief of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, a post he 
held for 15 years, and in that capacity had supervised the 1880 Federal 
Census in Massachusetts.
  In 1888, the Bureau of Labor Statistics became an independent agency. 
In 1903 it was once again made a Bureau, joining other statistical 
agencies in the Department of Commerce and Labor. When a new Department 
of Labor was formed in 1913--giving labor an independent voice, as 
labor was removed from the Department of Commerce and Labor--the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics was transferred to it.
  And so it went. Statistical agencies sprung up as needed. And 
they moved back and forth as new executive departments were formed. 
Today, some 89 different organizations in the Federal Government 
comprise parts of our national statistical infrastructure. Eleven of 
these organizations have as their primary function the generation of 
data. These 11 organizations are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Date   
               Agency                      Department        Established
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Agricultural Statistical    Agriculture...........        1863 
 Service.                                                               
Statistics of Income Division, IRS.  Treasury..............        1866 
Economic Research Service..........  Agriculture...........        1867 
National Center for Education        Education.............        1867 
 Statistics.                                                            
Bureau of Labor Statistics.........  Labor.................        1884 
Bureau of the Census...............  Commerce..............        1902 
Bureau of Economic Analysis........  Commerce..............        1912 
National Center for Health           Health and Human              1912 
 Statistics.                          Services.                         
Bureau of Justice Statistics.......  Justice...............        1968 
Energy Information Administration..  Energy................        1974 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics  Transportation........        1991 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          NEED FOR LEGISLATION

  President Kennedy once said:

       Democracy is a difficult kind of government. It requires 
     the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraint, a 
     willingness to make commitments and sacrifices for the 
     general interest, and also it requires knowledge.

  That knowledge often comes from accurate statistics. You cannot begin 
to solve a problem until you can measure it.

  This legislation would require the new Commission to conduct a 
comprehensive examination of our current statistical system and focus 
particularly on the agencies that produce data as their primary 
product--agencies such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] and the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS].
  This week I received a letter from nine former chairmen of the 
Council of Economic Advisers [CEA] endorsing this legislation. 
Excluding the two most recent chairs, who are still serving in the 
Clinton administration, the signatories include virtually every living 
chair of the CEA. While acknowledging that the United States 
``possesses a first-class statistical system,'' these former chairmen 
remind us that ``problems periodically arise under the current system 
of widely scattered responsibilities.'' They conclude as follows:

       Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal 
     with these difficult problems, we believe that a 
     thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan 
     Commission as provided in your Bill has great promise of 
     showing the way to major improvements.

  The letter is signed by: Michael J. Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Alan 
Greenspan, Paul W. McCracken, Raymond J. Saulnier, Charles L. Schultze, 
Beryl W. Sprinkel, Herbert Stein, and Murray Weidenbaum.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed 
in the Record following my statement.
  It happens that this Senator's association with the statistical 
system in the executive branch began over three decades ago. I was 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Planning in the 
administration of President John F. Kennedy. This was a new position in 
which I was nominally responsible for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I 
say nominally out of respect for the independence of that venerable 
institution, which as I noted earlier long predated the Department of 
Labor itself. The then-Commissioner of the BLS, Ewan Clague, could not 
have been more friendly and supportive. And so were the statisticians, 
who undertook to teach me to the extent I was teachable. They even 
shared professional confidences. And so it was that I came to have some 
familiarity with the field.
  For example, at that time the monthly report of the unemployment rate 
was closely watched by capital and labor, as we would have said, and 
was frequently challenged. Committees regularly assembled to examine 
and debate the data. Published unemployment rates, based on current 
monthly survey methodology appeared, if memory serves, in 1948, and so 
the series was at most 14 years in place at this time.
  There is, of course, a long history of attempts to reform our 
Nation's statistical infrastructure. From the period 1903 to 1990, 16 
different committees, commissions, and study groups have convened to 
assess our statistical infrastructure, but in most cases little or no 
action has been taken on their recommendations. The result of this 
inaction has been an ever expanding statistical system. It continues to 
grow in order to meet new data needs, but with little or no regard for 
the overall objectives of the system. Janet L. Norwood, former 
Commissioner of the BLS, writes in her book ``Organizing to Count'':

       The U.S. system has neither the advantages that come from 
     centralization nor the efficiency that comes from strong 
     coordination in decentralization. As presently organized, 
     therefore, the country's statistical system will be hard 
     pressed to meet the demands of a technologically advanced, 
     increasingly internationalized world in which the demand for 
     objective data of high quality is steadily rising.

  In this era of government downsizing and budget cutting it is 
unlikely that Congress will appropriate more funds for statistical 
agencies. It is clear that to preserve and improve the statistical 
system we must consider reforming it, yet we must not attempt to reform 
the system until we have heard from experts in the field.
  The Commission established in the legislation will also examine the 
accuracy of our statistics. In the past few years there has been a 
growing concern that the methodology used to generate U.S. statistics 
may be outdated and can be improved.

  It is clear there is a need for a comprehensive review of the Federal 
statistical infrastructure. For if the public loses confidence in our 
statistics, they are likely to lose confidence in our policies as well.


                       DESCRIPTION OF LEGISLATION

  The legislation establishes the Commission to Study the Federal 
Statistical System. The Commission would consist of 13 members: 5 
appointed by the President with no more than 3 from the same political 
party, 4 appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate with no 
more than 2 from the same political party, and 4 appointed by the 
Speaker of the House with no more than 2 from the same political party. 
A chairman would be selected by the President from the appointed 
members. The members must have expertise in statistical policy with a 
background in disciplines such as actuarial science, demography, 
economics, and finance.
  The Commission will conduct a comprehensive study of all matters 
relating to the Federal statistical infrastructure, including:
  An examination of multipurpose statistical agencies such as the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS];
  A review and evaluation of the mission and organizational structure 
of statistical agencies, including activities that should be expanded 
or deleted and the advantages and disadvantages of a centralized 
statistical agency;
  An examination of the methodology involved in producing data and the 
accuracy of the data itself;
  A review of interagency coordination and standardization of 
collection procedures;
  A review of information technology and an assessment of how data is 
disseminated to the public;
  An examination of individual privacy in the context of statistical 
data;
  A comparison of our system with the systems of other nations; and

[[Page S11298]]

  Recommendations for a strategy to maintain a modern and efficient 
statistical infrastructure.
  All of these objectives will be addressed in an interim report due no 
later than June 1, 1998, with a final report due January 15, 1999.
  The Commission is expected to spend $10 million: $2.5 million in FY 
1997, $5 million in FY 1998, and $2.5 million in FY 1999. The 
Commission will cease to exist 90 days after the final report is 
submitted.
  This legislation is only a first step, but an essential one. The 
Commission will provide Congress with the blueprint for reform. It will 
be up to us to finally take action after nearly a century of 
inattention to this very important issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2119

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Commission to Study the 
     Federal Statistical System Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress, recognizing the importance of statistical 
     information in the development and administration of policies 
     for the private and public sector, finds that--
       (1) accurate Federal statistics are required to develop, 
     implement, and evaluate government policies and laws;
       (2) Federal spending consistent with legislative intent 
     requires accurate and appropriate statistical information;
       (3) business and individual economic decisions are 
     influenced by Federal statistics and contracts are often 
     based on such statistics;
       (4) statistical information on the manufacturing and 
     agricultural sectors is more complete than statistical 
     information regarding the service sector which employs more 
     than half the Nation's workforce;
       (5) experts in the private and public sector have long-
     standing concerns about the accuracy and adequacy of numerous 
     Federal statistics, including the Consumer Price Index, gross 
     domestic product, trade data, wage data, and the poverty 
     rate;
       (6) Federal statistical data should be accurate, 
     consistent, and continuous;
       (7) the Federal statistical infrastructure should be 
     modernized to accommodate the increasingly complex and ever 
     changing American economy;
       (8) Federal statistical agencies should utilize all 
     practical technologies to disseminate statistics to the 
     public; and
       (9) the Federal statistical infrastructure should maintain 
     the privacy of individuals.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the Commission to Study the Federal Statistical 
     System (hereafter in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 13 
     members of whom--
       (A) 5 shall be appointed by the President;
       (B) 4 shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of 
     the Senate, in consultation with the Majority Leader and 
     Minority Leader of the Senate; and
       (C) 4 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, in consultation with the Majority Leader and 
     Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Political party limitation.--(A) Of the 5 members of 
     the Commission appointed under paragraph (1)(A), no more than 
     3 members may be members of the same political party.
       (B) Of the 4 members of the Commission appointed under 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1), respectively, no 
     more than 2 members may be members of the same political 
     party.
       (3) Consultation before appointments.--In making 
     appointments under paragraph (1), the President, the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives shall consult with the National 
     Science Foundation and appropriate professional 
     organizations, such as the American Economic Association and 
     the American Statistical Association.
       (4) Qualifications.--An individual appointed to serve on 
     the Commission--
       (A) shall have expertise in statistical policy and a 
     background in such disciplines as actuarial science, 
     demography, economics, and finance;
       (B) may not be a Federal officer or employee; and
       (C) should be an academician, a statistics user in the 
     private sector, or a former government official with 
     experience related to--
       (i) the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of 
     Labor; or
       (ii) the Bureau of Economic Analysis or the Bureau of the 
     Census of the Department of Commerce.
       (5) Date.--The appointments of the members of the 
     Commission shall be made no later than 150 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--No later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairman.--The President shall designate a Chairman of 
     the Commission from among the members.

     SEC. 4. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of all matters relating to the Federal 
     statistical infrastructure, including longitudinal surveys 
     conducted by private agencies and partially funded by the 
     Federal Government.
       (2) Study and recommendations.--The matters studied by and 
     recommendations of the Commission shall include--
       (A) an examination of multipurpose statistical agencies 
     that collect and analyze data of broad interest across 
     department and function areas, such as the Bureau of Economic 
     Analysis and the Bureau of the Census of the Commerce 
     Department, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Labor 
     Department;
       (B) a review and evaluation of the collection of data for 
     purposes of administering such programs as Old-Age, Survivors 
     and Disability Insurance and Unemployment Insurance under the 
     Social Security Act;
       (C) a review and evaluation of the mission and organization 
     of various statistical agencies, including--
       (i) recommendations with respect to statistical activities 
     that should be expanded or deleted;
       (ii) the order of priority such activities should be 
     carried out;
       (iii) a review of the advantages and disadvantages of a 
     centralized statistical agency or a partial consolidation of 
     the agencies for the Federal Government; and
       (iv) an assessment of which agencies could be consolidated 
     into such an agency;
       (D) an examination of the methodology involved in producing 
     official data and recommendations for technical changes to 
     improve statistics;
       (E) an evaluation of the accuracy and appropriateness of 
     key statistical indicators and recommendations of ways to 
     improve such accuracy and appropriateness;
       (F) a review of interagency coordination of statistical 
     data and recommendations of methods to standardize collection 
     procedures and surveys, as appropriate, and presentation of 
     data throughout the Federal system;
       (G) a review of information technology and recommendations 
     of appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data, 
     with special emphasis on resources, such as the Internet, 
     that allow the public to obtain information in a timely and 
     cost-effective manner;
       (H) an examination of individual privacy in the context of 
     statistical data;
       (I) a comparison of the United States statistical system to 
     statistical systems of other nations;
       (J) a consideration of the coordination of statistical data 
     with other nations and international agencies, such as the 
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and
       (K) a recommendation of a strategy for maintaining a modern 
     and efficient Federal statistical infrastructure as the needs 
     of the United States change.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) Interim report.--No later than June 1, 1998, the 
     Commission shall submit an interim report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a) to the President and to the 
     Congress.
       (2) Final report.--No later than January 15, 1999, the 
     Commission shall submit a final report to the President and 
     the Congress which shall contain a detailed statement of the 
     findings and conclusions of the Commission, and 
     recommendations for such legislation and administrative 
     actions as the Commission considers appropriate.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out the purposes of this Act.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out the provisions of this Act. Upon request of the Chairman 
     of the Commission, the head of such department or agency 
     shall furnish such information to the Commission.
       (c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (d) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--

[[Page S11299]]

       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each member of 
     the Commission shall be compensated at a rate equal to the 
     daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel 
     time) during which such member is engaged in the performance 
     of the duties of the Commission.
       (2) Chairman.--The Chairman shall be compensated at a rate 
     equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level III of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day 
     (including travel time) during which such member is engaged 
     in the performance of the duties of the Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission. 
     Such travel may include travel outside the United States.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission 
     shall, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, relating to the competitive service, appoint an 
     executive director who shall be paid at a rate equivalent to 
     a rate established for the Senior Executive Service under 
     section 5382 of title 5, United States Code. The Commission 
     shall appoint such additional personnel as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to provide support for the 
     Commission, and may compensate such additional personnel 
     without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, relating to the competitive service.
       (2) Limitation.--The total number of employees of the 
     Commission (including the executive director) may not exceed 
     30.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits the final report of the 
     Commission.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and 
     $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1999 to the Commission to carry 
     out the purposes of this Act.
                                                                    ____

                                               September 23, 1996.
     Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan,
     Hon. J. Robert Kerrey,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Moynihan and Kerrey: All of us are former 
     Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers. We write to 
     support the basic objectives and approach of your Bill to 
     establish the Commission to Study the Federal Statistical 
     System.
       The United States possesses a first-class statistical 
     system. All of us have in the past relied heavily upon the 
     availability of reasonably accurate and timely federal 
     statistics on the national economy. Similarly, our 
     professional training leads us to recognize how important a 
     good system of statistical information is for the efficient 
     operations of our complex private economy. But we are also 
     painfully aware that important problems of bureaucratic 
     organization and methodology need to be examined and dealt 
     with if the federal statistical system is to continue to meet 
     essential public and private needs.
       All of us have particular reason to remember the problems 
     which periodically arise under the current system of widely 
     scattered responsibilities. Instead of reflecting a balance 
     among the relative priorities of one statistical collection 
     effort against others, statistical priorities are set in a 
     system within which individual Cabinet Secretaries recommend 
     budgetary tradeoffs between their own substantive programs 
     and the statistical operations which their departments, 
     sometimes by historical accident, are responsible for 
     collecting. Moreover, long range planning of improvements in 
     the federal statistical system to meet the changing nature 
     and needs of the economy is hard to organize in the present 
     framework. The Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Council of Economic Advisers put a lot of effort into trying 
     to coordinate the system, often with success, but often 
     swimming upstream against the system.
       We are also aware, as of course are you, of a number of 
     longstanding substantive and methodological difficulties with 
     which the current system is grappling. These include the 
     increasing importance in the national economy of the service 
     sector, whose output and productivity are especially hard to 
     measure, and the pervasive effect both on measures of 
     national output and income and on the federal budget of the 
     accuracy (or inaccuracy) with which our measures of prices 
     capture changes in the quality of the goods and services we 
     buy.
       Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal 
     with these difficult problems, we believe that a 
     thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan 
     Commission as provided in your Bill has great promise of 
     showing the way to major improvements.
           Sincerely,
     Prof. Michael J. Boskin,
       The Hoover Institution.
     Dr. Martin Feldstein,
       National Bureau of Economic Research.
     Alan Greenspan.
     Prof. Paul W. McCracken,
       University of Michigan.
     Raymond J. Saulnier.
     Charles L. Schultze,
       The Brookings Institution.
     Beryl W. Sprinkel.
     Herbert Stein,
       American Enterprise Institute.
     Prof. Murray Weidenbaum,
       Center for the Study of American Business.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. 
        Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Simon, Mr. Hollings, and 
        Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2121. A bill to ensure medicare beneficiaries participating in 
managed care have access to emergency and urgent care; to the Committee 
on Finance.


