[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3901-S3914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 675. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the application of the passive loss limitations to equine activities; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                  the equine tax fairness act of 1997

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code to modify application of passive loss 
limitations to horse activities.
  This week the eyes of the sporting world are focused on the 123d 
running of the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs in Louisville, KY. 
While it is considered one of the greatest sporting events in the 
world, the Kentucky Derby is part of a much larger and broader horse 
industry--one that has a $112 billion economic impact in the United 
States and supports 1.4 million jobs.
  Whether it is owning, breeding, racing, or showing horses--or simply 
enjoying an afternoon ride along the trail--1 of 35 Americans is 
touched by the horse industry. There are 6.9 million horses in the U.S. 
involving more than 7.1 million Americans as horse owners, service 
providers, employees and volunteers. In Kentucky alone, the horse 
industry has an impact of $3.4 billion, involving 150,000 horses and 
52,900 employees.
  What supports the industry--including the job base, the breeding 
farms, and the revenue stream in the form of $1.9 billion in taxes to 
all levels of government--is the investment in the horses themselves. 
The horse industry relies on outside investment to operate, just as 
other businesses do. Without others willing to buy and breed horses, 
the 1.4 million jobs supported by this industry are at stake.
  Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the horse industry has experienced 
a near-devastating decline with job losses occurring at racetracks, 
horse farms, and industry suppliers. In addition, hundreds of breeding 
farms have gone out of business. Most horse owners and breeders believe 
that the limits on passive losses are a major reason for the decline as 
well as for the chilled interest of investors in horses. Since the mid-
1980's, the number of horses bred and registered has decreased--leading 
to losses in jobs and revenues for the States.
  The 1986 act indicates that in order to satisfy the material 
participation requirement, a person's involvement must be regular, 
continuous, and substantial. However, the horse industry is unique, and 
the passive loss rules are difficult for some to satisfy. Because of 
the expertise and physical ability that is required, many owners cannot 
ride, train, breed and show their horses.
  The bill I introduce today will alter these requirements to make them 
fair, workable, and enforceable. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 675

       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 ``Equine Tax Fairness Act of 
     1997''.

[[Page S3902]]

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF PASSIVE LOSS LIMITATIONS TO EQUINE 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Determination of Material Participation.--Subsection 
     (h) of section 469 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (defining material participation) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Treatment of equine activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--A taxpayer shall be treated as 
     materially participating in an equine activity for a taxable 
     year if--
       ``(i) the taxpayer's participation in such activity for 
     such year constitutes substantially all of the participation 
     in the activity of all individuals for such year, other than 
     individuals--
       ``(I) who are not owners of interest in the activity,
       ``(II) who are retained and compensated directly by the 
     taxpayer, and
       ``(III) whose activities are subject to the oversight, 
     supervision, and control of the taxpayer, or
       ``(ii) based on all of the facts and circumstances, the 
     taxpayer participates in the activity on a regular, 
     continuous, and substantial basis during such year, except 
     that for purposes of this clause--
       ``(I) the taxpayer shall not be required to participate in 
     the activity for any minimum period of time during such year, 
     and
       ``(II) the performance of services by individuals who are 
     not owners of interests in the activity shall not be 
     considered if such services are routinely provided by 
     individuals specializing in such services and such services 
     are subject to the oversight, supervision, and control of the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(B) Partners and s corporation shareholders.--Subject to 
     paragraph (2), the determination of whether a partner or S 
     corporation shareholder shall be treated as materially 
     participating in any equine activity of the partnership or S 
     corporation shall be based upon the combined participation of 
     all of the partners or shareholders in the activity.
       ``(C) Equine activity.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     term `equine activity' means breeding, racing, or showing 
     horses.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 501 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 676. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the standard mileage rate deduction for charitable use of passenger 
automobiles; to the Committee on Finance.


               the charitable equity mileage act of 1997

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the past week, we have heard a great 
deal of discussion regarding voluntarism in America. In Philadelphia, 
President Clinton has been joined by former President Bush and former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, in what has been 
styled a voluntarism summit.
  On the floor of the Senate, we have been attempting to move 
legislation, which I believe should not be controversial, that would 
protect volunteers from fear of legal actions resulting from their 
efforts. I would hope that the impasse over this bill could be broken 
and we could move forward on this important bill.
  In the spirit of encouraging more volunteer efforts in America, I am 
today introducing the Charitable Equity Mileage Act of 1997. This bill 
will increase the standard mileage rate deduction for charitable use of 
an automobile from 12 cents a mile to 18 cents a mile. I think this 
bill should be unanimously supported by my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. President, many of our citizens who volunteer for charitable 
activities incur expenses for which they are not reimbursed. For 
example, when an individual uses his or her automobile to deliver a 
meal to a homebound elderly individual, or to transport children to 
Scouting activities, the volunteer usually pays the transportation cost 
out of pocket with no expectation of reimbursement.
  I believe the costs associated with charitable transportation 
services ought to be deductible at a rate which fairly reflects the 
individual's actual costs. This is especially important for volunteers 
living in rural States who have to travel long distances to provide 
community services.
  Congress in 1984 set the standard mileage expense deduction rate of 
12 cents per mile for individuals who use their automobiles in 
connection with charitable activities. At the time, the standard 
mileage rate for business use of an automobile was 20.5 cents per mile. 
In the intervening 13 years, the business mileage rate has increased to 
30.5 cents per mile but the charitable mileage rate has remained 
unchanged at 12 cents per mile because Treasury does not have the 
authority to adjust the rate.
  By raising the charitable mileage rate to 18 cents a mile, my 
legislation restores the ratio that existed in 1984 between the 
charitable mileage rate and the business mileage rate. In addition, the 
legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the 
charitable mileage rate in the same manner as is currently allowed for 
business mileage expenses.
  All of us agree that with the changing role of the Federal 
Government, we need to do more to encourage voluntarism in our country. 
Volunteers who provide transport services should be allowed to deduct 
such costs at a rate which fairly reflects their true out-of-pocket 
costs. That is precisely what this bill does and I urge my colleagues 
to join with me in sponsoring this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I have a letter of support for my bill from the 
American Legion and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed 
in the Record.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 676

       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 ``Charitable Travel Equity Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN STANDARD MILEAGE RATE EXPENSE DEDUCTION 
                   FOR CHARITABLE USE OF PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE.

       (a) In General.--Section 170(i) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to standard mileage rate for use of 
     passenger automobile) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Standard Mileage Rate for Use of Passenger 
     Automobile.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     for purposes of computing the deduction under this section 
     for use of a passenger automobile, the standard mileage rate 
     shall be 18 cents per mile.
       ``(2) Taxable years beginning after 1998.--Not later than 
     December 15 of 1998, and each subsequent calendar year, the 
     Secretary may prescribe an increase in the standard mileage 
     rate allowed under this subsection with respect to taxable 
     years beginning in the succeeding calendar year if the 
     Secretary determines that such increase is necessary to 
     reflect increased costs in the use of passenger 
     automobiles.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.
                                                                    ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                   Washington, DC, April 24, 1997.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: The American Legion fully supports 
     the ``Charitable Travel Equity Act of 1997,'' to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the standard 
     mileage rate deduction for charitable use of passenger 
     automobiles.
       Not only does The American Legion applaud the increase in 
     the mileage rate deduction, but more importantly this measure 
     fixes the problem that has not allowed for incremental 
     increases without an act of Congress action. The standard 
     mileage rate deduction for business use of passenger 
     automobiles has increased significantly while no adjustments 
     were made in the charitable use rate. Granting the Secretary 
     the authority to make prescribed adjustments will provide 
     fairness and promote additional volunteerism.
       Thank you for your continuous leadership on behalf of 
     America's veterans and their dependents.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Steve Robertson,
                        Director, National Legislative Commission.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN:
  S. 677. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1994, 
to provide the descendants of the children of female U.S. citizens born 
abroad before May 24, 1934, with the same rights to U.S. citizenship at 
birth as the descendants of children born of male citizens abroad; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


         THE EQUITY IN TRANSMISSION OF CITIZENSHIP ACT of 1997

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that 
will amend legislation written by my former colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois, Paul Simon, and enacted into law. 
Three years ago, Senator Simon was the leader in enacting the 
Immigration and Nationality and Technical Corrections Act of 1994. My 
bill seeks to add a further correction to the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, so that the spirit and intent of Senator Simon's work 
is enacted into law.

[[Page S3903]]

  Prior to 1934, a child born overseas to a U.S. father and a foreign 
mother was recognized by the United States as a U.S. citizen. However, 
a child born overseas to a U.S. mother and a foreign father was 
considered to be a foreign national, not a U.S. citizen. Effectively, 
therefore, before 1994, U.S. fathers could pass on their citizenship to 
children born overseas, but U.S. mothers could not. Senator Simon 
sought to remedy this gender inequality by automatically granting U.S. 
citizenship to those individuals born overseas to U.S. mothers before 
1934. Under his legislation, the Immigration and Nationality and 
Technical Corrections Act of 1994, the children of American mothers and 
foreign fathers became U.S. citizens.
  His legislation also contained language to address the third 
generation--the children of these children. It is likely that the 
grandchildren of the U.S. mothers and foreign fathers would have been 
U.S. citizens had their children been U.S. citizens. Therefore, the 
1994 law also granted U.S. citizenship to these grandchildren.
  This provision granting citizenship to the grandchildren, however, 
contradicted another section of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
[INA]. INA states that in order to transmit U.S. citizenship from a 
parent to a child born overseas, the parent must have lived in the 
United States for 10 years. A U.S. citizen who has a child overseas 
needs to have lived in the United States over a 10-year period to pass 
on U.S. citizenship to his or her children. This transmission 
requirement is gender neutral, and applies to all U.S. citizens who 
have children overseas.
  Senator Simon's law did not specifically waive this transmission 
requirement for the third generation, although the language of the bill 
clearly stated that it intended to grant citizenship to the 
grandchildren of the American mothers. The lawyers at INS have 
concluded that the transmission requirement must be met in order to 
pass citizenship onto the grandchildren of the American mothers and 
foreign fathers. In other words, INS is requiring the third generation 
to show that the second generation lived in the United States for 10 
years in order to pass citizenship to the third generation.
  This is impossible given that the second generation was never allowed 
to live in the United States because they were not citizens until 1994. 
Thus the provision of the 1994 law granting citizenship to these 
grandchildren was never implemented.
  The purpose of my bill is to waive the transmission requirement for 
the grandchildren of the American mothers and foreign fathers. The 
third generation will not have to show that the second generation lived 
in the United States for 10 years. They will be granted citizenship 
even though their parents did not live in the United States for 10 
years. This bill will help a small number of people who should have 
been U.S. citizens by birth. It will ensure that the spirit of Senator 
Simon's legislation is enacted into law. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 677

       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 ``Equity in Transmission of 
     Citizenship Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) since the children born abroad to United States citizen 
     mothers before May 24, 1934, only became entitled to claim 
     United States citizenship, acquired at birth, as of October 
     25, 1994, with the enactment of Public Law 103-416, they were 
     not legally admissible into the United States as citizens 
     prior to that date; and
       (2) therefore, they could not meet the residency 
     requirements to transmit United States citizenship onto their 
     children as the children of male United States citizens 
     could.

