[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11973-S12000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Pressler):
  S. 2162. A bill to provide for the disposition of certain funds 
appropriated to pay judgments in favor of the Mississippi Sioux 
Indians, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


  the mississippi sioux tribes judgment fund distribution act of 1996

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which will fairly resolve a longstanding problem with respect to a 
judgment distribution to Sioux tribes in the Dakotas and Montana. 
Specifically, the bill would distribute the accrued interest on funds 
awarded by the Indian Claims Commission in 1967 to the Mississippi 
Sioux tribes. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Daschle and 
Pressler in introducing this measure.
  In 1972, Congress enacted legislation that authorized the Secretary 
of the Interior to distribute 75 percent of a $5,900,000 judgment award 
to the Devils Lake Sioux Tribe of North Dakota, the Sisseton and 
Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota, and the Assiniboine and 
Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana. The remaining 25 
percent was to be distributed to individuals who could trace their 
lineal ancestry to a member of the aboriginal Sisseton and Wahpeton 
Sioux Tribe.
  The three Sioux tribes received their respective shares of the 
judgment award by the mid-1970's. To date, though, the funds allocated 
for the lineal descendants have never been distributed. This has 
resulted in a situation where the accrued interest on the original 
principal of approximately $1.5 million has now grown to more than $13 
million.
  If the 1,969 lineal descendants identified by the Department of the 
Interior receive per capita payments, they would receive more than 18 
times what the 11,829 enrolled tribal members received in the 1970's.
  In 1987, the three Sioux tribes filed suit in Federal court to 
challenge the constitutionality of the lineal descendancy provisions of 
the 1972 Act. This litigation is currently in its second appeal. In 
1992, Congress enacted legislation which authorized the Attorney 
General to settle the case on any terms agreed to by the parties 
involved. However, the Department of Justice has refused to proceed 
with any settlement negotiations and has taken the position that the 
1992 law did not authorize the Department to settle the case on any 
terms other than those laid out in the original 1972 act. While I 
believe this interpretation flies in the face of congressional intent, 
the Department has been unwilling to actively pursue this issue.
  The legislation I am introducing on behalf of the three Sioux tribes 
represents a reasonable solution to this matter and a substantial 
compromise on behalf of the tribes. In the past, the tribes have sought 
to repeal the lineal descendancy provisions of the 1972 act altogether, 
and, in 1986, a bill was reported by the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs which would have achieved this goal.
  In contrast, the Mississippi Sioux Tribes Judgment Fund Distribution 
Act of 1996 would retain the undistributed principal for the lineal 
descendants and distribute the accrued interest to the three Sioux 
tribes. There would be no per capita payments of the interest, which 
would have to be used by the tribes for economic development, resource 
development, or for other programs that collectively benefit tribal 
members, such as educational and social welfare programs. In addition, 
the legislation contains an audit requirement by the Secretary of the 
Interior to ensure that the funds are properly managed.
  I believe that this legislation is fundamentally fair. It keeps the 
commitment that the Federal Government made to provide compensation to 
lineal descendants while ensuring that most of the remaining 
undistributed funds go to the tribes. It was, after all, the

[[Page S11974]]

tribes who were wronged and who should be compensated for their losses.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2162

       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 ``Mississippi Sioux Tribes 
     Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Covered indian tribe.--The term ``covered Indian 
     tribe'' means an Indian tribe listed in section 4(a).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) Tribal governing body.--The term ``tribal governing 
     body'' means the duly elected governing body of a covered 
     Indian tribe.

     SEC. 3. DISTRIBUTION TO, AND USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS BY, THE 
                   SISSETON AND WAHPETON TRIBES OF SIOUX INDIANS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including 
     Public Law 92-555 (25 U.S.C. 1300d et seq.), any funds made 
     available by appropriations under Public Law 90-352 to the 
     Sisseton and Wahpeton Tribes of Sioux Indians to pay a 
     judgment in favor of the Tribes in Indian Claims Commission 
     dockets numbered 142 and 359, including interest, after 
     payment of attorney fees and other expenses, that, as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act, have not been distributed, 
     shall be distributed and used in accordance with this Act.

     SEC. 4. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO TRIBES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to section 5, as soon as 
     practicable after the date that is 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall distribute an 
     aggregate amount, equal to the funds described in section 3 
     reduced by $1,469,831.50, as follows:
       (1) 28.9276 percent of such amount shall be distributed to 
     the tribal governing body of the Devils Lake Sioux Tribe of 
     North Dakota.
       (2) 57.3145 percent of such amount shall be distributed to 
     the tribal governing body of the Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux 
     Tribe of South Dakota.
       (3) 13.7579 percent of such amount shall be distributed to 
     the tribal governing body of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 
     of the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana, as designated under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Tribal Governing Body of Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 
     of Fort Peck Reservation.--For purposes of making 
     distributions of funds pursuant to this Act, the Sisseton and 
     Wahpeton Sioux Council of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 
     shall act as the governing body of the Assiniboine and Sioux 
     Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRIBAL TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--As a condition to receiving funds 
     distributed under section 4, each tribal governing body 
     referred to in section 4(a) shall establish a trust fund 
     for the benefit of the covered Indian tribe under the 
     jurisdiction of that tribal governing body, consisting 
     of--
       (1) amounts deposited into the trust fund; and
       (2) any interest that accrues from investments made from 
     amounts deposited into the trust fund.
       (b) Trustee.--Each tribal governing body that establishes a 
     trust fund under this section shall--
       (1) serve as the trustee of the trust fund; and
       (2) administer the trust fund in accordance with section 6.

     SEC. 6. USE OF DISTRIBUTED FUNDS.

       (a) Prohibition.--No funds distributed to a covered Indian 
     tribe under section 4 may be used to make per capita payments 
     to members of the covered Indian tribe.
       (b) Purposes.--The funds distributed under section 4 may be 
     used by a tribal governing body referred to in section 4(a) 
     only for the purpose of making investments or expenditures 
     that the tribal governing body determines to be reasonably 
     related to--
       (1) economic development that is beneficial to the covered 
     Indian tribe;
       (2) the development of resources of the covered Indian 
     tribe; or
       (3) the development of a program that is beneficial to 
     members of the covered Indian tribe, including educational 
     and social welfare programs.
       (c) Audits.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct and annual 
     audit to determine whether each tribal governing body 
     referred to in section 4(a) is managing the trust fund 
     established by the tribal governing body under section 5 in 
     accordance with the requirements of this section.
       (2) Action by the secretary.--
       (A) In general.--If, on the basis of an audit conducted 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary determines that a covered 
     Indian tribe is not managing the trust fund established by 
     the tribal governing body under section 5 in accordance with 
     the requirements of this section, the Secretary shall require 
     the covered Indian tribe to take remedial action to achieve 
     compliance.
       (B) Appointment of independent trustee.--If, after a 
     reasonable period of time specified by the Secretary, a 
     covered Indian tribe does not take remedial action under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     tribal governing body of the covered Indian tribe, shall 
     appoint an independent trustee to manage the trust fund 
     established by the tribal governing body under section 5.

     SEC. 7. EFFECT OF PAYMENTS TO COVERED INDIAN TRIBES ON 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--A payment made to a covered Indian Tribe 
     or an individual under this Act shall not--
       (1) for purposes of determining the eligibility for a 
     Federal service or program of a covered Indian tribe, 
     household, or individual, be treated as income or resources; 
     or
       (2) otherwise result in the reduction or denial of any 
     service or program to which, pursuant to Federal law 
     (including the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.)), 
     the covered Indian tribe, household, or individual would 
     otherwise be entitled.
       (b) Tax Treatment.--A payment made to a covered Indian 
     tribe or individual under this Act shall not be subject to 
     any Federal or State income tax.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO LINEAL DESCENDANTS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, of the funds described in section 3, the Secretary 
     shall, in the manner prescribed in section 202(c) of Public 
     Law 92-555 (25 U.S.C. 1300d-4(c)), distribute an amount equal 
     to $1,469,831.50 to the lineal descendants of the Sisseton 
     and Wahpeton Tribes of Sioux Indians.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on legislation that the 
senior Senator from North Dakota is introducing today that will provide 
for the distribution of a judgment to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 
and lineal descendants of tribe members.
  This issue has been in litigation for many years and has been 
previously dealt with by Congress. Still, the issue remains unresolved.
  I want to see this matter taken care of to the satisfaction of all 
parties involved, once and for all. I believe the legislation the 
Senator from North Dakota is sponsoring is an essential first step in 
getting the job done. While perhaps not the ultimate resolution of the 
issue, the legislation should be carefully considered by Congress. All 
parties involved deserve a chance to be heard.
  As I believe thoughtful, bipartisan consideration of this bill will 
help push this issue off dead center and rolling toward resolution, I 
have decided to cosponsor this legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
give it serious consideration when the measure appears before them in 
committee and on the Senate floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 2163. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate 
the manufacture, importation, and sale of ammunition capable of 
piercing police body armor; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today 
would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to strengthen the 
existing prohibition on handgun ammunition capable of penetrating 
police body armor, commonly referred to as bullet-proof vests. This 
provision would require the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney 
General to develop a uniform ballistics test to determine with 
precision whether ammunition is capable of penetrating police body 
armor. The bill also prohibits the manufacture and sale of any handgun 
ammunition determined by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney 
General to have armor-piercing capability.
  I am encouraged that President Clinton has taken an interest in this 
subject. In a statement similar to remarks he has made many times 
recently at campaign appearances around the country, President Clinton 
said to an audience in Cincinnati, OH, on September 16, 1996:

       So that's my program for the future--do more to break the 
     gangs, ban those cop killer bullets, drug testing for 
     parolees, improve the opportunities for community-based 
     strategies that lower crime and give our kids something to 
     say yes to.

  Mr. President, it has been almost 15 years since I first introduced 
legislation in the Senate to outlaw armor-piercing, or cop-killer, 
bullets. In 1982, Phil Caruso of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association 
of New York City alerted me to the existence of a Teflon-coated bullet 
capable of penetrating the soft body armor police officers were then 
beginning to wear. Shortly

[[Page S11975]]

thereafter, I introduced the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 
1982 to prohibit the manufacture, importation, and sale of such 
ammunition.
  At that time, armor-piercing bullets--most notably the infamous 
``Green Hornet''--were manufactured with a solid steel core. Unlike the 
softer lead composition of most other ammunition, this hard steel core 
prevented these rounds from deforming at the point of impact--thus 
permitting the rounds to penetrate the 18 layers of Kevlar in a 
standard-issue police vest or flak-jacket. These bullets could go 
through a bullet-proof vest like a hot knife through butter. My 
legislation simply banned any handgun ammunition made with a core of 
steel or other hard metals.
  Despite the strong support of the law enforcement community, it took 
4 years before this seemingly noncontroversial legislation was enacted 
into law. The National Rifle Association initially opposed it--that is, 
until the NRA realized that a large number of its members were 
themselves police officers who strongly supported banning these 
insidious bullets. Only then did the NRA lend its grudging support. The 
bill passed the Senate on March 6, 1986 by a vote of 97 to 1, and was 
signed by President Reagan on August 8, 1986 (Public Law 99-408).

  That 1986 act served us in good stead for 7 years. To the best of my 
knowledge, not a single law enforcement officer was shot with an armor-
piercing bullet. Unfortunately, the ammunition manufacturers eventually 
found a way around the 1986 law. By 1993, a new Swedish-made armor-
piercing round, the M39B, had appeared. This pernicious bullet evaded 
the 1986 statute's prohibition because of its unique composition. Like 
most common ammunition, it had a soft lead core, thus exempting it from 
the 1986 law. But this soft core was surrounded by a heavy steel 
jacket, solid enough to allow the bullet to penetrate body armor. Once 
again, our Nation's law enforcement officers were at risk. Immediately 
upon learning of the existence of the new Swedish round, I introduced a 
bill to ban it.
  Another protracted series of negotiations ensued before we were able 
to update the 1986 statute to cover the M39B. We did it with the 
support of law enforcement organizations, and with technical assistance 
from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In particular, James 
O. Pasco, Jr., then the Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs at 
BATF, worked closely with me and my staff to get it done. The bill 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1993 as an 
amendment to the 1994 crime bill.
  Despite these legislative successes, it was becoming evident that 
continuing innovations in bullet design would result in new armor-
piercing rounds capable of evading the existing ban. It was at this 
time that some of us began to explore in earnest the idea of developing 
a new approach to banning these bullets based on their performance, 
rather than their physical characteristics. Mind, this concept was not 
entirely new; the idea had been discussed during our efforts in 1986, 
but the NRA had been immovable on the subject. The NRA's leaders, and 
their constituent ammunition manufacturers, felt that any such broad-
based ban based on a bullet performance standard would inevitably lead 
to the outlawing of additional classes of ammunition. They viewed it as 
a slippery slope, much as they have regarded the assault weapons ban as 
a slippery slope. The NRA had agreed to the 1986 and 1993 laws only 
because they were narrowly drawn to cover individual types of bullets.
  And so in 1993 I asked the ATF for the technical assistance necessary 
to write into law an armor-piercing bullet performance standard. At the 
time, however, the experts at the ATF informed us that this could not 
be done. They argued that it was simply too difficult to control for 
the many variables that contribute to a bullet's capability to 
penetrate police body armor. We were told that it might be possible in 
the future to develop a performance-based test for armor-piercing 
capability, but at the time we had to be content with the existing 
content-based approach.
  Two years passed and the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology wrote a report 
describing the methodology for just such a armor-piercing bullet 
performance test. The report concluded that a test to determine armor-
piercing capability could be developed within 6 months.
  So we know it can be done, if only the agencies responsible for 
enforcing the relevant laws have the will. The legislation I am 
introducing requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 
with the Attorney General, to establish performance standards for the 
uniform testing of handgun ammunition. Such an objective standard will 
ensure that no rounds capable of penetrating police body armor, 
regardless of their composition, will ever be available to those who 
would use them against our law enforcement officers.
  I wish to assure the Senate that this measure would in no way 
infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen. It would 
not affect legitimate sporting ammunition used in rifles. It would only 
restrict the availability of armor-piercing rounds, for which no one 
can seriously claim there is a genuine sporting use. These cop-killer 
rounds have no legitimate uses, and they have no business being in the 
arsenals of criminals. They are designed for one purpose: to kill 
police officers.
  The 1986 and 1993 cop-killer bullet laws I sponsored kept us one step 
ahead of the designers of new armor-piercing rounds. When the 
legislation I have introduced today is enacted--and I hope it will be 
early in the 105th Congress--it will put them out of the cop-killer 
bullet business permanently.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 2164. A bill to establish responsibility and accountability for 
information technology systems of the Department of Agriculture, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 
                                  1996

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the Department 
of Agriculture Responsibility and Accountability Act of 1996. This bill 
establishes an Information Technology System Control Board to manage 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's [USDA] technology planning and 
procurement processes. The Board will give the Department a strong 
centralized decision-making body to eliminate the duplication and 
inefficiencies associated with the independent agency-based approach 
that has plagued the Department for years, delivered poor service, and 
squandered hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
  The Office of Management and Budget estimates the Department of 
Agriculture will spend $1.4 billion on information technology and 
automated data processing equipment in fiscal year 1997. The 
Information Technology System Control Board will oversee all 
information technology spending at the Department. The Board, 
consisting of the Secretary and two appointees, will assume control of 
information technology planning and acquisition until the year 2002, 
guiding the creation of a technical architecture to take the Department 
into the 21st century. Finally, the Board will determine how best to 
accomplish the missions of the various agencies and the Department 
before purchasing information technology systems.
  The General Accounting Office, the Department of Agriculture's Office 
of Inspector General, and independent contractor reviews since 1989 
have identified ongoing problems with USDA's administration of 
information resource management programs, including the multiagency 
program called Info Share and computer and telecommunication purchases. 
Since the USDA Reorganization Act was enacted in 1994, USDA management 
has continued their historic trend of purchasing telecommunication and 
information systems that: fail to link information technology budgeting 
and purchases to strategic business needs; fail to integrate 
information management strategies with financial and programmatic 
information and reporting requirements; fail to define information 
technology requirements through business process reengineering; fail to 
achieve departmentwide efficiencies by standardizing administrative 
functions; and, fail to address the cultural changes necessary to 
migrate from a piecemeal approach to a standardized,

[[Page S11976]]

collaborative delivery system in field service centers.
  The Department continues to acquire hardware, software, and other 
equipment that does not match user needs, provides inefficient delivery 
of services to USDA customers, and creates unnecessary duplication. 
Many duplicated product and service acquisitions could have been 
avoided by departmentwide consolidation and sharing. Procurement 
activities do not allow the Farm Services Agency, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and Rural Development to exchange information 
electronically in the agency headquarter and field offices. The 
Department lacks leadership to direct the changes necessary to 
establish a working field service center infrastructure.

  In April 1993, USDA established the Info Share program to reframe the 
business activities of individual agencies into a consolidated strategy 
to meet the goals outlined for one-stop-shopping field service centers. 
In August 1993, the General Services Administration delegated 
procurement authority for USDA to spend up to $2.6 billion on Info 
Share. Besides the General Accounting Office, the Office of Management 
and Budget, and the USDA Office of the Inspector General, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology criticized USDA's approach to 
purchasing computer equipment, hardware, and software before defining 
the future mission objectives of its agencies in a May 1994 report. The 
report stated that Federal agencies should first determine how best to 
accomplish their mission and then acquire technology solutions to meet 
their needs. Info Share was to be the cure-all for USDA's management 
and acquisition control problems.
  The USDA Office of Inspector General sharply criticized the Info 
Share Program in a May 1995 report. The inspector general reported that 
USDA agencies were proceeding with their own information technology 
projects for information sharing between agencies with an apparent lack 
of funding and acquisition controls. The Office of Management and 
Budget complained to the Office of Budget and Program Analysis [OBPA] 
about inaccurate acquisition cost reporting and the need for a formal 
approval process for information technology purchases.
  Despite heavy pressures for Info Share to succeed, by December 1995 
Info Share had failed. The failure was due to an evident lack of upper 
management leadership, inadequate planning, failure to obtain consensus 
on program objectives, and poor program management. USDA's leadership, 
despite commitments made by Secretary Glickman, again failed to focus 
on the necessary development of departmentwide computer and information 
standards and a comprehensive analysis of emerging business 
requirements. The Info Share Program has now been replaced by a 
decentralized agency-led initiative under the National Food and 
Agriculture Council. As a result, individual agencies are again 
independently deciding what is best for their individual needs, 
abandoning the departmentwide effort necessary to consolidate 
administrative and information technology systems.
  According to an August 1994 GAO Report, ``USDA Restructuring--Refocus 
Info Share Program on Business Processes Rather Than Technology'', USDA 
is not performing key business process reengineering [BPR] steps 
necessary for a successful reorganization of the Department. BPR is a 
management technique used fundamentally to rethink and redesign 
business processes to achieve dramatic changes in overall performance. 
It is also used to change how employees think and work to improve 
customer satisfaction. The success of the field service center 
initiative depends on cross-training field office employees to operate 
as educated contacts for all USDA programs. The lack of training is 
making it difficult for field office employees who remain after 
downsizing efforts to provide quality service to their customers. 
USDA's focus on improving computer automation prior to concentrating on 
the skills of its work force has hamstrung program delivery.

  During farm bill deliberations, it was determined that reforms were 
needed to rein in the uncontrolled and obscured use of CCC funds for 
information technology. Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] borrowing 
authority has been historically abused within the Department. Transfers 
and expenditures of CCC funds have too often been obscured from 
congressional oversight and at times have been of questionable 
legality. As a result, the FAIR Act established spending caps on the 
use of CCC funds for purchases or services for automated data 
processing or information technology, and for all reimbursable 
agreements--contracts--funded by the CCC. Finally, the CCC was required 
to report to Congress on a quarterly basis all expenditures of over 
$10,000 for these expenditures. This new level of transparency was 
designed to increase accountability by forcing USDA managers to fully 
examine information technology purchases and link purchase plans with 
work force needs.
  Despite repeated calls for leadership, USDA does not have the 
necessary management to link the Department's ability to define its 
work force to its information technology purchases. The Department has 
yet to determine how to provide quality services with a reduced work 
force and changing mission requirements. In addition, USDA is still 
using its Info Share initiative, now guided by the National Food and 
Agriculture Committee, as a vehicle to acquire new information 
technology, rather than develop a method to improve the way USDA does 
business and prepare the Department for the challenges of the 21st 
century.
  On May 31, 1996, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and 
I wrote to the Secretary stating that the USDA should not make 
additional investments in information technology products that are 
exclusive to one agency unless USDA can show that the investments will 
provide technology that will be shared among agencies. We also shared 
our concern that funds were being spent without adequate consideration 
of USDA's future business requirements. The Department responded with a 
less than adequate catalog of ongoing initiatives designed for 
individual agency program use rather than a departmentwide information 
technology architecture.

  Despite efforts by USDA to meet the goal of information sharing as 
mandated by the USDA Reorganization Act of 1994 and Info Share, the 
Farm Services Agency, Rural Development, and Natural Resources 
Conservation Service field offices remain unable to operate in a common 
computing environment. This has resulted in the delivery of poor 
services to its customers. If USDA is ever to successfully share 
information, the Department must prevent agencies from planning and 
building their own individual networks.
  For example, last year the Farm Services Agency [FSA] spent $36 
million in Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] funds to purchase new 
minicomputers for FSA field offices during the debate of the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. The FAIR Act resulted 
in a 7-year phaseout of farm subsidy programs, significantly reducing 
work force requirements and workload of the Farm Service Agency. Less 
than a year later, FSA is proposing another upgrade that does not meet 
the requirements necessary for information sharing with other field 
office agency computer systems. Why did FSA spend $36 million on a new 
system if the agency knew it would be outdated only 9 months later? 
USDA estimates the upgrade alternative will result in acquisition costs 
of $125.8 million for FSA alone. Estimates of costs to be incurred by 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Rural Development to 
acquire similar equipment have not been made. This ill-conceived 
approach will result in an investment of $11,604 per computer in FSA 
offices that may not have employees to run those computers after work 
force downsizing occurs. This is yet another example of poor planning 
and waste of taxpayer dollars resulting from a lack of direction.
  Despite repeated reviews by the General Accounting Office and the 
USDA Office of the Inspector General, and considerable concern of 
Congress, the Director of the Office of Information Resource Management 
has not determined how to address the information sharing needs of the 
Department. Therefore, USDA risks wasting millions by building new 
networks that are redundant, do not address future business needs, and 
do not provide the information sharing capabilities necessary among 
agencies. The creation of

[[Page S11977]]

the Information Technology System Control Board will put the Department 
back on track and save millions of taxpayer dollars.
  My bill also makes necessary changes to the buyout authority granted 
to USDA in the 1997 Agriculture Appropriation Conference Report. The 
buyout authority gives the Department the authority to offer $25,000 
bonuses to retirement-age employees, and those eligible for early 
retirement. This golden handshake approach to Department downsizing 
pays off employees who are already preparing to retire. In addition, it 
comes at the expense of conservation programs. The Senate Agriculture 
Committee recently learned that the Department may transfer an 
estimated $43 million from unobligated Conservation Reserve Program 
funds to pay for buyouts for 1,341 Farm Services Agency employees. The 
bill mandates that buyouts can only be paid from appropriations made 
available for salaries and expenses and prohibits the use of mandatory 
funds, including Commodity Credit Corporation funds, for buyout plans. 
In addition, the bill limits the Department's buyout authority to 1 
year. These changes are important to monitor the Department's work 
force downsizing efforts by compelling USDA to properly plan for future 
work force reductions.