           THE MEDICARE ACCESS TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE ACT

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I will introduce legislation 
entitled Medicare Access to Emergency Medical Care Act, joined by 
Senators Grassley, Moseley-Braun, Chafee, Baucus, Jeffords, Simon, 
Hollings, and Wellstone.
  This legislation would require Medicare health maintenance 
organizations to pay for emergency care services provided to prudent 
beneficiaries seeking emergency care and would preclude health 
maintenance organizations from requiring prior authorizations in such 
situations. This language, Mr. President, was previously approved by 
unanimous consent in the Senate during consideration of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995.
  Why is this bill necessary? Mr. President, lack of a ``prudent lay 
person'' definition places Medicare beneficiaries in the unreasonable 
position of having emergency room visits for experiences, such as chest 
pain, denied for reimbursement by managed care organizations, in some 
cases significantly subsequent to the visit to the emergency room. Why 
denied? Denied because the beneficiary did not seek prior 
authorization, or denied because the beneficiary was diagnosed not to 
have an emergency condition, even if a reasonable person believed that 
they had an emergency condition.
  According to the congressionally established Physician Payment Review 
Commission's 1996 annual report to Congress:

       Medicare requires health plans to provide or pay for care 
     needed in an emergency, but what constitutes an emergency may 
     be misunderstood or disputed by plans and beneficiaries. The 
     definition of ``emergency'' is central to resolve such 
     disputes and guide beneficiaries before they seek emergency 
     care.

  Mr. President, currently, 60 percent of the claims that are disputed 
between Medicare beneficiaries and managed care plans involve emergency 
room services. Let me repeat that. Sixty percent of the claims that are 
disputed between Medicare beneficiaries and managed care plans involve 
emergency room services. As a result, the Physician's Payment Review 
Commission recommends, ``A prudent lay person's perspective should be 
considered as one of the factors in determining when a health plan that 
participates in Medicare should pay for initial screening and 
stabilization, if necessary, in an emergency.

  That is the standard which this legislation adopts. This legislation 
would protect Medicare beneficiaries who appear to act prudently from 
the perspective of a lay person--such as thinking that chest pain may 
be an indication of a heart attack and seeking emergency care. It would 
protect those Medicare beneficiaries from facing substantial,

[[Page S11300]]

or in some cases even catastrophic, financial liabilities. The irony of 
this situation is that the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and 
Labor Act requires that all persons who come to a Medicare-
participating hospital for emergency care be given a screening 
examination to determine if they are experiencing a medical emergency 
and, if so, that they receive stabilizing treatment before being 
discharged or moved to another facility. And that facility, that 
Medicare-participating hospital emergency room is required to provide 
those services without regard to the financial ability of the 
individual to pay.
  As a result, emergency room doctors and hospitals face a Catch-22. 
They are required by Medicare law and their own professional ethics to 
perform diagnostic tests and examinations to rule out emergency 
conditions. But those same health care providers may be denied 
reimbursement due to prior authorization requirements or a finding that 
the condition was not of an emergent nature, even though symptoms, such 
as extreme pain, shortness of breath, chest pains, loss of blood, or 
others, would prompt most lay persons to conclude that they need to 
seek medical care immediately.

  Dr. Paul Lindeman wrote in an article in the Miami Herald on July 30, 
1995, about an 85-year-old woman with a hip fracture who was denied 
admission to his hospital's emergency department by her health 
maintenance organization so that she could be transferred to an 
emergency department across town. The patient had to wait 3 hours for 
the HMO ambulance service. According to Dr. Lindeman, ``No matter how 
well-trained or talented the emergency physician, there are also times 
when he or she requires the urgent services of a consultant to provide 
definitive care for a patient (for instance, vascular and orthopedic 
surgeons to repair a severely traumatized limb). In these cases, delays 
in care due to managed care bureaucracy can become a legitimate hazard 
to the patient.''
  Now, Mr. President, some might be concerned that this legislation 
would preclude health maintenance organizations from limiting 
reimbursement for frivolous emergency room use and abuse by some 
beneficiaries. Such concern is unwarranted because this legislation 
does not prevent managed care plans from retrospectively reviewing 
services delivered in the hospital emergency department to Medicare 
beneficiaries. All it does is require the plans to base their review on 
whether the patient acted prudently given the patient's symptoms. 
Frivolous or abusive emergency room use by a patient would not be 
prudent and, therefore, could still be denied by the HMO.
  Mr. President, in 1993, the Network Design Group, a group which is 
best known for their work as a national mediator and arbiter of 
disputes between Medicare beneficiaries and their health maintenance 
organizations, wrote a report for the Federal Government. In that it 
stated, ``Definitions of `emergency' in regulation should be modified 
so that a reasonable and prudent lay person can anticipate claims that 
would be covered versus denied.''
  Michael Stocker, the president and chief executive officer of Empire 
Blue Cross/Blue Shield in New York, argued a similar point in an 
editorial entitled ``The Ticket To Better Managed Care,'' which was 
published in the New York Times on October 28, 1995. Mr. Stocker wrote, 
``At times, managed care is a euphemism for cost-cutting that puts the 
patient second. Because of the industry's financial success, too few 
organizations are paying attention to people's rising worries about how 
they will fare in HMO's that restrict access to specific doctors and 
hospitals.''
  Mr. Stocker further argues that plans must ``provide high-quality 
service in ways that can be proved and readily understood.''
  As part of providing quality of care to patients that is readily 
understood, Mr. Stocker concludes that, ``Health plans should pay for 
emergency room coverage for consumers who believe they have a 
legitimate emergency, even if it turns out that they do not.'' That is 
a perfect description of this bill's ``prudent lay person'' standard.
  Finally, since the Federal Government and beneficiaries are paying 
through Medicare for emergency room services--that is, emergency room 
services are on the list of medical services that a Medicare 
beneficiary contracts to receive when they join a health maintenance 
organization--it makes sense to require that those services be provided 
and paid for on a reasonable basis.
  Without it, Medicare becomes like a horribly ineffective Government 
program where money goes in but results and the delivery of services 
are lacking to the beneficiary. We in this Congress have a financial 
responsibility to demand that the services which we pay for are being 
delivered.
  Mr. President, as we know managed care is becoming an increasing part 
of our health care system as it relates to Medicare beneficiaries. In 
1990, there were only 3.5 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries 
enrolled in a managed care plan. Today that number exceeds 9 percent. 
The importance and need for this legislation will only increase as more 
and more Medicare beneficiaries are encouraged to elect managed care 
over fee-for-service as the form of receiving their Medicare services.
  As a result, with the cosponsors, a broad bipartisan group of my 
colleagues, I am introducing this important legislation today. And I 
urge its adoption in the remaining days of this session, or in the next 
Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that copies of newspaper 
articles which I have cited from the Miami Herald and the New York 
Times regarding this issue be printed in the Record.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk this legislation, and 
request its immediate referral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be referred to the appropriate 
committee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Miami Herald, July 30, 1995]

               HMO's in the ER: A View From the Trenches

                         (By Paul R. Lindeman)

       I arrived for my 12-hour shift in the Emergency Department 
     at 7 p.m. As the departing physician and I went over the 
     cases of the current patients, I was told the woman in Room 2 
     was being transferred to a psychiatric facility. The patient 
     was pregnant, addicted to crack cocaine and had been assessed 
     as suicidal by a psychiatrist.
       An obstetrician was required to care for the patient during 
     her stay at the mental health facility. The only two groups 
     of practicing obstetricians who were on this woman's HMO 
     ``panel'' and on staff at this facility both refused to 
     accept this high-risk case. That left this unfortunate woman, 
     and our staff, caught in the ``never-never land'' of managed 
     care.
       When I left the Emergency Department at 7:30 the following 
     morning, she was still in Room 2. It took hospital 
     administrators and attorneys all day to arrange disposition, 
     and the patient was eventually transferred--at 6:30 that 
     evening.
       Managed-care health plans typically limit choice of doctors 
     and hospitals and attempt to closely monitor services 
     provided. Their goal is to curb unnecessary tests and 
     hospitalizations to keep costs down. In the case of for-
     profit managed-care companies, the additional purpose is 
     obvious. But what happens when managed care meets the 
     emergency room?
       Federal law requires a screening exam at emergency 
     facilities, but HMOs are not required to pay. By exploiting 
     this fact, managed care is able to shift costs onto 
     hospitals, doctors and policyholders, thereby ``saving'' 
     money.
       Consider the case of a 50-year-old male who awakes at 4 
     a.m. with chest pain and goes to the hospital 10 blocks 
     away--instead of his HMO hospital an extra 30 minutes away. 
     After examination and testing, it's determined that the 
     patient is not having a heart attack and that it's safe for 
     him to go home.
       His diagnosis is submitted on a claim form with a code for 
     ``gastritis.''
       His insurance company denies payment, stating that 
     ``gastritis'' is not an emergency. As a result, the hospital 
     and the company who employs the emergency department 
     physician both bill the patient.
       While this ``retrospectoscope'' is widely employed and 
     industry standard for denying payment, there are many other 
     ``savings'' techniques. For instance, many HMOs require 
     ``pre-authorization'' to treat a patient in the ER.
       Consider now a 60-year-old female who arrives at the 
     emergency room complaining also of chest pain. The triage 
     nurse examines the patient, obtaining a brief history and 
     vital signs. A call is placed to the insurance company and a 
     recorded message is obtained without specific instruction 
     regarding emergencies. The patient is treated but the 
     payment is denied. Reason: Authorization was never 
     obtained.
       Here's an alternate scenario, same patient, again waiting 
     for pre-authorization. (Noncritical patients often wait for 
     more than an hour.) This time ``the insurance company'' 
     answers the phone. Reading from a list, a series of questions 
     is asked, limited almost exclusively to obtaining recorded 
     numbers.

[[Page S11301]]

     Based on these numbers, the individual speaking for the 
     company determines that it is safe for the patient to be 
     transferred to its hospital. The emergency physician 
     disagrees. The patient stays and is admitted to the hospital.
       The HMO denies payment for the ER visit and the 24-hour 
     hospitalization, stating that the patient should have been 
     transferred. Again, the patient/policyholder, who pays a 
     monthly premium for his or her insurance, is billed for all 
     hospital and physician services.
       The representative for the insurance company who decides on 
     preauthorization can range from someone with no medical 
     background at all to another physician (albeit with a vested 
     economic incentive). Generally the level of expertise is 
     somewhere between this. Thus, the near-Orwellian scenario 
     frequently plays out whereby a doctor who has seen and 
     examined a patient is trying to convince a nurse, over the 
     telephone, that a patient is sick.
       Rudy Braccili Jr., business operations director for the 
     North Broward Hospital District, was quoted in The Herald as 
     saying. ``It's just a game they play to avoid paying, and 
     it's one of the ways they save money. They do not see the 
     realities of people who in the middle of the night come into 
     emergency rooms.'' He estimates that North District hospitals 
     have lost millions of dollars a year because of HMOs' 
     reluctance to pay bills.
       Part of the problem is that what managed-care organizations 
     are trying to do is often quite difficult: determine 
     prospectively which patients are truly deserving of 
     emergency-room care. Indeed, this may in fact be a Catch-22. 
     I know of no way to accurately discern acute appendicitis 
     from a ``tummy ache'' without a history and physical 
     examination. Furthermore, medicine does not always lend 
     itself to black and white. For instance, is a woman who 
     screams and gyrates hysterically as a result of a squirming 
     cockroach in her ear an emergency?
       Unfortunately, problems with HMOs in the ER go beyond cost 
     shifting and denial of payment. They often turn an otherwise 
     brief encounter into a harrowing ordeal. Another example from 
     ``the trenches'' is illustrative.
       Our patient this time is an 85-year-old woman with a hip 
     fracture. But instead of being admitted, her HMO mandates 
     that she be transferred across town to the emergency 
     department at another facility where they contract their 
     surgical hip repairs. The patient waits three hours for the 
     HMO ambulance service, which is ``backed up.''
       Consumers note: Had the patient not sold her Medicare 
     privileges to this HMO, she would have been admitted to our 
     hospital uneventually in a fraction of the time required to 
     complete her managed-care sojourn.
       No matter how well trained or talented the emergency 
     physician, there are also times when she or he requires the 
     urgent services of a consultant to provide definitive care 
     for a patient (for instance, vascular and orthopedic surgeons 
     to repair a severely traumatized limb). In these cases, 
     delays in care due to managed-care bureaucracy can become a 
     legitimate hazard to the patient.
       Dr. Charlotte S. Yeh, chief of emergency medicine at the 
     New England Medical Center, has said, ``In some ways, it's 
     less frustrating for us to take care of homeless people than 
     HMO members. At least we can do what we think is right for 
     them, as opposed to trying to convince an HMO over the phone 
     of what's the right thing to do.''
       In my experience that is not an exaggeration. In the 
     emergency department, the homeless--while certainly deserving 
     of medical care--often receive better and more prompt care 
     than the HMO policyholder.
       Conventional political wisdom holds that health-care reform 
     is dead, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. 
     Reform has been taking place at breakneck speed entirely 
     independent of Washington. In the last five to 10 years, 
     managed-care companies and the private sector have changed 
     profoundly the manner in which many Americans now receive 
     their health care.
       As for-profit managed care has usurped decision-making 
     authority from physicians, so have they also diverted funds 
     from hospitals, physicians and policyholders to their own 
     CEOs and stockholders. Last year, HMO profits grew by more 
     than 15 percent, with the four largest HMOs each reporting 
     more than $1 billion in profits. What Democrats and 
     Republicans alike fail to appreciate is that the allegiance 
     of managed care is to neither the patient nor the reduction 
     of the federal deficit, but to its CEOs and stockholders.
       So next time you see one of those warm and fuzzy television 
     commercials for an HMO that promises the world, remember 
     this: ``choose your own doctor'' really means choose your own 
     doctor from our list. And as for the claim ``no premiums, no 
     deductibles, no copayment'' (health insurance for free?), you 
     may as well pencil in: ``no doctor.'' At least, not one 
     likely to get up in the middle of the night.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 28, 1995]

                   The Ticket to Better Managed Care

                        (By Michael A. Stocker)