     SEC. 3. EQUAL TREATMENT OF CHILDREN BORN ABROAD OF FEMALE 
                   UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN CONFERRING 
                   CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN BORN ABROAD.

       (a) In General.--Section 101 of Public Law 103-416 is 
     amended by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Waiver of Transmission Requirements.--The parental 
     physical presence requirement contained in section 301(g) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act shall not apply to any 
     person born before the date of enactment of this Act who 
     claims United States citizenship based on such person's 
     descent from an individual described in section 301(h) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be deemed to have become effective as of October 25, 
     1994.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 678. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal 
circuit and district judges, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


                   the federal judgeship act of 1997

  Mr. LEAHY. In that regard, today being Law Day I think we should 
honor the Federal judiciary. We have a political climate where many of 
my colleagues bash the Federal judiciary on a daily basis and propose 
legislation that threatens a time-honored independence of the Federal 
judiciary. I think our Nation's judges deserve our respect, admiration, 
and support--not our disdain, scorn, and antipathy. Anywhere you go in 
the world you will find that one of the things that stands out, one of 
the things admired most about the United States, is the independence of 
our Federal judiciary.
  For the past 200 years, they protected the freedoms and fundamental 
rights we all take for granted. You could ask, where would our 
cherished rights like first amendment-protected free speech and the 
right of religious freedom be without the Federal courts? It is ironic 
that the right of free speech that the Federal judiciary bashers take 
for granted in the war against judges has been protected time and time 
again by those very same judges.
  It is our independent judiciary that handed down landmark decisions 
like Brown versus Board of Education. Without our independent 
judiciary, how long would African-American children have to suffer 
deplorable conditions in substandard schools? I remember after Brown 
versus Board of Education, we had the bumper stickers and billboards, 
``Impeach Earl Warren,'' and ``Impeach the Supreme Court.'' Well, only 
because they were politically independent could they hand down a 
decision so unpopular at the time, but so recognized today universally 
as the right decision. I shudder to think where we would be today with 
Federal judges who are tied to the political whims of the moment. We 
should talk about where the country would be without independent 
Federal judges.
  The nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States has proposed 
changes in the makeup of our courts. It has been 7 years since Congress 
last seriously reexamined the caseload of the Federal judiciary.
  Mr. President, our judges do an admirable job under tough conditions. 
They endure constant criticism and heavy caseloads. Contrary to what 
some of my Republican colleagues have stated, there is a need for more 
Federal judges.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States, the nonpartisan 
policymaking arm of the judicial branch, believes that the continuing 
heavy caseload of our courts of appeals and district courts merit 
additional judges. Overworked judges and heavy caseloads slow down the 
judicial process, and as we all know, justice delayed is justice 
denied. Mr. President, we must act now.
  Mr. President, on Law Day, a day to commemorate our Nation's legal 
system and the freedoms it is designed to protect, I introduce the 
Federal Judgeship Act of 1997. This legislation, identical to the 
recommendations of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United 
States, would create 12 additional permanent judgeships and five 
temporary judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals; and 24 additional 
permanent judgeships and 12 temporary judgeships for the U.S. district 
courts.
  In 1984, Congress passed a bill to address the need for additional 
judgeships. Six years later, in 1990, Congress again fulfilled its 
constitutional responsibility and enacted the Federal Judgeship Act of 
1990 because of a sharply increasing caseload, particularly for drug-
related crimes.
  It is now 7 years since Congress last seriously reexamined the 
caseload of the Federal judiciary and the need for more Federal judges. 
Let us act now.

[[Page S3904]]

 Let us fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. Let us ensure that 
justice is not delayed or denied for anyone.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 679. A bill for the relief of Ching-hsun and Ching-jou Sun; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                       PRIVATE RELIEF LEGISLATION

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a private 
relief bill that is based on careful reflection and a sincere desire to 
help a family of importance to me and my State of West Virginia.
  This is an effort to assist an individual named Jack Sun who is a 
prominent international businessman and multinational manager with 
permanent residence status in the United States. Mr. Sun sought and 
obtained permanent residence in the United States to enable him to 
pursue economic business and ties between his native Taiwan and the 
United States.
  Of great significance to West Virginia, in his capacity as Chairman 
of Taiwan Aerospace Corp., Jack Sun has been instrumental in forging a 
Taiwan/United States joint venture named Sino Swearingen, Inc., that 
will build state-of-the-art business jets in my home State of West 
Virginia. Taiwan Aerospace Corp., and its Taiwanese coinvestors have to 
date committed an amount in excess of $150 million to finance this 
joint venture. Sino Swearingen, Inc., is expected to employ around 800 
people at this West Virginia site when it becomes fully operational.
  As someone who knows Jack Sun personally and has worked closely with 
him to pursue this new investment and jobs opportunity for West 
Virginia, I know him to be an honorable individual. He is an 
internationally respected business leader, well known to the American 
business community. Jack Sun has worked extremely hard to develop and 
maintain strong personal and business ties in the United States. In 
addition to his business activities, Jack Sun is active in the cultural 
and academic life of both Taiwan and the United States. He also sits on 
the University of Southern California School of Business 
Administration's CEO board of advisors.
  Jack Sun, in his capacity as president of Pacific Electric Wire & 
Cable Co., Ltd, has, over the past 10 years, directed significant 
investments into the United States and has created thousands of jobs 
for Americans. Mr. Sun is the president of Pacific USA Holdings Corp. 
headquartered in Dallas, TX. Pacific USA Holdings Corp. is a 
diversified holding company whose business activities encompass 
commercial banking, home building, mortgage and investment banking, 
property development, insurance and technology services, to name but a 
few. Pacific USA Holdings Corp. and its subsidiaries now employ more 
than 2,000 U.S. workers.
  Jack Sun also serves as director of the Iridium project which is an 
international alliance sponsored by Motorola, Inc., whose purpose is to 
create a global network of telecommunications systems through the use 
of low-orbiting satellites.

  The purpose of this private bill is to attempt to assist Jack Sun in 
expediting the completion of the permanent residence process that is 
well underway through conventional procedures for his two youngest 
children, Ching-Jou Sun, age 8, and Ching-Hsun Sun, age 6. Jack Sun's 
three eldest children received their permanent residence status on 
April 28, 1992.
  Regarding this bill, in July, 1995, a petition for alien relative was 
filed on behalf of ching-jou and Ching-Hsun Sun. The Immigration and 
Naturalization Service approved the petitions on January 30, 1996. Upon 
approval of the petitions, the children were assigned a priority date 
of July 26, 1995.
  However, Jack Sun and his attorney have been informed by the 
Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs, that in the 
preference category for which Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun have been 
approved, the number of people approved for issuance of visas far 
exceeds the number of visas currently available for actual issuance. 
Consequently, the children have been assigned a priority date that is a 
place on the waiting list. The National Visa Center states that based 
upon the current conditions and backlog, the priority date held by 
Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun will not be reached for more than 4 years.
  Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun are now in the process of waiting for 
their green cards which would enable them to live and go to school in 
the United States with their sisters and brother. To add to the 
problem, during this waiting period, the children cannot even travel 
with their father and family in the United States. The children cannot 
obtain even a visitor's visa because they have already indicated their 
immigration intent.
  Although the petitions were approved on behalf of Ching-Hsun Sun and 
Ching-Jou Sun, the prolonged continuation of the waiting period has 
created personal hardships for Jack Sun, and his family. Jack Sun's 
three oldest children permanently reside in Pasadena, CA. The two 
oldest daughters presently attend the University of Southern 
California. Jack Sun simply would like his family to be together as 
much as possible. This means he wishes to be able to travel with his 
children to the United States, and to unify his family. Under the 
present circumstances, the family is split, three children holding 
permanent residence status and living in the United States, while the 
two youngest children have to remain in Taiwan during this prolonged 
waiting period and the potential 6 year delay before achieving visas 
for permanent residence status.
  This forced separation creates a particular hardship because of the 
ages of the children. The children are not permitted to travel with 
their father and are separated from their father and siblings for years 
to come. Jack Sun frequently and extensively travels to the United 
States to oversee his business operations.