  I cannot overstate my concern that the Department has failed to 
adequately assess the impact that the FAIR Act will have on the people 
who use the services of the Department and on the Department's work 
force requirements. Department management lacks strong central 
leadership in planning for information technology for the 21st century, 
continues to acquire equipment, hardware, software, and computers that 
do not match user needs, continues to provide inefficient delivery of 
services to USDA customers, and continues to allow unnecessary 
duplication.
  Since I am introducing my bill at the end of this session, obviously 
it cannot become law before the 105th Congress convenes next year. 
However, I intend to pursue this important issue in the next Congress, 
and I will reintroduce this bill.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important endeavor and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the summary and the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2164

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Department 
     of Agriculture Responsibility and Accountability Act of 
     1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

          TITLE I--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM CONTROL BOARD

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Information Technology System Control Board.
Sec. 104. Mission of the Board.
Sec. 105. Duties of the Board.
Sec. 106. Powers of the Board.
Sec. 107. Review by Office of Management and Budget.
Sec. 108. Technical amendment.
Sec. 109. Termination of authorities.

         TITLE II--ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sec. 201. Administration of Department of Agriculture.

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 301. Effective date.
          TITLE I--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM CONTROL BOARD

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Office of Management and Budget estimates that the 
     Department of Agriculture will spend $1,100,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996 and $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 on 
     information technology and automated data processing 
     equipment;
       (2) according to the Department of Agriculture, as of 
     October 1993, the Department had 17 major information 
     technology systems under development with an estimated life-
     cycle cost of $6,300,000,000;
       (3) both the General Accounting Office and the Office of 
     Management and Budget have categorized the information 
     technology programs of the Department as high risk due to 
     lack of management and financial controls;
       (4) the General Accounting Office, the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department, and independent contract 
     studies have shown that the Department's information 
     technology decisions have been made in piecemeal fashion, on 
     an individual agency basis, resulting in a lack of 
     coordination, duplication, and wasted financial and 
     technological resources among the various offices and 
     agencies of the Department and costing hundreds of millions 
     of wasted dollars over the past decade;
       (5) over the past 10 years, committees of Congress, the 
     General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and private consultants have repeatedly pointed to 
     the lack of strong central leadership and accountability as 
     the fundamental reasons for the Department's failure to make 
     informed decisions on critical information technology 
     investments;
       (6) committees of Congress, the General Accounting Office, 
     the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department, and private consultants 
     have--
       (A) strongly criticized the Department over the past 10 
     years for ignoring business process reengineering; and
       (B) pointed to the Department's refusal to use an industry 
     accepted methodology as key to its failure to develop a 
     technology platform that services the entire Department;
       (7) the Department's role in regulating agriculture in the 
     United States was substantially reduced by the FAIR Act;
       (8) the Department has failed to adequately assess the 
     impact of the FAIR Act will have on the needs of its 
     customers;
       (9) the Department has continued information technology 
     procurement absent future business need considerations and 
     workforce requirements resulting from the FAIR Act;
       (10) the Department continues to approach the technological 
     changes brought about by the Act without studying the changes 
     in the context of the business processes of the Department;
       (11) because the Department has failed to implement the 
     internal changes necessary to effectively address the 
     deficiencies raised by committees of Congress, the General 
     Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and 
     the Office of the Inspector General of the Department over 
     the past decade, it is necessary to establish a single entity 
     within the Department with both the responsibility and 
     authority to make decisions regarding information technology 
     planning and procurement; and
       (12) having an Information Technology System Control Board 
     to control the Department's information technology planning 
     and procurements will--
       (A) provide the Department with strong and coordinated 
     leadership and direction;
       (B) ensure that funds will be spent by the Department on 
     information technology only after the Department has 
     completed the required planning and review of future business 
     requirements; and
       (C) force the Department to act as a single enterprise with 
     respect to information technology, thus eliminating the 
     duplication and inefficiency associated with an independent 
     agency-based approach.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Information 
     Technology System Control Board established under section 
     103.
       (2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (3) FAIR act.--The term ``FAIR Act'' means the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     104-127).
       (4) Information technology system.--The term ``information 
     technology system'' means all or part of each system of 
     automated data processing, telecommunications, information 
     resource management, or business process reengineering of an 
     office or agency of the Department.
       (5) Office or agency of the department.--The term ``office 
     or agency of the Department'' means each current or future--
       (A) national, regional, county, or local office or agency 
     of the Department;
       (B) county committee established under section 8(b)(5) of 
     the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 
     590h(b)(5));
       (C) State committee, State office, or field service center 
     of the Farm Service Agency; and
       (D) multiple offices and agencies of the Department that 
     are currently, or will be, connected by an information 
     technology system.
       (6) Transfer or obligation of funds.--The term ``transfer 
     or obligation of funds'' means, as applicable--
       (A) the transfer of funds (including appropriated funds, 
     mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation) from 1 account to another account of an office 
     or agency of the Department for the purpose of funding any 
     activity of the Department regarding planning, providing 
     services, or leasing or purchasing of personal property 
     (including all hardware and software) or services for an 
     information technology system of an office or agency of the 
     Department;
       (B) the obligation of funds (including appropriated funds, 
     mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation) for the purpose of funding any activity of the 
     Department regarding planning, providing services, or leasing 
     or purchasing of personal property (including all hardware 
     and software) or services for an information technology 
     system of an office or agency of the Department; or
       (C) the obligation of funds (including appropriated funds, 
     mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation) for the purpose of funding any activity of the 
     Department regarding planning, providing

[[Page S11978]]

     services, or leasing or purchasing of personal property 
     (including all hardware and software) or services for an 
     information technology system of an office or agency of the 
     Department, to be obtained through a contract with any office 
     or agency of the Federal Government, a State, the District of 
     Columbia, or any person in the private sector.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 103. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM CONTROL BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--An Information Technology System 
     Control Board is established in the Department.
       (b) Composition.--The Board shall consist of 3 members, of 
     whom--
       (1) 2 members shall be appointed from the private sector by 
     the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate; and
       (2) 1 member shall be the Secretary.
       (c) Qualifications of Board Members.--Of the members of the 
     Board appointed by the President (other than the Secretary)--
       (1) 1 member shall have--
       (A) extensive private sector work-related experience in the 
     field of total quality management; and
       (B) at least 5 years of demonstrated work related 
     experience in a full range of activities with large 
     organizations involving information strategic planning, 
     strategic quality planning, and strategic process management, 
     including business process reengineering and business process 
     improvement project-related experience; and
       (2) 1 member shall have at least 15 years experience and 
     industry-recognized credentials in the field of planning and 
     managing the specification, design, and implementation of 
     information technology, telecommunications, and information 
     management systems in the private sector.
       (d) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--A member of the Board appointed by the 
     President (other than the Secretary) shall--
       (A) be a limited term appointee (as defined in section 
     3132(a) of title 5, United States Code); and
       (B) be paid an annual rate of compensation that does not 
     exceed the annual rate in effect for positions at level V of 
     the Executive Schedule.
       (2) Administration.--A member of the Board (other than the 
     Secretary) shall not be governed by--
       (A) the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating 
     to appointments in the competitive service; or
       (B) the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of title 5, or any other provision of law, 
     relating to number or classification of General Schedule 
     rates.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Limited term appointees of the Information Technology 
     System Control Board, Department of Agriculture (2).''.
       (e) Clerical and Support Personnel.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law:
       (1) In general.--The Board is authorized to obtain and 
     employ such clerical or other support personnel, including 
     detailees from an office or agency of the Department, as are 
     necessary to enable the Board to carry out this title. The 
     Secretary shall approve the transfer of each detailee 
     selected by the Board.
       (2) Management and supervisory duties.--The Board shall 
     have general management and supervisory authority over all 
     clerical and support personnel and detailees selected by the 
     Board.
       (3) Specific duties.--In the case of clerical and support 
     personnel and detailees selected by the Board, the 
     supervisory and management authority of the Board under 
     paragraph (2) shall include the exclusive authority (unless 
     expressly delegated by a unanimous vote of the Board) to--
       (A) establish and control workloads, quality of work, and 
     work content;
       (B) approve bonuses, step advancements, and promotions; and
       (C) discipline employees for unsatisfactory performance or 
     conduct.
       (f) Board Voting Procedure.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in this title--
       (1) a decision or action of the Board shall require at 
     least a \2/3\-majority vote in favor of the decision or 
     action; and
       (2) if at least a \2/3\-majority vote on a decision or 
     action is obtained, the Secretary shall carry out the 
     decision or action of the Board.

     SEC. 104. MISSION OF THE BOARD.

       (a) In General.--The Board shall--
       (1) develop and implement for the future a blueprint for a 
     single platform information technology system of the 
     Department that is coordinated between the offices or 
     agencies of the Department, eliminate duplication, and are 
     cost effective; and
       (2) provide the strong central leadership, planning, and 
     accountability that is needed in light of the substantial 
     changes created by the FAIR Act and reorganization and 
     downsizing initiatives already commenced within the 
     Department.
       (b) Specific Goals of the Board.--The Board shall ensure 
     that--
       (1) information technology systems of the Department are 
     designed to coordinate the functions of the offices or 
     agencies of the Department on a departmental basis in 
     contrast to the current practice of individual agencies 
     designing and procuring information technology systems that 
     service only a single agency;
       (2) information technology systems are designed for field 
     service centers--
       (A) to best facilitate the exchange of information between 
     field service centers and other offices or agencies of the 
     Department;
       (B) that integrate the changed missions of the Department 
     in light of the FAIR Act and reorganization and downsizing 
     initiatives of the Department; and
       (C) that are cost effective; and
       (3) a technical architecture is established that serves the 
     entire Department.
       (c) Business Plan.--
       (1) Approval; report.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date the last member of the Board appointed by the President 
     (other than the Secretary) is confirmed by the Senate, the 
     Board shall approve and report to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
     business plan to carry out this section through March 31, 
     2002.
       (2) Failure to report.--If a business plan is not approved 
     and reported in accordance with paragraph (1), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the transfer or 
     obligation of funds available to the Department for the 
     purpose of funding any activity of the Department regarding 
     planning, providing services, or leasing or purchasing of 
     personal property (including all hardware and software) or 
     services for an information technology system of an office or 
     agency of the Department shall be prohibited until the 
     business plan is reported to the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.

     SEC. 105. DUTIES OF THE BOARD.

       The Board shall--
       (1) review, evaluate, and approve (or, at the option of the 
     Board, develop) each plan or design for all or part of each 
     information technology system of each office or agency of the 
     Department;
       (2) exercise exclusive authority to approve each transfer 
     or obligation of funds to be used to acquire all or part of 
     each information technology system (including all hardware 
     and software) for each office or agency of the Department;
       (3) ensure that major information technology systems of the 
     Department, where appropriate, result in improvements to the 
     operations of the Department that are commensurate with the 
     level of investment;
       (4) ensure that the information technology system of each 
     office or agency of the Department maximizes the 
     effectiveness and efficiency of mission delivery and is 
     focused first on specific improvements to core business 
     processes (the strategic process management architecture) of 
     the Department;
       (5) ensure that the information technology system of each 
     office or agency of the Department maximizes quality per 
     dollar expended, and maximizes efficiency and coordination of 
     information technology systems between offices and agencies 
     of the Department;
       (6) ensure that planning for, leases, and purchases of the 
     information technology system of each office or agency of the 
     Department most efficiently satisfy the needs of the office 
     or agency in terms of the demographics, program, and the 
     number of employees affected by the system; and
       (7) ensure that funding used for planning or purchasing of 
     the information technology system of each office or agency of 
     the Department is used in the most effective manner.

     SEC. 106. POWERS OF THE BOARD.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Board shall 
     have the exclusive authority (except as expressly delegated 
     by a unanimous vote of the Board) to--
       (1) review, evaluate, and approve each plan or design for 
     each activity or regulation of the Department regarding 
     planning, providing services, leasing, or purchasing of 
     personal property (including all hardware and software) or 
     services for the information technology system of each office 
     or agency of the Department;
       (2) develop (or, on a unanimous vote of the Board, direct 
     employees of an agency or office of the Department to 
     develop) a plan or design for an activity of the Department 
     regarding planning, providing services, leasing, or 
     purchasing of personal property (including hardware and 
     software) or services for the information technology system 
     of an office or agency of the Department; and
       (3) approve each transfer or obligation of funds to be used 
     for the purpose of funding any activity of the Department 
     regarding planning, providing services, or leasing or 
     purchasing of personal property (including all hardware and 
     software) or services for the information technology system 
     of each office or agency of the Department.
       (b) Report to Board.--An employee directed by the Board to 
     develop a plan or design under paragraph (2) of subsection 
     (a) shall report to the Board on actions taken to carry out 
     the paragraph.
       (c) Board Not Subject to Control of Secretary.--The Board 
     (including a decision or action of the Board approved by at 
     least a \2/3\-majority vote) shall not be subject to the 
     control, direction, or supervision of the Secretary.
       (d) Exclusive Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Board shall have the exclusive 
     authority to exercise all powers described in subsection (a) 
     during the period--
       (1) beginning on the earlier of--

[[Page S11979]]

       (A) the date the last member of the Board appointed by the 
     President (other than the Secretary) is confirmed by the 
     Senate; or
       (B) March 31, 1997; and
       (2) ending on March 31, 2002.

     SEC. 107. REVIEW BY OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

       The Director of the Office of Management and Budget may 
     review any regulation or transfer or obligation of funds 
     involving an information technology system of the Department.

     SEC. 108. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       The second sentence of section 13 of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714k) is amended by 
     striking ``section 5 or 11'' and inserting ``section 4, 5, or 
     11''.

     SEC. 109. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITIES.

       The Board and all other authorities provided by this title 
     (other than section 108) shall terminate on March 31, 2002.
         TITLE II--ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

     SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

       Section 735 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1997 (Public Law 104-180; 110 Stat. 1604), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) any employee who, on separation and application, 
     would be eligible for an immediate annuity under subchapter 
     III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States 
     Code (or another retirement system for an employee of the 
     agency), other than an annuity subject to a reduction under 
     section 8339(h) or 8415(f) of title 5, United States Code (or 
     corresponding provisions of another retirement system for an 
     employee of the agency).'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) shall be paid from appropriations made available for 
     salaries and expenses of the agency;'';
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (E) as 
     subparagraphs (D) through (F), respectively;
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) may not originate from funds of a mandatory account 
     (including funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation) that 
     are transferred to the salaries and expenses account of the 
     agency;''; and
       (iv) in subparagraph (D)(ii) (as so redesignated), by 
     striking ``in fiscal year 1997,'' and all that follows 
     through ``2000''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``September 30, 2000'' 
     and inserting ``March 31, 1997''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Period.--The authority to offer separation incentive 
     payments under this section shall apply during the period 
     beginning October 1, 1996, and ending March 31, 1997.''.
                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 301. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided in section 106(d)(1), this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall become effective on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

      Summary of the Department of Agriculture Responsibility and 
                       Accountability Act of 1996


          TITLE I-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM CONTROL BOARD

  SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
       Sec. 101. Findings.--Studies by several governmental and 
     private organizations have repeatedly found that the 
     Department of Agriculture has made planning decisions for, 
     and procurement of, information technology in a piecemeal 
     fashion, and on an individual agency basis (instead of a 
     Department-wide basis), resulting in duplication, a lack of 
     coordination, and wasted financial and technological 
     resources. The Department has failed to adequately assess the 
     impact that the 1996 Farm Bill will have on the people who 
     use the services of the Department and on the Department's 
     workforce requirements. Because of these and other 
     longstanding deficiencies, it is necessary to establish a 
     single entity within the Department that has the exclusive 
     responsibility and authority to make decisions regarding 
     planning for, and procurement of, information technology. 
     This entity will--provide the Department with strong and 
     coordinated leadership; ensure that funds will be spent on 
     information technology only after a thorough review of future 
     business requirements; and ensure that planning and 
     procurement for information technology is performed on a 
     departmental basis, instead of the Current independent 
     agency-based approach.
       Sec. 102. Definitions.
       Sec. 103. Information Technology System Control Board.
       An Information Technology System Control Board (Board) is 
     established within the Department that consists of three 
     members- the Secretary of Agriculture and two persons with 
     extensive experience from the private sector who have 
     qualifications such as quality management, strategic 
     planning, and business process reengineering. The two members 
     of the Board other than the Secretary shall be compensated at 
     a rate according to level V of the Executive Schedule.
       Sec. 104. Mission of the Board.--The Board is required to--
       Develop and implement for the future a blueprint for a 
     single platform for information technology; ensure that 
     planning and procurement for information technology is 
     performed on a departmental basis, instead of an independent 
     agency-based approach;
       Ensure that information technology for field service 
     centers is coordinated, cost effective, and designed in light 
     of the changed requirements and reduced work force realities 
     created by the 1996 Farm Bill;
       Establish a technical architecture for information 
     technology for the Department; and
       Submit to Congress a business plan on how the Board intends 
     to carry out its mission though 2002.
       Sec.  105 & 106. Duties and Powers of the Board.
       The Board is authorized and required to--
       Review, evaluate, and approve every plan or design for an 
     activity or regulation of the Department regarding planning, 
     providing services, or procuring information technology for 
     offices and agencies of the Department;
       Develop a plan or design for activities of the Department 
     regarding planning, providing services, or procuring 
     information technology for offices and agencies of the 
     Department; and
       Approve every transfer or obligation of funds for 
     procurement of information technology for offices and 
     agencies of the Department.
       The Board will not be subject to the control, direction, or 
     supervision of the Secretary. The Board will obtain the 
     exclusive authority to exercise these powers when the last 
     member of the Board is confirmed by the Senate, or March 31, 
     1997, whichever is earlier, and will terminate on March 31, 
     2002.
       Sec.  107. Review by Office of Management and Budget.
       The Office of Management and Budget may review any 
     regulation or transfer or obligation of funds approved by the 
     Board.
       Sec. 108.  Technical Amendment.
       A technical change is made to a reporting requirement 
     regarding funding for automated data processing or 
     information resource management.
       Sec. 109. Termination of Authorities.
       All authorities of this subtitle (except the technical 
     amendment in section 108) will terminate on March 31, 2002.

         TITLE II--ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

       The personnel buyout authority in the FY 1997 Agriculture 
     Appropriations Act is amended--
       By prohibiting persons who are eligible for retirement from 
     also obtaining a buyout payment;
       By requiring that only funds from an agency's salaries and 
     expense accounts be used to pay for buyout payments;
       By limiting this buyout authority to only FY 1997.

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This bill will become effective when it is signed into law 
     by the President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2165. A bill to require that the President to impose economic 
sanctions against countries that fail to eliminate corrupt business 
practices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


                       UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Unfair Trade 
Practices Act to level the playing field for U.S. companies competing 
with foreign firms overseas by imposing sanctions against foreign 
persons and concerns engaging in corrupt trade practices to the 
disadvantage of a U.S. company and against countries that refuse to 
enforce or adopt their own foreign corrupt practices laws similar to 
our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
  I am introducing this bill at the end of this session rather than 
waiting to introduce it in the 105th Congress in order to provide 
people an opportunity to review this legislation over the intervening 
months. Earlier introduction of the bill was prevented by the press of 
Senate Intelligence Committee business.
  The Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chair, had a 
particularly heavy agenda this year, including, among many other items, 
the annual Intelligence Authorization Act providing for the first real 
reform of the U.S. intelligence community since 1947, criminalizing 
economic espionage, and directing a thorough study of how the U.S. 
Government is organized to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. In addition, the committee has undertaken significant 
inquiries into CIA activities in Guatemala, the actions of U.S. 
officials regarding the flow of arms from Iran to

[[Page S11980]]

Bosnia, and the bombing of United States facilities in Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. President, this bill directs the President to report to Congress 
regarding foreign persons and concerns that engage in corrupt practices 
and countries that do not have or do not enforce laws similar to our 
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Countries that the President determines 
are not engaged in a good faith effort to enact or enforce such laws 
will be sanctioned. Sanctions include a 50-percent reduction in foreign 
aid and USG opposition to the extension of any loan or financial or 
technical assistance by international financial institutions.
  The bill also provides for sanctions against foreign persons and 
concerns engaging in corrupt trade practices to the disadvantage of a 
U.S. company. If the country with primary jurisdiction over the 
offenders fail to take action against them within 90 days, the 
President must, to fullest extent consistent with international 
obligations, ban all U.S. Government contracts with the offenders as 
well as all licenses or other authority allowing the offenders to 
conduct business within the United States.
  In testimony earlier this year before the Select Committee on 
Intelligence, Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch said the 
problems of economic espionage and unfair trade practices were among 
the most serious economic issues facing the country today. Earlier this 
year, Senator Kohl and I introduced legislation to criminalize economic 
espionage, S. 1557, subsequently included in S. 1718, and S. 1557. The 
bill I am introducing today attempts to address the second issue, 
unfair trade practices by foreign concerns.
  The importance of this effort to level the playing field by 
encouraging other countries to criminalize bribery of foreign officials 
throughout the world cannot be overstated. Earlier this year, then-U.S. 
Trade Representative Mickey Kantor noted that ``from April 1994 to May 
1995, the U.S. Government learned of almost 100 cases in which foreign 
bribes undercut U.S. firms' ability to win contracts valued at $45 
billion.''
  A recent poll of 3,000 Asian executives conducted by the ``Far 
Eastern Economic Review'' found that more than a third of the business 
leaders in four major countries preferred to bribe a customer rather 
than lose a big sale. Another index is published annually by an 
institution called Transparency International, created by a group of 
multinational corporations including General Electric and the Boeing 
Corp. This index, which was a compilation of polls of business men and 
women around the world, revealed that corruption is not limited to any 
specific culture or business area but exists worldwide. Nor is it 
limited to less developed countries. In 1994, a year described in ``The 
Financial Times--Dec. 30, 1994, at 4--as ``The Year of Corruption,'' 
complaints of corruption surfaced in some of the wealthier countries, 
including Britain, Canada, France, and Japan.