       The central question about the future of health care goes 
     beyond the outcome of the debate over Medicare and Medicaid: 
     Can health maintenance organizations and other managed care 
     plans truly provide low-cost and high-quality health care?
       Like many people, I am dismayed at the way some managed 
     care organization work. At times, managed care is a euphemism 
     for cost-cutting that puts the patient second. Because of the 
     industry's financial success, too few organizations are 
     paying attention to people's rising worries about how they 
     will fare in H.M.O.'s that restrict access to specific 
     doctors and hospitals.
       H.M.O.'s can no longer expect to prosper simply because 
     they are less expensive than traditional fee-for-service 
     medical care. They must keep proving that their goal, first 
     and foremost, is to provide high-quality service in ways that 
     can be proved and readily understood. Not every health plan 
     will succeed, but there are some avenues that every health 
     plan executive should follow.
       Learning about a good health plan by word of mouth is 
     insufficient. The industry needs to provide information that 
     enables people to compare plans and chose intelligently among 
     them when they are not sick.
       In my view, in New York State that means establishing a 
     public-private system that compares the performances of 
     competing plans and requires all plans to participate. The 
     criteria might include the time it takes to get problems 
     solved properly and to see an appropriate doctor when one 
     needs to do so.
       Like the rest of the medical profession, H.M.O.'s need to 
     improve the way they measure the outcome of their treatments. 
     While the art of diagnosis is well-developed, often treatment 
     involves more uncertainty. In New York, the Department of 
     Health has been releasing risk-adjusted mortality data about 
     common types of heart surgery. However uneasy doctors are 
     about such findings, the data have pointed out real 
     differences in the quality of care among doctors and 
     hospitals. We need more information like this. Most 
     companies are not investing enough money in developing and 
     operating patient-information banks. Keeping inferior 
     records is self-defeating.
       Most people thing a high-quality health plan is one that 
     lets them choose their doctors. While such a choice is 
     important, it is not the whole story. Some plans that limit 
     access to physicians and hospitals can be very high in 
     quality. But they really have to prove it.
       H.M.O's must go out of their way to involve patients in 
     their own care. Studies show that when patients know more 
     about their alternatives, and participate with their doctors 
     in decision-making, the result is not only happier but also 
     healthier patients, and even cost savings.
       Legislation should be introduced in Albany that lays down a 
     number of requirements: First, intelligible full-disclosure 
     literature is imperative. Health plans must make clear the 
     guidelines they want their doctors to follow when treating 
     patients. The plans should disclose the treatments not 
     covered. Second, the plans should full disclose their payment 
     to physicians, including bonuses related to cost containment 
     and quality of care.
       Third, health plans should pay for emergency room coverage 
     for consumers who believe they have a legitimate emergency, 
     even if it turns out they do not. Fourth, patients should be 
     aware of the drugs that managed care plans allow doctors to 
     prescribe. They should also know how to appeal decisions 
     about drugs.
       In short, health plans have to stop ignoring the public's 
     fears and acting so much like cold insurance companies. They 
     have to start listening more like doctors.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, July 9, 1995]

          H.M.O.'s Refusing Emergency Claims, Hospitals Assert


                        two missions in conflict

   ``Managed Care'' Groups Insist They Must Limit Costs--Doctors Are 
                               Frustrated

                            (By Robert Pear)

       Washington, July 8.--As enrollment in health maintenance 
     organizations soars, hospitals across the country report that 
     H.M.O.'s are increasingly denying claims for care provided in 
     hospital emergency rooms.
       Such denials create obstacles to emergency care for H.M.O. 
     patients and can leave them responsible for thousands of 
     dollars in medical bills. The denials also frustrate 
     emergency room doctors, who say the H.M.O. practices 
     discourage patients from seeking urgently needed care. But 
     for their part, H.M.O.'s say their costs would run out of 
     control if they allowed patients unlimited access to hospital 
     emergency rooms.
       How H.M.O.'s handle medical emergencies is an issue of 
     immense importance, given recent trends. Enrollment in 
     H.M.O.'s doubled in the last eight years, to 41 million in 
     1994, partly because employers encouraged their use as a way 
     to help control costs.
       In addition, Republicans and many Democrats in Congress say 
     they want to increase the use of H.M.O.'s because they 
     believe that such prepaid health plans will slow the growth 
     of Medicare and Medicaid, the programs for the elderly and 
     the poor, which serve 73 million people at a Federal cost of 
     $267 billion this year.
       Under Federal law, a hospital must provide ``an appropriate 
     medical screening examination'' to any patient who requests 
     care in its emergency room. The hospital must also provide 
     any treatment needed to stabilize the patient's condition.
       Dr. Toni A. Mitchell, director of emergency care at Tampa 
     General Hospital in Florida, said: ``I am obligated to 
     provide the care, but the H.M.O. is not obligated to pay for 
     it. This is a new type of cost-shifting, a way for H.M.O.'s 
     to shift costs to patients, physicians and hospitals.''
       Most H.M.O.'s promise to cover emergency medical services, 
     but there is no standard

[[Page S11302]]

     definition of the term. H.M.O.'s can define it narrowly and 
     typically reserve the right to deny payment if they conclude, 
     in retrospect, that the conditions treated were not 
     emergencies. Hospitals say H.M.O.'s often refuse to pay for 
     their members in such cases, even if H.M.O. doctors sent the 
     patients to the hospital emergency rooms. Hospitals then 
     often seek payment from the patient.
       Dr. Stephan G. Lynn, director of emergency medicine at St. 
     Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan, said: ``We are 
     getting more and more refusals by H.M.O.'s to pay for care in 
     the emergency room. The problem is increasing as managed care 
     becomes a more important source of reimbursement. Managed 
     care is relatively new in New York City, but it's growing 
     rapidly.''
       H.M.O.'s emphasize regular preventive care, supervised by a 
     doctor who coordinates all the medical services that a 
     patient may need. The organizations try to reduce costs by 
     redirecting patients from hospitals to less expensive sites 
     like clinics and doctors' offices.
       The disputes over specific cases reflect a larger clash of 
     missions and cultures. An H.M.O. is the ultimate form of 
     ``managed care,'' but emergencies are, by their very nature, 
     unexpected and therefore difficult to manage. Doctors in 
     H.M.O.'s carefully weigh the need for expensive tests or 
     treatments, but in an emergency room, doctors tend to do 
     whatever they can to meet the patient's immediate needs.
       Each H.M.O. seems to have its own way of handling 
     emergencies. Large plans like Kaiser Permanente provide a 
     full range of emergency services around the clock at their 
     own clinics and hospitals. Some H.M.O.'s have nurses to 
     advise patients over the telephone. Some H.M.O. doctors take 
     phone calls from patients at night. Some leave messages on 
     phone answering machines, telling patients to go to hospital 
     emergency rooms if they cannot wait for the doctors' office 
     to reopen.
       At the United Healthcare Corporation, which runs 21 
     H.M.O.'s serving 3.9 million people, ``It's up to the 
     physician to decide how to provide 24-hour coverage,'' says 
     Dr. Lee N. Newcomer, chief medical officer of the 
     Minneapolis-based company.
       George C. Halvorson, chairman of the Group Health 
     Association of America, a trade group for H.M.O.'s, said he 
     was not aware of any problems with emergency care. ``This is 
     totally alien to me,'' said Mr. Halvorson, who is also 
     president of Health-Partners, an H.M.O. in Minneapolis. 
     Donald B. White, a spokesman for the association said, ``We 
     just don't have data on emergency services and how they're 
     handled by different H.M.O.'s.''
       About 3.4 million of the nation's 37 million Medicare 
     beneficiaries are in H.M.O.'s. Dr. Rodney C. Armstead, 
     director of managed care at the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, said the Government had received many 
     complaints about access to emergency services in such plans. 
     He recently sent letters to the 164 H.M.O.'s with Medicare 
     contracts, reminding them of their obligations to provide 
     emergency care.
       Alan G. Raymond, vice president of the Harvard Community 
     Health Plan, based in Brookline, Mass., said, ``Employers are 
     putting pressure on H.M.O.'s to reduce inappropriate use of 
     emergency services because such care is costly and episodic 
     and does not fit well with the coordinated care that H.M.O.'s 
     try to provide.''
       Dr. Charlotte S. Yeh, chief of emergency medicine at the 
     New England Medical Center, a teaching hospital in Boston, 
     said: ``H.M.O.'s are excellent at preventive care, regular 
     routine care. But they have not been able to cope with the 
     very unpredictable, unscheduled nature of emergency care. 
     They often insist that their members get approval before 
     going to a hospital emergency department. Getting prior 
     authorization may delay care.
       ``In some ways, it's less frustrating for us to take care 
     of homeless people than H.M.O. members. At least, we can do 
     what we think is right for them, as opposed to trying to 
     convince an H.M.O. over the phone of what's the right thing 
     to do.''
       Dr. Gary P. Young, chairman of the emergency department of 
     Highland Hospital in Oakland, Calif., said H.M.O.'s often 
     directed emergency room doctors to release patients or 
     transfer them to other hospitals before it was safe to do so. 
     ``This is happening every day,'' he said.
       The PruCare H.M.O. in the Dallas-Forth area, run by the 
     Prudential Insurance Company of America, promises ``rock 
     solid health overage,'' but the fine print of its members' 
     handbook says, ``Failure to contact the primary care 
     physician prior to emergency treatment may result in denial 
     of payment.''
       Typically, in an H.M.O., a family doctor or an internist 
     managing a patient's care serves as ``gatekeeper,'' 
     authorizing the use of specialists like cardiologists and 
     orthopedic surgeons. The H.M.O.'s send large numbers of 
     patients to selected doctors and hospitals; in return, they 
     receive discounts on fees. But emergencies are not limited to 
     times and places convenient to an H.M.O.'s list of doctors 
     and hospitals.
       H.M.O.'s say they charge lower premiums than traditional 
     insurance companies because they are more efficient. But 
     emergency room doctors say that many H.M.O.'s skimp on 
     specialty care and rely on hospital emergency rooms to 
     provide such services, especially at night and on weekends.
       Dr. David S. Davis, who works in the emergency department 
     at North Arundel Hospital in Glen Burnie, Md., said: 
     ``H.M.O.'s don't have to sign up enough doctors as long as 
     they have the emergency room as a safety net. The emergency 
     room is a backup for the H.M.O. in all its operations.'' 
     Under Maryland law, he noted, an H.M.O. must have a system to 
     provide members with access to doctors at all hours, but 
     it can meet this obligation by sending patients to 
     hospital emergency rooms.
       To illustrate the problem, doctors offer this example: A 
     57-year-old man wakes up in the middle of the night with 
     chest pains. A hospital affiliated with his H.M.O. is 50 
     minutes away, so he goes instead to a hospital just 10 blocks 
     from his home. An emergency room doctor orders several common 
     but expensive tests to determine if a heart attack has 
     occurred.
       The essence of the emergency physician's art is the ability 
     to identify the cause of such symptoms in a patient whom the 
     doctor has never seen. The cause could be a heart attack. But 
     it could also be indigestion, heartburn, stomach ulcers, 
     anxiety, a panic attack, a pulled muscle or any of a number 
     of other conditions.
       If the diagnostic examination and tests had not been 
     performed, the hospital and the emergency room doctors could 
     have been cited for violating Federal law.
       But in such situations, H.M.O.'s often refuse to pay the 
     hospital, on the ground that the hospital had no contract 
     with the H.M.O., the chest pain did not threaten the 
     patient's life or the patient did not get authorization to 
     use a hospital outside the H.M.O. network.
       Representative Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, 
     said he would soon introduce a bill to help solve these 
     problems. The bill would require H.M.O.'s to pay for 
     emergency medical services and would establish a uniform 
     definition of emergency based on the judgment of ``a prudent 
     lay person.'' The bill would prohibit H.M.O.'s from requiring 
     prior authorization for emergency services. A health plan 
     could be fined $10,000 for each violation and $1 million for 
     a pattern of repeated violations.
       The American College of Emergency Physicians, which 
     represents more than 15,000 doctors, has been urging Congress 
     to adopt such changes and supports the legislation.
       When H.M.O.'s deny claims filed on behalf of Medicare 
     beneficiaries, the patients have a right to appeal. The 
     appeals are heard by a private consulting concern, the 
     Network Design Group of Pittsford, N.Y., which acts as agent 
     for the Government. The appeals total 300 to 400 a month, and 
     David A. Richardson, president of the company, said that a 
     surprisingly large proportion--about half of all Medicare 
     appeals--involved disagreements over emergencies or other 
     urgent medical problems.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:

  S. 2122. A bill to establish the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort 
Meigs, and Fort Miamis National Historical Site in the State of Ohio; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                         THE FALLEN TIMBERS ACT

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort Meigs, and Fort Miamis 
as national historic sites.
  Mr. President, the people of northwest Ohio are committed to 
preserving the historic heritage of the United States and the State of 
Ohio, as well as that of their own community.
  The truly national significance of the Battle of Fallen Timbers and 
Fort Meigs have been acknowledged already. In 1960, Fallen Timbers was 
designated as a National Historic Landmark. In 1969, Fort Meigs 
received this designation.
  The Battle of Fallen Timbers is acknowledged by the National Park 
Service as a culminating event in the history of the struggle for 
dominance in the old Northwest Territory.
  Fort Meigs is recognized by the National Park Service as the zenith 
of the British advance in the west as well as the maximum effort by 
Native forces under the Shawnee, Tecumseh, during the War of 1812.
  Fort Miamis, which was attacked twice without success by British 
troops, led by Gen. Henry Proctor, in the spring of 1813, is listed on 
the National Register of Historic Places.
  Recently, the National Park Service completed a special resource 
study examining the proposed national historic site designation and the 
suitability of these sites for inclusion in the National Park System.
  The Park Service concluded that these sites were suitable for 
inclusion in the National Park System--with non-Federal management and 
National Park Service assistance. The bill I am introducing today would 
act on that recommendation.