  There is simply no further administrative procedure to use to resolve 
this situation for the Sun family and these two children. They are 
confronted with an extraordinarily long delay waiting for visas already 
approved to actually become available. No administrative remedy exists 
to cure this situation. No further relief is available from the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service or any other agency. The 
relevant administrative agencies, including the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and the National Visa Center at the State 
Department, have informed Jack Sun and his attorney that there is no 
administrative vehicle to expedite conclusion of the permanent 
residence process.
  Therefore, I have decided to seek a legislative remedy for Jack Sun's 
family. After carrying out all the steps needed to obtain approval for 
resident status, they face a 6-year waiting period that now condemns a 
father and children to prolonged periods of separation.
  Because of my respect for Jack Sun and deep appreciation for the role 
he has played in locating a major new source of jobs and opportunity 
for West Virginians, I am asking Congress to take the legislative 
action required to relieve a family of undue hardship and separation 
solely resulting from the grim reality that two children would 
otherwise have to wait 6 years to get visas they already have been 
approved for. I believe this is just the example of an extraordinary 
personal situation that merits congressional assistance and action.
  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. 679

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     Ching-hsun Sun and Ching-jou Sun shall be held and considered 
     to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act upon payment of the required visa fees.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

       Upon the granting of permanent residence to Ching-hsun Sun 
     and Ching-jou Sun as provided in this Act, the Secretary of 
     State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the 
     appropriate number during the current fiscal year the total 
     number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country 
     of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):

[[Page S3905]]

  S. 681. A bill to designate the Federal building and U.S. courthouse 
located at 300 Northeast First Avenue in Miami, FL, as the ``David W. 
Dyer Federal Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


              david w. dyer federal courthouse legislation

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I have the distinct pleasure to 
introduce legislation that would redesignate the Old Federal Courthouse 
in Miami, FL, the ``David W. Dyer Federal Courthouse.''
  Residing behind the bench for over 30 years, Judge Dyer distinguished 
himself as one of the finest jurists in the State of Florida, and his 
commitment to public service dates back to his service in the U.S. Army 
during World War II.
  In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed him to the District 
Court for the Southern District of Florida. At the time the Southern 
District included Tampa, Jacksonville, and Miami. The following year 
the district was pared down and he became the initial chief judge of 
the reconfigured Southern District. Judge Dyer would continue to serve 
in this capacity for the next 4 years.
  President Lyndon Johnson then appointed him to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1966. This marked the first time that 
anyone from Miami had been honored with the opportunity to serve on the 
court of appeals. In 1977, Judge Dyer rose to the position of senior 
judge for the fifth circuit and carried this status over into the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  During the turbulent 1960's, Judge Dyer participated in a number of 
civil rights cases. This period was an era when the Federal courts were 
called to implement the constitutional ideal of equal justice under the 
law for all Americans. It was a proud time in our legal history and 
Judge Dyer is part of that legacy. In one such case, he was responsible 
for the desegregation of the restaurants on the Florida Turnpike.
  Judge Dyer served his community in a variety of other capacities. He 
is a former member of the board of governors and executive committee of 
the Florida Bar, as well as the board of governors of the Maritime Law 
Association. He also served as president of the Dade County Bar, the 
largest in Florida.
  Judge Dyer has been an inspirational model for two generations of 
lawyers. He has shown through his example what integrity of character, 
sound judgment, and courage of conviction can achieve in implementing 
our highest ideals.
  Mr. President, Judge Dyer spent much of his life working out of the 
Old Federal Courthouse in Miami. Passage of this legislation to 
redesignate the building in Judge Dyer's name would be a small, but 
fitting token of appreciation that America and its judicial system owe 
Judge Dyer for his years of distinguished service. I urge my colleagues 
to support me in enacting this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Ford):
  S. 682. A bill to amend title 32, United States Code, to make 
available not less than $200,000,000 each fiscal year for funding of 
activities under National Guard drug interdiction and counterdrug 
activities plans; to the Committee on Armed Services.


       NATIONAL GUARD COUNTERDRUG STATE PLAN PROGRAM LEGISLATION

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the National Guard has a history of superb 
performance in supporting the needs of law enforcement agencies and 
community antidrug coalitions. Every day the National Guard has nearly 
4,000 soldiers and airmen on full-time counter drug duty. Three-hundred 
and seventy-three in support of the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA], 625 
in support of U.S. Customs, and 3,000 more in support of local, State, 
and Federal law enforcement agencies in every State in the Nation.
  Unfortunately, for the last 5 years, this successful program has been 
on a budget rollercoaster. For example, funding for the fiscal year 
1998 National Guard Counterdrug State plans program will result in a 
42-percent cut in the amount actually available to State plans from the 
fiscal year 1997 level. It is tough to maintain program consistency 
when the funding level fluctuates each year. Legislation I am 
introducing today, along with Senator Ford, the co-chairman of the 
National Guard Caucus, will stabilize funding for the National Guard 
Counterdrug State plans program at no less than $200 million each 
fiscal year.
  Iowa law enforcement, as well as law enforcement across the United 
States, relies heavily on the help of the National Guard in their drug 
fighting efforts. The National Guard provides personnel and equipment 
to local law enforcement agencies. Guard men and women assist with 
analytical and technical support so that criminal investigators can be 
out on the street. The Iowa High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 
[HIDTA] task force plans to utilize National Guard support as part of 
their efforts to fight methamphetamine trafficking in Iowa. Guard men 
and women also work in partnership with the Community Anti-drug 
Coalition of America and expect to reach 10 million young people in the 
country to help educate and motivate them to reject the use of illegal 
drugs.
  As we face unprecedented drug problems in Iowa and across the Nation, 
it is necessary to maintain consistent funding for the drug fighting 
efforts of the National Guard. Not only does the National Guard 
Counterdrug Program free up criminal investigators to fight crime on 
the streets, it provides an avenue for cooperation that makes 
enforcement more efficient as well. This program traditionally enjoys 
bipartisan support and affects law enforcement all across the United 
States. I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 683. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of the bicentennial of the Library of Congress; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


     the library of congress bicentennial commemorative act of 1997

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would authorize the minting of silver $1 coins and gold $5 coins in 
commemoration of the bicentennial of the Library of Congress. The year 
2000 will mark this important event for the Congress and the Nation. 
Over the past two centuries, the U.S. Congress has built its library 
into America's library and the greatest repository of recorded 
knowledge and creativity in the history of the World.
  Proceeds from the coin will help the library support bicentennial 
programs, educational outreach, and other activities including programs 
with schools and libraries across the Nation.
  The Library of Congress' bicentennial merits a U.S. commemorative 
coin. The library is an institution that has an enduring effect on the 
Nation's culture and history. As vice chairman of the Joint Committee 
on the Library, I am pleased to offer this legislation and I welcome 
and encourage my colleagues to join as cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grams, 
        Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 684. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to provide assistance to local educational 
agencies in cases of certain disasters, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                      disaster relief legislation

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, last week on several occasions I spoke 
about the devastating impact of the floods along the Red River Valley 
on the residents of the communities in North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Minnesota.
  I note that the current occupant of the chair sent me a very gracious 
note about the fact that he has relatives in North Dakota. I want to 
acknowledge his offer to help, which we appreciate very much.
  The impact of the floods on small communities and the city of Grand 
Forks, ND has been extraordinary. In Grand Forks alone, more than 
60,000 residents have been evacuated to temporary shelters. Much of 
downtown Grand Forks has been destroyed by fires, and an estimated 28 
to 35 schools and higher education facilities have been severely 
damaged or destroyed by the floods.
  This disaster has left more than 11,000 elementary and secondary 
students and 10,500 university students

[[Page S3906]]

without school facilities for classroom instruction. Many of these 
elementary and secondary students are attending classes in more than 30 
school districts across the State. The North Dakota Office of 
Management and Budget has estimated that damage to local education 
facilities, as well as the unanticipated costs to provide education 
services for displaced students around the State, may exceed $250 
million.
  Mr. President, local school districts and the North Dakota University 
system will need considerable assistance from the Department of 
Education and the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] to fully 
recover from this terrible disaster. I have been advised that FEMA, 
under the Robert Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 
has the authority to provide assistance to local governmental agencies 
including school districts and the North Dakota University system, for 
repair of educational facilities.
  FEMA, however, does not have authority under the Stafford Act to 
assist or reimburse a local school district for providing unanticipated 
educational services to displaced students.
  Such emergency educational assistance was available in the past to 
local school districts from the Department of Education under Impact 
Aid, section 7--assistance for current school expenditures in cases of 
certain disasters. This law, unfortunately, was repealed in 1994 during 
consideration of the Improving America's School Act.
  Prior to 1994, for example, school districts affected by natural 
disasters including Hurricane Andrew--1992--in Dade County, FL, and 
communities in 7 states impacted by the Midwest floods--1993--were 
eligible for disaster assistance to meet emergency education operating 
expenses. In North Dakota, more than 30 school districts throughout the 
State are assisting 11,000 displaced students from the Grand Forks 
area. Another 30,000 students in Minnesota are displaced and attending 
classes in school districts across the State. These school districts 
are in urgent need of similar emergency assistance.
  Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to restore the 
authority to provide this emergency education operations assistance for 
elementary and secondary schools. I am very pleased that Senators 
Daschle, Johnson, Dorgan, Wellstone, and Grams are joining me as 
cosponsors of this bill.
  Under this legislation, FEMA would be authorized in section 403--
essential assistance--to provide disaster assistance including 
transportation, emergency food services, and the costs for providing 
educational services to students who formerly attended other schools, 
including private schools, that were damaged or destroyed by disaster. 
This emergency assistance would also be available to schools funded by 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs provided the schools are in the area that 
has been declared a major disaster by the President.
  As FEMA currently has the authority to restore educational 
facilities, I believe the agency is best equipped to respond quickly to 
the emergency operating needs of school districts affected by 
disasters. As I noted earlier, school districts in 7 states affected by 
Midwest floods and Dade County schools impacted by Hurricane Andrew 
benefited from this emergency assistance in 1992-94. There is no 
question that school districts in North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Minnesota urgently need similar assistance. I intend to offer this 
legislation as part of the supplemental disaster assistance measure 
when it reaches the Senate floor. I hope my colleagues will support 
this urgent need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 685. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the work opportunity tax credit for an additional fiscal year; to the 
Committee on Finance.