  Despite the evidence that corruption is still widespread, there are 
indications that the international community may finally be susceptible 
to increased pressure to crack down on these unfair trade practices. 
There is a growing recognition that bribery exacts a cost on the 
foreign country whose officials are corrupted. Studies show corrupt 
procurement practices deter foreign investment while as much as 
doubling the price that emerging countries pay for goods and services.
  We may finally be approaching the point when focused U.S. pressure 
can actually make a difference, just as U.S.-led efforts to combat 
money laundering, including U.S. sanctions, extraterritorial 
enforcement of U.S. laws, and multilateral efforts, finally led 
countries to recognize that the stigma of being a dirty-money haven 
outweighed the benefits of attracting illicit funds.
  Change will not occur without significant U.S. pressure, however. 
When then-Trade Representative Kantor returned this past March from 
discussions with the Organization on Economic Cooperation and 
Development [OECD], he expressed his frustration at the lack of 
progress in trying to get our European allies to adopt laws to stop 
unfair trade practices and suggested U.S. sanctions may be required to 
provide the necessary incentive. While most countries have enacted laws 
to punish the bribing of their officials by their nationals and 
foreigners, no other major nation has laws banning their nationals from 
bribing foreign officials. In fact, in a number of countries--including 
Germany and France--corruption and bribery are so accepted that 
individuals are permitted to deduct the cost of bribes from their 
taxes.
  Sustained U.S. efforts finally led in April of this year to an 
agreement by the members of the OECD that these tax laws should be 
rewritten so that bribes paid to foreign officials, often listed as 
commissions or fees, would no longer be tax deductible. However, this 
agreement is not binding and there is no deadline by which members are 
to have adopted the changes. Moreover, this is still a long way from 
criminalizing bribery of foreign officials.
  There is much more that needs to be done. In addition to pressing the 
OECD members to adopt foreign corrupt practices laws, the USG should 
move promptly to support the treaty negotiated this past April in the 
Organization of American States requiring each signatory to make 
bribery of foreign officials a crime and an extraditable offense. We 
should press for similar commitments in other fora, such as the G-7 
meetings and the World Trade Organization.
  In the meantime, the U.S. should take steps to ensure that U.S. firms 
are not penalized by the failure of other countries to enact laws 
prohibiting foreign bribery. Foreign firms that bribe foreign officials 
to gain an unfair advantage over U.S. competitors are, in effect, 
robbing those U.S. competitors of their right to compete fairly for 
international contracts. Such ``theft'' has adverse effects within the 
United States in terms of lost income and, often, jobs. If countries 
with jurisdiction over these trade thieves will not act to stop them, 
the U.S. should.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 2166. A bill to increase the overall economy and efficiency of 
Government operations and enable more efficient use of Federal funding, 
by enabling State, local, and tribal governments and private, nonprofit 
organizations to use amounts available under certain Federal assistance 
programs in accordance with approved flexibility plans; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


        THE LOCAL EMPOWERMENT AND FLEXIBILITY PILOT ACT OF 1996

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the appropriations process of the 
past few weeks has been very complex. Rolling several spending bills 
into one--to the tune of $600 billion--is not the most appropriate 
method to appropriate. However, as the fiscal year expires tonight, 
avoiding a Government shutdown is our national priority. As a result of 
our need to be hasty, many Members have lost, or been asked to 
withhold, their legislative priorities. This is the compromising nature 
absolutely necessary to reach agreement in time for the President to 
sign this bill today.
  One withheld legislative goal that I would like to expound upon is my 
own--the Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1996. I introduced 
this bill on the first day of the 104th Congress. Congress has held 
three hearings, one in the Senate and two in the House, and ``Local-
Flex,'' as I call it, was reported favorably out of both the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee months ago.
  An agreement had been reached to include a six-State Local-Flex pilot 
in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. The assistance of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee as well as Senators Shelby, Kerrey, 
Kennedy, and Simon was greatly appreciated. However, before the 
agreement could be incorporated into the Treasury-Postal bill, various 
other amendments forced leadership to pull the bill off the floor. I 
then included the agreed upon pilot in the Senate CR with the hope and 
expectation that it would be included in the final omnibus bill. 
Unfortunately, the necessary haste of the government-wide spending bill 
precluded securing final agreement to incorporate the Local-Flex pilot. 
I have no doubt that a few additional moments would have made this 
possible.

  Local-Flex provides communities flexibility in the administration of 
Federal funding. States and localities receive numerous Federal grants, 
each with their categorical purposes and

[[Page S11981]]

specific requirements. As grantees use more than one grant together, 
requirements conflict and common sense government can be lost. Under 
Local-Flex, in exchange for flexibility in the form of waivers of 
statutory and regulatory requirements, grantees agree to focus on and 
measure results rather than procedural compliance. With over 635 
Federal grants available to be mixed and matched at the local level, 
there should be little doubt that flexibility is required.
  Mr. President, the past year, the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
House of Representatives, administration, interest groups and other 
interested Members have come to the table to practically discuss how 
the bill would work and what improvements should be made. Serious 
concerns have been addressed and great headway was made to the point 
that the Local-Flexibility Pilot has the broad bipartisan support of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee.

  Unfortunately, I am disappointed to report that even with the 
bipartisan support of the committee of jurisdiction, the support of the 
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and 
yet other interest groups have targeted Local-Flex, warning their 
members of the danger that results whenever communities are empowered 
to make decisions which affect their citizens.
  As former Governor of Oregon, I vividly recall the lack of trust 
Washington has for the State and local level. That is why for several 
years I have been pushing forward what I call the ``flexibility 
factor.'' The Education Flexibility Act or ``Ed-Flex,'' was my first 
piece and become law in 1993. It provides much needed flexibility in a 
select number of education programs. Ed-Flex has been enormously 
successful, and what started as a six-State pilot is being expanded 
with New Mexico becoming the most recent Ed-Flex State.
  The second piece to my flexibility factor is ``Work-Flex.'' 
Originally a part of the Careers Act of Senator Kassebaum, and now a 
part of the omnibus appropriations bill, Work-Flex reduces Government 
bureaucracy specifically in the area of job training programs, of which 
there are over 100, by measuring and rewarding outcomes and not 
bureaucratic procedure.
  The last and most significant piece to the flexibility factor has 
been Local-Flex--legislation which will not be passed this year, but I 
would like to, in a moment, introduce as a free-standing bill the 
Local Empowerment and Flexibility Pilot Act of 1996.

  The key organization that resisted the concept of local-flexibility, 
was the National Education Association. No matter what changes were 
made to Local-Flex, an offshoot of the Education Flexibility Act, it 
has been made clear to me that the NEA would never support Local-Flex. 
It is not my usual custom to focus on any one group or individual on 
the Senate floor, but I cannot be silent as my commitment to education 
is questioned as flagrantly as it has been by the NEA. My support for 
education funding is absolute, but my support for flexible funding is 
just as strong.
  More than once I have been endorsed by the Oregon Education 
Association, and on the issue of education vouchers, the NEA and I have 
stood on the same ground. To witness the NEA's uncompromising view on 
this matter has been at best disheartening. While I single out the NEA, 
many groups trying to protect their piece of the Federal pie have been 
vocal in their opposition.
  Madam President, I would just like to close by explaining why I 
believe the flexibility factor is so important. As I mentioned a moment 
ago, we have been attempting--and when I say we I mean Members on both 
sides of the aisle and both sides of the Mall--to balance the budget on 
an 18-percent baseline of nondefense discretionary programs. By 2002, 
it is projected this baseline will decrease by 12 percent. In barely 5 
years, it is estimated that nondefense discretionary spending will be 
only 13 percent of the Federal budget. These numbers should encourage 
each of us to stop and think. In short, we are running out of 
nondefense discretionary dollars.

  On the first day of this Congress I introduced the Local Empowerment 
and Flexibility Act because if we are going to try and get our fiscal 
house in order using 18 percent of our budget, we may as well ensure 
that Federal dollars are doing more than being thrown at problems--we 
ought to be providing flexibility and measuring results.
  It is appropriate then, that on this last day, the Local Empowerment 
and Flexibility Pilot Act--which has been built on the foundation of my 
original bill--be introduced today and made available to the 105th 
Congress for debate.
  Mr. President, I would like to especially thank the Governmental 
Affairs Committee for their work with Local-Flex, especially Chairman 
Stevens, Ranking Member Glenn and Senator Levin. I would also like to 
thank Senator Kennedy for his assistance with this legislation. Their 
expertise has been invaluable. The Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee on the House side has also shown excellent leadership under 
Chairman Clinger and the companion bill's sponsor Congressman Shays. 
And finally, I am delighted to know of Congressman Steny Hoyer's 
interest in moving the flexibility factor forward in the 105th 
Congress. I introduce this bill today to serve as a starting point for 
next year's discussion.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2168. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide 
protection for airline employees who provide certain air safety 
information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                   THE AVIATION SAFETY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in an effort to increase overall safety of 
the airline industry, I am introducing the Aviation Safety Protection 
Act of 1996, which would establish whistle blower protection for 
aviation workers.
  The worker protections contained in the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act [OSHA] are of great importance to American workers. A number 
of members of this body have worked hard to maintain those protections. 
OSHA properly protects both private and Federal Government employees 
who report health and safety violations from reprisal by their 
employers. However, because of a loophole, aviation employees are not 
covered by these protections. Flight attendants and other airline 
employees are in the best position to recognize breaches in safety 
regulations and can be the critical link in ensuring safer air travel. 
Currently, those employees face the possibility of harassment, 
discipline, and even termination if they work for unscrupulous airlines 
and report violations.
  Aviation employees perform an important public service when they 
choose to report safety concerns. No employee should be put in the 
position of having to choose between his or her job and reporting 
violations that threaten the safety of passengers and crew. For that 
reason, we need a strong whistle blower law to protect aviation 
employees from retaliation by their employers when reporting incidents 
to Federal authorities. Americans who travel on commercial airlines 
deserve the safeguards that exist when flight attendants and other 
airline employees can step forward to help Federal authorities enforce 
safety laws.
  This bill would close the loophole in OSHA law and provide the 
necessary protections for aviation employees who provide safety 
violation information to Federal authorities or testify or assist in 
disclosure of safety violations. The act provides a Department of Labor 
complaint procedure for employees who experience employer reprisal for 
reporting such violations, and assures that there are strong 
enforcement and judicial review provisions for fair implementation of 
the protections. The act also protects airlines from frivolous 
complaints by establishing a fine which will be imposed on an employee 
who files a complaint if the Department of Labor determines that there 
is no merit to the complaint.
  I want to acknowledge the leadership of Representative Clyburn who 
has introduced the bill in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3187. I 
am pleased to introduce the companion legislation in the Senate.
  This bill will provide important protections to aviation workers and 
the general public. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PELL:

[[Page S11982]]

  S. 2169. A bill to promote the survival of significant cultural 
resources that have been identified as endangered and that represent 
important economic, social, and educational assets of the United States 
and the world, to permit United States professionals to participate in 
the planning and implementation of projects worldwide to protect the 
resources, and to educate the public concerning the importance of 
cultural heritage to the fabric of life in the United States and 
throughout the world, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


              the endangered cultural heritage act of 1996

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I rise to express my concern for the many 
historic and artistic sites around the world that are in grave danger 
through a growing range of threats from natural catastrophes and 
environmental deterioration to destructive acts of man. These 
magnificent sites are resources of great importance, not only for their 
spiritual and educational meaning, but also as valuable economic, 
social, and learning blocks for the global community.
  Through personal travel and my observations as a member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee and Honorary Chairman of the American 
Committee for Tyre, I have come to understand the value of preserving 
and protecting cultural heritage, especially in times of political 
upheaval or social change. In Cambodia, Vietnam and Croatia, we have 
seen that the use and abuse of culturally significant sites plays a 
large role in international relations.
  The actual number of endangered sites is being well-documented by the 
World Monuments Fund, a United States nonprofit organization devoted to 
the conservation of cultural heritage on a worldwide scale that 
maintains an international listing of endangered sites. Within this 
country, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National 
Park Service work with the World Monuments Fund to track sites in need 
of conservation and rehabilitation.
  I believe that the United States is in a unique position to lead an 
effort among independent nations to protect the future of our cultural 
legacy worldwide. A timely response is critical to prevent further 
losses. This can be achieved through sustained funding to stabilize and 
strengthen the ability of local institutions to protect their cultural 
resources on a consistent and long-term basis. Conservation work must 
increase. Professionals need to be trained in cultural resource 
management, and the public needs to be instilled with a concern for the 
survival of our significant cultural heritage.
  I hope that the 105th Congress will take action to establish an 
endangered cultural heritage fund and am today introducing legislation 
to serve as a discussion piece to move us in that direction. As a 
nation composed of the people of many cultures, it is fitting to 
support the care of great historic and artistic sites which define 
national character and pay tribute to human accomplishment of universal 
significance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. KASSEBAUM:
  S. 2170. A bill to establish spending limits for entitlement programs 
and other mandatory spending programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly.


                    the save our savings act of 1996

 Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, one good result of the 
strenuous budget debate of the past 2 years has been a bipartisan 
embrace of the need for reform in the long-sacrosanct realm of 
entitlement spending. The exchange of offers and counteroffers that 
characterized the budget process produced a new consensus that 
entitlement spending must be controlled. Most of us now realize that 
without controls, entitlement programs will continue to grow at a pace 
that threatens our fiscal security, jeopardizing any effort to balance 
the budget and squeezing funding away from important discretionary 
programs.
  As we come to the end of this Congress, the fruits of that consensus 
are in peril. Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the White House--
almost all of us have agreed that, at the very minimum, we can save 
$232 billion over 6 years from entitlement programs. We have not been 
able to agree on the policies to produce those savings, but we should 
not release ourselves from our obligation to do so. The legislation I 
am introducing today, the Save Our Savings Act of 1996, would ensure 
that we fulfill that obligation.
  Sometimes when we talk about entitlements, we use terms that support 
the view that they are beyond our control. We often define entitlements 
as programs not controlled by the annual appropriations process, 
programs that must distribute payments to all eligible, regardless of 
the cost. On its face, that definition is correct. But at a more basic 
level, it betrays a sense of helplessness, an aversion to action, and a 
passive acceptance of their growing might.
  When I was sworn in as a Senator 18 years ago, discretionary spending 
represented nearly 50 percent of the Federal budget. Now we spend 
little more than a third on these programs. We have seen in the past 2 
years how hard it is to squeeze savings from discretionary programs. If 
we do nothing about entitlements, spending constraints will become 
tighter still.
  Part of the explanation is that we now must set aside about one-sixth 
of the budget just to pay interest on the debt. At the same time, 
spending on entitlement programs has escalated rapidly in recent years, 
and the forecast is for even more rapid expansion in the future. In 
fact, if entitlements are allowed to grow unimpeded, they, combined 
with interest on the debt, will consume all revenues by 2012.
  This bill takes affirmative steps to lock in significant entitlement 
savings that, without action, will vanish. The legislation would cap 
entitlements from fiscal years 1997 to 2002 at the CBO-defined levels 
of the President's budget or, where applicable, the levels in the 
recently passed welfare reform legislation. You can consider those 
levels of savings the lowest that most of us have agreed to.
  Multiple caps would be enforced, including individual caps on the 11 
largest entitlement programs, an all other cap, and an aggregate cap. 
Sequestration would be triggered only on programs that exceeded their 
caps, and the caps themselves would be adjusted for economic and 
demographic factors. The caps could be adjusted by recorded vote.
  Some might argue that the very fact that both parties now advocate 
significant savings from entitlement programs has demonstrated our 
capacity to control Government spending--that we do not need our feet 
held to the fire--but experience is eloquent. If we let the evolution 
of the last 2 years' budget proposals fade into memory, the courage and 
resolve that should be invested in making difficult policy decisions 
will be spent instead on producing yet another set of budget 
blueprints. Congress does not need to start all over again; we need to 
finish what we have started.
  I realize that nothing more can be done on this matter in this 
Congress. I also realize that I will not be here in the next Congress 
to carry on this effort. However, I believe it is important to voice 
both my concern and a specific proposal to give weight to that concern 
for those who must take up this battle in the years ahead.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):

  S. 2171. A bill to provide reimbursement under the Medicare Program 
for telehealth services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                THE COMPREHENSIVE TELEHEALTH ACT OF 1996

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation 
to help improve health care delivery in rural and underserved 
communities throughout America through the use of telecommunications 
and telehealth technology.
  Telehealth encompasses a wide variety of technologies, ranging from 
the telephone to high-tech equipment that enables a surgeon to perform 
surgery from thousands of miles away. It includes interactive video 
equipment, fax machines and computers along with satellites and fiber 
optics. These technologies can be used to diagnose patients, deliver 
care, transfer health data, read x rays, provide consultation, and 
educate health professionals. Telehealth also includes the electronic 
storage and transmission of personally identifiable health information, 
such as medical records, test results, and insurance claims.

[[Page S11983]]

  The promise of telehealth is becoming increasingly apparent. 
Throughout the country, providers are experimenting with a variety of 
telehealth approaches in an effort to improve access to quality medical 
and other health-related services. Those programs are demonstrating 
that telecommunications technology can alleviate the constraints of 
time and distance, as well as the cost and inconvenience of 
transporting patients to medical providers. Many approaches show 
promising results in reducing health care costs and bringing adequate 
care to all Americans. Technological advances and the development of a 
national information infrastructure for the first time give telehealth 
the potential to overcome barriers to health care services for rural 
Americans and give them the access that most Americans take for 
granted. But it is clear that our Nation must do more to integrate 
telehealth into our overall health care delivery infrastructure.
  Because I believe telehealth holds incredible promise for rural 
America, I formed the ad hoc steering committee on telemedicine and 
health care informatics to explore telehealth and related issues in 
1994. The purpose of the steering committee, which includes 
telehealth experts from Government, private industry, and the health 
care professions, is to evaluate federal policies on telehealth and how 
to use telecommunications technology more effectively to increase 
access to health care throughout America.

  Throughout the last few years, as the steering committee held 
meetings and policy forums, it became increasingly apparent that there 
is enormous energy and financial effort being devoted to telehealth 
today, both by Government and private industry.
  Because so many rural and underserved communities lack the ability to 
attract and support a wide variety of health care professionals and 
services, it is important to find a way to bring the most important 
medical services into those communities. Telehealth provides an 
important part of the answer. It helps bring services to remote areas 
in a quick, cost-effective manner, and can enable patients to avoid 
traveling long distances in order to receive health care treatment.
  Telehealth is already making a difference in my State. The University 
of North Dakota has a fiber optic two-way audio and video interactive 
network that has been used to train students in areas like social work 
and medical technology. Recently, I had the opportunity to spend some 
time with two of the premier telehealth systems in the State of North 
Dakota. I was amazed at the capabilities of these systems. They 
currently supply speciality care to rural North Dakota clinics, manage 
chronic disease, lower administrative costs, and reduce the isolation 
felt by rural and frontier practitioners.
  Because telehealth is in many respects an emerging health care 
application, it is particularly important to constructively capitalize 
on efforts like these. My proposal attempts to facilitate this in a 
number of ways.
  The first element of my proposal builds on current demonstration 
projects to require the Health Care Financing Administration to put in 
place a reimbursement system for telehealth activities under Medicare. 
Medicare reimbursement policy is an essential component of helping 
integrate telehealth into the health care infrastructure, and must be 
explored. It is particularly important in rural areas, where many 
hospitals do as much as 80% of their business with Medicare patients.

  The second element of this proposal asks the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to submit a report to the Congress on the status of 
efforts to ease licensing burdens on practioners who cross State lines 
in the course of supplying telehealth services. Currently, consultation 
by almost any licensed health professional in this situation requires 
that the practitioner be licensed in both States.
  In talking with telehealth providers in my State, and with experts on 
the Ad Hoc Committee, I have been told repeatedly that this is one of 
the most significant barriers to developing broad integrated telehealth 
systems. More importantly, they tell me States have actively been using 
licensure to close their borders to innovative telehealth practice. In 
the past two years, nine States have taken legislative action to ensure 
that out-of-state practitioners must be fully licensed in their State 
in order to provide telehealth services, even if they are fully 
licensed in the State they are practicing from. During a recent 
discussion with a telehealth practitioner from my home State of North 
Dakota, I was told about a group of telehealth specialists who, among 
their small group practice, were licensed in over 30 different States. 
That means they pay thirty different fees, are responsible for 30 
different continuing education requirements, and are overseen by 30 
different regulatory bodies. This is a costly and burdensome procedure 
for many practitioners, but the burden falls particularly heavily on 
rural practitioners, who face long travel times to acquire continuing 
education, and who frequently run on lower profit margins than urban 
practitioners.
  While I am not prepared at this time to propose that the Federal 
Government get involved with professional licensure, I have asked the 
Secretary to study the issue and report to Congress yearly on the 
status of efforts by states and other interested organizations to 
address this issue. As part of this report, I have asked to the 
Secretary to make recommendations to Congress, if appropriate, about 
possible Federal action to lower the licensure barrier.
  A third element of my proposal involves coordination of the Federal 
telehealth effort. Vice President Gore has been making outstanding 
contributions in the area of the information super highway. The 
Department of Health and Human Services, in large part at the urging of 
the Vice President, has created an informal interagency task force that 
is examining our Federal agency telehealth efforts. My bill attempts to 
use that task force to inventory Federal activity on telehealth and 
related technology, determine what applications have been found 
successful, and recommend an overall Federal policy approach to 
telehealth.

  Many departments and agencies of the Federal Government are engaged 
in telehealth activity, including the Veterans Administration, 
Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture, Office of Rural 
Health Policy, and many others. The more these agencies work together 
to coordinate the Federal effort and consolidate Federal resources, the 
more effective the Federal Government will be at contributing to 
telehealth in a positive way. Such coordination will also help protect 
the American taxpayer from unnecessary duplication of effort.
  The fourth part of my proposal helps communities build home-grown 
telehealth networks. It attempts to both build a telehealth 
infrastructure and foster rural economic development. Clearly, the 
scarcity of resources in many rural communities requires that the 
coordination and use of those resources be maximized. My bill 
encourages cooperation by various local entities in an effort to help 
build sustainable telehealth programs in rural communities. It plants 
seed money to encourage health care providers to join with other 
segments of the community to jointly use telecommunications resources. 
Using a unique loan forgiveness program, it rewards telehealth systems 
that supply appropriate, high-quality care while reducing overall 
health care costs.
  Most importantly, it does not create a system where various 
technological approaches are imposed upon communities. Rather it 
enables potential grantees to determine user-friendly approaches that 
work best for them. This home-grown approach to developing user-
friendly telehealth systems, as well as the preference for coordinating 
resources within communities, will help ensure the long-term viability 
of such programs after the grant expires.
  Mr. President, my proposal is a sound first step in our national 
efforts to integrate telecommunications technology into the rapidly 
evolving health care delivery system. Over the past several weeks, I 
have attempted to reach out to different groups and incorporate their 
ideas into this proposal. I hope the result is a bill that will command 
broad support. But, as with any complex issue, I understand that some 
may prefer different approaches. By introducing this legislation in the 
waning moments of the 104th Congress, I hope to send a message to all 
interested parties that now is the time to

[[Page S11984]]

come forward with creative solutions to these important issues, because 
I am certain that they will be revisited again in the 105th Congress.
  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. 2171

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Comprehensive Telehealth Act of 1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.