  My legislation will accomplish the following:
  Recognize and preserve the 185-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield site;

[[Page S11303]]

  Formalize the linkage between the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and 
Monument to Fort Meigs and Fort Miamis;
  Preserve and interpret U.S. military history and native American 
culture during the period from 1794 through 1813; and,
  Provide technical assistance to the State of Ohio as well as 
interested community and historical groups in the development and 
implementation of programming and interpretation of the three sites.
  However, my legislation will not require the Federal Government to 
provide direct funding to these three sites. That responsibility 
remains with--and is welcomed by--the many individuals, community 
groups, elected officials, and others who deserve recognition for their 
many hours of hard work dedicated to this issue.
  Mr. President, we have entered an era where the responsibility and 
the drive behind the management, programming, and--in many cases--the 
funding for historic preservation is the responsibility of local 
community groups, local elected officials, and local business 
communities.
  This legislation to designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort 
Meigs, and Fort Miamis as national historic sites represents just such 
an effort. In my opinion, it is long overdue.
  Mr. President, it's time to grant these truly historic areas the 
measure of respect and recognition they deserve. I agree with the 
National Park Service--and the people of Ohio--on this issue. That is 
why I am proposing this important legislation today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Cohen, 
        Mr. Domenici, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Gregg, 
        Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. D'Amato, Mrs. Frahm, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. 
        Thomas, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2123. A bill to require the calculation of Federal-aid highway 
apportionments and allocations for fiscal year 1997 to be determined so 
that States experience no net effect from a credit to the highway trust 
fund made in correction of an accounting error made in fiscal year 
1994, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


                the highway funding fairness act of 1996

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the cosponsors of our legislation 
include the following Senators, in addition to myself and Senator 
Bingaman: Senator Akaka from Hawaii, Senator Cohen, Senator D'Amato, 
Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici, Senator Frahm, Senator Gregg, Senator 
Grassley, Senator Harkin, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kassebaum, Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Senator Leahy, Senator Lieberman, Senator 
Moynihan, Senator Pressler, and Senator Thomas.
  I ask unanimous consent that all those Senators be listed as original 
cosponsors of our legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, essentially, this is a bipartisan bill 
to correct a bureaucratic, administrative error that has penalized 28 
States under the highway program. It is that simple. This bill is 
identical to the amendment I offered to the Transportation 
appropriations bill on July 31. It is the same bill. Although that 
amendment received the support of 57 Senators--57 Senators voted in 
favor of it--the conference committee dropped the issue from the 
conference report. That is why Senator Bingaman, myself, and my 
colleagues are back here today. Let me briefly explain this bill.
  In 1994, the Treasury delayed crediting the highway trust fund with 
approximately $1.6 billion in revenues collected from the Federal 
gasoline tax. It was an error. They made a mistake. While the money was 
later eventually deposited into the highway trust fund, this delay has 
had very serious ramifications on all of our States.
  As most of my colleagues know, the formulas for distributing Federal 
highway funds to the States were set in place in 1991 in the highway 
bill, otherwise known as ISTEA. Those formulas govern the distribution 
of funds for 6 years through September 30 of next year. That is the 
formula. It is in place. It is in the law for distributing allocations 
of highway funds among our States.
  Of our many categories of highway funding, there is a direct 
correlation between the amount of money a State pays into the highway 
trust fund and the amount of money a State subsequently receives. If 
the revenue the States paid to the highway trust fund are not correctly 
credited to the appropriate accounts, the wrong amount of funds is 
subsequently distributed to the individual States. That is what 
happened.
  When the Treasury made this mistake and delayed crediting $1.6 
billion to the highway trust fund, the amount of money distributed to 
the States under one category, called 90 percent of payments category, 
was skewed, simply because of a bureaucratic delay. Pure and simple 
bureaucratic delay, mistake.
  As a consequence, some States were initially shortchanged in 1996 of 
their distributions, and on this coming Tuesday, October 1, the error 
will be compounded. Some States will receive much more than the 
original highway bill formula called for; others will receive much 
less. A lot of money is at stake.
  In the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations conference 
report, highway spending was set at $18 billion. That is $450 million 
more than last year, a record amount for the highway program. One would 
think that such an increase would mean that each State will receive an 
increase in available funds. Not so. Just the opposite has happened. 
Even with that large increase in total funds allocated, 28 States will 
see a decrease in their highway apportionments.
  Some States will lose up to 17 percent. Others will see an increase 
of up to 30 percent. A good part of these fluctuations is due to the 
Treasury Department error, obviously unfair.
  Our bill fixes this, puts us right back to the status quo, to the 
formula prescribed allocations. It requires the Department of 
Transportation use the correct numbers in fiscal year 1997 when 
calculating the distribution of funds to States under ISTEA, the 
highway bill.
  It also requires the Department of Transportation to correct the 
error in fiscal year 1996. So the distributions errors made in 1996, as 
well as the errors that will be made, unless corrected, in 1997, will 
both be corrected. In other words, I want to completely correct the 
situation. No State should gain or lose Federal highway funds based 
only on a bureaucratic error at the Department of Treasury.
  Now that we understand the tremendous financial impact of this error, 
now that it is discovered, I don't think it should be compounded and 
continued in the future.
  Let me stress to my colleagues that this is not--I repeat, is not--an 
ISTEA formula change. This is not a legislative change to change the 
formula that Congress set back in 1991. This has nothing to do with the 
allocation that was set by legislation back in 1991. In fact, this bill 
will ensure that all States receive the amount of money originally 
authorized under ISTEA, no more, no less.
  Furthermore, this is not a donor State versus donee State funding 
issue, as some would say. It is not that at all. I am disappointed that 
some continue to characterize the situation in those terms. Some have 
even said that States interested in fixing the error are being greedy, 
a few believe. How can a State who seeks to correct an acknowledged 
error be called greedy? We are trying put the situation back to where 
it was as we legislated and intended it to be. This is truly a case of 
correcting an honest bureaucratic mistake. Both the Departments of 
Treasury and Transportation admit that the error was made.
  If some States are not happy with the ISTEA formulas adopted in 1991, 
I say so be it. There is ample opportunity to have that debate next 
year when Congress takes up the highway bill and deals with formula 
allocations. It is going to be a big fight, but that is where the fight 
should be, Madam President. We all know that. It should be in the 
context of the highway bill. But to use a bureaucratic error as a 
backdoor way to change the formulas,

[[Page S11304]]

I think, is underhanded and is not the way the Senate--the whole 
Congress, for that matter--ought to do business.
  We are introducing this legislation before the end of the 104th 
Congress. I want to alert my colleagues that many of us feel that this 
Treasury error is of such magnitude and of such importance that it must 
be addressed in the future.
  I thank my good friend, Senator Bingaman, from New Mexico, for his 
hard work and the welcome support of other Senators. We are helping get 
this error corrected.
  I thank you, Madam President, for your hopeful help, too, as I see 
your colleague is a cosponsor. It is my hope that the other Senator 
from Maine will see the wisdom of his efforts as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I send the bill to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent it be printed in the Record and referred to the 
appropriate committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                                S. 2123

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Funding Fairness Act 
     of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. CALCULATION OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY APPORTIONMENTS AND 
                   ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), for 
     fiscal year 1997, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     determine the Federal-aid highway apportionments and 
     allocations to a State without regard to the approximately 
     $1,596,000,000 credit to the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) of estimated taxes paid by States 
     that was made by the Secretary of the Treasury for fiscal 
     year 1995 in correction of an accounting error made in fiscal 
     year 1994.
       (b) Adjustments for Effects in 1996.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall, for each State--
       (1) determine whether the State would have been apportioned 
     and allocated an increased or decreased amount for Federal-
     aid highways for fiscal year 1996 if the accounting error 
     referred to in subsection (a) had not been made (which 
     determination shall take into account the effects of section 
     1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 1921)); and
       (2) after apportionments and allocations are determined in 
     accordance with subsection (a)--
       (A) adjust the amount apportioned and allocated to the 
     State for Federal-aid highways for fiscal year 1997 by the 
     amount of the increase or decrease; and
       (B) adjust accordingly the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways distributed to the State under section 
     310 of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997.
       (c) No Effect on 1996 Distributions.--Nothing in this 
     section shall affect any apportionment, allocation, or 
     distribution of obligation limitation, or reduction thereof, 
     to a State for Federal-aid highways for fiscal year 1996.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     September 30, 1996.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me speak briefly about a bill 
entitled the ``Highway Funding Fairness Act'' that Senator Baucus is 
introducing today, and which several of us are cosponsoring, to correct 
a serious problem in the calculation of fiscal year 1997 Federal-aid 
highway fund apportionments and allocations. It is our intention to use 
whatever vehicles are available, including the omnibus appropriations 
bill, to try to correct an error that exists in the transportation 
appropriations bill that was earlier passed in this body and sent to 
the President.
  Senator Baucus will describe in more detail the technical mistake 
that was made by the Department of Treasury in 1994, which resulted in 
faulty projections for this fiscal year. It is my understanding that 
the Department of Transportation has previously been instructed and 
empowered by the Office of Management and Budget to apportion highway 
funds on the basis of this error being corrected. And, in fact, 
baseline budget projections for the Department of Transportation 
reflect this agreement.
  Somewhere between then and now, signals have changed and States are 
about to get either unfairly rewarded or unfairly punished because of a 
flawed apportionment formula.
  Many of us in this Chamber thought that the problem had been fixed 
when we passed Senator Baucus' amendment as part of the fiscal year 
1997 Transportation appropriations bill. This amendment, like the bill 
we are introducing today, would have corrected the accounting error.
  When the conference report emerged, however, the amendment that would 
have fixed the problem had been dropped. Unfortunately, when we voted 
on this issue last Wednesday night, very few Senators were adequately 
informed that the correcting amendment which Senator Baucus had 
previously offered was no longer included and that many of their States 
would be taking serious, unexpected cuts in spending authority for 
highway projects.
  I have asked the President, as have many other Senators, to try to 
fix this by working with the Department of Transportation to apportion 
funds based on their original baseline projections, as understood by 
the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget 
Office, or if the President determines that is not possible, to then 
veto the legislation and return it to the Congress so we can fix the 
problem. I believe our States are not well-served by this legislation. 
We must use all opportunities available to call attention to this error 
and correct it before the Congress adjourns.
  What is even more disturbing in assessing the impact of the error is 
that overall highway spending will increase in fiscal year 1997 to $18 
billion, $455 million over current levels, the highest amount in 
history. It is not reasonable for States like my own, New Mexico, to be 
taking a $20 million reduction in highway funds when the overall 
accounts are being increased to their highest levels.
  It is not acceptable to me or to the residents of my State of New 
Mexico to accept outcomes that are the result of accounting errors.
  Let me list the funding reductions that 28 States are about to 
receive in fiscal year 1997 highway fund distributions unless we are 
able to correct this problem before we leave town.
  The States that are losers under the bill as it now stands would be: 
Alaska, $22 million less than the current year; Colorado, $1.2 million 
less; Connecticut, $37 million less; Delaware, $8 million less; Hawaii, 
$13 million less; Idaho, $7 million less; Illinois, $71 million less; 
Iowa, $21 million less; Kansas, $22 million less; Maine, $7 million 
less; Maryland, $3 million less; Massachusetts, $73 million less; 
Minnesota, $32 million less; Montana, $21 million less; Nebraska, $15 
million less; New Hampshire, $9 million; New Jersey, $44 million; my 
own State, as I have indicated, $20 million less; New York, 
$111 million less than current year funding; North Dakota, $11 million 
less; Ohio, $19 million less; Rhode Island, $14 million less; South 
Dakota, $12 million less; Utah, $4 million less; Vermont, $8 million 
less; Washington State, $33 million less; West Virginia, $17 million 
less; and Wyoming, $12 million less.

  Madam President, in contrast, there are some very large winners 
because of this accounting error. Texas, for example, is receiving a 
$183 million increase in next year's funding, which is about a 19 
percent increase over the current year. Arizona, which borders my home 
State of New Mexico, will receive a 24 percent increase. California 
will receive an additional $122 million over current year funding.
  My home State's total highway funds will be cut by 12 percent unless 
we can correct the error that the amendment of Senator Baucus seeks to 
correct. In our State, we have six highway department districts that 
will have to shoulder the burden of these cuts, resulting in each of 
those districts receiving something around $3 or $4 million less than 
in the current year.
  Albuquerque, and that portion of my State, will be hit harder than 
other regions because it generally receives more Federal highway funds 
than other regions. Our State and Federal funding contributions now 
hardly extend far enough to manage maintenance and upgrade of existing 
highways, not to mention initiate new projects. This impact will most 
likely mean that few, if any, such new projects will be initiated.
  My real concern, Madam President--and I will conclude with this--my 
real concern is that the impact of this accounting error is that my 
State of New Mexico will proceed, as will all the

[[Page S11305]]

other States I have mentioned, into the debates on the reauthorization 
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) 
legislation in a disadvantaged position. There are going to be lots of 
discussions, debate, and back and forth negotiations about highway 
funding formulas. This is going to severely harm the 28 States that are 
going to have to enter those discussions with a lower baseline of 
funding, a baseline of funding that should not have ever occurred.
  The bottom line in all of this is that we are allowing an accounting 
error to drive our legislative outcome, rather than the collective 
intent of the Senate. This is unacceptable. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to work with us in correcting this problem and to support 
Senator Baucus' lead on this. We have time before we leave town to 
legislatively address the issue, particularly when we have the 
opportunity to amend the omnibus appropriations bill, which will be 
coming to the floor in the next few days.
  Madam President, we were not sent here to legislate based on 
accounting errors. I hope we can correct this one.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my good friend, Senator 
Bingaman, from New Mexico, for his statement. The words he spoke are 
true. He very well characterized the nature of this problem. I 
appreciate his assistance.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues from Montana and 
New Mexico in introducing a bill that will correct an accounting error 
made by the Treasury Department in calculating highway allocations. The 
Highway Funding Fairness Act of 1996 does not change any formulas 
established in ISTEA, it does not affect any existing donor-donee 
relationship.
  Simply put, the bill merely corrects the fact that the Department of 
the Treasury misinterpreted revenue reports because these reports were 
put in a new format. This error is acknowledged by the Treasury 
Department and the Federal Highway Administration. The unfortunate 
result is that the Treasury Department grossly overstated the amount of 
gas tax receipts to the highway trust fund during 1994. With the 
passage of this bill, States will receive the funding that they are 
entitled to --no more, no less.
  This amendment will not deny any state the full 90 percent of 
payments that they are due through the Federal Aid Highway Formula 
Program. What this amendment will do is set these payments at 90 
percent of what the States actually paid, rather than 90 percent of the 
Treasury's erroneous estimates.
  Mr. President, this body is familiar with the problem this bill seeks 
to address. During consideration of the Transportation appropriations 
bill, the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, offered an amendment to 
correct the mistake. This bill is identical to that amendment. After 
significant discussion, the Senate adopted the provision directing 
first that the Treasury and Transportation Departments ensure that 
there was indeed an accounting error, a mistake, and second, that 
Treasury would be directed to correct the error.
  Again, Mr. President, the Senate adopted that amendment. 
Unfortunately, it was dropped in conference. And here we are again, 
faced with the prospect that, without a correction, States would 
receive the wrong highway funding levels to which they are entitled.
  The logic behind the Highway Funding Fairness Act of 1996 is simple, 
it is fair. Congress, in 1991, passed the landmark ISTEA law, 
containing the highway funding formulas. Congress should ensure that 
those formulas are adhered to when the administration calculates 
States' highway funds. This bill will correct the bureaucratic error 
and ensure that States receive the accurate amounts calculated under 
the highway funding formula.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the bill, and I look 
forward to its swift passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KEMPTHORNE:
  S. 2124. A bill to provide for an offer to transfer to the Secretary 
of the Army of certain property at the Navy Annex, Arlington, VA; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


        the arlington national cemetery enhancement act of 1996

 Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing 
legislation that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer 31 
acres to the Arlington National Cemetery once he determines this 
property is no longer needed by the Department of Defense. This land is 
critical to the future tribute of our national heroes.
  I believe all members of this body would agree that it is important 
to honor the men and women who have bravely fought to protect our 
liberty. Arlington National Cemetery has served the people proudly as 
one of the ways our Nation pays respect to our national heroes. 
Unfortunately, the space reserved for Arlington National Cemetery is 
limited. The additional property provided by this legislation would 
allow our Nation to honor our future champions of freedom for years to 
come.
  I am proud to introduce this legislation which I encourage the U.S. 
Senate to overwhelmingly support. This legislation is not only a 
tribute to our fallen heroes but to the families and friends who have 
lost these valiant men and women.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2124

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Arlington National Cemetery 
     Enhancement Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR OFFER OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN PROPERTY 
                   AT THE NAVY ANNEX, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA.