         LEGISLATION TO EXTEND THE WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which 
would provide for a 1-year extension of the work opportunity tax 
credit, authorizing the credit beyond this fiscal year through the end 
of fiscal year 1998.
  My colleagues know well the history behind the work opportunity tax 
credit. It is the successor to the targeted jobs tax credit which 
expired 2 years ago and which received some criticism that it was an 
ineffective incentive mechanism. However, Congress felt that there 
could be some type of worthwhile incentive which could encourage 
employers to hire individuals from economically disadvantaged groups, 
and as a result, the credit was revised, renamed the work opportunity 
tax credit, and incorporated into the Small Business Job Protection Act 
(P.L. 104-188), which the Congress passed and the President signed into 
law last year.
  The revised tax credit, with tougher standards, such as in the area 
of certification and retention requirements, was authorized for 1 
fiscal year and is set to expire on September 30, 1997. The legislation 
I am introducing today would simply provide for an extension of the 
work opportunity tax credit for 1 additional fiscal year, through 
September 30, 1998.
  There are several reasons for the extension. First, employers now 
have a tax incentive to hire individuals from targeted economically 
disadvantaged groups, providing these individuals with jobs and 
valuable work experience. In the wake of the historic welfare reform 
legislation which was signed into law last year, I believe this 
incentive to put people to work is a vital one, and it should be given 
the opportunity to work.
  Second, Congress authorized this credit for 1 year to allow the 
Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, and the Congress 
to study the costs and benefits of the credit. To date, there are no 
statistics available. And while we await a more complete set of 
statistics on how the revised tax credit is performing, I believe the 
Congress should begin consideration of an extension of this credit to 
allow more employers to take part in the program and to provide an 
assurance to employers and potential employees alike that there is an 
incentive which is available to stimulate job opportunities. The sooner 
we are able to provide an extension for the credit, the more secure 
both the employers and the employees who take part in this credit will 
be.
  In addition, authorizing the credit for an additional fiscal year 
will provide this Congress with a set of statistics available from 
multiple fiscal years, not just 1, allowing us to better assess the 
costs and benefits of the WOTC.
  I am hopeful that the revised tax credit will prove more successful 
than its predecessor. I have long been a supporter and advocate for the 
promotion of job opportunities and job training for at-risk youth and 
ex-offenders, in particular. Any incentive to put more Americans to 
work should be given the chance to succeed; 1 year is simply not 
enough.
  With that, I ask this bill be referred to the appropriate committee. 
During the 105th Congress, a number of tax proposals will be under 
consideration, and it is my hope that, by introducing this measure, the 
work opportunity tax credit does not get lost in the shuffle and expire 
prematurely.
  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. 685

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

     SECTION 1. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.

       Section 51(c)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to termination) is amended by striking ``September 
     30, 1997'' and inserting ``September 30, 1998''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
        Torricelli):
  S. 686. A bill to establish the National Military Museum Foundation, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


            NATIONAL MILITARY MUSEUM FOUNDATION LEGISLATION

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing on behalf of 
myself, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Torricelli, legislation to create a 
National Military Museum Foundation. The purpose of this legislation is 
to encourage and facilitate private sector support in the effort to 
preserve, interpret, and display the important role the military has 
played in the history

[[Page S3907]]

of our Nation. This legislation is, in my judgment, crucial at this 
particular moment in history, when we are on the verge of jeopardizing 
two centuries worth of military artifacts and negating the possibility 
of such collections in the future.
  It has been the long-standing tradition of the U.S. Department of War 
and its successor, the Department of Defense, to preserve our historic 
military artifacts. Since the days of the revolution to the conflict in 
Bosnia, Americans have been proud of the role that our military has had 
in safeguarding our democracy, and we have tried to ensure that future 
generations will know that role. Over the years we have accumulated a 
priceless collection of military artifacts from every period of 
American history and every technological era. The collection includes 
flags, uniforms, weapons, paintings, and historic records as well as 
full-size tanks, ships, and aircraft which document history and provide 
provenance for our Nation and armed services.
  In recent years, however, the dedicated individuals who identify, 
interpret, catalog, and showcase those artifacts have found themselves 
shortchanged and shorthanded. With financial resources diminishing, not 
only are we cheating ourselves out of the military treasures currently 
warehoused out of public sight, but we are in danger of lacking the 
funds to update our collections with new items.
  ``A morsel of genuine history,'' wrote Thomas Jefferson to John Adams 
in 1817, ``is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' Mr. 
President, today, significant pieces of our military history are being 
lost, shoved into basements, or subject to decay. With each year also 
comes less funding, and our artifacts are multiplying at a pace that 
exceeds the capabilities of those who are trying to preserve them. 
Since 1990 alone, the services have closed 21 military museums and at 
least 8 more are expected to close in the next few years.
  We cannot let this proceed any further. Military museums are vital to 
documenting our history, educating our citizenry, and advancing our 
technology. More than 81 museums in 31 States and the District of 
Columbia daily instill Americans from veterans to new recruits to 
elementary school students with a sense of the sacred responsibility 
that military servicemen bear to defend the values that have made this 
country great.
  Military museums teach our servicemen the history of their units, 
enhancing their understanding both of the team of which they are a part 
and the significance of the service they have pledged to perform. And 
when a museum makes history come alive to young children, those 
children learn for themselves what this country stands for and the 
sacrifices that have been made to preserve the freedoms we often take 
for granted.
  Many of our servicemen have learned their military history through 
these artifacts rather than textbooks, and many of our technological 
advances have come as a direct result of these artifacts. The ship 
models and ordinances at U.S. Naval Academy Museum in Annapolis, MD, 
for example, have been used by the Academy's Departments of Gunnery and 
Seamanship. It has also been reported that a study of an existing 
missile system, preserved in an Army museum, saved the Strategic 
Defense Initiative $25 million in research and analysis costs. These 
museums serve as laboratories where engineers can learn from the 
lessons of the past without going through the same trial and error 
process as their predecessors.
  Yet without adequate funding, these benefits will be lost forever. 
According to a 1994 study conducted by the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation entitled, ``Defense Department Compliance with the 
National Historic Preservation Act,'' the Department of Defense's 
management of these resources has been mediocre, with the cause 
attributed to inadequate staffing and funding.
  More than 80 percent of the museums studied said their survival 
relies heavily on outside funding. When asked about their greatest 
needs, the response was nearly always staff and money. And those 
museums that reported sufficient staffing from volunteers nevertheless 
said that the dearth of funds for restoration and construction 
paralyzed them from fully utilizing the available labor.
  According to the study, money is so tight that brochures and 
pamphlets are often unaffordable, leaving visitors with no explanations 
about the objects they have come to see. A young child might be duly 
impressed by the sight of a stern-faced general, but the historical 
lesson is greatly diminished if the child is not told the significance 
of the event portrayed or why the general looked so grim that day.
  Perhaps most distressing, the study reported ``substantial 
collections of rare or unique historical military vehicles and 
equipment that are unmaintained and largely unprotected due to lack of 
funds and available expertise.'' In addition, the museums were found to 
be struggling so much with the care of items already in house, that 
they were unable to accept new ones. With a new class of military 
artifacts from the Vietnam and gulf wars soon to be retired, one 
wonders whether those artifacts will be preserved. If we do not take 
action to save what we have and acquire what we don't, future 
generations will see these pockets of negligence as blank pages in the 
living history books that these museums truly are.

  Only a Foundation can address these problems. The alternate 
solution--to press the services to devote more money to these 
institutions--is implausible in this budgetary climate. The Secretary 
of Defense must place his highest priority on the readiness of our 
forces. Closely allied to that priority is the effort to improve the 
quality of life for our citizens on active duty. And, as aging 
equipment faces obsolescence, the Secretary has indicated that the 
future will bring an increased emphasis on replacing weapons systems. 
By all realistic assumptions, the amount of funds appropriated for 
museums is likely to continue downward.
  My bill recognizes the growing need for a reliable source of funding 
aside from Federal appropriations. A National Military Museum 
Foundation would provide an accessible venue for individuals, 
corporations, or other private sources to support the preservation of 
our priceless military artifacts and records. A National Military 
Museum Foundation could also play an important role in surveying those 
artifacts that we know to exist. Currently, there is no museum 
oversight or coordination of museum activities on the DOD level. A 
wide-ranging Foundation survey would therefore not only eliminate 
duplication, but would most likely discover gaps in our collections 
that must filled before it is too late.
  Under the proposed legislation, the Secretary of Defense would 
appoint the Foundation's Board of Directors and provide basic 
administrative support. To launch the Foundation, the legislation 
authorizes an initial appropriation of $1 million. It is anticipated 
that the Foundation would be self sufficient after the first year. This 
is a small price to pay to save some of our most precious treasures.
  This legislation is modeled on legislation that established similar 
foundations, such as the National Park Foundation and the National Fish 
and Wildlife Foundation, both of which have succeeded in raising 
private-sector support for conservation programs. My bill is not 
intended to supplant existing Federal funding or other foundation 
efforts that may be underway, but rather to supplement those efforts.
  The premise for establishing a national foundation is, in part, to 
elevate the level of fundraising beyond the local level, supplementing 
those efforts by seeking donations from potentially large donors. I 
also want to emphasize the inclusiveness of the Foundation, which will 
represent all the branches of our armed services.
  Mr. President, statistics reveal that foundations established without 
the mandate of a Federal statute and the backing of an established 
agency seldom succeed. With ever-diminishing Federal funds, we cannot 
expect the Department to put our military museums ahead of national 
security. Truly, an outside source committed to sustaining our museums 
is imperative. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 687. A bill to enhance the benefits of the national electric 
system by encouraging and supporting State programs for renewable 
energy sources,

[[Page S3908]]

universal electric service, affordable electric service, and energy 
conservation and efficiency, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


       THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM PUBLIC BENEFITS PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, America is currently considering an 
extremely important and contentious issue: Should we restructure the 
system by which we obtain our electric energy? And if so, how should we 
go about doing this? Hardly a day goes by in which one cannot find a 
news article on this subject. Across our Nation, 44 States have taken 
on the issue of restructuring, either in legislative debate or through 
the implementation of pilot programs. And even here in Congress, there 
are a number of proposals, in both the House and Senate, which address 
the various factors affecting the electric industry.
  Advocates on all sides are debating whether the Federal Government 
should direct States to move to a restructured system, both in terms of 
how they should do it and when.
  There are a number of ideas being offered as to whether utilities 
should be allowed to recover costs that were incurred under a regulated 
system, and if so, in what manner and to what degree. Who should bear 
the burden? The rate payer? The tax payer? The share holder?
  Arguments have been made for and against Federal protection of public 
power, both in terms of market power and fiscal subsidies. Must 
companies divest according to function? Does a municipality's tax 
exempt bond authority give it an advantage over the tax deferrals of 
the utility, or the less-than-cost loans to the cooperative?
  Mr. President, we continue to hear a great deal about how the effort 
to restructure the electric power industry may affect the Nation's 
economy. What is not being discussed, and what I believe is equally 
important, is how these changes will affect our society as a whole. How 
will it impact on the Nation's poor? How will it affect our children's 
health? How will restructuring affect our environment?
  Well, it doesn't have to be an either/or choice. In fact, it can't 
be. As we move towards a restructured industry, we must consider the 
issues not only in terms of what they mean to our economy, but also in 
terms of what they mean to our society. We must secure and enhance the 
public benefits that until now have been provided by the electric 
industry's unique structure and regulatory traditions. This can only be 
achieved by including certain safeguards in any new regulatory 
structure from the outset, before dramatic changes unravel the gains 
this industry has made.
  I rise today to introduce the Electric System Public Benefits 
Protection Act of 1997. This bill acknowledges the responsibility we 
have to our Nation, to its people and to the environment as we reassess 
the future of the electric power industry. It directly addresses the 
numerous public benefits we enjoy from our electric power structure, a 
system that has a unique impact on how we live. And it does this while 
creating a setting within the electric industry which promotes 
competition.