        TITLE I--MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR TELEHEALTH SERVICES

Sec. 101. Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services.

                     TITLE II--TELEHEALTH LICENSURE

Sec. 201. Initial report to Congress.
Sec. 202. Annual report to Congress.

TITLE III--PERIODIC REPORTS TO CONGRESS FROM THE JOINT WORKING GROUP ON 
                               TELEHEALTH

Sec. 301. Joint working group on telehealth.

              TITLE IV--DEVELOPMENT OF TELEHEALTH NETWORKS

Sec. 401. Development of telehealth networks.
Sec. 402. Administration.
Sec. 403. Guidelines.
Sec. 404. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Hospitals, clinics, and individual health care 
     providers are critically important to the continuing health 
     of rural populations and the economic stability of rural 
     communities.
       (2) Rural communities are underserved by specialty care 
     providers.
       (3) Telecommunications technology has made it possible to 
     provide a wide range of health care services, education, and 
     administrative services between practitioners, patients, and 
     administrators across State lines.
       (4) The delivery of health services by licensed health 
     practitioners is a privilege and the licensure of health care 
     practitioners and the ability to discipline such 
     practitioners is necessary for the protection of citizens and 
     for the public interest, health, welfare, and safety.
       (5) The licensing of health care practitioners to provide 
     telehealth services has a significant impact on interstate 
     commerce and any unnecessary barriers to the provision of 
     telehealth services across State lines should be eliminated.
       (6) Rapid advances in the field of telehealth give the 
     Congress a need for current information and updates on recent 
     developments in telehealth research, policy, technology, and 
     the use of this technology to supply telehealth services to 
     rural and underserved areas.
       (7) Telehealth networks can provide hospitals, clinics, 
     practitioners, and patients in rural and underserved 
     communities with access to specialty care, continuing 
     education, and can act to reduce the isolation from other 
     professionals that these practitioners sometimes experience.
       (8) In order for telehealth systems to continue to benefit 
     rural and underserved communities, medicare must reimburse 
     the provision of health care services from remote locations 
     via telecommunications.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To mandate that the Health Care Financing 
     Administration reimburse the provision of clinical health 
     services via telecommunications.
       (2) To determine if States are making progress in 
     facilitating the provision of telehealth services across 
     State lines.
       (3) To create a coordinating entity for Federal telehealth 
     research, policy, and program initiatives that reports to 
     Congress annually.
       (4) To encourage the development of rural telehealth 
     networks that supply appropriate, cost-effective care, and 
     which contribute to the economic health and development of 
     rural communities.
       (5) To encourage research into the clinical efficacy and 
     cost-effectiveness of telehealth diagnosis, treatment, or 
     education on individuals, practitioners, and health care 
     networks.
        TITLE I--MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR TELEHEALTH SERVICES

     SEC. 101. MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR TELEHEALTH SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 1998, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall make payments 
     from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund 
     under part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act in 
     accordance with the methodology described in subsection (b) 
     for professional consultation via telecommunication systems 
     with an individual or entity furnishing a service for which 
     payment may be made under such part to a medicare beneficiary 
     residing in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) 
     of such Act) or an underserved area, notwithstanding that the 
     individual health care practitioner providing the 
     professional consultation is not at the same location as the 
     individual furnishing the service to the medicare 
     beneficiary.
       (b) Methodology for Determining Amount of Payments.--Taking 
     into account the findings of the report required under 
     section 192 of the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act of 1996, including those findings relating 
     to the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of telehealth 
     applications, the Secretary shall establish a methodology for 
     determining the amount of payments made under subsection (a), 
     including the cost of the consultation service, a reasonable 
     overhead adjustment, and a malpractice risk adjustment.
       (c) Additional Analysis Included in Report.--Section 192 of 
     the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
     1996 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and telehealth'' after ``telemedicine'' 
     each place it appears, and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 
     (1) the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) include an analysis of--
       ``(A) how telemedicine and telehealth systems are expanding 
     access to health care services,
       ``(B) the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 
     telemedicine and telehealth applications,
       ``(C) the quality of telemedicine and telehealth services 
     delivered, and
       ``(D) the reasonable cost of telecommunications charges 
     incurred in practicing telemedicine and telehealth in rural, 
     frontier, and underserved areas;''.
                     TITLE II--TELEHEALTH LICENSURE

     SEC. 201. INITIAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than July 1, 1997, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall prepare and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report concerning--
       (1) the number, percentage and types of practitioners 
     licensed to provide telehealth services across State lines, 
     including the number and types of practitioners licensed to 
     provide such services in more than 3 States;
       (2) the status of any reciprocal, mutual recognition, fast-
     track, or other licensure agreements between or among various 
     States;
       (3) the status of any efforts to develop uniform national 
     sets of standards for the licensure of practitioners to 
     provide telehealth services across State lines;
       (4) a projection of future utilization of telehealth 
     consultations across State lines;
       (5) State efforts to increase or reduce licensure as a 
     burden to interstate telehealth practice; and
       (6) any State licensure requirements that appear to 
     constitute unnecessary barriers to the provision of 
     telehealth services across State lines.

     SEC. 202. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than July 1, 1998, and each July 
     1 thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress, an annual report on relevant developments 
     concerning the matters referred to in paragraphs (1) through 
     (6) of section 201.
       (b) Recommendations.--If, with respect to a report 
     submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services determines that States are not making progress 
     in facilitating the provision of telehealth services across 
     State lines by eliminating unnecessary requirements, adopting 
     reciprocal licensing arrangements for telehealth services, 
     implementing uniform requirements for telehealth licensure, 
     or other means, the Secretary shall include in the report 
     recommendations concerning the scope and nature of Federal 
     actions required to reduce licensure as a barrier to the 
     interstate provision of telehealth services.
TITLE III--PERIODIC REPORTS TO CONGRESS FROM THE JOINT WORKING GROUP ON 
                               TELEHEALTH

     SEC. 301. JOINT WORKING GROUP ON TELEHEALTH.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Redesignation.--The Joint Working Group on 
     Telemedicine, established by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, shall hereafter be known as the ``Joint 
     Working Group on Telehealth'' with the chairperson being 
     designated by the Director of the Office of Rural Health 
     Policy.
       (2) Mission.--The mission of the Joint Working Group on 
     Telehealth is--
       (A) to identify, monitor, and coordinate Federal telehealth 
     projects, data sets, and programs,
       (B) to analyze--
       (i) how telehealth systems are expanding access to health 
     care services, education, and information,
       (ii) the clinical, educational, or administrative efficacy 
     and cost-effectiveness of telehealth applications, and
       (iii) the quality of the services delivered, and
       (C) to make further recommendations for coordinating 
     Federal and State efforts to increase access to health 
     services, education, and information in rural and underserved 
     areas.
       (3) Periodic reports.--The Joint Working Group on 
     Telehealth shall report not later

[[Page S11985]]

     than January 1 of each year (beginning in 1998) to the 
     Congress on the status of the Group's mission and the state 
     of the telehealth field generally.
       (b) Report Specifics.--The annual report required under 
     subsection (a)(3) shall provide--
       (1) an analysis of--
       (A) how telehealth systems are expanding access to health 
     care services,
       (B) the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 
     telehealth applications,
       (C) the quality of telehealth services delivered,
       (D) the Federal activity regarding telehealth, and
       (E) the progress of the Working Group's efforts to 
     coordinate Federal telehealth programs; and
       (2) recommendations for a coordinated Federal strategy to 
     increase health care access through telehealth.
       (c) Termination.--The Joint Working Group on Telehealth 
     shall terminate immediately after the annual report filed not 
     later than January 1, 2002.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary for the 
     operation of the Joint Working Group on Telehealth on and 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
              TITLE IV--DEVELOPMENT OF TELEHEALTH NETWORKS

     SEC. 401. DEVELOPMENT OF TELEHEALTH NETWORKS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (hereafter referred to in this title as the ``Secretary''), 
     acting through the Director of the Office of Rural Health 
     Policy (of the Health Resources and Services Administration), 
     shall provide financial assistance (as described in 
     subsection (b)(1)) to recipients (as described in subsection 
     (c)(1)) for the purpose of expanding access to health care 
     services for individuals in rural and frontier areas through 
     the use of telehealth.
       (b) Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Financial assistance shall consist of 
     grants or cost of money loans, or both.
       (2) Form.--The Secretary shall determine the portion of the 
     financial assistance provided to a recipient that consists of 
     grants and the portion that consists of cost of money loans 
     so as to result in the maximum feasible repayment to the 
     Federal Government of the financial assistance, based on the 
     ability to repay of the recipient and full utilization of 
     funds made available to carry out this title.
       (3) Loan forgiveness program.--
       (A) Establishment.--With respect to cost of money loans 
     provided under this section, the Secretary shall establish a 
     loan forgiveness program under which recipients of such loans 
     may apply to have all or a portion of such loans forgiven.
       (B) Requirements.--A recipient described in subparagraph 
     (A) that desires to have a loan forgiven under the program 
     established under such paragraph shall--
       (i) within 180 days of the end of the loan cycle, submit an 
     application to the Secretary requesting forgiveness of the 
     loan involved;
       (ii) demonstrate that the recipient has a financial need 
     for such forgiveness;
       (iii) demonstrate that the recipient has met the quality 
     and cost-appropriateness criteria developed under 
     subparagraph (C); and
       (iv) provide any other information determined appropriate 
     by the Secretary.
       (C) Criteria.--As part of the program established under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall establish criteria for 
     determining the cost-effectiveness and quality of programs 
     operated with loans provided under this section.
       (c) Recipients.--
       (1) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant or loan 
     under this section an entity described in paragraph (2) 
     shall, in consultation with the State office of rural health 
     or other appropriate State entity, prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary an application, at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including--
       (A) a description of the anticipated need for the grant or 
     loan;
       (B) a description of the activities which the entity 
     intends to carry out using amounts provided under the grant 
     or loan;
       (C) a plan for continuing the project after Federal support 
     under this section is ended;
       (D) a description of the manner in which the activities 
     funded under the grant or loan will meet health care needs of 
     underserved rural populations within the State;
       (D) a description of how the local community or region to 
     be served by the network or proposed network will be involved 
     in the development and ongoing operations of the network;
       (E) the source and amount of non-Federal funds the entity 
     would pledge for the project; and
       (F) a showing of the long-term viability of the project and 
     evidence of provider commitment to the network.
     The application should demonstrate the manner in which the 
     project will promote the integration of telehealth in the 
     community so as to avoid redundancy of technology and achieve 
     economies of scale.
       (2) Eligible entities.--An entity described in this 
     paragraph is a hospital or other health care provider in a 
     health care network of community-based providers that 
     includes at least--
       (A) two of the following:
       (i) community or migrant health centers;
       (ii) local health departments;
       (iii) nonprofit hospitals;
       (iv) private practice health professionals, including rural 
     health clinics;
       (v) other publicly funded health or social services 
     agencies;
       (vi) skilled nursing facilities;
       (vii) county mental health and other publicly funded mental 
     health facilities; and
       (viii) home health providers; and
       (B) one of the following, which must demonstrate use of the 
     network for purposes of education and economic development 
     (as required by the Secretary):
       (i) public schools;
       (ii) public library;
       (iii) universities or colleges;
       (iv) local government entity; or
       (v) local nonhealth-related business entity.
     An eligible entity may include for-profit entities so long as 
     the network grantee is a nonprofit entity.
       (d) Priority.--The Secretary shall establish procedures to 
     prioritize financial assistance under this title considering 
     whether or not the applicant--
       (1) is a health care provider in a rural health care 
     network or a provider that proposes to form such a network, 
     and the majority of the providers in such a network are 
     located in a medically underserved, health professional 
     shortage areas, or mental health professional shortage areas;
       (2) can demonstrate broad geographic coverage in the rural 
     areas of the State, or States in which the applicant is 
     located;
       (3) proposes to use Federal funds to develop plans for, or 
     to establish, telehealth systems that will link rural 
     hospitals and rural health care providers to other hospitals, 
     health care providers and patients;
       (4) will use the amounts provided for a range of health 
     care applications and to promote greater efficiency in the 
     use of health care resources;
       (5) can demonstrate the long term viability of projects 
     through use of local matching funds (cash or in-kind); and
       (6) can demonstrate financial, institutional, and community 
     support for the long-term viability of the network.
       (e) Maximum Amount of Assistance to Individual 
     Recipients.--The Secretary may establish the maximum amount 
     of financial assistance to be made available to an individual 
     recipient for each fiscal year under this title, and 
     establish the term of the loan or grant, by publishing notice 
     of the maximum amount in the Federal Register.
       (f) Use of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--Financial assistance provided under this 
     title shall be used--
       (A) with respect to cost of money loans, to encourage the 
     initial development of rural telehealth networks, expand 
     existing networks, or link existing networks together; and
       (B) with respect to grants, as described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Grants and loans.--The recipient of a grant or loan 
     under this title may use financial assistance received under 
     such grant or loan for the acquisition of telehealth 
     equipment and modifications or improvements of 
     telecommunications facilities including--
       (A) the development and acquisition through lease or 
     purchase of computer hardware and software, audio and video 
     equipment, computer network equipment, interactive equipment, 
     data terminal equipment, and other facilities and equipment 
     that would further the purposes of this section;
       (B) the provision of technical assistance and instruction 
     for the development and use of such programming equipment or 
     facilities;
       (C) the development and acquisition of instructional 
     programming;
       (D) demonstration projects for teaching or training medical 
     students, residents, and other health professions students in 
     rural training sites about the application of telehealth;
       (E) transmission costs, maintenance of equipment, and 
     compensation of specialists and referring practitioners;
       (F) development of projects to use telehealth to facilitate 
     collaboration between health care providers;
       (G) electronic archival of patient records;
       (H) collection of usage statistics; or
       (I) such other uses that are consistent with achieving the 
     purposes of this section as approved by the Secretary.
       (3) Expenditures in rural areas.--In awarding a grant or 
     cost of money loan under this section, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that not less than 50 percent of the grant or loan 
     award is expended in a rural area or to provide services to 
     residents of rural areas.
       (g) Prohibited Uses.--Financial assistance received under 
     this section may not be used for any of the following:
       (1) To build or acquire real property.
       (2) Expenditures to purchase or lease equipment to the 
     extent the expenditures would exceed more than 40 percent of 
     the total grant funds.
       (3) To purchase or install transmission equipment (such as 
     laying cable or telephone lines, microwave towers, satellite 
     dishes, amplifiers, and digital switching equipment).
       (4) For construction, except that such funds may be 
     expended for minor renovations relating to the installation 
     of equipment.
       (5) Expenditures for indirect costs (as determined by the 
     Secretary) to the extent the

[[Page S11986]]

     expenditures would exceed more than 20 percent of the total 
     grant funds.
       (h) Matching Requirement for Grants.--The Secretary may not 
     make a grant to an entity State under this section unless 
     that entity agrees that, with respect to the costs to be 
     incurred by the entity in carrying out the program for which 
     the grant was awarded, the entity will make available 
     (directly or through donations from public or private 
     entities) non-Federal contributions (in cash or in kind) in 
     an amount equal to not less than 50 percent of the Federal 
     funds provided under the grant.

     SEC. 402. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Nonduplication.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     facilities constructed using financial assistance provided 
     under this title do not duplicate adequate established 
     telehealth networks.
       (b) Loan Maturity.--The maturities of cost of money loans 
     shall be determined by the Secretary, based on the useful 
     life of the facility being financed, except that the loan 
     shall not be for a period of more than 10 years.
       (c) Loan Security and Feasibility.--The Secretary shall 
     make a cost of money loan only if the Secretary determines 
     that the security for the loan is reasonably adequate and 
     that the loan will be repaid within the period of the loan.
       (d) Coordination With Other Agencies.--The Secretary shall 
     coordinate, to the extent practicable, with other Federal and 
     State agencies with similar grant or loan programs to pool 
     resources for funding meritorious proposals in rural areas.
       (e) Informational Efforts.--The Secretary shall establish 
     and implement procedures to carry out informational efforts 
     to advise potential end users located in rural areas of each 
     State about the program authorized by this title.

     SEC. 403. GUIDELINES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall issue guidelines to carry out this 
     title.

     SEC. 404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1998 through 2004.
                                                                    ____



                The Comprehensive Telehealth Act of 1996

                              Bill Summary

       Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.
       Sec. 2. Findings and Purposes.
       Subtitle A--Medicare Reimbursement For Telehealth Services.
       Sec. 101. Medicare Reimbursement For Telehealth Service.
       Mandates that HCFA reimburse for telehealth services 
     provided to rural and underserved areas by January of 1998. 
     Reimbursement would be given to any Medicare-eligible 
     provider. This provision builds on the results of the HCFA 
     telemedicine reimbursement demonstration program, and adds 
     additional reporting requirements to the reimbursement 
     methodology report that HCFA must forward to Congress by 
     March of 1997.
       Subtitle B--Telehealth Licensure.
       Sec. 201. Initial Report to Congress.
       Asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit 
     an initial report to the Congress on the status of efforts to 
     ease licensing burdens on practioners who cross state lines 
     in the course of supplying telehealth services.
       Sec. 202. Annual Report to Congress.
       Asks the Secretary to report yearly on developments 
     concerning the matters in Sec. 1201. If the Secretary feels 
     the states or other relevant entities are not making progress 
     on removing licensure barriers to multistate telehealth 
     practice, the Secretary may make recommendations about 
     possible federal action necessary to reduce licensure 
     burdens.
       Subtitle C--Periodic Reports to Congress From the Joint 
     Working Group on Telehealth.
       Sec. 301. Joint Working Group on Telehealth.
       The Joint Working Group on Telemedicine (JWGT) is currently 
     operating out of the HHS/HRSA Office of Rural Health Policy, 
     at the request of the Secretary and the Vice-President. The 
     group consists of representatives from over twenty government 
     agencies and divisions that operate or oversee telehealth 
     related projects, including the VHA, DOD, IHS, NASA, USDA, 
     and others. The JWGT coordinates federal programs and 
     telehealth initiatives, and will complete a report on its 
     efforts in January of 1997.
       Under this proposal, the name of the group will change to 
     the ``Joint Working Group on Telehealth'', and the Office of 
     Rural Health Policy will have the authority to select the 
     Chair. It requires yearly updates (through 2002) to Congress 
     on the report on Telehealth due March 1, 1997. The group 
     sunsets in 2002.
       Subtitle D--Development of Telehealth Networks.
       Sec. 401. Development of Telehealth Networks.
       Grants and loans are awarded through the Office of Rural 
     Health Policy (ORHP) to rural hospitals, clinics, schools, 
     libraries, business organizations, and universities to 
     develop local multi-use telehealth systems. Systems are given 
     an incentive to design effective programs; all or part of a 
     loan can be forgiven if the program meets certain cost-
     effectiveness and quality criteria. Grantees must put up not 
     less than a 50 percent match of the federal funds (cash or 
     in-kind).
       Sec. 402. Administration.
       Sec. 403. Guidelines.
       Sec. 404. Authorization of Appropriations.
       Up to $25 million per year through 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 2172. A bill to provide for the appointment of a Special Master to 
meet with interested parties in Alaska and make recommendations to the 
Governor of Alaska, The Alaska State Legislature, The Secretary of 
Agriculture, The Secretary of the Interior, and the United States 
Congress on how to return management of fish and game resources to the 
State of Alaska and provide for subsistence uses by Alaskans, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         THE ALASKA SUBSISTENCE HUNTING AND FISHING ACT OF 1996

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of introducing 
legislation regarding subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska.
  I am under no false hope that this legislation will move through the 
Senate this year but I want it to appear in the Record for purposes of 
discussion.
  The issue of subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska has caused a 
great divisiveness in my State that has led to the State of Alaska 
becoming the only State in the union which no longer retains control of 
its fish and game resources on public lands.
  This legislation calls for the appointment of a special master to 
come up with non-binding recommendations to the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and the Interior, the Governor of the State of Alaska and 
to the Congress.
  The recommendations will be on how to return management of fish and 
game resources to the State, and how best to provide for the 
continuation of a subsistence lifestyle for Alaska's rural residents.
  I hope to have significant discussions with the people of Alaska on 
this issue between now and the start of the 105th Congress and intend 
to introduce legislation again upon our return in January.
  Mr. President, I intend to place a longer statement in the Record 
next week on this issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:

  S. 2173. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
family-owned business exclusion from the gross estate subject to estate 
tax, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


           The Family Business Estate Tax Relief Act of 1996

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I introduce the Family Business 
Estate Tax Relief Act of 1996, which would help preserve our Nation's 
most important economic assets. I am referring, of course, to our 
farms, ranches and other family-owned small businesses which are the 
major creators of new wealth and jobs in this country.
  Farms, ranches and other closely held family businesses that operate 
in this country face a number of obstacles to succeeding, ranging from 
price gouging by tough international competitors to excessive U.S. 
regulations. That is why it is not surprising to find, for example, 
that we have lost some 377,000 family farms since 1980, a decline of 
some 23,500 family farms every year.
  Since 1980, we have lost some 9,000 of our family farms in North 
Dakota. At the same time, we see that only a small fraction of other 
family-run businesses survive beyond the second generation.
  When family farms are sold or family-run businesses on Main Street 
are boarded up, those families lose their very livelihood. Moreover, 
our country loses the jobs and services those families provide to our 
communities.
  I have been approached on a number of occasions at town meetings by 
North Dakotans who say it is virtually impossible for them to pass 
along their farm or business--which has been the family's major asset 
for decades--to their children because of the exorbitant estate taxes 
they would pay. They think it is unfair, and I agree.
  Unfortunately, our estate tax laws force many family members who 
inherit a modestly sized farm, ranch or other family business to sell 
it, or a large part of it, out of the family in order to pay off estate 
taxes. This is especially onerous when the inheriting family members 
have already been participating in the business for years and depend 
upon it to earn a living.