       (A) Offer.--Upon the determination of the Secretary of 
     Defense under subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall 
     offer to transfer to the Secretary of the Army administrative 
     jurisdiction over a parcel of real property consisting of 
     approximately 31 acres located in Arlington, Virginia, and 
     known as the Navy Annex/Federal Building Number 2. The 
     Secretary of defense shall make the offer as soon as 
     practicable after the date of the determination.
       (b) Determination.--The Secretary of Defense shall make the 
     offer required under subsection (a) upon a determination by 
     the Secretary that the Department of Defense no longer 
     requires the property referred to in that subsection for the 
     purposes for which such property is used as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Requirements Relating to Transfer.--(1)(A) If the 
     Secretary of Defense transfers jurisdiction over the property 
     referred to in subsection (a) pursuant to the offer under 
     that subsection, the transfer shall be without reimbursement.
       (B) The Secretary of the Army shall bear any costs 
     associated with such transfer of property, including costs of 
     a survey of the property and costs of compliance with 
     environmental laws with respect to the property.
       (2) The Secretary of the Army shall utilize the property as 
     part of the Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT:
  S. 2125. A bill to provide a sentence of death for certain 
importations of significant quantities of controlled substances; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


              the drug importer death penalty act of 1996

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2125

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Importer Death Penalty 
     Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERNATIONAL DRUG 
                   TRAFFICKING.

       Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     court shall sentence a person convicted of a violation of 
     subsection (a), consisting of bringing into the United States 
     a mixture or substance--
       ``(A) which is described in subsection (b)(1); and
       ``(B) in an amount the Attorney General by rule has 
     determined is equal to 100 usual dosage amounts of such 
     mixture or substance;

     to imprisonment for life without possibility of release. If 
     the defendant has violated this subsection on more than one 
     occasion and

[[Page S11306]]

     the requirements of chapter 228 of title 18, United States 
     Code, are satisfied, the court shall sentence the defendant 
     to death.
       ``(2) The maximum fine that otherwise may be imposed, but 
     for this subsection, shall not be reduced by operation of 
     this subsection.''

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE.

       (a) Inclusion of Offense.--Section 3591(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or'' at the end of paragraph (2); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) an offense described in section 1010(e)(1) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act;''
       (b) Additional Aggravating Factor.--Section 3592(d) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) Second Importation Offense.--The offense consisted of 
     a second or subsequent violation of section 1010(a) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act consisting of 
     bringing a controlled substance into the United States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 2127. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide for legal accountability for sweatshop conditions in the 
garment industry, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


                      the stop the sweatshops act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Stop the 
Sweatshops Act. This needed legislation attacks the exploitation of 
garment industry workers by unscrupulous clothing manufacturers. By 
making clothing manufacturers liable for sweatshop practices by 
contractors, the bill will require manufacturers to exert their 
considerable economic power to ensure fair treatment of garment 
workers.
  Sweatshops continue to plague the garment industry. Of the 22,000 
manufacturers of clothing and accessories in the United States, more 
than half are paying wages substantially below the minimum wage, and a 
third are exposing their workers to serious safety and health risks.
  Sweatshops run by unscrupulous contractors have a long and sordid 
history in this country. In 1911, a tragic fire at the Triangle 
Shirtwaist Co. on Manhattan's Lower East Side killed 146 young 
immigrant women, who suffocated or burned to death because the exits 
had been locked or blocked.
  Eighty-five years later, conditions too often have not improved. In 
August 1996, four Brooklyn garment factories were closed and their 
owners arrested for operating sweatshops. Among the fire code 
violations were locked exit doors, obstructed aisles, and violations of 
sprinkler system requirements. In addition, the contractors maintained 
two sets of accounting records, one showing that workers were being 
paid as little as $2.67 per hour--far less than the minimum wage. The 
workers, all Asian immigrants, were making clothes for K-Mart. A 
similar sweatshop scandal came to light last spring with respect to 
clothing made for Wal-Mart stores.
  In August 1995, Federal investigators raided a sewing factory outside 
Los Angeles. In a compound surrounded by barbed wire, agents found 
dozens of Thai and Mexican immigrant women working 20-hour days for as 
little as $1 per hour. The women were held captive at their sewing 
tables by guards who threatened them if they tried to escape.
  As these examples make clear, current law is not adequate to prevent 
such abuses. The 800 investigators of the Department of Labor who 
monitor compliance with wage and hour laws cannot do the job alone. 
Manufacturers have the economic muscle and market power to end these 
abuses. Instead, under the current system, the market power works in 
the wrong direction--it encourages contractors to inflict sweatshop 
conditions on employees, rather than pay fair wages and maintain proper 
working conditions.
  Many law-abiding manufacturers already recognize the need to stamp 
out sweatshops in the United States. But voluntary codes of conduct and 
monitoring programs cannot eradicate the problem. K-Mart requires its 
garment contractors to identify all subcontractors they employ and make 
regular and surprise inspections of manufacturing operations. But this 
requirement did not prevent the fire code violations, wage violations, 
and other illegal practices of the contractors arrested in Brooklyn 
this summer.
  The most effective way to enlist manufacturers in the battle against 
sweatshops is to make them liable along with their contractors for 
violations of the law. Manufacturers who know they will face liability 
will take the steps necessary to ensure that their contractors comply 
with applicable laws.
  Our Stop the Sweatshops Act does just that. It amends the Fair Labor 
Standards Act to make manufacturers in the garment industry liable with 
contractors for violations of these laws.
  Manufacturers will be liable for injunctive relief and civil 
penalties assessed against a contractor found to have broken the law. 
They will also be liable for back pay owed to employees for such 
violations. Manufacturers will be liable only for violations committed 
on work done for that manufacturer.
  The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Labor to assess a civil 
penalty of up to $1,000 for each employee in cases where contractors 
fail to keep required payroll records. If the records are fraudulent, 
the Secretary can assess penalties up to $10,000 for the first offense 
and $15,000 for further offenses. These penalties will give employers 
an incentive to keep proper records, and will punish contractors who 
attempt to conceal their abuses by maintaining two sets of records.
  The bill sends a clear message to garment industry employers. 
Exploitation of workers will not be tolerated. Sweatshops are 
unacceptable. We intend to do all we can to stamp them out, and this 
legislation will help us achieve that goal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 2128. A bill to consolidate and revise the authority of the 
Secretary of Agriculture relating to plant protection and quarantine, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                        THE PLANT PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Plant 
Protection Act, a comprehensive consolidation of Federal laws governing 
plant pests, noxious weeds, and the plant products that harbor pests 
and weeds.

  Over the past century, numerous Federal laws have been enacted to 
address problems caused by plant pests and noxious weeds. While some of 
these laws are effective tools for protecting agriculture and the 
environment from these threats, others are in conflict or create 
enforcement ambiguities. The Nation's agricultural community, as well 
as private, State and Federal land managers, cannot afford the 
continuing uncertainty caused by Federal plant pest laws, some of which 
were enacted prior to World War I. Legislation to revise and 
consolidate Federal plant pest laws is urgently needed and long 
overdue.
  Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman recently characterized the 
problems created by hodgepodge of Federal plant protection laws when he 
Stated that ``in some instances, it is unclear which statutes should be 
relied upon for authority. It is difficult to explain to the public why 
some apparently similar situations have to be treated differently 
because different authorities are involved.''
  A 1993 report issued by the Office of Technology Assessment reached 
the same conclusion. The OTA found that Federal and State statutes, 
regulations, and programs are not keeping pace with new and spreading 
alien pests.
  The Plant Protection Act will correct many, but not all, of these 
problems. The bill I have introduced today will enhance the Federal 
Government's ability to combat plant pests and noxious weeds, and 
protect our farms, environment, and economy from the harm they cause.
  Plant pests are a problem of monumental proportions. Some of the most 
damaging insects include the Mediterranean fruit fly, fire ant, and the 
gipsy moth. Disease pathogens include chestnut blight, which wiped out 
the most common tree of our Appalachian forests, the elm blight, which 
destroyed many splendid trees lining our city streets, and the white 
pine blister rust, which eliminated western white pine as a source of 
timber for several decades.

[[Page S11307]]

  Alien weeds also cause havoc, and nowhere is this problem more 
apparent than in Hawaii. Because our climate is so accommodating, 
Hawaii is heaven-on-earth for weeds. Alien plants such as gorse, ivy 
gourd, miconia, and banana poka are ravaging our tropical and 
subtropical forests. Earlier this year, Hawaii's environment passed an 
unfortunate milestone: for the first time, foreign introduced plants 
outnumber Hawaii's diverse native species.
  Hawaii is not alone in facing this problem. In fact, no State or 
region is immune to this threat.
  Invasive foreign weeds do more than just compete with domestic 
species. They transform the landscape, change the rules by which native 
plants and animals live, and undermine the economic and environmental 
health of the areas they infest.
  Alien weeds fuel grass and forest fires, promote soil erosion, and 
destroy critical water resources. They significantly increase the cost 
of farming and ranching. Noxious weeds destroy or alter natural 
habitat, damage waterways and power lines, and depress property values. 
Some are toxic to humans, livestock, and wildlife.
  Alien weeds are biological pollution, pure and simple. The worldwide 
growth in trade and travel has caused an explosion in the number of 
foreign weeds that plague our Nation.
  Just how big is this problem? Let me offer an example. Last year, on 
Federal lands alone, we lost 4,500 acres each day to noxious weeds. 
That's a million-and-a-half acres a year, or an area the size of 
Delaware. By comparison, forest fires--one of the most fearsome natural 
disasters--claimed only half as many Federal acres as weeds.

  Noxious foreign weeds have been called a biological wildfire, and for 
good reason. Forests, national parks, recreation areas, urban 
landscapes, wilderness, grasslands, waterways, farm and range land 
across the Nation are overrun by noxious weeds.
  The greatest economic impact of this problem is felt by farmers. The 
Office of Technology Assessment estimates that exotic weeds cost U.S. 
farmers $3.6 to $5.4 billion annually due to reduced yields, crops of 
poor quality, increased herbicide use, and other weed control costs. 
Noxious weeds are a significant drain on farm productivity.
  Despite the magnitude of this problem, few people get alarmed about 
weeds. The issue certainly doesn't appear on the cover of Time or 
Newsweek. Perhaps if kudzu, a weed known as the ``vine that ate the 
South,'' attacked the Capitol dome, weeds would finally get the 
attention they deserve.
  Several of these foreign weeds are truly the ``King Kong of plants.'' 
Some are 50 feet tall. Others have 4 inch thorns. Some have roots 25 
feet deep, and others produce 20 million seeds each year.
  My least-favorite weed is the tropical soda apple, a thorny plant 
with a sweet-sounding name. This import from Brazil has inch long 
spikes covering its stems and leaves. The only attractive thing about 
this plant is its small yellow and green fruit.
  Tropical soda apple presents a particularly difficult control problem 
because the fruit is a favorite among cattle. They consume the apples 
and then pass the seeds in their manure where new weed infestations 
quickly sprout. As cattle are shipped from State to State with soda 
apple seeds in their stomachs you can easily see how the problem 
rapidly spreads. It's a weed control nightmare.
  The saga of tropical soda apple prompted me to introduce S. 690, the 
Federal Noxious Weed Improvement Act in April 1995. S. 690 would grant 
the Secretary of Agriculture emergency powers to restrict the entry of 
a foreign weed until formal action can be taken to place it on the 
noxious weed list. This legislation would prevent future tropical soda 
apples from taking root.
  I have incorporated the text of S. 690 into section 4 of the Plant 
Protection Act. Other provisions of the legislation I have introduced 
today are drawn from USDA recommendations for consolidating weed and 
plant pest authorities.
  Because the U.S. Department of Agriculture's authority over plant 
pests and noxious weeds is dispersed throughout numerous statutes, 
Federal efforts to protect agriculture, forestry, and our environment 
are seriously hindered. To enable the Department to respond more 
efficiently to this challenge, I have introduced legislation to 
consolidate these authorities into a single statute. The text of this 
measure is drawn from draft recommendations prepared by USDA, although 
I have made some significant changes, particularly in the provisions 
relating to weeds.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2128

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Plant Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the detection, control, eradication, suppression, 
     prevention, and retardation of the spread of plant pests and 
     noxious weeds is necessary for the protection of the 
     agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States;
       (2) biological control--
       (A) is often a desirable, low-risk means of ridding crops 
     and other plants of plant pests and noxious weeds; and
       (B) should be facilitated by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     Federal agencies, and States, whenever feasible;
       (3) markets could be severely impacted by the introduction 
     or spread of pests or noxious weeds into or within the United 
     States;
       (4) the unregulated movement of plant pests, noxious weeds, 
     plants, biological control organisms, plant products, and 
     articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds 
     would present an unacceptable risk of introducing or 
     spreading plant pests or noxious weeds;
       (5) the existence on any premises in the United States of a 
     plant pest or noxious weed new to or not known to be widely 
     prevalent in or distributed within and throughout the United 
     States could threaten crops, other plants, plant products, 
     and the natural resources and environment of the United 
     States and burden interstate commerce or foreign commerce; 
     and
       (6) all plant pests, noxious weeds, plants, plant products, 
     or articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds 
     regulated under this Act are in or affect interstate commerce 
     or foreign commerce.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act (unless the context otherwise requires):
       (1) Article.--The term ``article'' means any material or 
     tangible object that could harbor a pest, disease, or noxious 
     weed.
       (2) Biological control organism.--The term ``biological 
     control organism'' means a biological entity, as defined by 
     the Secretary, that suppresses or decreases the population of 
     another biological entity.
       (3) Enter.--The term ``enter'' means to move into the 
     commerce of the United States.
       (4) Entry.--The term ``entry'' means the act of movement 
     into the commerce of the United States.
       (5) Export.--The term ``export'' means to move from the 
     United States to any place outside the United States.
       (6) Exportation.--The term ``exportation'' means the act of 
     movement from the United States to any place outside the 
     United States.
       (7) Import.--The term ``import'' means to move into the 
     territorial limits of the United States.
       (8) Importation.--The term ``importation'' means the act of 
     movement into the territorial limits of the United States.
       (9) Indigenous.--The term ``indigenous'' means a plant 
     species found naturally as part of a natural habitat in a 
     geographic area in the United States.
       (10) Interstate.--The term ``interstate'' means from 1 
     State into or through any other State, or within the District 
     of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, 
     or any other territory or possession of the United States.
       (11) Interstate commerce.--The term ``interstate commerce'' 
     means trade, traffic, movement, or other commerce--
       (A) between a place in a State and a point in another 
     State;
       (B) between points within the same State but through any 
     place outside the State; or
       (C) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin 
     Islands of the United States, or any other territory or 
     possession of the United States.
       (12) Means of conveyance.--The term ``means of conveyance'' 
     means any personal property or means used for or intended for 
     use for the movement of any other personal property.
       (13) Move.--The term ``move'' means to--
       (A) carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport;
       (B) aid, abet, cause, or induce the carrying, entering, 
     importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
       (C) offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (D) receive to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport; or

[[Page S11308]]

       (E) allow any of the activities referred to this paragraph.
       (14) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' means a 
     plant, seed, reproductive part, or propagative part of a 
     plant that--
       (A) can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to a 
     crop, other useful plant, plant product, livestock, poultry, 
     or other interest of agriculture (including irrigation), 
     navigation, public health, or natural resources or 
     environment of the United States; and
       (B) belongs to a species that is not indigenous to the 
     geographic area or ecosystem in which it is causing injury or 
     damage.
       (15) Permit.--The term ``permit'' means a written or oral 
     authorization (including electronic authorization) by the 
     Secretary to move a plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or article under 
     conditions prescribed by the Secretary.
       (16) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual, 
     partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, or 
     other legal entity.
       (17) Plant.--The term ``plant'' means a plant or plant part 
     for or capable of propagation, including a tree, shrub, vine, 
     bulb, root, pollen, seed, tissue culture, plantlet culture, 
     cutting, graft, scion, and bud.
       (18) Plant pest.--The term ``plant pest'' means--
       (A) a living stage of a protozoan, animal, bacteria, 
     fungus, virus, viroid, infection agent, or parasitic plant 
     that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to, or 
     cause disease in, a plant or plant product; or
       (B) an article that is similar to or allied with an article 
     referred to in subparagraph (A).
       (19) Plant product.--The term ``plant product'' means a 
     flower, fruit, vegetable, root, bulb, seed, or other plant 
     part that is not considered a plant or a manufactured or 
     processed plant or plant part.
       (20) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (21) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United 
     States.
       (22) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used 
     in a geographical sense, means all of the States.