  Under the system in effect today, electric utilities have been 
granted franchises in order to serve the public good. In return for a 
guaranteed return on their investments, the utilities have, to varying 
degrees of success, implemented many public purpose programs from which 
we benefit. These initiatives have addressed the need for alternative 
fuels, assistance to needy and remotely located consumers, energy 
efficiency projects, and environmental safeguards. While the industry 
has made significant progress in the past few decades, recent years 
have seen a steady decline in investments relating to these 
initiatives. As the electric industry moves closer to competition and 
deregulation, utilities are becoming less inclined to support public 
purpose programs without a guaranteed return.
  My legislation creates a national electric system public benefits 
fund to enable and encourage State programs for renewable energy 
technologies, energy efficiency, low-income assistance, and universal 
access. It is supported by a broad-based, competitively neutral, 
systems benefits charge levied as a wires charge on all interconnected 
generation for sale on the electricity market. Revenues from the fund 
will be used to match funds raised by the States for the same public 
purposes and support the continuation and expansion of the benefits we 
enjoy today.
  A study of history divulges two important facts about energy 
efficiency. The first is that the potential for cost-effective savings 
from accelerated investments in energy efficiency is very large. Yet 
trends over the last few years raise serious questions about utilities' 
commitments to energy efficiency programs. Based on the uncertainty 
surrounding the change within the industry, many utilities have 
admitted that they have already cut programs and are planning on 
reducing or eliminating more. While this uncertainty makes long-term 
predictions in this area difficult, the Energy Information 
Administration has projected a 13-percent reduction in direct utility 
expenditures on energy efficiency programs during the period 1995 until 
1999. My bill affords States the opportunity to make necessary 
investments in efficiency technologies.
  The second important fact we have learned is that there exist 
significant structural and informational market barriers to the 
deployment of investments in energy efficiency in the absence of 
targeted programs. My bill will help negotiate these barriers within 
the industry.
  One of the benefits of energy efficiency is that reduced consumption 
avoids many of the environmental impacts associated with electric 
generation. The alternative is potentially devastating. In a recent 
national survey, respondents were advised that changes in how the 
utility industry operates could lead to further cutbacks in traditional 
efficiency programs. Seven out of ten Americans, polled across the 
Nation, stated that they support mandatory investments in energy 
efficiency, even if it means higher electric rates. They realize that 
what we invest today may save us billions of dollars during our 
lifetimes and those of our children.

  The loss of public purpose programs will affect one group in 
particular. For middle class families, the energy crisis of the 1970's 
is only a memory; for low-income customers, the energy crisis never 
ended. A recent study in my State of Vermont showed that residential 
customers in general spend 3.8 percent of their income on energy, while 
low-income households spend 15 to 20 percent, and in some cases even 
more. Unaffordable utility costs are a leading cause of loss of housing 
for low-income families. Yet another study found that visits by 
individuals from low-income households to emergency rooms increased 
after periods of severe weather, when those families had to make the 
choice to heat or eat.
  It is also clear that low-income families face greater barriers than 
other groups of customers to implementing the energy conservation 
measures I spoke of earlier, measures that would reduce their energy 
costs. Low-income families are more likely to live in rental property, 
in which they have neither the right to make major modifications 
themselves nor the ability to persuade their landlords to make energy 
conservation investments in their housing. While there are low-income 
homeowners, their incomes are generally insufficient to fund 
improvements in energy efficiency. My bill will provide a mechanism to 
help circumvent many of these barriers.
  In considering the impact of restructuring on the Nation's poor, we 
must also keep in mind that low-income customers are unlikely to be an 
extremely attractive and highly sought after segment of the electricity 
market. They are more likely than other customers to have difficulty 
paying their bills. They are more likely to require payment 
arrangements and other labor intensive involvement from the utility 
company. And they are less likely to use large quantities of 
electricity which might qualify them for volume discounts. We must 
accept the fact that access to electric power is a necessity in our 
society. My legislation will help guarantee that everyone has equal 
access to the benefits of the electric industry. It will target, 
through the encouragement and development of cooperatives and other 
market mechanisms, the millions of Americans who are from low-income 
families, remote rural areas and other groups who lack

[[Page S3909]]

market power. In short, Mr. President, it ensures that essential 
services remain affordable and the benefits of competition are 
available to all utility customers.
  We have learned the hard way that the Nation's economic well-being 
can be put at risk by rapid spikes in world energy prices. Future 
dislocations could result from fossil fuel supply interruptions or 
problems associated with nuclear powerplants. History teaches us that a 
policy of prudent energy diversification is a form of national economic 
security that is well worth purchasing.
  Additionally, renewable energy sources are good for our environment. 
Every megawatt of electricity generated by a wind turbine displaces 
another from a fossil fuel source and lessens the environmental impact 
of the industry.
  Yet, the future of renewable energy is in doubt. I would like to 
direct your attention to this chart. Scientists tell us that, despite 
the obvious advantages I have cited, the amount of electricity from 
renewable sources is projected to remain stable at about 2 percent well 
into the future. My legislation establishes a renewable portfolio 
standard for all electric generation companies. It begins with 2.5 
percent in the year 2000 and slowly grows to 20 percent in the year 
2020. These are not arbitrary numbers. They are based on information 
provided by the electric industry and account for realistic constraints 
on how fast these sources can develop.
  This bill enables States to play an active role in the development 
and fielding of alternative fuels technology. It recognizes the 
importance of fuel diversity, and it guarantees that renewable energy 
sources will play a significant role in this diversification and in 
providing consumer choice in the restructured industry.
  Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about what may be the 
single greatest market failure of the electric power industry: the 
protection of our environment. The electric industry accounts for about 
3 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, yet it accounts for 
up to two-thirds of some of the country's deadliest pollutants. We have 
worked hard to reduce this problem, and there is no doubt that some 
success has been achieved. But it is not enough.
  Electric powerplants emit 65 percent of the Nation's annual total of 
sulfur dioxide, an invisible gas that adversely affects our health and 
environment. Asthmatics are particularly vulnerable to this pollutant. 
The leading cause of chronic illness in children, cases of this disease 
are climbing at a sharp rate and are exacerbated by our deteriorating 
environment.
  Sulfur dioxide also is the principal cause of acid rain. This chart 
illustrates the fact that while the annual emissions of sulfur dioxide 
are expected to come down slightly in future years, this decline is not 
sufficient. My bill would cause a dramatic change by the year 2005, 
decreasing the amount of this deadly gas from electric powerplants by 
roughly 60 percent.
  This next chart reveals the problem this Nation will face in the 
future as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the 
air from the electric industry. Powerplants currently generate close to 
40 percent of the nationwide emissions of this pollutant, a gas chiefly 
responsible for global warming and the creation of a greenhouse effect. 
The resulting climate change has the potential to inflict devastating 
damage on our environment for many years, well into the future. Unlike 
other pollutants, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for decades. 
If we are to protect our children's future, we must act now. As you can 
see, my bill, designed to bring the industry back to the 1990 standard, 
requires a significant 13 percent reduction by the year 2005 and will 
double that by the year 2015.
  This legislation would bring about a major reduction in nitrogen 
oxide emissions. The electric power industry is the single largest 
source of this pollutant. Nitrogen oxide emissions are particularly 
offensive to me as a Vermonter because of the extreme ozone problem 
they present. There are days now when, standing atop Mount Mansfield, I 
can not make out the water tower on Mount Elmore, not even 20 miles 
away. This is disgraceful, and it is a problem faced in many areas 
across this Nation.
  Nitrogen oxides are now blamed for significant health problems as 
well. Scientists recently discovered that this pollutant may be 
responsible for increasing levels of cancer cases and breathing 
disorders. As depicted on this chart, my legislation will mandate a 70 
percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants by the 
year 2005.
  Cognizance of these environmental problems cuts across party lines. A 
recent poll in the State of Texas shows that 7 out of 10 residents who 
define themselves as very conservative favor significantly stronger 
environmental standards. In fact, in the nationwide survey I spoke of 
earlier, 80 percent of the respondents agreed that we need to act on 
the problem.
  Mr. President, we need to fix the problems attributable to electric 
power production. But as we move to a restructured industry, we need to 
fix it in a fair, competitively neutral manner. This bill does just 
that. Setting a single, nationwide emissions standard for all 
generators which use combustion devices to produce electricity, it says 
stop to some of the Nation's dirtiest powerplants. It means we as 
Americans will no longer tolerate the idea of giving a free ride to 
those that can't meet the standard. It levels the playing field so that 
all generators can compete in the market on an equal footing and with 
the same environmental responsibilities as their competitors.
  Finally, we need to give people the information they need to make 
intelligent choices regarding their electricity. My bill directs the 
Secretary of Energy to establish a system whereby electric service 
providers must disclose to the consumer adequate information on 
generation source, emissions and price. Only when the consumer has the 
ability to compare can we say we have a truly competitive market.
  In closing, I want to emphasize that any restructuring of the 
Nation's electric power industry must address the economic and the 
social aspects of the issue. It is not an either/or choice. We must do 
both.
  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. 687