[[Page S11987]]

  I think that we must take immediate steps to breathe new economic 
life and opportunities into our family businesses and the communities 
in which they operate. It seems to me that a good first step is 
correcting our estate tax laws so they do not unfairly penalize those 
working families who are now prevented from passing along a small farm 
or business to their kids or grandkids because they would have to pay 
exorbitant estate taxes.
  There are a few provisions included in our estate tax laws that are 
intended to help a family's effort to keep the family business running 
long after the death of its original owner. But, for the most part, 
these provisions are either too modest or too narrowly drawn to do much 
good.
  Now I also understand that there are some complicated estate tax 
planning techniques available for those wealthy enough to hire 
sophisticated and costly tax advisors. Clearly some estate planning 
devices may reduce the estate tax burden imposed on some family 
businesses upon the death of a principal owner. But for those less 
affluent families inheriting a family business--where such estate 
planning tools were unavailable for whatever reason--the estate taxes 
will ultimately force them to amass a pile of debt, or to sell off all 
or a large part of a family business, just to pay off their estate 
taxes. I think that this is wrong, and it runs counter to the kinds of 
policies that we ought to be pursuing in support of our family-owned 
businesses.
  That is why I am introducing the Family Business Estate Tax Relief 
Act to rectify this matter, and I urge you consider joining me in this 
endeavor.
  The Family Business Estate Tax Relief Act would provide two 
significant measures of estate tax relief to those families hoping to 
pass along their businesses to the next generation.
  First, my bill allows a decedent's estate to exclude up to the first 
$900,000 of value of the family business from estate taxes so long as 
the heirs continue to materially participate in the business for many 
years after the death of the owner. Together, this proposal, when 
coupled with the existing $600,000 benefit from unified estate and gift 
tax credit, will eliminate estate tax liability on qualifying family 
business assets valued up to $1.5 million. In addition, the full 
benefit of this new $900,000 exclusion is available to couples trying 
to pass along the family business without the complicated tax planning 
tailored to one spouse or the other that is sometimes used today.
  Second, my bill would allow the executor of a qualifying estate who 
chooses to pay estate taxes in installments to benefit from a special 4 
percent rate on the estate taxes attributable to a family business 
worth between $1.5 and $2.5 million. In other words, my bill would also 
lighten the estate tax burden on the next $1 million of estate assets.
  My proposals expand upon the well-tested approaches found in Sections 
2032A and 6601(j) of the Tax Code.
  For example, we currently provide a ``special-use'' calculation for 
valuing real estate used in a farm or other trade or business for 
estate tax purposes, where a qualifying business is passed along to 
another family member after the death of the owner. To benefit from the 
``special-use'' formula under Section 2032A, the inheriting family 
member must continue to actively participate in the business operation. 
If the heir ceases to participate in the business, he or she may face a 
substantial recapture of the estate taxes which would have been paid at 
the time of the original owner's death.

  In enacting this provision, Congress embraced the goal of keeping 
farms and other closely held business in the family after the death of 
the owner. However, in the case of family farms, special-use valuation 
primarily helps those farms adjacent to urban areas, where the value of 
the land for non-farm uses is often much higher. But Section 2032A does 
not help many farms located in truly rural areas of the country where 
farming is the land's best use. This provision also provides little 
help for families transferring other non-farm small businesses under 
similar circumstances. My legislation would correct these glaring 
shortfalls in current law.
  In addition, my bill would increase the benefit of the existing 
preferential interest rates under Section 6601(j) that apply to farms 
and other closely held businesses. The benefits of the current 
provision have been significantly reduced by inflation over the past 
several decades, and my bill simply increases the amount of estate 
taxes that qualify for a special 4 percent interest rate if paid to the 
IRS in installment payments over time.
  Moreover, my bill includes several safeguards to ensure that its tax 
benefits are truly targeted at the preservation of most family 
businesses.
  Finally, I plan to offset any estimated revenue losses from this bill 
by offering another legislative package to close a number of outdated 
or unnecessary tax loopholes for large multinational corporations doing 
business in the United States. As a result, passing my estate tax 
relief proposals will not increase the Federal deficit. But passing the 
Family Business Estate Tax Relief Act will help to preserve the 
economic backbone of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this much-needed 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:

  S. 2174. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with 
respect to the admission of temporary H-2A workers; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                The H-2a Temporary Agricultural Workers

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that would make 
needed reforms to the so-called H-2A Program, the program intended by 
Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow for a reliable 
supply of legal, temporary, immigrant workers in the agricultural 
sector, under terms that also provide reasonable worker protections, 
when there is a shortage of domestic labor in this sector.
  Let me start by once again thanking my good friend, Al Simpson, the 
senior Senator from Wyoming, who agreed to including in the Illegal 
Immigration Reform conference report some compromise language regarding 
the Sense of the Congress on the H-2A Program and requiring the General 
Accounting Office to review the effectiveness of the program by the end 
of the year. Al Simpson is a true friend, a statesman, and a dedicated 
public servant. The Senate will miss him and I will miss our working 
together on a regular basis.
  The language included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 is essentially the same as language agreed 
to in the conference report on fiscal year 1997 Agriculture 
Appropriations. With these provisions, the Congress now has gone on 
record twice on the importance of having a program that helps ensure an 
adequate work force for agricultural producers.
  This is an issue that of the utmost importance to this country's 
farmers and ranchers, especially in light of the impact that 
immigration reform will have on the supply of agricultural labor. There 
is very real concern among Idaho farmers and throughout the country 
that these reforms will reduce the availability of agricultural 
workers.
  Farmers need access to an adequate supply of workers and want to have 
certainty that they are hiring a legal work force. In 1995, the total 
agricultural work force was about 2.5 million people. That equals 6.7 
percent of our labor force, which is directly involved in production 
agriculture and food processing.
  Hired labor is one of the most important and costly inputs in 
farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion on hired labor 
expenses in 1992 $1 of every $8 of farm production expenses. For the 
labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural sector, labor 
accounts for 35 to 45 percent of production costs.
  The competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, especially in the fruit, 
vegetable and horticultural specialty sectors, depends on the continued 
availability of hired labor at a reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, 
including producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete 
directly with producers in other countries for market share in both 
U.S. and foreign commodity markets.

  Wages of U.S. farmworkers will not be forced up by eliminating alien 
labor, because growers' production costs are capped by world market 
commodity prices. Instead, a reduction in the work force available to 
agriculture will force

[[Page S11988]]

U.S. producers to reduce production to the level that can be sustained 
by a smaller work force.
  Over time, wages for these farm workers have actually risen faster 
than non-farm worker wages. Between 1986-1994, there was a 34.6 percent 
increase in average hourly earnings for farm workers, while non-farm 
workers only saw a 27.1 percent increase.
  Even with this increase in on-farm wages, this country has 
historically been unable to provide a sufficient number of domestic 
workers to complete the difficult manual labor required in the 
production of many agricultural commodities. In Idaho, this is 
especially true for producers of fruit, sugar beets, onions and other 
specialty crops.
  The difficulty in obtaining sufficient domestic workers is primarily 
due to the fact that domestic workers prefer the security of full-time 
employment in year round positions. As a result the available domestic 
work force tends to prefer the long term positions, leaving the 
seasonal jobs unfilled. In addition, many of the seasonal agricultural 
jobs are located in areas where it is necessary for workers to migrate 
into the area and live temporarily to do the work. Experience has shown 
that foreign workers are more likely to migrate than domestic workers. 
As a result of domestic short supply, farmers and ranchers have had to 
rely upon the assistance of foreign workers.
  The only current mechanism available to admit foreign workers for 
agricultural employment is the H-2A program. The H-2A program is 
intended to serve as a safety valve for times when domestic labor is 
unavailable. Unfortunately, the H-2A program isn't working.
  Despite efforts to streamline the temporary worker program in 1986, 
it now functions so poorly that few in agriculture use it without 
risking an inadequate work force, burdensome regulations and potential 
litigation expense. In fact, usage of the program has actually 
decreased from 25,000 workers in 1986 to only 17,000 in 1995.
  The bill I am introducing would provide some much-needed reforms to 
the H-2A program. I urge my colleagues to consider the following 
reasonable modifications of the H-2A program.
  First, the bill would reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 to 
40 days before workers are needed. In many agricultural operations, 60 
days is too far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with the 
precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, virtually all 
referrals of U.S. workers who actually report for work are made close 
to the date of need. The advance application period serves little 
purpose except to provide time for litigation.

  Second, in lieu of the present certification letter, the Department 
of Labor [DOL] would issue the employer a domestic recruitment report 
indicating that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria 
and lists the number of U.S. workers referred. The employer would then 
file a petition with INS for admission of aliens, including a copy of 
DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing evidence 
concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the availability of 
U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make the admission decision. 
The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor Department to that of 
giving advice to the Attorney General on laboravailability, and return 
decision making to the Attorney General.
  Third, the Department of Labor would be required to provide the 
employer with a domestic recruitment report not later than 20 days 
before the date of need. The report either states sufficient domestic 
workers are not available or gives the names and Social Security 
Numbers of the able, willing and qualified workers who have been 
referred to the employer. The Department of Labor now denies 
certification not only on the basis of workers actually referred to the 
employer, but also on the basis of reports or suppositions that 
unspecified numbers of workers may become available. The proposed 
change would assure that only workers actually identified as available 
would be the basis for denying foreign workers.
  Fourth, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] would 
provide expedited processing of employers' petitions, and, if approved, 
notify the visa issuing consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar 
days. This would ensure timely admission decisions.
  Fifth, INS would also provide expedited procedures for amending 
petitions to increase the number of workers admitted on 5 days before 
the date of need. This is to reduce the paperwork and increase the 
timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after the work 
has started.
  Sixth, DOL would continue to recruit domestic workers and make 
referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. This 
method is needed to allow the employer at a date certain to complete 
his hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted by 
having to displace existing workers with new workers.
  Seventh, the bill would enumerate the specific obligations of 
employers in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed. The 
proposed definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria 
as not adversely affecting U.S. workers:
  1. The employer offers a competitive wage for the position.
  2. The employer would provide approved housing, or a reasonable 
housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of residence is 
beyond normal commuting distance.
  3. The employer continues to provide current transportation 
reimbursement requirements.
  4. A guarantee of employment is provided for at least three-quarters 
of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of 
employment.
  5. The employer would provide workers' compensation or equivalent 
coverage.
  6. Employer must comply with all applicable federal, state and local 
labor laws with respect to both U.S. and alien workers.
  This combination of employment requirements would eliminate the 
discretion of Department of Labor to specify terms and conditions of 
employment on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the scope for 
litigation would be reduced since employers (and the courts) would know 
with particularity the required terms and conditions of employment.
  Eighth, the bill would provide that workers must exhaust 
administrative remedies before engaging their employers in litigation.
  Ninth, certainty would be given to employers who comply with the 
terms of an approved job order. If at a later date the Department of 
Labor requires changes, the employer would be required to comply with 
the law only prospectively. This very important provision removes the 
possibility of retroactive liability if an approved order is changed.
  With the Illegal Immigration Reform bill on its way to becoming law, 
action on these H-2A reforms would be necessary early next year to 
avoid jeopardizing the labor supply for American agriculture.
  Therefore, it is fully my intention to reintroduce this bill at the 
start of the 105th Congress. I am introducing it at this time, at the 
end of the 104th Congress, so that those in Congress and around the 
country who are interested in this issue can get a head start on 
discussing these issues and examining these vitally-needed reforms.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to examine this bill, hopefully with an 
eye toward supporting these reforms when they are reintroduced in the 
next Congress.
  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. 2174

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

     SECTION 1. CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL OF H-2A PETITIONS.

       Section 218(a) (8 U.S.C. 1188(a)) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) In considering an employer's petition for admission 
     of H-2A aliens, the Attorney General shall consider the 
     certification decision of the Secretary of Labor and shall 
     consider any countervailing evidence submitted by the 
     employer with respect to the nonavailability of United States 
     workers and the employer's compliance with the requirements 
     of this section, and may consult with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.''.

[[Page S11989]]

     SEC. 2. CONDITION FOR DENIAL OF LABOR CERTIFICATION.

       Section 218(b)(4) (8 U.S.C. 1188(b)(4)) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Determination by the secretary.--The Secretary 
     determines that the employer has not filed a job offer for 
     the position to be filled by the alien with the appropriate 
     local office of the State employment security agency having 
     jurisdiction over the area of intended employment, or with 
     the State office of such an agency if the alien will be 
     employed in an area within the jurisdiction of more than one 
     local office of such an agency, which meets the criteria of 
     paragraph (5).
       ``(5) Required terms and conditions of employment.--The 
     Secretary determines that the employer's job offer does not 
     meet one or more of the following criteria:
       ``(A) Required rate of pay.--The employer has offered to 
     pay H-2A aliens and all other workers in the occupation in 
     the area of intended employment an adverse effect wage rate 
     of not less than the median rate of pay for similarly 
     employed workers in the area of intended employment.
       ``(B) Provision of housing.--
       ``(i) In general.--The employer has offered to provide 
     housing to H-2A aliens and those workers not reasonably able 
     to return to their residence within the same day, without 
     charge to the worker. The employer may, at the employer's 
     option, provide housing meeting applicable Federal standards 
     for temporary labor camps, or provide rental or public 
     accommodation type housing which meets applicable local or 
     state standards for such housing.
       ``(ii) Housing allowance as alternative.--In lieu of 
     offering the housing required in clause (i), the employer may 
     provide a reasonable housing allowance to workers not 
     reasonably able to return to their place of residence within 
     the same day, but only if the Secretary determines that 
     housing is reasonably available within the approximate area 
     of employment. An employer who offers a housing allowance 
     pursuant to this subparagraph shall not be deemed to be a 
     housing provider under section 203 of the Migrant and 
     Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1823) 
     merely by virtue of providing such housing allowance.
       ``(iii) Special housing standards for short duration 
     employment.-- The Secretary shall promulgate special 
     regulations permitting the provision of short-term temporary 
     housing for workers employed in occupations in which 
     employment is expected to last 40 days or less.
       ``(iv) Transitional period for provision of special housing 
     standards in other employment.--For a period of five years 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall approve the provision of housing meeting the standards 
     described in clause (iii) in occupations expected to last 
     longer than 40 days in areas where available housing meeting 
     the criteria described in subparagraph (i) is found to be 
     insufficient.
       ``(v) Preemption of state and local standards.--The 
     standards described in clauses (ii) and (iii) shall preempt 
     any State and local standards governing the provision of 
     temporary housing to agricultural workers.
       ``(C) Reimbursement of transportation costs.--The employer 
     has offered to reimburse H-2A aliens and workers recruited 
     from beyond normal commuting distance the most economical 
     common carrier transportation charge and reasonable 
     subsistence from the place from which the worker comes to 
     work for the employer, (but not more than the most economical 
     common carrier transportation charge from the worker's normal 
     place of residence) if the worker completes 50 percent of the 
     anticipated period of employment. If the worker recruited 
     from beyond normal commuting distance completes the period of 
     employment, the employer will provide or pay for the worker's 
     transportation and reasonable subsistence to the worker's 
     next place of employment, or to the worker's normal place of 
     residence, whichever is less.
       ``(D) Guarantee of employment.--The employer has offered to 
     guarantee the worker employment for at least three-fourths of 
     the workdays of the employer's actual period of employment in 
     the occupation. Workers who abandon their employment or are 
     terminated for cause shall forfeit this guarantee.
       ``(6) Preference for united states workers.--The employer 
     has not assured on the application that the employer will 
     provide employment to all qualified United States workers who 
     apply to the employer and assure that they will be available 
     at the time and place needed until the time the employer's 
     foreign workers depart for the employer's place of employment 
     (but not sooner than 5 days before the date workers are 
     needed), and will give preference in employment to United 
     States workers who are immediately available to fill job 
     opportunities that become available after the date work in 
     the occupation begins.''.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL RULES APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUANCE OF LABOR 
                   CERTIFICATIONS.

       Section 218(c) (8 U.S.C. 1188(c)) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Special Rules Applicable to the Issuance of Labor 
     Certifications.--The following rules shall apply to the 
     issuance of labor certifications by the Secretary under this 
     section:
       ``(1) Deadline for filing applications.--The Secretary may 
     not require that the application be filed more than 40 days 
     before the first date the employer requires the labor or 
     services of the H-2A worker.
       ``(2) Notice within seven days of deficiencies.--
       ``(A) The employer shall be notified in writing within 
     seven calendar days of the date of filing, if the application 
     does not meet the criteria described in subsection (b) for 
     approval.
       ``(B) If the application does not meet such criteria, the 
     notice shall specify the specific deficiencies of the 
     application and the Secretary shall provide an opportunity 
     for the prompt resubmission of a modified application.
       ``(3) Issuance of certification.--
       ``(A) The Secretary shall provide to the employer, not 
     later than 20 days before the date such labor or services are 
     first required to be performed, the certification described 
     in subsection (a)(1)--
       ``(i) with respect to paragraph (a)(1)(A) if the employer's 
     application meets the criteria described in subsection (b), 
     or a statement of the specific reasons why such certification 
     can not be made, and
       ``(ii) with respect to subsection (a)(1)(B), to the extent 
     that the employer does not actually have, or has not been 
     provided with the names, addresses and Social Security 
     numbers of workers referred to the employer who are able, 
     willing and qualified and have indicated they will be 
     available at the time and place needed to perform such labor 
     or services on the terms and conditions of the job offer 
     approved by the Secretary. For each worker referred, the 
     Secretary shall also provide the employer with information 
     sufficient to permit the employer to contact the referred 
     worker for the purpose of reconfirming the worker's 
     availability for work at the time and place needed.
       ``(B) If, at the time the Secretary determines that the 
     employer's job offer meets the criteria described in 
     subsection (b) there are already unfilled job opportunities 
     in the occupation and area of intended employment for which 
     the employer is seeking workers, the Secretary shall provide 
     the certification at the same time the Secretary approves the 
     employer's job offer.''.

     SEC. 4. EXPEDITED APPEALS OF CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS.

       Section 218(e) (8 U.S.C 1188(e)) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Expedited Appeals of Certain Determinations.--The 
     Secretary shall provide by regulation for an expedited 
     procedure for the review of the nonapproval of an employer's 
     job offer pursuant to subsection (c)(2) and of the denial of 
     certification in whole or in part pursuant to subsection 
     (c)(3) or, at the applicant's request, a de novo 
     administrative hearing respecting the nonapproval or 
     denial.''.

     SEC. 5. PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H-2A PETITIONS.

       Section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1188) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) through (i) as 
     subsections (g) through (j), respectively; and
       (2) by adding the following after subsection (e):
       ``(f) Procedures for the Consideration of H-2A Petitions.--
     The following procedures shall apply to the consideration of 
     petitions by the Attorney General under this section:
       ``(1) Expedited processing of petitions.--The Attorney 
     General shall provide an expedited procedure for the 
     adjudication of petitions filed under this section, and the 
     notification of visa-issuing consulates where aliens seeking 
     admission under this section will apply for visas and/or 
     ports of entry where aliens will seek admission under this 
     section within 15 calendar days from the date such petition 
     is filed by the employer.
       ``(2) Expedited amendments to petitions.--The Attorney 
     General shall provide an expedited procedure for the 
     amendment of petitions to increase the number of workers on 
     or after five days before the employers date of need for the 
     labor or services involved in the petition to replace 
     referred workers whose continued availability for work at the 
     time and place needed under the terms of the approved job 
     offer can not be confirmed and to replace referred workers 
     who fail to report for work on the date of need and replace 
     referred workers who abandon their employment or are 
     terminated for cause, and for which replacement workers are 
     not immediately available pursuant to subsection (b)(6).''.

     SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON EMPLOYER LIABILITY.

       Section 218(g) (8 U.S.C. 1188(g)) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (2)(A); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2)(A) the following:
       ``(B) No employer shall be subject to any liability or 
     punishment on the basis of an employment action or practice 
     by such employer that conforms with the terms and conditions 
     of a job offer approved by the Secretary pursuant to this 
     section, unless and until the employer has been notified that 
     such certification has been amended or invalidated by a final 
     order of the Secretary or of a court of competent 
     jurisdiction.''.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL REMEDIES.

       Section 218(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1188(h)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(3) No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction 
     to issue any restraining

[[Page S11990]]

     order or temporary or permanent injunction preventing or 
     delaying the issuance by the Secretary of a certification 
     pursuant to this section, or the approval by the Attorney 
     General of a petition to import an alien as an H-2A worker, 
     or the actual importation of any such alien as an H-2A worker 
     following such approval by the Attorney General.''.
                                                                    ____



Summary of the Bill to Reform the Immigration and Nationality Act with 
       Respect to the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers Program

       The following proposed changes to the H-2A program would 
     improve its timeliness and utility for agricultural employers 
     in addressing agricultural labor shortages, while providing 
     wages and benefits that equal or exceed the median level of 
     compensation in non-H-2A occupations, and reducing the 
     vulnerability of the program to being hamstrung and delayed 
     by litigation.
       1. Reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 to 40 days 
     before workers are needed.
       Rationale: In many agricultural operations, 60 days is too 
     far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with the 
     precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, 
     virtually all referrals of U.S. workers who actually report 
     for work are made close to the date of need. The advance 
     application period serves little purpose except to provide 
     time for litigation.
       2. In lieu of the present certification letter, DOL would 
     issue the employer a domestic recruitment report indicating 
     that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria 
     (or the specific deficiencies in the order) and the number of 
     U.S. workers referred, per #3 below. The employer would file 
     a petition with INS for admission of aliens (or transfer of 
     aliens already in the United States), including a copy of 
     DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing 
     evidence concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the 
     availability of U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make 
     the admission decision.
       Rationale: The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor 
     Department to that of giving advice to the AG on labor 
     availability, and return the true gatekeeper role to the AG. 
     Presently the certification letter is, de facto, the 
     admission decision.
       3. DOL provides employer with a domestic recruitment report 
     not later than 20 days before the date of need stating either 
     that sufficient domestic workers are not available, or giving 
     the names and Social Security Numbers of the able, willing 
     and qualified workers who have been referred to the employer 
     and who have agreed to be available at the time and place 
     needed. DOL also provides a means for the employer to contact 
     the referred worker to confirm availability close to the date 
     of need. DOL would be empowered to issue a report that 
     sufficient domestic workers are not available without waiting 
     until 20 days before the date of need for workers if there 
     are already unfilled orders for workers in the same or 
     similar occupations in the same area of intended employment.
       Rationale: DOL now denies certification not only on the 
     basis of workers actually referred to the employer, but also 
     on the basis of reports or suppositions that unspecified 
     numbers of workers may become available. These suppositions 
     almost never prove correct, forcing the employer into costly 
     and time wasting redeterminations on or close to the date of 
     need and delaying the arrival of workers. The proposed change 
     would assure that only workers actually identified as 
     available would be the basis for denying foreign workers. DOL 
     also interprets the existing statutory language as precluding 
     it from issuing each labor certification until 20 days before 
     the date of need, even in situations where ongoing 
     recruitment shows that sufficient workers are not available.
       4. INS to provide expedited processing of employer's 
     petitions, and, if approved, notify the visa issuing 
     consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar days.
       Rationale: The assure timely admission decisions.
       5. INS to provide an expedited procedures for amending 
     petitions to increase the number of workers admitted (or 
     transferred) on or after 5 days before the date of need, to 
     replace referred workers whose continued availability can not 
     be confirmed, who fail to report on the date of need, or who 
     abandon employment or are terminated for cause, without first 
     obtaining a redetermination of need from DOL.
       Rationale: To reduce the paperwork and increase the 
     timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after 
     the work has started.
       6. DOL would continue to recruit domestic workers and make 
     referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. 
     Employers would be required to give preference to able, 
     willing and qualified workers who agree to be available at 
     the time and place needed who are referred to the employer 
     until 5 days before the date workers are needed. After that 
     time, employers would be required to give preference to U.S. 
     workers who are immediately available in filling job 
     opportunities that become available, but would not be 
     required to bump alien workers already employed.
       Rationale: A method is needed to allow the employer at a 
     date-certain close to the date of need to complete his 
     hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted 
     by having to displace existing workers with new workers.
       7. Create a ``bounded definition'' of adverse effect by 
     enumerating the specific obligations of employers in 
     occupations in which H-2A aliens are employed. The proposed 
     definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria 
     as not adversely affecting U.S. workers:
       7a. Offer at least the median rate of pay for the 
     occupation in the area of intended employment.
       7b. Provide approved housing or, if sufficient housing is 
     available in the approximate area of employment, a reasonable 
     housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of 
     residence is beyond normal commuting distance.
       NOTE: Provision should also be made to allow temporary 
     housing that does not meet the full set of Federal standards 
     for a transitional period in areas where sufficient housing 
     that meets standards is not presently available, and for such 
     temporary housing on a permanent basis in occupations in 
     which the term of employment is very short (e.g. cherry 
     harvesting, which lasts about 15-20 days) if sufficient 
     housing that meets the full standards is not available. 
     Federal law should pre-empt state and local laws and codes 
     with respect to the provision of such temporary housing.
       7c. Current transportation reimbursement requirements (i.e. 
     employer reimburses transportation of workers who complete 50 
     percent of the work contract and provides or pays for return 
     transportation for workers who complete the entire work 
     contract).
       7d. A guarantee of employment for at least three-quarters 
     of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of 
     employment.
       7e. Employer-provided Workers' Compensation or equivalent.
       7f. Employer must comply with all applicable federal, state 
     and local labor laws with respect to both U.S. and alien 
     workers.
       Rationale: The objective is to eliminate the discretion of 
     DOL to specify terms and conditions of employment on a case-
     by-case basis and reduce the scope for litigation of 
     applications. Employers (and the courts) would know with 
     particularity, up front, what the required terms and 
     conditions of employment are. The definition also reduces the 
     cost premium for participating in the program by relating the 
     Adverse Effect Wage Rate to the minimum wage and limiting the 
     applicability of the three-quarters guarantee to the actual 
     period of employment.
       8. Provide that workers must exhaust administrative 
     remedies before engaging their employers in litigation.
       Rationale: To reduce litigation costs.
       9. Provide that if an employer complies with the terms of 
     an approved job order, and DOL or a court later orders a 
     provision to be changed, the employer would be required to 
     comply with the new provision only prospectively.
       Rationale: To reduce the exposure of employers to 
     litigation seeking to overturn DOL's approval of job orders, 
     and to retroactive liability if an approved order is 
     changed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY (for himself and Mr. Simpson):
  S. 2176. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the 
Social Security Act to provide for personal investment plans funded by 
employee security payroll deductions; to the Committee on Finance.