     SEC. 4. RESTRICTIONS ON MOVEMENT OF PLANTS, PLANT PRODUCTS, 
                   BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS, PLANT PESTS, 
                   NOXIOUS WEEDS, ARTICLES, AND MEANS OF 
                   CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may prohibit or restrict the 
     importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate 
     commerce of a plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance if the Secretary determines that the prohibition 
     or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into 
     the United States or the interstate dissemination of a plant 
     pest or noxious weed.
       (b) Mail.--
       (1) In general.--No person shall convey in the mail, or 
     deliver from a post office or by a mail carrier, a letter or 
     package containing a plant pest, biological control organism, 
     or noxious weed unless it is mailed in accordance with such 
     regulations as the Secretary may issue to prevent the 
     introduction into the United States, or interstate 
     dissemination, of plant pests or noxious weeds.
       (2) Postal employees.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     an employee of the United States in the performance of the 
     duties of the employee in handling the mail.
       (3) Postal laws and regulations.--Nothing in this 
     subsection authorizes a person to open a mailed letter or 
     other mailed sealed matter except in accordance with the 
     postal laws and regulations.
       (c) State Restrictions on Noxious Weeds.--No person shall 
     move into a State, or sell or offer for sale in the State, a 
     plant species the sale of which is prohibited by the State 
     because the plant species is designated as a noxious weed or 
     has a similar designation.
       (d) Administration.--The Secretary may issue regulations to 
     carry out this section, including regulations requiring that 
     a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported, 
     entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce--
       (1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary 
     prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in 
     interstate commerce;
       (2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued in 
     a manner and form required by the Secretary or by an 
     appropriate official of the country or State from which the 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is to be 
     moved;
       (3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant 
     pests; and
       (4) in the case of a plant or biological control organism, 
     be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions by 
     or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purpose of 
     determining whether the plant or biological control organism 
     may be infested with a plant pest or noxious weed, or may be 
     a plant pest or noxious weed.
       (e) List of Restricted Noxious Weeds.--
       (1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation, 
     a list of noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted 
     from entering the United States or that are subject to 
     restrictions on interstate movement within the United States.
       (2) Petitions to add or remove plant species.--
       (A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add 
     or remove a plant species from the list required under 
     paragraph (1).
       (B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) act on a petition not later than 1 year after receipt 
     of the petition by the Secretary; and
       (ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the 
     Secretary takes on the petition.
       (C) Basis for determination.--The Secretary's determination 
     on the petition shall be based on sound science, available 
     data and technology, and information received from public 
     comment.
       (D) Inclusion on list.--To include a plant species on the 
     list, the Secretary must determine that--
       (i) the plant species is nonindigenous to the geographic 
     region or ecosystem in which the species is spreading and 
     causing injury; and
       (ii) the dissemination of the plant in the United States 
     may reasonably be expected to interfere with natural 
     resources, agriculture, forestry, or a native ecosystem of a 
     geographic region, or management of an ecosystem, or cause 
     injury to the public health.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 102 of the Act of September 21, 1944 (58 Stat. 
     735, chapter 412; 7 U.S.C. 147a) is amended by striking 
     ``(a)'' in subsection (a) and all that follows through 
     ``(2)'' in subsection (f)(2).
       (2) The matter under the heading ``Enforcement of the 
     Plant-quarantine Act:'' under the heading ``Miscellaneous'' 
     of the Act of March 4, 1915 (commonly known as the ``Terminal 
     Inspection Act'') (38 Stat. 1113, chapter 144; 7 U.S.C. 166) 
     is amended--
       (A) in the second paragraph--
       (i) by striking ``plants and plant products'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``plants, plant products, animals, and 
     other organisms'';
       (ii) by striking ``plants or plant products'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``plants, plant products, animals, or 
     other organisms'';
       (iii) by striking ``plant-quarantine law or plant-
     quarantine regulation'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``plant-quarantine or other law or plant-quarantine 
     regulation'';
       (iv) in the second sentence--

       (I) by striking ``Upon his approval of said list, in whole 
     or in part, the Secretary of Agriculture'' and inserting ``On 
     the receipt of the list by the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
     Secretary''; and
       (II) by striking ``said approved lists'' and inserting 
     ``the lists'';

       (v) by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     ``On the request of a representative of a State, a Federal 
     agency shall act on behalf of the State to obtain a warrant 
     to inspect mail to carry out this paragraph.''; and
       (vi) in the last sentence, by striking ``be forward'' and 
     inserting ``be forwarded''; and
       (B) in the third paragraph, by striking ``plant or plant 
     product'' and inserting ``plant, plant product, animal, or 
     other organism''.

     SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION OF ARRIVAL AND INSPECTION BEFORE 
                   MOVEMENT OF PLANTS, PLANT PRODUCTS, BIOLOGICAL 
                   CONTROL ORGANISMS, PLANT PESTS, NOXIOUS WEEDS, 
                   ARTICLES, AND MEANS OF CONVEYANCE.

       (a) Notification and Holding by Secretary of the 
     Treasury.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall--
       (A) promptly notify the Secretary of the arrival of a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance at a port 
     of entry; and
       (B) hold the plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance until inspected and authorized for entry into or 
     transit movement through the United States, or otherwise 
     released by the Secretary.
       (2) Application.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, 
     noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance that is 
     imported from a country or region of countries that the 
     Secretary designates as exempt from paragraph (1), pursuant 
     to such regulations as the Secretary may issue.
       (b) Notification by Responsible Person.--The person 
     responsible for a plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance subject to subsection (a) shall promptly, on 
     arrival at the port of entry and before the plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance is moved from the port 
     of entry, notify the Secretary or, at the Secretary's 
     direction, the proper official of the State to which the 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is 
     destined, or both, as the Secretary may prescribe, of--
       (1) the name and address of the consignee;
       (2) the nature and quantity of the plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, 
     article, or means of conveyance proposed to be moved; and

[[Page S11309]]

       (3) the country and locality where the plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance was grown, produced, or 
     located.
       (c) No Movement Without Inspection and Authorization.--No 
     person shall move from the port of entry or interstate an 
     imported plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     unless the imported plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance has been inspected and authorized for entry into 
     or transit movement through the United States, or otherwise 
     released by the Secretary.

     SEC. 6. REMEDIAL MEASURES OR DISPOSAL FOR PLANT PESTS OR 
                   NOXIOUS WEEDS; EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY.

       (a) Remedial Measures or Disposal for Plant Pests or 
     Noxious Weeds.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (c), if 
     the Secretary considers it necessary to prevent the 
     dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed new to or not 
     known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and 
     throughout the United States, the Secretary may hold, seize, 
     quarantine, treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, 
     or otherwise dispose of--
       (A) a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     that is moving into or through the United States or 
     interstate and that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
       (B) a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     that has moved into the United States or interstate and that 
     the Secretary has reason to believe was infested with the 
     plant pest or noxious weed at the time of the movement;
       (C) a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     that is moving into or through the United States or 
     interstate, or has moved into the United States or 
     interstate, in violation of this Act;
       (D) a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     that has not been maintained in compliance with a post-entry 
     quarantine requirement;
       (E) a progeny of a plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, or noxious weed that is moving into or 
     through the United States or interstate, or has moved into 
     the United States or interstate, in violation of this Act; or
       (F) a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     that is infested with a plant pest or noxious weed that the 
     Secretary has reason to believe was moved into the United 
     States or in interstate commerce.
       (2) Ordering treatment or disposal by the owner.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (c), the Secretary may order the owner 
     of a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject 
     to disposal under paragraph (1), or the owner's agent, to 
     treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or 
     otherwise dispose of the plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means 
     of conveyance, without cost to the Federal Government and in 
     a manner the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (3) Classification system for noxious weeds.--
       (A) In general.--To facilitate control of noxious weeds, 
     the Secretary shall develop a classification system to 
     describe the status and action levels for noxious weeds.
       (B) Categories.--The classification system shall 
     differentiate between--
       (i) noxious weeds that are not known to be introduced into 
     the United States;
       (ii) noxious weeds that are not known to be widely 
     disseminated within the United States;
       (iii) noxious weeds that are widely distributed within the 
     United States; and
       (iv) noxious weeds that are not indigenous, including 
     native plant species that are invasive in limited geographic 
     areas within the United States.
       (C) Other categories.--In addition to the categories 
     required under subparagraph (B), the Secretary may establish 
     other categories of noxious weeds for the system.
       (D) Varying levels of regulation and control.--The 
     Secretary shall develop varying levels of regulation and 
     control appropriate to each of the categories of the system.
       (E) Application of regulations.--The regulations issued to 
     carry out this paragraph shall apply, as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate, to--
       (i) exclude a noxious weed;
       (ii) prevent further dissemination of a noxious weed 
     through movement or commerce;
       (iii) establish mandatory controls for a noxious weed; or
       (iv) designate a noxious weed as warranting control 
     efforts.
       (F) Revisions.--The Secretary shall revise the 
     classification system, and the placement of individual 
     noxious weeds within the system, in response to changing 
     circumstances.
       (G) Integrated management plans.--In conjunction with the 
     classification system, the Secretary may develop an 
     integrated management plan for a noxious weed for the 
     geographic region or ecological range of the United States 
     where the noxious weed is found or to which the noxious weed 
     may spread.
       (b) Extraordinary Emergencies.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the Secretary 
     determines that an extraordinary emergency exists because of 
     the presence of a plant pest or noxious weed new to or not 
     known to be widely prevalent in or distributed within and 
     throughout the United States and that the presence of the 
     plant pest or noxious weed threatens a crop, other plant, 
     plant product, or the natural resources or environment of the 
     United States, the Secretary may--
       (A) hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial 
     measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, a plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance that the Secretary has 
     reason to believe is infested with the plant pest or noxious 
     weed;
       (B) quarantine, treat, or apply other remedial measures to 
     a premises, including a plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, article, or means of conveyance on the 
     premises, that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
       (C) quarantine a State or portion of a State in which the 
     Secretary finds the plant pest or noxious weed, or a plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, article, or means 
     of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed; or
       (D) prohibit or restrict the movement within a State of a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, article, 
     or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the 
     prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the 
     dissemination of the plant pest or noxious weed or to 
     eradicate the plant pest or noxious weed.
       (2) Requirements for action.--
       (A) Inadequate state measures.--After review and 
     consultation with the Governor or other appropriate official 
     of the State, the Secretary may take action under this 
     subsection only on a finding that the measures being taken by 
     the State are inadequate to eradicate the plant pest or 
     noxious weed.
       (B) Notice to state and public.--Before taking any action 
     in a State under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (i) notify the Governor or another appropriate official of 
     the State;
       (ii) issue a public announcement; and
       (iii) except as provided in subparagraph (C), publish in 
     the Federal Register a statement of--

       (I) the Secretary's findings;
       (II) the action the Secretary intends to take;
       (III) the reason for the intended action; and
       (IV) if practicable, an estimate of the anticipated 
     duration of the extraordinary emergency.

       (C) Notice after action.--If it is not possible to publish 
     a statement in the Federal Register under subparagraph (B) 
     prior to taking an action under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall publish the statement in the Federal Register 
     within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 business 
     days, after commencement of the action.
       (3) Compensation.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may pay compensation to a 
     person for economic losses incurred by the person as a result 
     of action taken by the Secretary under paragraph (1).
       (B) Final determination.--The determination by the 
     Secretary of the amount of any compensation paid under this 
     subsection shall be final and shall not be subject to 
     judicial review.
       (c) Least Drastic Action to Prevent Dissemination.--No 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, article, 
     or means of conveyance shall be destroyed, exported, or 
     returned to the shipping point of origin, or ordered to be 
     destroyed, exported, or returned to the shipping point of 
     origin under this section unless, in the opinion of the 
     Secretary, there is no less drastic action that is feasible, 
     and that would be adequate, to prevent the dissemination of a 
     plant pest or noxious weed new to or not known to be widely 
     prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United 
     States.
       (d) Compensation of Owner for Unauthorized Disposal.--
       (1) In general.--The owner of a plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, article, or means of conveyance 
     destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary under 
     this section may bring an action against the United States in 
     the United States District Court of the District of Columbia, 
     not later than 1 year after the destruction or disposal, and 
     recover just compensation for the destruction or disposal of 
     the plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     article, or means of conveyance (not including compensation 
     for loss due to delays incident to determining eligibility 
     for importation, entry, exportation, movement in interstate 
     commerce, or release into the environment) if the owner 
     establishes that the destruction or disposal was not 
     authorized under this Act.
       (2) Source for payments.--A judgment rendered in favor of 
     the owner shall be paid out of the money in the Treasury 
     appropriated for plant pest control activities of the 
     Department of Agriculture.