       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 ``Electric System Public 
     Benefits Protection Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the generation of electricity is unique in its combined 
     influence on the Nation's security, environmental quality, 
     and economic efficiency;
       (2) the generation and sale of electricity has a direct and 
     profound impact on interstate commerce;
       (3) the Federal Government and the States have a joint 
     responsibility for the maintenance of public purpose programs 
     affected by the national electric system;
       (4) notwithstanding the public's interest in and enthusiasm 
     for programs that enhance the environment, encourage the 
     efficient use of resources, and provide for affordable and 
     universal service, the investments in those public purposes 
     by existing means continues to decline;
       (5) the Nation's dependence on foreign sources of fossil 
     fuels is contrary to our national security; alternative, 
     sustainable energy sources must be pursued as the Nation 
     moves into the 21st century;
       (6) emissions from electric power generating facilities are 
     today the largest industrial source responsible for 
     persistent public health and environmental problems; and
       (7) consumers have a right to certain information in order 
     to make objective choices on their electric service 
     providers.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.-- The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Electric 
     System Public Benefits Board established under section 4.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (4) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the National Electric 
     System Public Benefits Fund established by section 5.
       (5) Renewable energy.--The term ``renewable energy'' means 
     electricity generated from wind, organic waste (excluding 
     incinerated municipal solid waste), or biomass or a 
     geothermal, solar thermal, or photovoltaic source.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.

[[Page S3910]]

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC SYSTEM PUBLIC BENEFITS BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     National Electric System Public Benefits Board to carry out 
     the functions and responsibilities described in this section.
       (b) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of--
       (1) 1 representative of the Commission appointed by the 
     Commission;
       (2) 2 representatives of the Secretary appointed by the 
     Secretary;
       (3) 2 persons nominated by the national organization 
     representing State regulatory commissioners and appointed by 
     the Secretary;
       (4) 1 person nominated by the national organization 
     representing State utility consumer advocates and appointed 
     by the Secretary;
       (5) 1 person nominated by the national organization 
     representing State energy offices and appointed by the 
     Secretary;
       (6) 1 person nominated by the national organization 
     representing energy assistance directors and appointed by the 
     Secretary; and
       (7) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     appointed by the Administrator.
       (c) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall select a member of 
     the Board to serve as Chairperson of the Board.
       (d) Manager.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Board shall by contract appoint an 
     electric systems public benefits manager for a term of not 
     more than 3 years, which term may be renewed by the Board.
       (2) Compensation.--The compensation and other terms and 
     conditions of employment of the manager shall be determined 
     by a contract between the Board and the individual or the 
     other entity appointed as manager.
       (3) Functions.--The manager shall--
       (A) monitor the amounts in the Fund;
       (B) receive, review, and make recommendations to the Board 
     regarding applications from States under section 5(b); and
       (C) perform such other functions as the Board may require 
     to assist the Board in carrying out its duties under this 
     Act.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL ELECTRIC SYSTEM PUBLIC BENEFITS FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall establish an account or 
     accounts at 1 or more financial institutions, which account 
     or accounts shall be known as the ``National Electric System 
     Public Benefits Fund'', consisting of amounts deposited in 
     the fund under subsection (c).
       (2) Status of fund.--The wires charges collected under 
     subsection (c) and deposited in the Fund--
       (A) shall constitute electric system revenues and shall not 
     constitute funds of the United States;
       (B) shall be held in trust by the manager of the Fund 
     solely for the purposes stated in subsection (b); and
       (C) shall not be available to meet any obligations of the 
     United States.
       (b) Use of Fund.--
       (1) Funding of public purpose programs.--Amounts in the 
     Fund shall be used by the Board to provide matching funds to 
     States for the support of State public purpose programs 
     relating to--
       (A) renewable energy sources;
       (B) universal electric service;
       (C) affordable electric service;
       (D) energy conservation and efficiency; or
       (E) research and development in areas described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D).
       (2) Distribution.--
       (A) In general.--Except for amounts needed to pay costs of 
     the Board in carrying out its duties under this section, the 
     Board shall instruct the manager of the Fund to distribute 
     all amounts in the Fund to States to fund public purpose 
     programs under paragraph (1).
       (B) Fund share.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the Fund share of 
     a public purpose program funded under paragraph (1) shall be 
     50 percent.
       (ii) Proportionate reduction.--To the extent that the 
     amount of matching funds requested by States exceeds the 
     maximum projected revenues of the Fund, the matching funds 
     distributed to the States shall be reduced by an amount that 
     is proportionate to each State's annual consumption of 
     electricity compared to the Nation's aggregate annual 
     consumption of electricity.
       (iii) Additional state funding.--A State may apply funds to 
     public purpose programs in addition to the amount of funds 
     applied for the purpose of matching the Fund share.
       (3) Program criteria.--The Board shall recommend 
     eligibility criteria for public benefits programs funded 
     under this section for approval by the Secretary.
       (4) Application.--Not later than August 1 of each year 
     beginning in 1999, a State seeking matching funds for the 
     following year shall file with the Board, in such form as the 
     Board may require, an application--
       (A) certifying that the funds will be used for an eligible 
     public purpose program; and
       (B) stating the amount of State funds earmarked for the 
     program.
       (c) Wires Charge.--
       (1) Determination of needed funding.--Not later than August 
     1 of each year, the Board shall determine and inform the 
     Commission of the aggregate amount of wires charges that it 
     will be necessary to have paid into the Fund to pay matching 
     funds to States and pay the operating costs of the Board in 
     the following year.
       (2) Imposition of wires charge.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than December 15 of each year, 
     the Commission shall impose a nonbypassable, competitively 
     neutral wires charge to be paid directly into the Fund by the 
     operator of the wire on electricity carried through the wire, 
     this electricity to be measured as it exits the busbar at a 
     generation facility, and which impacts on interstate 
     commerce.
       (B) Amount.--The wires charge shall be set at a rate equal 
     to the lesser of--
       (i) 2 mills per kilowatt-hour; or
       (ii) a rate that is estimated to result in the collection 
     of an amount of wires charges that is as nearly as possible 
     equal to the amount of needed funding determined under 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Deposit in the fund.--The wires charge shall be paid by 
     the operator of the wire directly into the Fund at the end of 
     each month during the calendar year for distribution by the 
     electric systems public benefits manager under section 4.
       (4) Penalties.--The Commission may assess against a wire 
     operator that fails to pay a wires charge as required by this 
     subsection a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more 
     than the amount of the unpaid wires charge.
       (d) Auditing.--
       (1) In general.--The Fund shall be audited annually by a 
     firm of independent certified public accountants in 
     accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
       (2) Access to records.--Representatives of the Secretary 
     and the Commission shall have access to all books, accounts, 
     reports, files, and other records pertaining to the Fund as 
     necessary to facilitate and verify the audit.
       (3) Reports.--
       (A) In general.--A report on each audit shall be submitted 
     to the Secretary, the Commission, and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, who shall submit the report to the President and 
     Congress not later than 180 days after the close of the 
     fiscal year.
       (B) Requirements.--An audit report shall--
       (i) set forth the scope of the audit; and
       (ii) include--

       (I) a statement of assets and liabilities, capital; and 
     surplus or deficit;
       (II) a statement of surplus or deficit analysis;
       (III) a statement of income and expenses;
       (IV) any other information that may be considered necessary 
     to keep the President and Congress informed of the operations 
     and financial condition of the Fund; and
       (V) any recommendations with respect to the Fund that the 
     Secretary or the Commission may have.

     SEC. 6. RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO STANDARDS.

       (a) Definition of Generation Facility.--In this section, 
     the term ``covered generation facility'' means a 
     nonhydroelectric facility that generates electric energy for 
     sale.
       (b) Required Renewable Energy.--Of the total amount of 
     electricity sold by covered generation facilities during a 
     calendar year, the amount generated by renewable energy 
     sources shall be not less than--
       (1) 2.5 percent in 2000;
       (2) 3.0 percent in 2001;
       (3) 3.5 percent in 2002;
       (4) 4.0 percent in 2003;
       (5) 4.5 percent in 2004;
       (6) 5.0 percent in 2005;
       (7) 6.0 percent in 2006;
       (8) 7.0 percent in 2007;
       (9) 8.0 percent in 2008;
       (10) 9.0 percent in 2009;
       (11) 10.0 percent in 2010;
       (12) 11.0 percent in 2011;
       (13) 12.0 percent in 2012;
       (14) 13.0 percent in 2013;
       (15) 14.0 percent in 2014;
       (16) 15.0 percent in 2015;
       (17) 16.0 percent in 2016;
       (18) 17.0 percent in 2017;
       (19) 18.0 percent in 2018;
       (20) 19.0 percent in 2019; and
       (21) 20.0 percent in 2020 and each year thereafter.
       (c) Renewable Energy Credits.--
       (1) Identification of energy sources.--The Commission shall 
     establish standards and procedures under which a covered 
     generation facility shall certify to a purchaser of 
     electricity--
       (A) the amount of the electricity that is generated by a 
     renewable energy source; and
       (B) the amount of the electricity that is generated by a 
     source other than a renewable energy source.
       (2) Issuance of renewable energy credits.--Not later than 
     April 1 of each year, beginning in the year 2001, the 
     Commission shall issue to a covered generation facility 1 
     renewable energy credit for each megawatt-hour of electricity 
     sold by the covered generation facility in the preceding 
     calendar year that was generated by a renewable source.
       (3) Submission of renewable energy credits.--Not later than 
     July 1 of each year, a covered generation facility shall 
     submit credits to the Commission in an amount equal to the 
     total number of megawatt-hours of electricity sold by the 
     covered generation facility in the preceding year multiplied 
     by the applicable renewable energy source requirement under 
     subsection (a).
       (4) Use of renewable energy credits.--
       (A) Time for use.--A renewable energy credit shall be used 
     for the calendar year for the renewable energy credit is 
     issued.
       (B) Permitted uses.--Until July 1 of the year in which a 
     renewable energy credit was issued, a covered generation 
     facility may--