                THE PERSONAL INVESTMENT PLAN ACT OF 1996

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in May 1995, it was my distinct pleasure 
to join the fine, distinguished Senator from Wyoming, the Honorable 
Alan K. Simpson, to introduce the Kerrey-Simpson Retirement Reform 
bills. The intent of this series of eight bills has two important 
goals: Put Social Security and other Federal retirement programs on the 
path to long term fiscal health; and renew America's commitment to 
national savings.
  Today, I rise with Senator Simpson to reintroduce two of these bills, 
S.824 and S.825, for the purpose of offering technical changes.
  Specifically, it was our original intent to permit contributors to a 
personal investment plan to pass the balance of such plan to their 
surviving spouse upon their death, except if the surviving spouse 
agrees in writing that such balance should be transferred to a 
designated beneficiary, such as child or sibling. Our intent was to 
provide the contributor with the greatest amount of flexibility in his/
her estate planning, while at the same time recognizing the 
vulnerability of a surviving spouse.
  The second technical correction would require that in the event of 
the contributor's death where there is no surviving spouse and there 
has been no designation of a beneficiary of the proceeds of the 
personal investment plan, the proceeds should revert to the deceased's 
estate, not to the Social Security trust fund. It was our original 
intent to allow contributors to retain ownership of their personal 
investment plan, even after death.
  The third technical correction would permit financial institutions--
in addition to banks--to administer personal

[[Page S11991]]

investment plans. It was our original intent to permit personal 
investment plans to be administered by the identical institutions 
permitted to administer individual retirement accounts.
  Finally, technical corrections are made to S.825 to adjust certain 
dates in the formula for determining benefits to our original intent.
  As these changes are technical in nature, we have been assured by the 
actuaries of the Social Security Administration that such changes 
should have no effect on the solvency of the Social Security trust 
fund.
  Finally, I would like to add what a joy and pleasure it has been to 
work with my good friend from Wyoming. His leadership and candidness on 
this issue will be sorely missed. But more importantly, Mr. President, 
the character and leadership of Alan K. Simpson as a Senator, 
colleague, and friend will be equally difficult to replace in the U.S. 
Senate.
  I wish him all the best in whatever his fine future holds, and I 
expect he will continue to fight the good fight on this matter of 
critical importance to our Nation's fiscal future.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, on May 18, 1995, I joined my able and 
steady colleague Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska in introducing a 
series of eight bills to address the long-term problems of Social 
Security. I rise today to join Senator Kerrey in reintroducing two 
bills, S. 824 and S. 825, which address the long-term solvency problems 
of the Social Security Program. The changes that Senator Kerrey and I 
propose are technical in nature and are made in both S. 824 and S. 825 
unless otherwise indicated.
  Specifically, it was our original intent to permit contributors on a 
Personal Investment Plan [PIP] to pass the balance of such plan to 
their surviving spouse upon their death, except if the surviving spouse 
agrees in writing that such balance should be transferred to a 
designated beneficiary, such as a child or sibling. Our intent was to 
provide the contributor with the greatest possible flexibility in his 
or her estate planning, while at the same time recognizing the 
vulnerability of a surviving spouse.
  The second technical correction would require that in the event of 
the contributor's death where there is no surviving spouse and there 
has been no designation of a beneficiary of the proceeds of the 
personal investment plan, the proceeds should revert to the deceased's 
estate, not to the Social Security trust fund. It was our original 
intent to allow contributors to retain ownership of their personal 
investment plan, even after death.
  The third technical correction would permit financial institutions, 
in addition to banks, to administer personal investment plans. It was 
our original intent to permit personal investment plans to be 
administered by the identical institutions that were permitted to 
administer individual retirement accounts.
  Finally, technical corrections are made to S. 825 to conform to our 
original intent adjustments in the formula for determining benefits to 
our original intent.
  As these changes are technical in nature, we have been assured by the 
actuaries of the Social Security Administration that such changes 
should have no effect on the present solvency of the Social Security 
trust fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:

  S. 2177. A bill to authorize the Small Business Administration to 
provide financial and business development assistance to military 
reservists' small businesses, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Small Business.


           THE MILITARY RESERVISTS SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF ACT

 Mr. SANTORUM. 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. 2177

       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 ``Military Reservists Small 
     Business Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. REPAYMENT DEFERRAL FOR ACTIVE DUTY RESERVISTS.

       Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Repayment Deferred for Active Duty Reservists.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administration shall, upon written 
     request, defer repayment of a direct loan made pursuant to 
     subsection (a) or (b), if such loan was incurred by a 
     qualified borrower.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Qualified borrower.--The term `qualified borrower' 
     means--
       ``(i) an individual who is an eligible Reserve and who 
     received a direct loan under subsection (a) or (b) before 
     being called or ordered to, or retained on, active duty as 
     described in subparagraph (B); or
       ``(ii) a small business concern that received a direct loan 
     under subsection (a) or (b) before an eligible Reserve, who 
     is an owner, manager, or key employee described in 
     subparagraph (C), was called or ordered to, or retained on, 
     active duty as described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Eligible reserve.--The term `eligible Reserve' means 
     a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces serving 
     pursuant to a call or order to active duty, or retention on 
     active duty, during a period of military conflict.
       ``(C) Owner, manager, or key employee.--An eligible Reserve 
     is an owner, manager, or key employee described in this 
     subparagraph if the eligible Reserve is an individual who--
       ``(i) has not less than a 20 percent ownership interest in 
     the small business concern described in subparagraph (A)(ii);
       ``(ii) is a manager responsible for the day-to-day 
     operations of such small business concern; or
       ``(iii) is a key employee (as defined by the 
     Administration) of such small business concern.
       ``(D) Period of military conflict.--The term `period of 
     military conflict' means--
       ``(i) a period of war declared by the Congress;
       ``(ii) a period of national emergency declared by the 
     Congress or by the President; or
       ``(iii) a period for which members of reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces are serving on active duty in the Armed 
     Forces under a call or order to active duty, or retention on 
     active duty, under section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, or 
     12306 of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(3) Period of deferral.--The period of deferral for 
     repayment under this subsection shall begin on the date on 
     which the eligible Reserve is ordered to active duty during 
     any period of military conflict and shall terminate on the 
     later of--
       ``(A) 180 days after the date on which such eligible 
     Reserve is discharged or released from that active duty; and
       ``(B) 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.''.
       ``(4) No accrual of interest during deferral.--During the 
     period of deferral described in paragraph (3), repayment of 
     principal and interest on the deferred loan shall not be 
     required and no interest shall accrue on such loan.''.

     SEC. 3. DISASTER LOAN ASSISTANCE FOR MILITARY RESERVISTS' 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting after the undesignated 
     paragraph that begins ``Provided, That no loan'', the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The Administration may make such disaster loans 
     (either directly or in cooperation with banks or other 
     lending institutions through agreements to participate on an 
     immediate or deferred basis) to assist a small business 
     concern (including a small business concern engaged in the 
     lease or rental of real or personal property) that has 
     suffered or is likely to suffer economic injury as the result 
     of the owner, manager, or key employee of such small business 
     concern being ordered to active duty during a period of 
     military conflict.
       ``(B) Any loan or guarantee under this paragraph shall be 
     made at an annual interest rate of not more than 4 percent, 
     without regard to the ability of the small business concern 
     to secure credit elsewhere.
       ``(C) No loan shall be made under this paragraph, either 
     directly or in cooperation with banks or other lending 
     institutions through agreements to participate on an 
     immediate or deferred basis, if the total amount outstanding 
     and committed to the borrower under this subsection would 
     exceed $500,000, except that the Administration may waive the 
     $500,000 limitation if the Administration determines that the 
     applicant constitutes a major source of employment in an area 
     not larger than a county that is suffering a disaster.
       ``(D) For purposes of assistance under this paragraph, no 
     declaration of a disaster area shall be required.
       ``(E) For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `period of military conflict' means--
       ``(I) a period of war declared by the Congress;
       ``(II) a period of national emergency declared by the 
     Congress or by the President; or
       ``(III) a period for which members of reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces are serving on active duty in the Armed 
     Forces under a call or order to active duty, or retention on 
     active duty, under section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, or 
     12306 of title 10, United States Code;
       ``(ii) the term `economic injury' includes the inability of 
     a small business concern to

[[Page S11992]]

     market or produce a product or to provide a service 
     ordinarily provided by the small business concern; and
       ``(iii) the term `owner, manager, or key employee' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(I) has not less than a 20 percent ownership in the small 
     business concern;
       ``(II) is a manager responsible for the day-to-day 
     operations of such small business concern; or
       ``(III) is a key employee (as defined by the 
     Administration) of such small business concern.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4(c) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 633(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``7(b)(4),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``7(b)(4), 7(b)(5), 
     7(b)(6), 7(b)(7), 7(b)(8),''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Small Business Administration may issue such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments 
     made by sections 2 and 3.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) Applicability.--This Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall not apply to any member of a reserve component 
     of the Armed Forces serving pursuant to a call or order to 
     active duty, or retention on active duty, during a period of 
     military conflict, who is eligible to participate in the 
     Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program 
     established under section 512 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exceptions.--
       (A) Loan repayment deferral.--The amendment made by section 
     2 shall apply with respect to any eligible Reserve called or 
     ordered to, or retained on, active duty as the result of a 
     period of military conflict occurring on or after August 1, 
     1990.
       (B) Disaster loans.--The amendments made by section 3 shall 
     apply to economic injury suffered or likely to be suffered as 
     the result of a period of military conflict occurring on or 
     after August 1, 1990.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``economic injury'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 7(b)(3)(E) of the Small Business Act, as added by 
     section 3 of this Act;
       (2) the term ``eligible Reserve'' has the same meaning as 
     in section 7(n)(2) of the Small Business Act, as added by 
     section 2 of this Act; and
       (3) the term ``period of military conflict'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 7(n)(2) of the Small Business Act, as 
     added by section 2 of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        DeWine, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Simon):
  S. 2178. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
allow for additional deferred effective dates for approval of 
applications under the new drugs provisions, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


              the better pharmaceuticals for children act

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Better 
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This bill will create a new 
partnership among pharmaceutical researchers and manufacturers, 
pediatric researchers, and the government to improve the information 
about pediatric uses of pharmaceuticals. The provisions of this bill 
were originally included in S. 1477, the Food and Drug Administration 
[FDA] Performance and Accountability Act, which was approved in March, 
with bipartisan support, by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.
  The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires a showing of safety and 
effectiveness before drugs can be marketed to the American public. 
Until recently, it was thought that such a showing would be the same 
for adults and children. It is now clear, however, that children are 
not small adults. They do not necessarily react to drugs the same way. 
New data are necessary to ensure that America's children have the same 
benefit of safe and effective drugs as our adults do. As it stands now, 
however, 80 percent of the drugs taken by children are not labelled for 
pediatric use.
  The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act addresses this need for 
pediatric use data by providing an incentive to manufacturers to 
conduct pediatric studies for new and approved drugs. Manufacturers who 
provide pediatric data for the drugs most urgently needed by our 
children would receive an extra six months market exclusivity for their 
product. By taking this type of partnership approach, we can get 
critically needed information on pediatric uses. Providing the FDA with 
the extra authority to offer this type of encouragement will help to 
ensure that companies conduct such studies.
  Under the bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is 
required to develop, in consultation with pediatric experts, a list of 
approved drugs for which additional pediatric information may produce 
health benefits in the pediatric population. For pediatric studies of 
new and approved drugs to trigger the six-month exclusivity incentive, 
they must be formally requested by the Secretary, and filed with the 
Secretary in an acceptable manner. Manufacturers would be precluded 
from obtaining more than one six-month period of exclusivity.
  I am proud to join with Senators Kennedy, Dodd, DeWine, Mikulski, and 
Simon in introducing this bill. Mr. President, it creates a win-win 
situation in which manufacturers get a benefit for proactively testing 
drugs for pediatric use, while our children get timely access to the 
safe and effective drugs they so desperately need.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor, again, of 
the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. I have cosponsored this 
legislation in several Congresses now, and hope that finally, we will 
pass this enormously important legislation.
  This act would address a problem that pediatricians first recognized 
more than 30 years ago: information about safe and effective therapies 
for their young patients is scarce. According to the American Academy 
of Pediatrics only about one-fifth of all drugs marketed in the United 
States today, and only four of the 25 new drugs approved by the FDA 
last year, have been labeled for use by children.
  Given this largely adults-only drug market, individual doctors face 
an uncomfortable dilemma with many of their child patients. Should 
doctors limit themselves to the handful of proven pediatric drugs? Some 
might not even exist for certain illnesses, and in such cases this 
could mean not treating a sick child. Or should they take a gamble on 
an adult drug and rely on their training, professional judgment, and 
luck to make it work as intended?
  Most physicians find the latter option, known as ``off-label 
prescribing,'' to be the more acceptable choice. As a result, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics says that off-label prescribing has ``by 
default become an established standard of care of children.''
  This practice is neither illegal nor improper, but it can present 
unnecessary risk for young patients. Children are not just smaller than 
adults. Their bodies function very differently from adults. And as any 
parent can tell you, they change drastically from infancy to childhood 
to adolescence. For young, growing patients, the only way to be sure 
whether a medication is safe and effective, and what the dosage should 
be, is the test it on different age groups.
  The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act is a straightforward 
solution to the unnecessary shortage of pediatric medicine. It grants 
an additional 6 months of market exclusivity for drugs which have 
undergone pediatric studies according to accepted scientific protocols. 
This provides a fair and reasonable market incentive for drug companies 
to make the extra effort needed to label their products for use by 
children.
  Simply put, this bill is a sensible way to keep our children 
healthier. That is why it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, both 
inside and outside this body. In addition to the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, other supporters include the Pharmaceuticals Research and 
Manufacturers of America, and the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. I urge my 
colleagues to support this act.
  By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2179. A bill to protect children and other vulnerable 
subpopulations from exposure to certain environmental pollutants, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


            Children's Environmental Protection Act of 1996

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill that 
will help protect the children of this country from the harmful effects 
of environmental pollutants including pesticides and other hazardous 
substances.

[[Page S11993]]

  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have 
worked to protect children and other vulnerable subpopulations from 
contaminants in drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act that was 
recently signed into law by President Clinton included my amendments to 
require that Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] drinking water 
standards be set at levels that take into account the special 
vulnerability of our children, our infants, pregnant women, our 
elderly, the chronically ill, and other groups that are at 
substantially higher risk than the average healthy adult. That was a 
very important step forward because our safe drinking water standards--
and, in fact, most of our country's public protection standards--are 
set at levels to protect the average healthy person, and not our most 
vulnerable loved ones.
  The bill I am introducing today, the Children's Environmental 
Protection Act [CEPA], carries the concept of my Safe Drinking Water 
Act amendments even further. It requires the EPA to set all health and 
safety standards at levels that protect our children and our vulnerable 
subpopulations.
  Mr. President, this is a much needed step forward because science 
tells us that children are not simply smaller versions of adults. 
Recent studies by the National Academy of Sciences found that children 
are more vulnerable to the chemical hazards in the environment for two 
principal main reasons. First, children eat more food, drink more 
water, and breath more air as a percentage of their body weight than 
adults. As a consequence, they are more exposed to the chemicals 
present in food, water and air. Second, because children are still 
growing and many of their internal systems are still in the process of 
developing and maturing, children may be physiologically more 
susceptible than adults to the hazards associated with these exposures.
  Today, there are more questions than ever with respect to children's 
developmental health. For example, it has been estimated that up to one 
half of a person's lifetime cancer risk may be incurred in the first 
six years of life, but current science cannot tell us exactly where and 
how children are exposed to cancer risks in the environment.
  Unfortunately, while we have many questions, we have very few 
answers. It is clear that the factors behind the special environmental 
risks that children face need immediate special attention.

  If the EPA is to be able to fulfill a mandate to set all of its 
standards to protect our children, it must collect more data and carry 
out more research to improve our understanding of how children are 
exposed to environmental pollutants, where they are exposed, and how 
the exposure may affect their health. My bill would require the EPA to 
work with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Department of Health and 
Human Services to develop and implement research studies to examine the 
physiological and pharmacokinetic effects of environmental pollutants 
on children and other vulnerable subpopulations. It also requires 
research on children's dietary, dermal and inhalation exposure to 
environmental pollutants.
  Mr. President, CEPA would also institute measures that would help 
protect our children from coming into contact with environmental 
pollutants including pesticides and other hazardous substances. First, 
my bill includes a family-right-to-know initiative to be adopted by 
every State. The principle behind the initiative is that public health 
and safety depends on citizens being aware of the toxic dangers that 
exist in their communities and neighborhoods. We must provide basic 
information to parents to give them the ability to make informed 
decisions to protect their family.
  The Children's Environmental Protection Act would require users who 
apply pesticides and other hazardous substances in public areas that 
are reasonably accessible to children, to keep a record of the amount 
of chemical used, where it was applied and when it was applied. States 
would provide the public with copies of annual reports summarizing the 
information. The reports would also be available on the Internet. 
Detailed information such as information on a particular school would 
be available to the public upon request. The EPA would complete a 
nationwide survey every two years and make the information available to 
the public in written form and on the Internet. So both scientists and 
parents would have information about to what extent children are being 
exposed in public areas such as school, parks, playgrounds, shopping 
malls, and movie theaters.
  CEPA takes a further step in the case of schools and parks by 
requiring that the EPA identify a list of most dangerous commonly used 
hazardous substances and pesticides--and within one year prohibit their 
use.
  I would like to pay tribute to one exceptional mother. This mother 
knows the intense sadness of losing her child. This very special mother 
lives in my State and I am proud to call her my friend. Three years 
ago, Mrs. Nancy Chuda came to visit me to ask for help. Her little 
girl, all of 5 years old, had died of a nongenetic form of cancer. No 
one knows why or how or what caused little Colette Chuda to become 
afflicted. She was a normal, beautiful girl in every way. She liked to 
draw pictures of flowers and happy people. One thing is certain, she 
was blessed to have two wonderful parents. Nancy and Jim Chuda, despite 
their grief, chose to turn their own personal tragedy into something 
positive. They have labored endlessly to bring to the country's 
attention the environmental dangers that threaten our children. If 
future illness and death can be prevented, I know we all will be 
indebted to the tremendous energy and perseverance of Nancy Chuda.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2179

       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 ``Children's Environmental 
     Protection Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN.

       The Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``TITLE V--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN

     ``SEC. 501. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) public health and safety depends on citizens and 
     local officials knowing the toxic dangers that exist in their 
     communities and neighborhoods;
       ``(2) children and other vulnerable subpopulations are more 
     at risk from environmental pollutants than adults and 
     therefore face unique health threats that need special 
     attention;
       ``(3) a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences 
     on the effects of pesticides in the diets of infants and 
     children concluded that current approaches to risk assessment 
     typically do not consider risks to children and, as a result, 
     current standards and tolerances often fail to adequately 
     protect infants and children;
       ``(4) risk assessments of pesticides and other 
     environmental pollutants conducted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency do not clearly differentiate between the 
     risks to children and the risks to adults;
       ``(5) data are lacking that would allow adequate 
     quantification and evaluation of child-specific and other-
     vulnerable-subpopulation-specific susceptibility and exposure 
     to environmental pollutants; and
       ``(6) the absence of data precludes effective government 
     regulation of environmental pollutants, and denies 
     individuals the ability to exercise a right to know and make 
     informed decisions to protect their families.
       ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States that--
       ``(1) all environmental and public health standards set by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency must be adequate to 
     protect children and other vulnerable subpopulations that are 
     at greater risk from exposure to environmental pollutants;
       ``(2) adequate hazard data should be developed with respect 
     to the special vulnerability and exposure to environmental 
     pollutants of children and other vulnerable subpopulations to 
     better assess where, and at what levels, children and other 
     vulnerable subpopulations are being exposed;
       ``(3) scientific research opportunities should be 
     identified by the Environmental Protection Agency to study 
     the health effects of cumulative and simultaneous exposures 
     of children and other vulnerable subpopulations to 
     environmental pollutants;
       ``(4) information should be made readily available by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to the general public to 
     advance the public's right-to-know, and allow the public to 
     avoid unnecessary and involuntary exposure; and
       ``(5) a family right-to-know initiative should be developed 
     by the Environmental

[[Page S11994]]

     Protection Agency to provide parents with basic information 
     so the parents can make informed choices to protect their 
     children from environmental health threats in their homes, 
     schools, and communities.