     SEC. 7. INSPECTIONS, SEIZURES, AND WARRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Consistent with guidelines approved by the 
     Attorney General, the Secretary may--

[[Page S11310]]

       (1) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving into the United States to determine 
     whether the person or means of conveyance is carrying a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, or article 
     regulated under this Act or is moving subject to this Act;
       (2) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving in interstate commerce on probable cause 
     to believe that the person or means of conveyance is carrying 
     a plant, plant product, biological control organism, or 
     article regulated under this Act or is moving subject to this 
     Act;
       (3) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving in interstate commerce from or within a 
     State, portion of a State, or premises quarantined under 
     section 6(b) on probable cause to believe that the person or 
     means of conveyance is carrying any plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, or article regulated under this 
     Act or is moving subject to this Act; and
       (4) enter, with a warrant, a premises in the United States 
     for the purpose of making inspections and seizures under this 
     Act.
       (b) Warrants.--
       (1) In general.--A United States judge, a judge of a court 
     of record in the United States, or a United States magistrate 
     judge may, within the judge's or magistrate's jurisdiction, 
     on proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause to 
     believe that there is on certain premises a plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, article, facility, or 
     means of conveyance regulated under this Act, issue a warrant 
     for entry on the premises to make an inspection or seizure 
     under this Act.
       (2) Execution.--The warrant may be executed by the 
     Secretary or a United States Marshal.

     SEC. 8. COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--To carry out this Act, the Secretary may 
     cooperate with--
       (1) other Federal agencies;
       (2) States or political subdivisions of States;
       (3) national, State, or local associations;
       (4) national governments;
       (5) local governments of other nations;
       (6) international organizations;
       (7) international associations; and
       (8) other persons.
       (b) Responsibility.--The individual or entity cooperating 
     with the Secretary shall be responsible for conducting the 
     operations or taking measures on all land and property within 
     the foreign country or State, other than land and property 
     owned or controlled by the United States, and for other 
     facilities and means determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Transfer of Biological Control Methods.--At the request 
     of a Federal or State land management agency, the Secretary 
     may transfer to the agency biological control methods 
     utilizing biological control organisms against plant pests or 
     noxious weeds.
       (d) Improvement of Plants, Plant Products, and Biological 
     Control Organisms.--The Secretary may cooperate with State 
     authorities in the administration of regulations for the 
     improvement of plants, plant products, and biological control 
     organisms.

     SEC. 9. PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATE FOR EXPORTS.

       The Secretary may certify a plant, plant product, or 
     biological control organism as free from plant pests and 
     noxious weeds, and exposure to plant pests and noxious weeds, 
     according to the phytosanitary requirements of the country to 
     which the plant, plant product, or biological control 
     organism may be exported.

     SEC. 10. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire and maintain 
     such real or personal property, employ such persons, make 
     such grants, and enter into such contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements 
     as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Personnel of User Fee Services.--Notwithstanding any 
     other law, the Secretary shall provide adequate personnel for 
     services provided under this Act that are funded by user 
     fees.
       (c) Tort Claims.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may pay a tort claim (in the 
     manner authorized in the first paragraph of section 2672 of 
     title 28, United States Code) if the claim arises outside the 
     United States in connection with an activity authorized under 
     this Act.
       (2) Time limitation.--A claim may not be allowed under 
     paragraph (1) unless the claim is presented in writing to the 
     Secretary not later than 2 years after the claim accrues.

     SEC. 11. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Preclearance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     reimbursable fee agreement with a person for preclearance (at 
     a location outside the United States) of plants, plant 
     products, and articles for movement into the United States.
       (2) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection 
     shall be credited to an account that may be established by 
     the Secretary and remain available until expended without 
     fiscal year limitation.
       (b) Overtime.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary may pay an employee of the Department of 
     Agriculture performing services under this Act relating to 
     imports into and exports from the United States, for all 
     overtime, night, or holiday work performed by the employee, 
     at a rate of pay determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Reimbursement of secretary.--The Secretary may require 
     a person for whom the services are performed to reimburse the 
     Secretary for any funds paid by the Secretary for the 
     services.
       (3) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection 
     shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and 
     remain available until expended without fiscal year 
     limitation.
       (c) Late Payment Penalty and Interest.--
       (1) Penalty.--On failure of a person to reimburse the 
     Secretary in accordance with this section, the Secretary may 
     assess a late payment penalty against the person.
       (2) Interest.--Overdue funds due the Secretary under this 
     section shall accrue interest in accordance with section 3717 
     of title 31, United States Code.
       (3) Account.--A late payment penalty and accrued interest 
     shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and 
     shall remain available until expended without fiscal year 
     limitation.

     SEC. 12. VIOLATIONS; PENALTIES.

       (a) Criminal Penalties.--A person who knowingly violates 
     this Act, or who knowingly forges, counterfeits, or, without 
     authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or 
     destroys a certificate, permit, or other document provided 
     under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on 
     conviction, shall be fined in accordance with title 18, 
     United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, 
     or both.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--A person who violates this Act, or who 
     forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the 
     Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys a certificate, 
     permit, or other document provided under this Act may, after 
     notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record, be 
     assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than 
     $25,000 for each violation.
       (2) Final order.--The order of the Secretary assessing a 
     civil penalty shall be treated as a final order that is 
     reviewable under chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.
       (3) Validity of order.--The validity of an order of the 
     Secretary may not be reviewed in an action to collect the 
     civil penalty.
       (4) Interest.--A civil penalty not paid in full when due 
     under an order assessing the civil penalty shall (after the 
     due date) accrue interest until paid at the rate of interest 
     applicable to a civil judgment of a court of the United 
     States.
       (c) Pecuniary Gains or Losses.--If a person derives 
     pecuniary gain from an offense described in subsection (a) or 
     (b), or if the offense results in pecuniary loss to a person 
     other than the defendant, the defendant may be fined not more 
     than an amount that is the greater of twice the gross gain or 
     twice the gross loss, unless imposition of a fine under this 
     subsection would unduly complicate or prolong the imposition 
     of a fine or sentence under subsection (a) or (b).
       (d) Agents.--For purposes of this Act, the act, omission, 
     or failure of an officer, agent, or person acting for or 
     employed by any other person within the scope of the 
     employment or office of the other person shall be considered 
     also to be the act, omission, or failure of the other person.
       (e) Civil Penalties or Notice in Lieu of Prosecution.--The 
     Secretary shall coordinate with the Attorney General to 
     establish guidelines to determine under what circumstances 
     the Secretary may issue a civil penalty or suitable notice of 
     warning in lieu of prosecution by the Attorney General of a 
     violation of this Act.

     SEC. 13. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Investigations, Evidence, and Subpoenas.--
       (1) Investigations.--The Secretary may gather and compile 
     information and conduct any investigations the Secretary 
     considers necessary for the administration and enforcement of 
     this Act.
       (2) Evidence.--The Secretary shall at all reasonable times 
     have the right to examine and copy any documentary evidence 
     of a person being investigated or proceeded against.
       (3) Subpoenas.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall have power to require 
     by subpoena the attendance and testimony of any witness and 
     the production of all documentary evidence relating to the 
     administration or enforcement of this Act or any matter under 
     investigation in connection with this Act.
       (B) Location.--The attendance of a witness and production 
     of documentary evidence may be required from any place in the 
     United States at any designated place of hearing.
       (C) Noncompliance with subpoena.--If a person disobeys a 
     subpoena, the Secretary may request the Attorney General to 
     invoke the aid of a court of the United States within the 
     jurisdiction in which the investigation is conducted, or 
     where the person resides, is found, transacts business, is 
     licensed to do business, or is incorporated to require the 
     attendance and testimony of a witness and the production of 
     documentary evidence.
       (D) Order.--If a person disobeys a subpoena, the court may 
     order the person to appear before the Secretary and give 
     evidence concerning the matter in question or to produce 
     documentary evidence.
       (E) Noncompliance with order.--A failure to obey the 
     court's order may be punished by the court as a contempt of 
     the court.

[[Page S11311]]

       (F) Fees and mileage.--
       (i) In general.--A witness summoned by the Secretary shall 
     be paid the same fees and reimbursement for mileage that is 
     paid to a witness in the courts of the United States.
       (ii) Depositions.--A witness whose deposition is taken, and 
     the person taking the deposition, shall be entitled to the 
     same fees that are paid for similar services in a court of 
     the United States.
       (b) Attorney General.--The Attorney General may--
       (1) prosecute, in the name of the United States, a criminal 
     violation of this Act that is referred to the Attorney 
     General by the Secretary or is brought to the notice of the 
     Attorney General by a person;
       (2) bring an action to enjoin the violation of or to compel 
     compliance with this Act, or to enjoin any interference by a 
     person with the Secretary in carrying out this Act, if the 
     Secretary has reason to believe that the person has violated 
     or is about to violate this Act, or has interfered, or is 
     about to interfere, with the Secretary; and
       (3) bring an action for the recovery of any unpaid civil 
     penalty, funds under a reimbursable agreement, late payment 
     penalty, or interest assessed under this Act.
       (c) Jurisdiction.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in section 12(b), a 
     United States district court, the District Court of Guam, the 
     District Court of the Virgin Islands, the highest court of 
     American Samoa, and the United States courts of other 
     territories and possessions shall have jurisdiction over all 
     cases arising under this Act.
       (2) Venue.--Except as provided in subsection (b), an action 
     arising under this Act may be brought, and process may be 
     served, in the judicial district where a violation or 
     interference occurred or is about to occur, or where the 
     person charged with the violation, interference, impending 
     violation, impending interference, or failure to pay resides, 
     is found, transacts business, is licensed to do business, or 
     is incorporated.
       (3) Subpoenas.--A subpoena for a witness to attend court in 
     a judicial district or to testify or produce evidence at an 
     administrative hearing in a judicial district in an action or 
     proceeding arising under this Act may apply to any other 
     judicial district.

     SEC. 14. PREEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     State or political subdivision of a State may regulate any 
     article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in 
     foreign commerce to control a plant pest or noxious weed, 
     eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed, or prevent the 
     introduction or dissemination of a biological control 
     organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
       (b) State Noxious Weed Laws.--This Act shall not invalidate 
     the law of any State or political subdivision of a State 
     relating to noxious weeds, except that a State or political 
     subdivision of a State may not permit any action that is 
     prohibited under this Act.

     SEC. 15. REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.

       The Secretary may issue such regulations and orders as the 
     Secretary considers necessary to carry out this Act, 
     including (at the option of the Secretary) regulations and 
     orders relating to--
       (1) notification of arrival of plants, plant products, 
     biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, 
     articles, or means of conveyance;
       (2) prohibition or restriction of or on the importation, 
     entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of 
     plants, plant products, biological control organisms, plant 
     pests, noxious weeds, articles, or means of conveyance;
       (3) holding, seizure of, quarantine of, treatment of, 
     application of remedial measures to, destruction of, or 
     disposal of plants, plant products, biological control 
     organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, articles, premises, or 
     means of conveyance;
       (4) in the case of an extraordinary emergency, prohibition 
     or restriction on the movement of plants, plant products, 
     biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, 
     articles, or means of conveyance;
       (5) payment of compensation;
       (6) cooperation with other Federal agencies, States, 
     political subdivisions of States, national governments, local 
     governments of other countries, international organizations, 
     international associations, and other persons, entities, and 
     individuals;
       (7) transfer of biological control methods for plant pests 
     or noxious weeds;
       (8) negotiation and execution of agreements;
       (9) acquisition and maintenance of real and personal 
     property;
       (10) issuance of letters of warning;
       (11) compilation of information;
       (12) conduct of investigations;
       (13) transfer of funds for emergencies;
       (14) approval of facilities and means of conveyance;
       (15) denial of approval of facilities and means of 
     conveyance;
       (16) suspension and revocation of approval of facilities 
     and means of conveyance;
       (17) inspection, testing, and certification;
       (18) cleaning and disinfection;
       (19) designation of ports of entry;
       (20) imposition and collection of fees, penalties, and 
     interest;
       (21) recordkeeping, marking, and identification;
       (22) issuance of permits and phytosanitary certificates;
       (23) establishment of quarantines, post-importation 
     conditions, and post-entry quarantine conditions;
       (24) establishment of conditions for transit movement 
     through the United States; and
       (25) treatment of land for the prevention, suppression, or 
     control of plant pests or noxious weeds.

     SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; TRANSFERS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (2) Indemnities.--Except as specifically authorized by law, 
     no part of the money made available under paragraph (1) shall 
     be used to pay an indemnity for property injured or destroyed 
     by or at the direction of the Secretary.
       (b) Transfers.--
       (1) In general.--In connection with an emergency in which a 
     plant pest or noxious weeds threatens any segment of the 
     agricultural production of the United States, the Secretary 
     may transfer (from other appropriations or funds available to 
     an agency or corporation of the Department of Agriculture) 
     such funds as the Secretary considers necessary for the 
     arrest, control, eradication, and prevention of the spread of 
     the plant pest or noxious weed and for related expenses.
       (2) Availability.--Any funds transferred under this 
     subsection shall remain available to carry out paragraph (1) 
     without fiscal year limitation.

     SEC. 17. REPEALS.

       The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) Public Law 97-46 (7 U.S.C. 147b).
       (2) The Joint Resolution of April 6, 1937 (50 Stat. 57, 
     chapter 69; 7 U.S.C. 148 et seq.).
       (3) Section 1773 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     148f).
       (4) The Act of January 31, 1942 (56 Stat. 40, chapter 31; 7 
     U.S.C. 149).
       (5) The Golden Nematode Act (7 U.S.C. 150 et seq.).
       (6) The Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.).
       (7) The Act of August 20, 1912 (commonly known as the 
     ``Plant Quarantine Act'') (37 Stat. 315, chapter 308; 7 
     U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
       (8) The Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act (7 U.S.C. 1651 et 
     seq.).
       (9) The Act of August 28, 1950 (64 Stat. 561, chapter 815; 
     7 U.S.C. 2260).
       (10) The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et 
     seq.), other than the first section of the Act (Public Law 
     93-629; 7 U.S.C. 2801 note) and section 15 of the Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2814).
                                 ______
                                 

       By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 2129. A bill to provide for the immediate application of certain 
orders relating to the amendment, modification, suspension, or 
revocation of certificates under chapter 447 of title 49, United States 
Code; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    FAA EMERGENCY REVOCATION POWERS

  Mr. INHOFE. For several months now, I have been working with 
representatives of the aviation community, with which I have been a 
part for just under 40 years, on legislation which will address the 
problem with the Federal Aviation Administration's use of their 
emergency revocation powers. In a revocation action, brought on an 
emergency basis, the airman or other certificate holder loses the use 
of the certificate immediately without any intermediary review or by 
any kind of an impartial party. The result is that the airman is 
grounded. In most cases, that is an airman who worked for some airline, 
and that is his or her only method of making a living.
  Simply put, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this emergency power to 
prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support 
such drastic action. A more reasonable approach where safety is not an 
issue would be to adjudicate the revocation on a nonemergency basis, 
allowing the certificate holder continued use of his certificate.
  Do not misunderstand: In no way do I want to suggest that the FAA 
should not have emergency revocation powers. I believe it is critical 
to safety that the FAA have the ability to ground unsafe airmen. 
However, I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of 
the extraordinary power. A review of recent emergency cases clearly 
demonstrates a pattern whereby the FAA uses their emergency powers as 
standard procedure rather than extraordinary measures. Perhaps the most 
visible case has been that of Bob Hoover.
  Now, Mr. President, I have flown in a lot of air shows over the last 
40 years, and I can tell you right now the one person that you ask 
anyone who has a background like mine, ``Who is the hero within the 
industry,'' it has been Hoover. He is getting up in years but is

[[Page S11312]]

as sharp as he ever was. Something happened to him. He is probably the 
most highly regarded and accomplished aerobatic pilot today. In 1992, 
his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions 
regarding his physical condition. After getting a clean bill of health 
from four separate sets of doctors over the continuing objections of 
the Federal air surgeon, who never examined Bob personally, his medical 
certificate was reinstated only after the Administrator, David Hinson, 
intervened.