[[Page S3911]]

       (i) use the renewable energy credit to make a submission to 
     the Commission under paragraph (3); or
       (ii) on notice to the Commission, sell or otherwise 
     transfer a renewable energy credit to another covered 
     generation facility.
       (d) Recordkeeping.--The Commission shall maintain records 
     of all renewable energy credits issued and all credits sold 
     or exchanged.
       (e) Penalties.--The Commission may bring an action in 
     United States district court to impose a civil penalty on any 
     person that fails to comply with subsection (a). A person 
     that fails to comply with a requirement to submit renewable 
     energy credits under subsection (b)(3) shall be subject to a 
     civil penalty of not more than 3 times the estimated national 
     average market value (as determined by the Commission) for 
     the calendar year concerned of that quantity of renewable 
     energy credits.
       (f) Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.--
       (1) Repeal of cogeneration and small power production 
     provision.--Effective January 1, 2000, the Public Utility 
     Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 is amended by striking 
     section 210 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3).
       (2) Existing contracts.--The amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) shall not affect the continued validity and 
     enforceability of contracts entered into under section 210 of 
     the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 before the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Continued jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding the amendment 
     made by paragraph (1), the Commission shall retain 
     jurisdiction to--
       (A) ensure the continued status of qualifying small power 
     production facilities under section 210 of the Public Utility 
     Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3); and
       (B) continue exemptions granted under subsection (e) of 
     that section before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (g) Powers.--The Commission may promulgate such 
     regulations, conduct such investigations, and take such other 
     actions as are necessary or appropriate to implement and 
     obtain compliance with this section and regulations 
     promulgated under this section.

     SEC. 7. EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered generation facility.--The term ``covered 
     generation facility'' means an electric generation facility 
     (other than a nuclear facility) with a nameplate capacity of 
     15 megawatts or greater that uses a combustion device to 
     generate electricity for sale.
       (2) Cogeneration.--The term ``cogeneration'' means a 
     process of simultaneously generating electricity and thermal 
     energy in which a portion of the energy value of fuel 
     consumed is recovered as heat that is used to meet heating or 
     cooling loads outside the generation facility.
       (3) Pollutant.--The term ``pollutant'' means--
       (A) nitrogen oxide;
       (B) sulfur dioxide;
       (C) carbon dioxide;
       (D) mercury; or
       (E) any other substance that the Administrator may identify 
     by regulation as a substance the emission of which into the 
     air from a combustion device used in the generation of 
     electricity endangers public health or welfare.
       (b) Nationwide Emissions Standards.--
       (1) Schedule.--Not later than July 1, 1999, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate a final regulation that 
     establishes a schedule of limits on the amount of each 
     pollutant that all covered generation facilities in the 
     aggregate nationwide shall be permitted to emit in each 
     calendar year beginning in calendar year 2000.
       (2) Limit.--The nationwide emissions standard for calendar 
     year 2005 and each year thereafter established under 
     paragraph (1) shall be not greater than--
       (A) for nitrogen oxide, 1,660,000 tons;
       (B) for sulfur dioxide, 3,580,000 tons; and
       (C) for carbon dioxide, 1,914,000,000 tons.
       (3) Adjustment.--The Administrator may adjust the schedule 
     established under paragraph (1), within the limits 
     established by paragraph (2), if the Administrator determines 
     that an adjustment would be in the best interests of the 
     public health and welfare.
       (c) Generation Performance Standard.--
       (1) Annual determination.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than October 1 of each year, the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Commission, shall 
     determine the generation performance standard for nitrogen 
     oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide emissions per 
     megawatt-hour of electric production by covered generation 
     facilities for the next calendar year.
       (B) Method.--The Administrator shall determine by 
     regulation the method to be used in determining an estimate 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Formula.--The generation performance standard shall be 
     determined by dividing the annual nationwide emissions 
     standard as established under subsection (b) by the 
     Administrator's estimate of the nationwide megawatt-hour 
     production for the next calendar year by all covered 
     generation facilities.
       (d) Individual Emissions Allocation.--The amount of each 
     pollutant that a covered generation facility shall be 
     permitted to emit during a calendar year shall be equal to--
       (1) the facility's annual generation of megawatt-hours of 
     electricity multiplied by the generation performance standard 
     as established in subsection (c); plus
       (2) the facility's annual generation of thermal energy used 
     to meet heating and cooling loads resulting from the 
     cogeneration process, which shall be expressed by the 
     Administrator in units of measurement that provide a 
     reasonable comparison between energy generated in the form of 
     electricity and energy generated in the form of thermal 
     energy and then multiplied by the generation performance 
     standard as established under subsection (c).
       (e) Ozone Season.--In determining the individual emissions 
     allocation for a covered generation facility under subsection 
     (d), the amount of nitrogen oxide emitted by covered 
     generation facility and the number of megawatt-hours of 
     electricity generated by the covered generation facility 
     during the period May 1 through September 30 of each year 
     shall each be multiplied by 3.
       (f) Monitoring.--
       (1) Establishment of system.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a system for the accurate monitoring of the amount 
     of each pollutant that a covered generation facility emits 
     during a year.
       (2) Requirements.--The monitoring system under paragraph 
     (1) shall require--
       (A) installation on each combustion device of a continuous 
     monitoring system for each pollutant; or
       (B) use of an alternative mechanism that the Administrator 
     determines will provide data with precision, reliability, 
     accessibility, and timeliness that are equal to or greater 
     than those that would be achieved by a continuous emissions 
     monitoring system.
       (g) Emissions Credits.--
       (1) Comparison of actual combustion device outputs with 
     individual emission allocations.--At the end of each year, 
     the Administrator shall compare the amount of a pollutant 
     emitted by a generation facility during the year with the 
     individual emissions allocation as established under 
     subsection (d) applicable to the covered generation facility 
     for the year.
       (2) Issuance of emissions credits.--Not later than April 1 
     of each year, the Administrator shall issue to a covered 
     generation facility 1 emissions credit for each ton by which 
     the amount of a pollutant emitted by the covered generation 
     facility during the preceding year was less than the 
     individual emissions allocation as established under 
     subsection (d) applicable to the covered generation facility.
       (3) Submission of emissions credits.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than July 1 of each year, a 
     covered generation facility that emitted a greater amount of 
     a pollutant than the individual emissions allocation 
     applicable to the covered generation facility during the 
     preceding year shall submit to the Administrator 1 emissions 
     credit for each ton by which the amount of the pollutant 
     emitted was greater than the individual emissions allocation 
     as established under subsection (d).
       (B) Penalty.--A covered generation facility that is 
     required to submit an emissions credit under subparagraph (A) 
     that fails to submit the emissions credit shall pay to the 
     Administrator a civil penalty in an amount equal to--
       (i) $15,000 for each ton of nitrogen oxide emissions in 
     excess of the individual emissions allocation applicable to 
     the facility under subsection (d) for which a nitrogen oxide 
     emissions credit has not been submitted under subparagraph 
     (A);
       (ii) $2,500 for each ton of sulfur dioxide emissions in 
     excess of the individual emissions allocation applicable to 
     the facility under subsection (d) for which a sulfur dioxide 
     emissions credit has not been submitted under subparagraph 
     (A); or
       (iii) $100 for each ton of carbon dioxide emissions in 
     excess of the individual emissions allocation applicable to 
     the facility under subsection (d) for which a carbon dioxide 
     emissions credit has not been submitted under subparagraph 
     (A).
       (C) Penalty adjustment.--The Administrator shall annually 
     adjust the penalty specified in subparagraph (B) for 
     inflation based on the Consumer Price Index.
       (4) Use of emissions credits.--A covered generation 
     facility may--
       (A) retain an emissions credit from year to year for future 
     submission to the Administrator under paragraph (3); or
       (B) on notice to the Administrator, sell or otherwise 
     transfer an emissions credit to another person.
       (h) Powers.--The Administrator may promulgate such 
     regulations, conduct such investigations, and take such other 
     actions as are necessary to appropriate to implement and 
     obtain compliance with this section and regulations 
     promulgated under this section.

     SEC. 8. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Emissions data.--The term ``emissions data'' means the 
     type and amount of each pollutant (as defined in section 
     7(a)) emitted by a generation facility in generating 
     electricity.
       (2) Generation data.--The term ``generation data'' means 
     the type of fuel (such as coal, oil, nuclear energy, or solar 
     power) used by a generation facility to generate electricity.
       (b) Disclosure System.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     system of disclosure that--
       (1) enables retail consumers to knowledgeably compare 
     retail electric service offerings, including comparisons 
     based on generation source portfolios, emissions data, and 
     price terms; and
       (2) considers such factors as--

[[Page S3912]]

       (A) cost of implementation;
       (B) confidentiality of information; and
       (C) flexibility.
       (c) Regulation.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Board, and with the 
     assistance of a Federal interagency task force that includes 
     representatives of the Commission, the Federal Trade 
     Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall promulgate a 
     regulation prescribing--
       (1) the form, content, and frequency of disclosure of 
     emissions data and generation data of electricity by 
     generation facilities to electricity wholesalers or retail 
     companies and by wholesalers to retail companies;
       (2) the form, content, and frequency of disclosure of 
     emissions data, generation data, and the price of electricity 
     by retail companies to ultimate consumers; and
       (3) the form, content, and frequency of disclosure of 
     emissions data, generation data, and the price of electricity 
     by generation facilities selling directly to ultimate 
     consumers.
       (d) Access to Records.--The Secretary shall have full 
     access to the records of all generation facilities, 
     electricity wholesalers, and retail companies to obtain any 
     information necessary to administer and enforce this section.
       (e) Failure To Disclose.--The failure of a retail company 
     to accurately disclose information as required by this 
     section shall be treated as a deceptive act in commerce under 
     section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (f) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate such 
     regulations, conduct such investigations, and take such other 
     actions as are necessary or appropriate to implement and 
     obtain compliance with this section and regulations 
     promulgated under this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (by request):
  S. 688. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize 
Presidential Honors Scholarships to be awarded to all students who 
graduate in the top 5 percent of their secondary school graduating 
class, to promote and recognize high academic achievement in secondary 
school, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