     ``SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Children.--The term `children' includes adolescents 
     and infants.
       ``(2) Environmental pollutant.--The term `environmental 
     pollutant' means a hazardous substance, as defined in section 
     101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601), or 
     a pesticide, as defined in section 2 of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136).
       ``(3) User.--The term `user' means any commercial 
     applicator of, or any person who applies, an environmental 
     pollutant in a school, park, or public area that is 
     reasonably accessible to children.
       ``(4) Vulnerable subpopulations.--The term `vulnerable 
     subpopulations' means children, pregnant women, the elderly, 
     individuals with a history of serious illness, and other 
     subpopulations identified by the Administrator as likely to 
     experience elevated health risks from environmental 
     pollutants.

     ``SEC. 503. FAMILY RIGHT-TO-KNOW INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall work with each 
     State to develop a family right-to-know initiative in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall make grants to 
     States to develop and carry out a family right-to-know 
     initiative in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Terms and conditions.--Grants made under this 
     subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions as 
     the Administrator establishes to further the purposes of this 
     title.
       ``(c) Requirements of Initiative.--A State carrying out a 
     family right-to-know initiative shall--
       ``(1) require that any user who applies an environmental 
     pollutant in a public area that is reasonably accessible to 
     children complete a simple, easy-to-understand form that 
     provides the amount of environmental pollutant applied, where 
     the environmental pollutant was applied, and when the 
     environmental pollutant was applied;
       ``(2) work with the Administrator to--
       ``(A) develop a uniform definition of the term `public area 
     that is reasonably accessible to children' for purposes of 
     this section, that shall include, at a minimum, schools, 
     shopping malls, movie theaters, and parks;
       ``(B) develop a uniform form to be completed by users under 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(C) determine the manner and length of time of keeping 
     the forms completed by users; and
       ``(D) determine the format for reporting information 
     collected under paragraph (1) to the public;
       ``(3) prepare annual State reports summarizing the 
     information collected under paragraph (1) for distribution to 
     the Administrator;
       ``(4) provide the public with copies of annual State 
     reports and local recordkeeping for schools, parks, and 
     public areas;
       ``(5) make State reports available to the public on the 
     Internet;
       ``(6) provide the Administrator with such data as the 
     Administrator requests to prepare a nationwide survey under 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(7) satisfy such other requirements as the Administrator 
     prescribes to carry out this section.
       ``(d) Nationwide Surveys.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall prepare a 
     biennial nationwide survey of the information collected under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Assessment.--The nationwide survey shall assess the 
     extent to which environmental pollutants are present in 
     private office and commercial buildings that are reasonably 
     accessible to children.
       ``(3) Recommendation.--The nationwide survey shall 
     recommend whether public recordkeeping and public reporting 
     concerning application of environmental pollutants in areas 
     that are reasonably accessible to children should be 
     required.
       ``(e) Public Availability of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--On request by a member of the public, 
     the Administrator shall provide a copy of any State report or 
     nationwide survey prepared under this section.
       ``(2) Internet.--The Administrator shall make any State 
     report or nationwide survey prepared under this section 
     available to the public on the Internet.

     ``SEC. 504. SAFE SCHOOLS AND PARKS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator shall--
       ``(1) identify hazardous substances and pesticides commonly 
     used in schools and parks;
       ``(2) create, after peer review, a list of the substances 
     identified in paragraph (1) with high hazard health risks to 
     children and other vulnerable subpopulations;
       ``(3) make the list created under paragraph (2) available 
     to the public;
       ``(4) review the list created under paragraph (2) on a 
     biennial basis; and
       ``(5) develop and issue an Environmental Protection Agency 
     approved sign and label for posting by a school or park to 
     indicate that high hazard environmental pollutants were not 
     used in the school or park.
       ``(b) Cooperation.--The Administrator shall work with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of 
     Education, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture to ensure wide public distribution of the list 
     created under subsection (a)(2).
       ``(c) Compliance by Schools and Parks.--Not later than 1 
     year after the list created under subsection (a)(2) is made 
     available to the public, the Administrator shall prohibit a 
     school or park from using any environmental pollutant on the 
     list.

     ``SEC. 505. RESEARCH TO IMPROVE INFORMATION ON EFFECTS ON 
                   CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Toxicity Data.--The Administrator, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall coordinate the development and implementation of 
     research studies to examine the physiological and 
     pharmacokinetic differences in the effects and toxicity of 
     pesticides (including active and inert ingredients) and other 
     environmental pollutants on children and other vulnerable 
     subpopulations, as identified in the study of the National 
     Academy of Sciences entitled `Pesticides in the Diets of 
     Infants and Children'.
       ``(b) Exposure Data.--The Administrator, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct surveys and applied research to document 
     differences between children and adults with respect to 
     dietary, dermal, and inhalation exposure to pesticides and 
     other environmental pollutants.
       ``(c) Biennial Reports.--The Administrator, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall submit biennial reports to Congress on actions 
     taken to carry out this section.

     ``SEC. 506. SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN AND OTHER VULNERABLE 
                   SUBPOPULATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(1) evaluate environmental health risks to vulnerable 
     subpopulations in all of the risk assessments, risk 
     characterizations, environmental and public health standards, 
     and general regulatory decisions carried out by the 
     Administrator;
       ``(2) carry out paragraph (1) in accordance with the policy 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency on the assessment of 
     risks to children in effect on November 1, 1995; and
       ``(3) develop and use a separate assessment or finding of 
     risks to vulnerable subpopulations or publish in the Federal 
     Register an explanation of why the separate assessment or 
     finding is not used.
       ``(b) Reevaluation of Current Public Health and 
     Environmental Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--As part of any risk assessment, risk 
     characterization, environmental or public health standard, or 
     general regulatory decision carried out by the Administrator, 
     the Administrator shall evaluate the environmental health 
     risks to children and other vulnerable subpopulations.
       ``(2) Implementation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title, 
     the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) develop an administrative strategy and an 
     administrative process for reviewing standards;
       ``(B) identify a list of standards that may need revision 
     to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable 
     subpopulations;
       ``(C) prioritize the list according to the standards that 
     are most important for expedited review to protect children 
     and vulnerable subpopulations;
       ``(D) identify which standards on the list will require 
     additional research in order to be reevaluated and outline 
     the time and resources required to carry out the research; 
     and
       ``(E) identify, through public input and peer review, not 
     fewer than 5 public health and environmental standards of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to be repromulgated on an 
     expedited basis to meet the criteria of this subsection.
       ``(3) Revised standards.--Not later than 6 years after the 
     date of enactment of this title, the Administrator shall 
     propose not fewer than 5 revised standards that meet the 
     criteria of this subsection.
       ``(4) Completed revision of standards.--Not later than 15 
     years after the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Administrator shall complete the revision of standards in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(5) Report.--The Administrator shall report to Congress 
     on an annual basis on progress made by the Administrator in 
     carrying out the objectives and policy of this subsection.

     ``SEC. 507. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DATA.

       ``(a) Disclosure of Health Effects and Exposure Data.--
     Subject to subsection (b), any data or information known by a 
     Federal agency concerning any test of a pesticide, residue of 
     a pesticide, or other environmental pollutant to determine 
     the potential levels of exposure or health effects shall be 
     available for disclosure to the public, except to the extent 
     the data or information relates to--
       ``(1) a manufacturing or quality control process;
       ``(2) a method for detecting the quantity of any 
     deliberately added inert ingredient of a chemical substance 
     other than a method for detecting a residue of the inert 
     ingredient in or on food; or
       ``(3) explicit information derived from a pesticide use 
     form submitted under section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i-1).

[[Page S11995]]

       ``(b) Data and Information Submitted Under FIFRA.--Any data 
     or information described in subsection (a) that was submitted 
     to the Administrator under the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) shall 
     be made available for disclosure to the public in accordance 
     with section 10 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 136h).
       ``(c) Disclosure.--This section shall not restrict the 
     release of--
       ``(1) information that is otherwise subject to disclosure 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code; or
       ``(2) information available through--
       ``(A) a material safety data sheet;
       ``(B) published scientific literature; or
       ``(C) a government document.

     ``SEC. 508. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title.''.
       By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Shelby):

  S. 2180. A bill to establish felony violations for the failure to pay 
legal child support obligations and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


              THE DEADBEAT PARENTS PUNISHMENT ACT OF 1996

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Deadbeat Parents Punishment 
Act of 1996. Along with Senator Shelby and Congressmen Hyde and 
Schumer, I introduced the original Child Support Recovery Act in 1992, 
and today I am pleased to introduce a bill that will toughen the 
original legislation to ensure that more serious crimes receive more 
serious punishment. In so doing, we can send a clear message to 
deadbeat dads--and moms: ignore the law, ignore your responsibilities, 
and you will pay a high price; that is, pay up or go to jail.
  Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to 
pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the 
obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater 
than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 
months in prison for a first offense, and a maximum of 2 years for a 
second offense.
  Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law 
effectively, but they have found that these penalties do not adequately 
deal with more serious cases--those deadbeat parents who deliberately 
ignore or evade the law. These are cases in which parents move from 
State to State to intentionally evade child support penalties, or fail 
to pay child support obligations for more than 2 years--serious cases 
that deserve serious punishment. In response to these concerns, 
President Clinton has drafted legislation that would address this 
problem, and I am pleased to introduce it today.
  This new effort builds on past successes achieved through bipartisan 
work. In the 4 years since the original deadbeat parents legislation 
was signed into law by President Bush, collections have increased by 
nearly 50 percent, from $8 billion to $11.8 billion, and we should be 
proud of that increase. Moreover, a new national database has helped 
identify 60,000 delinquent fathers, over half of whom owed money to 
women on welfare.
  Nevertheless, there is much more we can do. It has been estimated 
that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, 
approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare 
rolls. Our legislation cracks down on the worst violators, and makes 
clear that intentional or long-term evasion of child support 
responsibilities will not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it 
will help us continue the fight to ensure that every child receives the 
parental support they deserve.
  Mr. President, we introduce this measure today, at the end of the 
session, in order to provide an opportunity for review in the coming 
months. But when we return for the 105th Congress, it will be one of my 
highest priorities. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
give police and prosecutors the tools they need to effectively pursue 
individuals who seek to avoid their family obligations.
  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:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       The Child Support Recovery Amendments Act of 1996 amends 
     the current criminal statute regarding the failure to pay 
     legal child support obligations, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 228, to 
     create felony violations for egregious offenses. Current law 
     makes it a federal offense willfully to fail to pay a child 
     support obligation with respect to a child who lives in 
     another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for 
     longer than a year or its greater than $5,000. A first 
     offense is subject to a maximum of six months of 
     imprisonment, and a second or subsequent offense to a maximum 
     of two years.
       The bill addresses the law enforcement and prosecutorial 
     concern that the current statute does not adequately address 
     more serious instances of nonpayment of support obligations. 
     A maximum term of imprisonment of just six months does not 
     meet the sentencing goals of punishment and deterrence. 
     Egregious offenses, such as those involving parents who move 
     from State-to-State to evade child support payments, require 
     more severe penalties.
       Section 2 of the bill creates two new categories of felony 
     offenses, subject to a two-year maximum prison term. These 
     are: (1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the 
     intent to evade a support obligation if the obligation has 
     remained unpaid for a period longer than one year or is 
     greater than $5,000; and (2) willfully failing to pay a 
     support obligation regarding a child residing in another 
     State, if the obligation has remained unpaid for a period 
     longer than two years or is greater than $10,000. These 
     offenses, proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 228(a) (2) and (3); 
     indicate a level of culpability greater than that reflected 
     by the current six-month maximum prison term for a first 
     offense. The level of culpability demonstrated by offenders 
     who commit the offenses described in these provisions is akin 
     to that demonstrated by repeat offenders under current law, 
     who are subject to a maximum two-year prison term.
       Proposed section 228(b) of title 18, United States Code, 
     states that the existence of a support obligation in effect 
     for the time period charged in the indictment or information 
     creates a rebuttable presumption that the obligor has the 
     ability to pay the support obligation for that period. 
     Although ``ability to pay'' is not an element of the offense, 
     a demonstration of the obligor's ability to pay contributes 
     to a showing of willful failure to pay the known obligation. 
     The presumption in favor of ability to pay is needed because 
     proof that the obligor is earning or acquiring income or 
     assets is difficult. Child support offenders are notorious 
     for hiding assets and failing to document earnings. A 
     presumption of ability to pay, based on the existence of a 
     support obligation determined under State law, is useful in a 
     jury's determination of whether the nonpayment was willful. 
     An offender who lacks the ability to pay a support obligation 
     due to legitimate, changed circumstances occurring after the 
     issuance of a support order has civil means available to 
     reduce the support obligation and thereby avoid violation 
     of the federal criminal statute in the first instance. In 
     addition, the presumption of ability to pay set forth in 
     the bill is rebuttable; a defendant can put forth evidence 
     of his or her inability to pay.
       The reference to mandatory restitution in proposed section 
     228(d) of title 18, United States Code, amends the current 
     restitution requirement in section 228(c). The amendment 
     conforms the restitution citation to the new mandatory 
     restitution provision of federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3663A, 
     enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
     Penalty Act of 1996, P.L. 104-132, section 204. This change 
     simply clarifies the applicability of that statute to the 
     offense of failure to pay legal child support obligations.
       For all of the violations set forth in proposed subsection 
     (a) of section 228, the requirement of the existence of a 
     State determination regarding the support obligation is the 
     same as under current law. Under proposed subsection (e)(1), 
     as under current subsection (d)(1)(A), the government must 
     show that the support obligation is an amount determined 
     under a court order or an order of a administrative process 
     pursuant to the law of a State to be due from a person for 
     the support and maintenance of a child or of a child and the 
     parent with whom the child is living.
       Proposed subsection (e)(2) of section 228 amends the 
     definition of ``State,'' currently in subsection (d)(2), to 
     clarify that prosecutions may be brought under this statute 
     in a commonwealth, such as Puerto Rico. The current 
     definition of ``State'' in section 228, which includes 
     possessions and territories of the United States, does not 
     include commonwealths.
  By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 2181. A bill to provide for more effective management of the 
National Grasslands, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


                   NATIONAL GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Grasslands Management Act. This bill applies to the grasslands in North 
Dakota and half a dozen other States. I want to explain briefly what 
the objective of this bill is and how it came about.
  For several years, the ranchers in western North Dakota have been 
asking for a less cumbersome approach to management of the grasslands 
and in North Dakota, both Chambers of the 1995 legislature passed a 
resolution unanimously asking for change on the grasslands as well.

[[Page S11996]]

  The current regulatory regime is cumbersome mainly because the Forest 
Service must manage the grasslands under the same framework as it does 
the rest of the National Forest System. It doesn't handle efficiently 
the day-to-day problems of the ranchers and grazing associations. For 
example, ranchers have had to wait for as long as 2 to 3 years to get 
approval for a stock tank because of the labyrinth of regulations that 
the Forest Service overlays on the management of the grasslands. This 
legislation will change that by removing the national grasslands from 
the National Forest System and creating a new structure of rules 
specifically suited to the grasslands and their environment.
  However, it is not only the ranchers needs that I am attempting to 
address. There is a broad range of uses on the public lands which must 
be protected. All hunting, fishing and recreational activities will 
continue as before and environmental protections will continue to be in 
place. Further, it is my intention that the public must be involved in 
the decision making process as these new rules are implemented. Only by 
working together can we solve the problems on the grasslands.
  Several environmental groups and interested citizens have expressed 
concern that this bill, which was originally incorporated as part of a 
larger grazing package, would make grazing the dominant use of the 
public lands at the expense of other uses and some have expressed 
concern that this bill would prohibit hunting and fishing, end the 
multiple use of the national grasslands, turn over the management of 
the Grasslands to the ranchers and disconnect the grasslands from 
environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air 
Act, and the Clean Water Act.
  These concerns are unfounded. I have worked diligently with the 
ranchers, environmentalists, and other recreational users of the 
grasslands to ensure that further misinterpretation is not possible. 
The result of that work is the National Grasslands Management Act that 
I am introducing today.
  The legislation explicitly states that there will be no diminished 
hunting or fishing opportunities, that all applicable environmental 
laws will apply to those lands, and that the grasslands will be managed 
under a multiple use policy. The bill directs the Secretary to 
promulgate regulations which promote the efficient administration of 
livestock agriculture and provide environmental protections equivalent 
to that of the National Forest System.
  In short, I believe that the National Grasslands Management Act is a 
solid piece of legislation that will make the administration of the 
Grasslands more responsive to the people who live there, without 
diminishing the rights and opportunities of other multiple users of 
this public land.
  By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 2182. A bill to consolidate certain mineral interests in the 
National Grasslands in Billings County, North Dakota, through the 
exchange of Federal and private mineral interests to enhance land 
management capabilities and environmental and wildlife protection, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  MINERAL RIGHTS EXCHANGE LEGISLATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, I, along with Senator Kent Conrad, 
am introducing a bill that will facilitate a mineral exchange in 
Western North Dakota. The purpose of this mineral exchange is to 
consolidate certain mineral estates of both the U.S. Forest Service and 
Burlington Resources, formerly known as Meridian Oil. This 
consolidation will produce tangible benefits to an economically 
distressed region in North Dakota and also protect environmentally 
sensitive areas.
  For years, the land and mineral ownership pattern in Western North 
Dakota has been extremely fragmented. In many cases the Forest Service 
owns and manages the surface land while private parties, such as 
Burlington Resources, own the subsurface mineral estates. This 
fragmentation has not only frustrated the management objectives of the 
Forest Service, it has also inhibited mineral exploration and 
development.
  By consolidating the mineral estates, the Forest Service will have 
the opportunity to protect the viewshed along the Little Missouri 
River, creating a more attractive hunting, fishing and hiking area. 
Further, the mineral exchange will protect certain bighorn sheep 
calving areas. The Forest Service and Burlington have already signed a 
Memorandum of Understanding which will aid in the protection of 
wildlife and wildlife habitat after the exchange is concluded. The 
exchange is also supported by all major environmental groups in the 
State, the Governor of North Dakota, and the Bureau of Land 
Management's Dakotas Resource Advisory Council.
  Burlington Resources supports this legislation. Burlington will have 
better opportunities for mineral exploration and development within 
their consolidated mineral estates. This increased development will 
benefit not only Burlington, but also Billings County and the State of 
North Dakota through increased tax revenue..
  One point that I would like to make clear is that this mineral 
exchange should in no way be seen as affecting the multiple uses of the 
land. Current multiple uses, such as recreation, livestock grazing, 
watershed protection or fish and wildlife purposes, will continue as 
before.
  I would also like to point out that this mineral exchange is not 
meant as a preamble to--or a substitute for--a designation of this area 
as wilderness. I do not favor the designation of wilderness within 
Billings County.
  May I further underscore that this mineral exchange costs the U.S. 
taxpayer nothing. The bill provides for an exchange of about the same 
number of acres with equivalent monetary values. Yet, this no-cost 
transaction will yield substantial economic, environmental, and 
management dividends.
  It is my hope that this mineral exchange will address some of the 
difficult land use questions in this area. It will accomplish a number 
of objectives. It will protect certain environmentally sensitive and 
scenic areas from development and I think that is important in these 
unique circumstances. It will also consolidate mineral holdings so that 
more orderly and predictable development will occur where development 
is feasible and appropriate. And, as I noted before, it will preserve a 
multiple use framework for managing these lands so that grazing and 
other activities are not otherwise affected by this legislation.
  Further, it does not rely on the Government imposing a solution. 
Rather, this voluntary agreement embodies a consensus reached between 
the affected parties, the mineral holders, the State and its citizens, 
the environmental organizations, and the United States Forest Service.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Governor of 
North Dakota, the Dakotas Resource Council and the Sierra Club, and the 
Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Forest Service and Burlington 
Resources be printed in the Record in order to aid my colleagues in 
their deliberations on the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        State of North Dakota,

                                       Bismark, ND, July 25, 1996.
     Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: The State of North Dakota supports the 
     introduction of a bill which would implement a proposed 
     mineral exchange between the United States Forest Service and 
     Meridian Oil, Inc. This effort will advance our ``2020'' 
     program to plan and implement sound management of the 
     Badlands well into the future.
       Current land and mineral ownership patterns in the Bullion 
     Butte and Ponderosa Pine areas of the Little Missouri 
     National Grasslands are fragmented, thereby complicating 
     management of surface and mineral resources.
       The proposed exchange is an opportunity to consolidate 
     ownership, enhance natural badlands habitat adjacent to the 
     Little Missouri River and facilitate mineral development 
     while reducing conflict by competing activities.
       Finally, I have included a summary describing more 
     completely, the intended exchange and its effect.
           Sincerely,
                                                Edward T. Schafer,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____


   Legislation To Effect an Exchange of Mineral Rights in the Little 
               Missouri National Grasslands, Billings, ND

       For over a decade, the United States Forest Service (USFS) 
     and Meridian Oil, Inc. (Meridian) have been considering a 
     possible exchange of oil and gas rights in the Bullion

[[Page S11997]]