  I say at this point, I have been a strong supporter of Administrator 
David Hinson. I have often said that he is probably the very best 
appointment that President Clinton has made since he has been 
President. I also say there is not a lot of competition for that title.
  He already has more serious problems coming. His current medical 
certificate expires this coming Monday, September 30, 1996. Unlike most 
airmen, like myself, when mine expires I go down, take a physical that 
lasts approximately 30 minutes, and it is reinstated at that time, 
something that happens every 12 months.
  Bob Hoover's experience is one of many. I have several other examples 
of pilots who had licenses revoked on an emergency basis, such as Ted 
Stewart, who has been an American Airlines pilot--who I know 
personally--has been an American Airlines pilot for 12 years and is 
presently a Boeing 767 captain. Until January 1995, Mr. Stewart had no 
complaints registered against him or his flying. In January 1995, the 
FAA suspended Mr. Stewart's examining authority as part of a larger FAA 
effort to respond to a problem of falsifying records.
  Now, there was never any indication that Mr. Stewart was involved in 
that, but, nonetheless, that was part of the investigation. He was 
exonerated by the full NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board, in 
July 1995. In June 1996, he received a second revocation. One of the 
charges in the second revocation involved falsification of records for 
a flight instructor certificate with a multiengined rating and his air 
transport pilot, ATP, certificate dating back to 1979.
  Like most, I have questioned how an alleged 17\1/2\-year-old 
violation could constitute an emergency, especially since he has not 
been cited for any cause in the intervening years. Nonetheless, the FAA 
vigorously pursued this action. On August 30, 1996, the NTSB issued its 
decision in this second revocation and found in favor of Mr. Stewart.
  A couple of comments in Mr. Stewart's decision bear closer 
examination. First, the board notes that ``the Administrator's loss in 
the earlier case appears to have prompted further investigation of the 
respondent * * *'' I found this rather troubling, that an impartial 
third party appears to be suggesting that the FAA has a vendetta 
against Ted Stewart, which is further emphasized with the footnote in 
which the board notes:

       [We,] of course, [are] not authorized to review the 
     Administrator's exercise of his power to take emergency 
     certificate action . . . We are constrained to register in 
     this matter, however, our opinion that where, as here, no 
     legitimate reason is cited or appears for not 
     consolidating all alleged violations into one proceeding, 
     subjecting an airman in the space of a year to two 
     emergency revocations, and thus to the financial and other 
     burdens associated with an additional 60-day grounding, 
     without prior notice and hearing, constitutes an abuse and 
     unprincipled discharge of an extraordinary power.

  Mr. President, I obviously cannot read the minds of the NTSB, but I 
believe a reasonable person would conclude from these comments that the 
board believes, as I do, that there is an abuse of emergency revocation 
powers by the FAA.
  This is borne out further by the fact that, since 1989, emergency 
cases as a total of all enforcement actions heard by the NTSB have more 
than doubled. In 1989, the NTSB heard 1,107 enforcement cases. Of 
those, 66 were emergency revocation cases, or 5.96 percent. In 1995, 
the NTSB heard 509 total enforcement cases, and of those 160 were 
emergency revocation cases or 31.43 percent. I believe it is clear that 
the FAA has begun to use an exceptional power as a standard practice.
  In response, I am proposing legislation which would establish a 
procedure whereby the FAA must show just cause for bringing an 
emergency revocation action against an airman.
  Not surprisingly, Mr. President, the FAA opposes this language. But 
they also oppose the changes to the civil penalties program where they 
served as judge, jury, and executioner in civil penalty actions against 
airmen. Fortunately, we were able to change that just a couple of years 
ago so that airmen can now appeal a civil penalty case to the NTSB. 
This has worked very well because the NTSB has a clear understanding of 
the issues.
  My proposal allows an airman, within 48 hours of receiving an 
emergency revocation order, to request a hearing before the NTSB on the 
emergency nature of the revocation--not whether or not the revocation 
was justified, but the emergency nature of the revocation. The NTSB 
then has 48 hours to hear the arguments and decide if a true emergency 
exists. During this time, the emergency revocation remains in effect. 
In other words, the airman loses use of his certificate for 4 days. 
However, should the NTSB decide an emergency does not exist, then the 
certificate would be returned to the airman and he could continue to 
use it while the FAA pursued their revocation case against him in a 
normal manner. If the NTSB decides that an emergency does exist, then 
the emergency revocation remains in effect and the airman cannot use 
his certificate until the case is adjudicated.
  This bill is supported by virtually all of the major aviation groups, 
such as the Air Transport Association, the Allied Pilots Association, 
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Experimental Aircraft 
Association, the NTSB Bar Association, and many others.
  My intention in introducing this bill today is to get it out so that 
interested groups can look at it and work with me to make changes, if 
that is necessary. I am pleased that Senator McCain, who is the 
chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of Commerce, has agreed to hold a 
hearing on this in the 105th Congress. In the intervening time, I will 
be working to make sure this issue is fully vetted, and it is my hope 
that we will be able to address this issue very early in the 105th 
Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:

  S. 2131. A bill to establish a bipartisan national commission on the 
year 2000 computer problem; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


THE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM NATIONS COMMISSION ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 
                                  1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my last in a 
series of warnings to the 104th Congress. I warn of a problem which may 
have extreme negative economic and national security consequences in 
the year 2000 and beyond. It is the problem of the Year 2000 Time Bomb, 
which has to do with the transition of computer programs from the 20th 
to the 21st century. Throughout history, much forewarning of the 
millennium has been foolishly apocalyptic, but this problem is not 
trifling.
  Simply put, many computer programs will read January 1, 2000 as 
January 1, 1900. Outwardly innocuous, the need to reprogram computers' 
internal clocks will not only cost billions, but if left undone--or not 
done in time--all levels of government, the business community, the 
medical community, and the defense establishment could face a maelstrom 
of adverse effects. Widespread miscalculation of taxes by the Internal 
Revenue Service; the possible failure of some Defense Department 
weapons systems; the possibility of misdiagnosis or improper medical 
treatment due to errors in medical records; and the possibility of 
widespread disruption of business operations due to errors in business 
records.
  Mr. Lanny J. Davis, in his thoughtful analysis of the dilemma 
presented in an article in the Washington Post of September, 15, 1996, 
cited one industry expert who called the Y2K defect--as the computer 
literate call it--``the most devastating virus to ever infect the 
world's business and information technology systems.'' Mr. Davis also 
tabulated the cost: ``Current estimates for business and government 
range from $50 billion to $75 billion--and will only increase as 2000 
draws closer.''

  Moreover, it seems the problem is not limited to main frame computers

[[Page S11313]]

as once was thought. In an article entitled ``Even Some New Software 
Won't Work in 2000,'' the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, 
September 18, 1996, that owners of personal computers will be affected 
as well. Mr. Lee Gomes wrote: ``In fact, tens of millions of PC owners 
will be affected. Current or very recent versions of such best sellers 
as Quicken, FileMaker Pro and at least one brand-new program from 
Microsoft will stumble at the approach of Jan. 1, 2000. There will be 
hardware hiccups, too. Many PC owners will have to take extra steps to 
teach their systems about the new millennium.''
  Early in 1996, John Westergaard first informed me of this impending 
problem. I asked the Congressional Research Service to assess its 
extent. In July, CRS reported back and substantiated the doomsayers' 
worst fears. I immediately wrote to the President, alerted him to the 
problem and suggested that a presidential aide--a general perhaps--be 
appointed to take responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies 
and Government contractors be Y2K date-compliant by January 1, 1999. No 
word back yet.

  Over the past few weeks I have periodically updated my colleagues in 
the Senate as to the nature of this problem, the possible costs of the 
problem, and advances in thinking about the problem. The business 
community has begun to stir, but it seems all is quiet here in the 
Nation's capital, or nearly quiet.
  Today, I am introducing a bill to establish a nonpartisan commission 
on the year 2000 computer problem. It will be composed of 15 members--
five selected by the President; 5, the President pro tempore of the 
Senate, and 5, the Speaker of the House of Representatives--in 
consultation with the minority leaders respectively. The commission 
will study the problem, analyze its costs, and provide immediate 
recommendations and requirements for the Secretary of Defense, the 
President, and Congress. Because of the urgency of this problem, the 
commission will complete its study and make its report to the President 
by December 31, 1997. The onus is now on us to see this bill passed.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize this problem, and help establish 
this Commission. As Mr. Davis warned, we have begun a ``Countdown to a 
Meltdown.'' The longer we delay, the more costly the solution and the 
more dire the consequences. The computer has been a blessing; if we do 
not act in a timely fashion, however, it could become the curse of the 
age.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article of 
Wednesday, September 18, 1996, entitled ``Even Some New Software Won't 
Work in 2000,'' by Lee Gomes, be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 18, 1996]

               Even Some New Software Won't Work in 2000

                             (By Lee Gomes)

       In his syndicated newspaper column this past July, 
     Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates answered an anxious 
     reader's question about whether PC owners have to worry about 
     the ``Year 2000 problem,'' which is now roiling the world of 
     corporate mainframes.
       ``Most PC users won't be affected,'' wrote Mr. Gates. 
     ``There shouldn't be much of an issue with up-to-date 
     software. Microsoft software, for instance, won't cause 
     problems.''
       The reply may have been reassuring, but it was also wrong. 
     In fact, tens of millions of PC owners will be affected. 
     Current or very recent versions of such best-sellers as 
     Quicken, File Maker Pro and at least one brand-new program 
     from Microsoft will stumble at the approach of Jan. 1, 2000. 
     There will be hardware hiccups, too. Many PC owners will have 
     to take extra steps to teach their systems about the new 
     millennium.
       The date rollover will trip up computers because 
     programmers have tended to use only two-digit numbers to 
     represent years--``96'' instead of ``1996''--assuming that 
     all dates would be in the 20th century.
       As a result, 40 months from now, unfixed computers will 
     calculate, for example, that ``00'' is ``1900,'' and thus an 
     earlier date than ``99,'' and decline to perform certain 
     functions.
       The good news is that fixing any Year 2000 problems on PCs 
     will seem like a picnic compared with the data-processing 
     nightmare now occurring in the corporate world. For PC 
     owners, a few simple steps will usually take care of things--
     assuming users can identify the problem.
       But, as Mr. Gates's two-month-old column suggests, the fact 
     that the Year 2000 is a PC issue at all will come as a 
     surprise to many, including some in the industry. 
     At Microsoft, the company has realized only in the past 
     few weeks that some of its own software is not ``Year 2000 
     compliant.'' Many other software companies, when first 
     asked, said they had no Year 2000 difficulties, only to 
     call back a few days later to report that they had found 
     some after all.
       Unlike mainframe makers, though, PC companies don't have 
     much excuse for having problems. Mainframe programmers took 
     short cuts during the '60s and '70s because computer memory 
     was then a precious commodity. But some PC programmers 
     followed that lead, even after memory was no longer in short 
     supply and the new millennium was much closer. The moral: 
     Even in an industry whose leaders often portray themselves as 
     social and technical visionaries, companies can suffer from 
     old-fashioned short-sightedness.
       So what exactly is the problem? Many PC software programs 
     allow users to enter years using either a four-digit or two-
     digit format that can lead some PC programs astray. Intuit 
     Inc.'s Quicken financial program, for example, lets people 
     schedule future electronic payments up to a year in advance. 
     Come late 1999, a user trying to set up a payment for ``01/
     10/00'' will get a message saying, in effect, that it's too 
     late to make a payment for 1900. To schedule the payment, 
     users will have to know enough to type ``01/10/2000'' or use 
     a special Quicken shortcut.
       The fall release of Quicken will fix the problem, says Roy 
     Rosin, the Quicken for Windows product manager at Intuit. The 
     company didn't fix it before because ``it just wasn't on the 
     radar screen.'' The new Quicken, he adds, will assume that 
     any two-digit date occurs between 1950 and 2027; a four-digit 
     year date can still specify a date outside that period. The 
     approach is a common one for Year 2000 compliant software.
       Microsfot's problem arises with Access 95, the database 
     program that was shipped last August with Windows 95. Like 
     Quicken, Access 95 doesn't properly handle two-digit dates 
     after ``99,'' says Douglas S. Dedo, who is handling most Year 
     2000 questions for Microsoft.
       Doesn't that show a lack of foresight by Microsoft 
     programmers? ``I couldn't agree with you more,'' replies Mr. 
     Dedo. He says the omission will be corrected in the next 
     version of the product, to be released next year. As with 
     Quicken, Access 95 users can work around the problem by using 
     a four-digit date.
       Microsfot's operating systems, by themselves, don't have a 
     Year 2000 problem, says Mr. Dedo, and neither do such major 
     company products as the Excel spreadsheet program.
       There is, though, an annoying problem with the basic date-
     keeping portion of a PC's hardware, called the CMOS, says Tom 
     Becker of Air System Technologies Inc. in Miami. In this 
     case, the blame belongs to International Business Machines 
     Corp. and the basic PC design it set down in the mid-1980s. 
     It turns out, Mr. Becker says, that the CMOS is something of 
     a dolt in keeping track of centuries. As a result, many PC 
     owners will need to manually reset the date to the Year 2000 
     the first time they use their machines in the 21st century.
       Mr. Dedo says that Microsoft's newer operating systems, 
     Windows 95 and Windows NT, will fix hardware date glitches 
     automatically. He adds that the company is also working on 
     fixer programs that will do the same for older DOS and 
     Windows 3.1-based machines.
       Year 2000 difficulties will probably occur mainly on the 
     IBM compatible side of the house. Apple Computer Inc.'s 
     Macintosh computer has no such problems, says an Apple 
     spokesman.
       But some recent Apple programs do, including both the Mac 
     and Windows versions of FileMaker Pro, a popular database 
     project that the Apple-owned Claris Corp. shipped until last 
     December. For forthcoming versions, says Claris's Christopher 
     Crim, the company took pains to make sure all dates were 
     converted from two to four digits before being stored. 
     ``We've learned our lesson,'' Mr. Crim says.

                          ____________________