     Butte and Ponderosa Pine areas of the Little Missouri 
     National Grasslands in North Dakota. The land ownership 
     pattern in those areas is very fragmented, with both federal 
     and privately owned mineral rights and federal surface and 
     private subsurface estates. This lack of unity between the 
     surface and subsurface estates and intermixture of public and 
     private mineral rights have complicated both effective 
     management of surface resource values and efficient 
     extraction of minerals. The USFS views an exchange to 
     consolidate mineral ownerships as an opportunity to protect 
     bighorn sheep and their habitat and the viewshed in the 
     Little Missouri River corridor. Meridian expects an exchange 
     to facilitate exploration for and development of oil and gas 
     by reducing the conflict such activities would have with 
     other sensitive Grasslands resources.
       At the urging of Senator Dorgan and Governor Schafer, the 
     USFS and Meridian reached an agreement last year on an 
     exchange of certain federal and private mineral rights and 
     the imposition of certain constraints on Meridian oil and gas 
     activities. The agreement would be implemented by this 
     legislation.
       What the legislation does. The legislation would accomplish 
     the following:
       Direct the completion of the transfer of Meridian's mineral 
     rights in approximately 9,582 acres to the USFS for federal 
     oil and gas rights in 8,796 acres, all in Billings County, 
     North Dakota, within 45 days of enactment.
       Authorize the exchange of any other private mineral rights 
     in the same area for federal mineral rights within 6 months 
     of enactment.
       Deem the mineral rights to be transferred in the USFS/
     Meridian exchange to be of equal value (since the two parties 
     have already negotiated the exchange and are of the informed 
     opinion that the values are equivalent) and require that the 
     other mineral rights to be transferred be of approximately 
     equal value.
       Require Meridian, as a condition for the exchange, to 
     secure release of any leasehold or other contractual rights 
     that may have been established on the Meridian oil and gas 
     interests that will be exchanged.
       Assure Meridian that it will have access across federal 
     lands to be able, subject to applicable federal and State 
     laws, to explore for and develop oil and gas on the interests 
     it will receive in the exchange and that it will have the 
     same surface occupancy and use rights on the interests it 
     will receive that it now holds on the interests to be 
     surrendered.
       Find that the USFS/Meridian exchange meets the requirements 
     of other federal exchange, environmental, and cultural laws 
     that would apply if the exchange were to be processed without 
     Congressional approval and direction.
       Assure that no provision of the legislation can be 
     interpreted to limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the 
     application of the principle of multiple use (including such 
     uses as hunting, fishing, grazing and recreation) in the 
     Grasslands.
       In addition to facilitating the exchange, the legislation 
     would memorialize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also 
     negotiated and executed by the USFS and Meridian concerning 
     management of certain Meridian oil and gas properties that 
     will remain in Grasslands' areas with high surface resource 
     values. In particular the MOU, adopted by reference in the 
     legislation, obligates Meridian to make its best efforts to 
     locate any oil and gas facilities and installations outside 
     of the \1/4\ mile view corridor on either side of the stretch 
     of the Little Missouri River being considered for designation 
     as a Wild and Scenic River and to access certain other 
     property adjacent to an important bighorn sheep lambing area 
     only by directional drilling.
       Equally important is what the legislation does not do:
       It does not increase the amount of surface which the USFS 
     controls. The USFS currently controls the surface on 
     essentially all the land involved in the exchange, and this 
     will not change since only mineral interests will be 
     transferred.
       It does not decrease the federal land available for oil and 
     gas development. To the contrary, in the exchange the federal 
     government will receive a net gain of almost 800 acres in 
     mineral rights that may be leased for exploration and 
     development by other parties. And, by consolidating federal 
     mineral rights which now are scattered in a checkerboard 
     pattern, access to them should be improved. The extent to 
     which existing and new federal mineral rights are leased to 
     private parties will be decided by the USFS in the ongoing 
     planning and Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern 
     Little Missouri Grasslands. The ``multiple use'' provision of 
     the legislation makes certain the legislation will not affect 
     that decisionmaking process.
       It does not decrease revenue to the county, state, and 
     federal governments. For the same reason that the exchange 
     would not decrease land available for oil and gas 
     development, the economic interests of taxing entities and 
     the oil and gas industry should not be affected significantly 
     by the exchange. In fact, with Meridian consolidating its 
     mineral holdings in a more manageable and less sensitive 
     unit, area oil and gas activity should increase and produce a 
     net positive economic effect.
       It does not provide either Meridian or USFS with mineral 
     rights of greater value than those they now hold. The USFS 
     with the assistance of the Bureau of Land Management, has 
     reached the conclusion that the mineral rights to be 
     exchanged between the USFS and Meridian are of equal value. 
     Some additional value will accrue to both sets of mineral 
     rights transferred by the exchange because of the greater 
     ease of access and management that will result from 
     consolidation. The legislation requires that any other 
     mineral rights exchanged by other parties under the 
     legislation be of approximately equal value.
       It does not resolve the issue of wilderness designation. 
     Some parties desire wilderness protection for the area. Other 
     parties, including Meridian, oppose wilderness designation, 
     and the USFS has not indicated any intent to establish a 
     wilderness. The legislation would not increase, or decrease, 
     the prospect for wilderness designation since wilderness may 
     be designated whether the mineral rights are privately or 
     publicly owned, the designation can only be accomplished by a 
     separate Act of Congress, and the legislation's ``multiple 
     use'' language makes clear the intent of Congress that the 
     exchange is not intended to affect the wilderness issue.


                            Dakotas Resource Advisory Council,

                                Dickinson, ND, September 12, 1996.
     Hon. Ed Schafer,
     Governor of North Dakota, State Capitol, Bismarck, ND.
       Dear Governor Schafer: The Dakota Resource Advisory Council 
     (RAC), a 12-member body appointed by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, represents users of public lands in North and South 
     Dakota. The RAC provides opportunities for meaningful public 
     participation in land management decisions at the district 
     level and encourages conflict resolution among various 
     interest groups.
       At our meeting in Dickinson, North Dakota on September 9, 
     1996, the RAC reviewed and discussed the Meridian Mineral 
     Exchange that you have been considering. After careful review 
     by our RAC, a resolution was passed indicating our support 
     for legislative to allow the Meridian Mineral Exchange to be 
     completed by the Bureau of Land Management.
       Since there is considerable activity in this area, there is 
     a definite urgency to move this legislation in the remaining 
     of this Congress. The Dakota RAC respectfully requests the 
     introduction and passage of legislation of the Meridian 
     Mineral Exchange.
       If we can be of further assistance to your efforts in this 
     regard, we are most willing to help. District Manager, Doug 
     Burger, has more details with respect to the exchange and we 
     have asked him to assist you.
       Thank you for considering the recommendations of the Dakota 
     RAC.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Marc Trimmer,
     Chair, Dakota RAC.
                                                                    ____


                      Memorandum of Understanding

       The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is between Meridian 
     Oil Inc. (Meridian) with offices in Englewood, Colorado and 
     the U.S. Forest Service, Custer National Forest (Forest 
     Service).
       The intent of the MOU is to set forth agreement regarding 
     development of certain oil and gas interests beneath Federal 
     surface. This MOU is in addition to, and does not abrogate, 
     any rights the United States otherwise has to regulate 
     activities on the Federal surface estate or any rights 
     Meridian otherwise has to develop the oil and gas interest 
     conveyed.
       The provisions of this MOU shall apply to the successors 
     and assigns of Meridian.
       The MOU may be amended by written agreement of the parties.
       Section A. View Corridor--Little Missouri River. Includes 
     the following land (Subject Lands) in Township 137N., Range 
     102W.:
       Section 3: Lots 6, 7, 9-12, 14-17 (+) River Bottom 54.7 
     acres
       Section 10: Lots 1-4, N\1/2\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\ 
     (+) River Bottoms 7.3 acres
       Section 14: Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/
     4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\S\1/2\ (+) River Bottom 41.4 acres
       Section 24: Lots 1-9, NE\1/4\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/
     4\ (+) River Bottom 75.84 acres
       1. The purpose of this Section is to set forth the 
     agreements that Meridian and the Forest Service have made 
     concerning reasonable protection of the view from the Little 
     Missouri River which has been identified as potentially 
     suitable for classification as a Wild and Scenic River under 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This section of the MOU shall 
     remain in effect as long as the Forest Service maintains a 
     corridor for this purpose.
       2. The Forest Service has designated a \1/4\ mile corridor 
     on either side of the River for protection of the view from 
     the River, and this Section applies to the location permanent 
     improvements within said corridor and not to temporary 
     activities such as seismic operations within said corridor.
       3. Meridian agrees to use its best efforts to locate 
     permanent production facilities, well sites, roads and other 
     installations outside the \1/4\ mile corridor on the Subject 
     Lands. However, such facilities may be located within the \1/
     4\ mile corridor if mutually agreed to by the parties in 
     writing.
       4. The Forest Service agrees that Meridian may access its 
     minerals within or without the \1/4\ mile corridor of the 
     subject lands from a well or wells whose surface location is 
     on adjoining lands in which Meridian owns the severed mineral 
     estate.
       Section B. Development of T. 138N., R 102W., Section 12: 
     S\1/2\

[[Page S11998]]

       1. The purpose of this section is to set forth the 
     agreement that Meridian and the Forest Service have made 
     concerning the option to develop the mineral resources in the 
     S\1/2\ Section 12 from specified locations in Section 13, T. 
     138N., R. 102W.
       2. If, at any time, Meridian, at its sole discretion, 
     decides that the development potential of the S\1/2\ Section 
     12 justifies additional directional drilling the following 
     options are hereby made available to them by the Forest 
     Service:
       A. Directional drilling from an expanded pad on the Duncan 
     MP#1 location is Section 13, T. 138N., R. 102W. or
       B. Directional drilling from a location in Section 13 
     adjacent to the county road and screened from the bighorn 
     sheep lambing area located in Section 12.
       If Meridian elects to develop the S\1/2\ Section 12 from 
     one of the specified locations in Section 13, surface 
     disturbing activities related to development and production 
     will only be allowed from June 16 through October 14, 
     annually.
       3. This section of the MOU shall remain in effect as long 
     as the S\1/2\ of Section 12 is subject to the present, or a 
     future, oil and gas lease.
     Steven L. Reinert,
       Attorney-in-Fact, Meridian Oil, Inc.
     Nancy Curriden,
       Forest Supervisor, Custer National Forest.
                                                                    ____

                                                Dacotah Chapter of


                                              the Sierra Club,

                                   Mandan, ND, September 14, 1995.
     Re Meridian mineral exchange.

     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: I am writing to convey the Sierra 
     Club's support for the ``agreement in principle'' for a 
     mineral exchange between Meridian Oil Inc. (MOI) and the 
     Bureau of Land Management (BLM)/United States Forest Service 
     (USFS). This agreement follows extensive negotiations between 
     MOI, USFS, BLM, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department 
     (NDGF) and local conservation organizations.
       It is my understanding that their are two components to the 
     agreement. Part One involves the actual exchange of the 
     mineral estate. Part Two outlines a Memorandum of 
     Understanding (MOU) between the USFS and MOI to protect the 
     viewshed of the Little Missouri State Scenic River while 
     still allowing MOI to access their minerals. The MOU also 
     addresses a plan to directionally drill an oil well to 
     protect a bighorn sheep lambing area.
       I have contacted the enclosed list of conservation 
     organizations and they have also stated their support for 
     Parts One and Two of the agreement as proposed. I join them 
     in urging you to introduction enabling legislation at the 
     earliest opportunity. Your efforts throughout this process 
     have been very much appreciated. Please contact me if there 
     is anything conservationists can do to facilitate this 
     mineral exchange.
           Sincerely,
     Wayde Schafer.
                                                                    ____


     Conservation Organizations in Support of the Mineral Exchange

       Dacotah Chapter of the Sierra Club, National Wildlife 
     Federation, National Audubon Society, Clean Water Action, 
     North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Bismarck Mandan 
     Bird Club, Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, to introduce legislation that would 
implement an exchange of subsurface mineral rights between the U.S. 
Forest Service and Burlington Resources in the Little Missouri National 
Grasslands.
  Mr. President, this exchange and consolidation of mineral rights 
makes sense. The current pattern of ownership resembles a checkerboard, 
and this consolidation will help protect sensitive lands in the North 
Dakota Badlands and also facilitate additional oil and gas exploration 
in other areas of the grasslands. The legislation being introduced 
today would transfer Burlington's subsurface mineral rights of 9,582 
acres to the Forest Service, and transfer 8,796 acres of Forest Service 
subsurface mineral rights to Burlington Resources. The parties have 
agreed that the value of the mineral rights being exchanged are of 
equal value. The legislation would also authorize the exchange of other 
private mineral rights for federal mineral rights within 6 months of 
enactment. Finally, this bill contains a very important provision that 
assures that nothing in the legislation can be interpreted to limit, 
restrict, or otherwise affect the application of the principle of 
multiple use.
  It is also important to acknowledge what this legislation does not 
do. This legislation does not increase the surface area controlled by 
the Forest Service. This bill only deals with subsurface mineral 
rights. This bill does not decrease revenue to the county, State, or 
Federal government, nor does it provide Burlington Resources with 
mineral rights of greater value than they currently hold. Finally, this 
legislation is silent on the issue of wilderness designation.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a good, balanced piece of 
legislation that deserves the support of every Member of the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Exon):
  S.J. Res. 65. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime 
victims; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the victims' rights constitutional amendment

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to ensure that crime victims are treated with 
fairness, dignity, and respect, I rise--along with Senator Feinstein--
to introduce a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to 
establish and protect the rights of crime victims.
  This joint resolution is the product of extended discussions with 
Senators Hatch and Biden, the Department of Justice, the White House, 
law enforcement, major victims' rights groups, and such diverse 
scholars as Professors Larry Tribe and Paul Cassell.
  This latest joint resolution is still a work in progress; Senator 
Feinstein and I anticipate modifications. We are introducing this new 
version to show the changes that have been made and to make clear that 
Senate Joint Resolution 52--which was introduced on April 22--has been 
superseded. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve the amendment and 
ask that comments refer to this new joint resolution.
  Three principal issues remain unresolved. First, whether there should 
be an effective remedy when crime victims are denied rights regarding 
sentences or pleas. Second, whether to include non-violent crimes--
other crimes--and if these crimes are included, whether they should be 
defined by Congress or by Congress and the states. Third, whether to 
have a right to a final disposition free from unreasonable delay or 
whether to limit this right to trial proceedings.
  The introduced version--and the most recent version--contain the core 
principles that crime victims should have:
  To be informed of the proceedings.
  To be heard at certain crucial stages in the process.
  To be notified of the offender's release or escape.
  To proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
  To an order of restitution.
  To have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release 
from custody.
  To be notified of these rights.
  The language describing these rights has changed--and we continue to 
welcome suggestions. But it is clear that these rights are necessary. 
They are the core of the amendment.
  In putting together a constitutional amendment, a broad consensus has 
to be reached to obtain two-thirds approval in the House and Senate and 
to ensure ratification by three-fourths of the States. In making 
changes, Senator Feinstein and I have tried to accommodate the concerns 
of those who work in the criminal justice system--including judges, 
prosecutors, police officers, corrections officials, and defense 
attorneys--while at the same time protecting fundamental rights for 
crime victims.
  Senator Feinstein and I will continue to work intensively with these 
groups, law professors, and other Members of Congress from both parties 
and both Houses over the ensuing months to craft the best amendment 
possible. We then intend to introduce the finished revised amendment at 
the beginning of the next Congress. We believe that we now are close to 
a version that can be voted on by the House and Senate. We welcome 
comments and input as we move forward.
  In closing, I would like to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein for her 
hard work on this amendment and for her tireless efforts on behalf of 
crime victims.
  Mr. President, for far too long, the criminal justice system has 
ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, 
and respect. Our criminal justice system will never

[[Page S11999]]

be truly just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none. 
We need a new definition of justice--one that includes the victim.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 65

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years from 
     the date of its submission by the Congress:
       Section 1. Victims of crimes of violence and other crimes 
     that Congress and the States may define by law pursuant to 
     section 3, shall have the rights to notice of and not to be 
     excluded from all public proceedings relating to the crime; 
     to be heard if present and to submit a statement at a public 
     pre-trial or trial proceeding to determine a release from 
     custody, an acceptance of a negotiated plea, or a sentence; 
     to these rights at a parole proceeding to the extent they are 
     afforded to the convicted offender; to notice of a release 
     pursuant to a public or parole proceeding or an escape; to a 
     final disposition free from unreasonable delay; to an order 
     of restitution from the convicted offender; to have the 
     safety of the victim considered in determining a release from 
     custody; and to notice of the rights established by this 
     article.
       Section 2. The victim shall have standing to assert the 
     rights established by this article; however, nothing in this 
     article shall provide grounds for the victim to challenge a 
     charging decision or a conviction, obtain a stay of trial, or 
     compel a new trial; nor shall anything in this article give 
     rise to a claim of damages against the United States, a 
     State, a political subdivision, or a public official; nor 
     shall anything in this article provide grounds for the 
     accused or convicted offender to obtain any form of relief.
       Section 3. The Congress and the States shall have the power 
     to enforce this article within their respective federal and 
     state jurisdictions by appropriate legislation, including the 
     power to enact exceptions when required for compelling 
     reasons of public safety.
       Section 4. The rights established by this article shall be 
     applicable to all proceedings occurring after ratification of 
     this article.
       Section 5. The rights established by this article shall 
     apply in all federal, state, military, and juvenile justice 
     proceedings, and shall also apply to victims in the District 
     of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession 
     of the United States.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my 
distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, to introduce a 
revised and substantially improved version of the victims' rights 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  Since Senator Kyl and I originally introduced a victims' rights 
amendment in April, we have been working very diligently and 
intensively with the Department of Justice, law enforcement, the White 
House, major victims' rights groups, Senate Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Biden, House Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Hyde, and a variety of distinguished scholars in the field of 
law enforcement, to more finely craft this amendment and resolve 
various concerns with its initial language. We have gone through 41 
different drafts of the amendment, so far, as the language has evolved, 
culminating in the resolution that we are introducing today.
  We are introducing this most recent version so that interested people 
have an up to date draft to evaluate. Many of the people who have 
commented on the victims' rights amendment were commenting on an out of 
date draft, leading to erroneous and false conclusions by some, 
including legal scholars.
  What really focused my attention on the need for greater protection 
of victims' rights was a particularly horrifying case, in 1974, in San 
Francisco, when a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of the 
Carlson family in Portero Hill. Pavageau tied Mr. Carlson to a chair, 
bludgeoning him to death with a hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic 
vase. He then repeatedly raped Carlson's 24-year old wife, breaking 
several of her bones, He slit her wrist, tried to strangle her with a 
telephone cord, and then, before fleeing, set the Carlson's home on 
fire--cowardly retreating into the night, leaving this family to burn 
up in flames.
  But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She courageously lived to testify 
against her attacker. But she has been forced to change her name and 
continues to live in fear that her attacker may, one day, be released. 
When I was mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to 
notify me that Pavageau was up for parole. Amazingly, it was up to Mrs. 
Carlson to find out when his parole hearings were.

  Mr. President, I believe this case represents a travesty of justice--
It just shouldn't have to be that way. I believe it should be the 
responsibility of the State to send a letter through the mail or make a 
phone call to let a victim know that her attacker is up for parole, and 
she should have the opportunity to testify at that hearing.
  But today, in most States in this great Nation, victims still are not 
made aware of the accused's trial, many times are not allowed in the 
courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when convicted 
offender is released from prison.
  I have vowed to do everything in my power to add a bit of balance to 
our Nation's justice system. This is why Senator Kyl and I have crafted 
the victim's rights amendment before us today.
  The people of California were the first in the Nation to pass a crime 
victims' amendment to the State constitution in 1982--the initiative 
proposition 8--and I supported its passage. This measure gave victims 
the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation 
and parole hearings established a right to safe and secure public 
school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. California's 
proposition 8 represented a good start to ensure victims' rights.
  Since the passage of proposition 8, 20 more States have passed 
constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims--and 
five others are expected to pass by the end of this year. In each case, 
these amendments have won with the overwhelming approval of the voters.
  But citizens in other States lack these basic rights. The 20 
different State constitutional amendments differ from each other, 
representing a patchwork quilt of rights that vary from State to State. 
And even in those States which have State amendments, criminals can 
assert rights grounded in the Federal constitution to try to trump 
those rights.
  I stand before you today to appeal to my colleagues in this body--the 
highest legislative institution in the land--that the time is now to 
amend the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the rights of victims 
of serious crimes.
  The U.S. Constitution guarantees numerous rights to the accused in 
our society, all of which were established by amendment to the 
Constitution. I steadfastly believe that this Nation must attempt to 
guarantee, at the very least, some basic rights to the millions 
victimized by crime each year.
  For those accused of crimes in this country, the Constitution 
specifically protects: The right to a grand jury indictment for capital 
or infamous crimes; the prohibition against double jeopardy; the right 
to due process; the right to a speedy trial and the right to an 
impartial jury of one's peers; the right to be informed of the nature 
and cause of the criminal accusation; the right to confront witnesses; 
the right to counsel; the right to subpoena witnesses--and so on.
  I must say to my colleagues that I find it truly astonishing that no 
where in the text of the U.S. Constitution does there appear any 
guarantee of rights for crime victims.
  To rectify this disparity, Senator Kyl and I introduce the victims' 
rights amendment in April. That amendment, like the one we introduced 
today, provides for certain basic rights for victims of crime: The 
right to be notified of public proceedings in their case; The right to 
be heard at any proceeding involving a release from custody or 
sentencing; The right to be informed of the offender's release or 
escape; The right to restitution from the convicted offender; and the 
right to be made of all of your rights as a victim.

  Personally, I can say that the process of forging a constitutional 
amendment for victims' rights has been truly fascinating. The 
Constitution our forefathers scribed 200 years ago is a remarkable 
document that has withstood the test of time. Earlier this year, 
Senator Kyl and I embarked on a journey

[[Page S12000]]

to include an amendment to this magnificent document that would ensure 
that the rights of the roughly 43 million people victimized by crime 
each year will be protected.
  Our ongoing effort to include a victims' rights amendment in the 
Constitution has been at times frustrating, while at other times 
exhilarating. Each sentence, each word, and each comma has undergone 
hours of deliberation and questioning.
  Having said that, I must tell this body and share with my colleagues 
that this latest resolution is still a work in progress--let me be 
perfectly clear, we anticipate modifications. Three principal issues 
remain unresolved:
  First, whether there should be an effective remedy when crime victims 
are denied rights regarding sentences or pleas.
  Second, whether to include nonviolent crimes (``other crimes''), and 
if these crimes are included, whether they should be defined by 
Congress or by Congress and the States.
  Third, whether to have a right to a ``final disposition free from 
unreasonable delay'', whether to limit this right to trial proceedings, 
or whether to exclude this altogether.
  Mr. President, Senator Kyl and I believe that the latest resolution 
before us is much better than the version than was previously 
introduced for a number of reasons. The language describing these 
rights has changed--and we continue to welcome suggestions to ensure 
that this amendment pass with the largest majority.
  Unfortunately, there was precious little time to advance the 
amendment in this Congress, and once it became clear that the other 
Chamber would not proceed with the amendment this session, Senators Kyl 
and Biden and I decided not to press for Senate action in the last few 
weeks of the Congress, but, rather, to spend the next few months 
continuing to work to fine tune the amendment and build a consensus for 
its passage.
  We implore Members of this body to examine this amendment, and to 
help to secure passage of this monumental piece of legislation. After 
200 years, doesn't this Nation owe something to the millions of victims 
of crime? I believe that is our obligation and should be our highest 
priority--not only for the crime victims, but, for all Americans--to 
ensure passage of a victims' rights constitutional amendment.
  I want to personally than Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to 
accomplish this amendment, and to say that I look forward to continuing 
to work with him in the months to come.
  I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________