            THE PRESIDENTIAL HONORS SCHOLARSHIP ACT OF 1997

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to reintroduce 
President Clinton's proposal, the Presidential Honors Scholarship Act 
of 1997. I first introduced this bill on behalf of the administration 
last September--and I have included a very similar proposal in my own 
comprehensive higher education legislation, known as the Get Ahead Act. 
I am honored to have the opportunity to reintroduce this measure for 
the President, who continues his endless efforts at improving American 
education and making sure that college is affordable to all Americans.
  Most people are probably not familiar with Presidential Honors 
Scholarships, but I think many people have heard of the idea of merit 
scholarships. It is pretty simple. Under the bill, all students in 
public and private schools who graduate in the top 5 percent of their 
class would be designated as Presidential honors scholars and would 
receive a $1,000 scholarship to college. The scholarship could be used 
during their freshman year at the college of their choice, and the 
scholarship would not be used in determining eligibility for other 
financial aid.
  I strongly support merit scholarships for two reasons. First, we need 
to start rewarding excellence in educational achievement. Under the 
leadership of President Clinton, 4 years ago Congress passed 
legislation that encourages States to set high academic standards for 
their students. This proposal builds on that idea by rewarding those 
students who meet those high standards. Students who work hard and 
succeed ought to be recognized and rewarded.
  Second, by providing scholarship moneys, this bill will help 
thousands of students in paying for the costs of a college education, 
which, I might add, is becoming more and more difficult for middle-
class families. I realize that $1,000 does not go a long way in paying 
for a public college education, not to mention the costs of a private 
college. But, it will be of some help, and for those who choose to go 
to a community college, it will pay for about two-thirds of the cost.
  Mr. President, I suspect that we will be debating higher education 
more than once this year. There is much to be done. We need to provide 
a tax deduction for the costs of college. We should allow penalty-free 
withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts to pay for college. We 
should make permanent the employer-provided education tax exclusion. We 
need to expand the Pell Grant Program. And, we need to reauthorize the 
Higher Education Act.
  In that process, however, let us not forget merit scholarships. It is 
not the answer, but it is part of the answer. It is a piece of the 
puzzle. And while some would say that it is a small piece, it plays an 
important role in being the one piece that rewards those students who 
reach for excellence.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and with President 
Clinton in seeing that this proposal becomes law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, 
        Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, and 
        Mr. Robb):
  S. 690. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve preventive benefits under the Medicare Program; to the 
Committee on Finance.


              the colorectal cancer screening act of 1997

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Colorectal 
Cancer Screening Act of 1997 with my colleagues Senators Cochran, 
Conrad, Dorgan, Moseley-Braun, Reid, and Rockefeller.
  Let me share some tragic facts about colorectal cancer. According to 
the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer is the second most 
deadly cancer based on the number of annual deaths. While breast cancer 
primarily afflicts women and prostate cancer is a disease of men, 
colorectal cancer strikes both men and women of all races, resulting in 
the high number of patients and the corresponding high number of 
deaths.
  This year alone, 140,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colon 
cancer and 54,000 Americans will die from the disease. In my own State 
of Louisiana, 2,200 new cases of colon cancer will be diagnosed this 
year and it will take the lives of 920 people. Yet, as is the case with 
most cancers, colon cancer is preventable and curable if detected 
early.
  The tragedy of colorectal cancer is that physicians have proven means 
to detect colorectal cancer early but these tests must be made 
available to people on a widespread basis. Death from this terrible 
disease can be reduced significantly by early detection. We know 
polyps, the initial presentation of early cancers, if detected early 
can be treated without major surgery while expensive, major surgery in 
a hospital is the only successful treatment for more advanced cancers.
  While many private health plans are starting to provide coverage for 
colorectal cancer screening, Medicare--which covers older Americans who 
are most at risk--does not. The Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1997 
would make colorectal cancer screening available to Medicare 
beneficiaries to improve the chance for early detection and diagnosis.
  The type and frequency of screening I suggest in my bill are 
compatible with the recommendations of several large physician groups 
as well as the American Cancer Society. It covers all the procedures 
that are currently used today but the type of screening process will 
depend on the patient's risk factors for colon cancer. Patients at 
higher risk, for example someone whose parent had colon cancer, receive 
more aggressive screening than someone with a normal risk for colon 
cancer.
  Mr. President, this legislation is not procedure specific. Although 
several screening tests for colorectal cancer are currently available, 
the best method for early detection has not been determined. Some tests 
are very simple and can be performed by any doctor. Others, such as 
barium enema and colonoscopy, are technically more difficult and 
require special equipment and facilities. Some tests only evaluate part 
of the colon.
  My bill basically recognizes that we need to start screening people 
right away. The Congress should not prevent seniors from getting 
screened because there is disagreement over which procedures are best. 
That is a decision best made by doctors, not the Congress. This bill 
would mandate that seniors on Medicare have access to all the screening 
methods currently used by doctors. In 2 years, the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services will report back to Congress on which tests are

[[Page S3913]]

the best and most cost-effective means of detecting colon cancer. If it 
is determined that a procedure is being used that is not effective, 
Medicare will no longer cover it. HHS will also study the needs of 
African-Americans who are at high risk for colon cancer and have a 
higher mortality rate. It makes much more sense for the experts in 
colon cancer, not the Congress, to determine the best, most cost-
effective screening techniques all the while making this important 
service available immediately to Medicare beneficiaries.
  This kind of preventive tool is critical in our battle against colon 
cancer. It will improve the quality of life for Medicare beneficiaries 
and save Medicare money in the long run by reducing the high costs of 
treating advanced colorectal cancer.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this 
legislation this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 690

       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 ``Colorectal Cancer Screening 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF COLORECTAL SCREENING SERVICES.

       (a) Coverage.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (s)(2)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraphs (N) and 
     (O); and
       (ii) by inserting after subparagraph (O) the following:
       ``(P) colorectal cancer screening tests (as defined in 
     subsection (oo)); and''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:

                  ``Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

       ``(oo)(1) The term `colorectal cancer screening test' 
     means, unless determined otherwise pursuant to section 
     2(a)(2) of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1997, any 
     of the following procedures furnished to an individual for 
     the purpose of early detection of colorectal cancer:
       ``(A) Screening fecal-occult blood test.
       ``(B) Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.
       ``(C) Screening barium enema.
       ``(D) In the case of an individual at high risk for 
     colorectal cancer, screening colonoscopy or screening barium 
     enema.
       ``(E) For years beginning after 2002, such other procedures 
     as the Secretary finds appropriate for the purpose of early 
     detection of colorectal cancer, taking into account changes 
     in technology and standards of medical practice, 
     availability, effectiveness, costs, the particular screening 
     needs of racial and ethnic minorities in the United States 
     and such other factors as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) In paragraph (1)(D), an `individual at high risk for 
     colorectal cancer' is an individual who, because of family 
     history, prior experience of cancer or precursor neoplastic 
     polyps, a history of chronic digestive disease condition 
     (including inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's Disease, or 
     ulcerative colitis), the presence of any appropriate 
     recognized gene markers for colorectal cancer, or other 
     predisposing factors, faces a high risk for colorectal 
     cancer.''.
       (2) Review of coverage of colorectal cancer screening 
     tests.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act (and periodically thereafter), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this paragraph 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall review--
       (i) the standards of medical practice with regard to 
     colorectal cancer screening tests (as defined in section 
     1861(oo) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(oo))) 
     (as added by paragraph (1) of this section);
       (ii) the availability, effectiveness, costs, and cost-
     effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening tests covered 
     under the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) at the time of such 
     review;
       (iii) the particular screening needs of racial and ethnic 
     minorities in the United States; and
       (iv) such other factors as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate with regard to the coverage of colorectal cancer 
     screening tests under the medicare program.
       (B) Determination.--If the Secretary determines it 
     appropriate based on the review conducted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue and publish a 
     determination that one or more colorectal cancer screening 
     tests described in section 1861(oo) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(oo)) (as added by paragraph (1) of this 
     section) shall no longer be covered under that section.
       (b) Frequency and Payment Limits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1834 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (c) the following:
       ``(d) Frequency and Payment Limits for Colorectal Cancer 
     Screening Tests.--
       ``(1) Screening fecal-occult blood tests.--
       ``(A) Payment limit.--In establishing fee schedules under 
     section 1833(h) with respect to colorectal cancer screening 
     tests consisting of screening fecal-occult blood tests, 
     except as provided by the Secretary under paragraph (5)(A), 
     the payment amount established for tests performed--
       ``(i) in 1998 shall not exceed $5; and
       ``(ii) in a subsequent year, shall not exceed the limit on 
     the payment amount established under this subsection for such 
     tests for the preceding year, adjusted by the applicable 
     adjustment under section 1833(h) for tests performed in such 
     year.
       ``(B) Frequency limit.--Subject to revision by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (5)(B), no payment may be made 
     under this part for colorectal cancer screening test 
     consisting of a screening fecal-occult blood test--
       ``(i) if the individual is under 50 years of age; or
       ``(ii) if the test is performed within the 11 months after 
     a previous screening fecal-occult blood test.
       ``(2) Screening for individuals not at high risk.--Subject 
     to revision by the Secretary under paragraph (5)(B), no 
     payment may be made under this part for a colorectal cancer 
     screening test consisting of a screening flexible 
     sigmoidoscopy or screening barium enema--
       ``(i) if the individual is under 50 years of age; or
       ``(ii) if the procedure is performed within the 47 months 
     after a previous screening flexible sigmoidoscopy or 
     screening barium enema.
       ``(3) Screening for individuals at high risk for colorectal 
     cancer.--Subject to revision by the Secretary under paragraph 
     (5)(B), no payment may be made under this part for a 
     colorectal cancer screening test consisting of a screening 
     colonoscopy or screening barium enema for individuals at high 
     risk for colorectal cancer if the procedure is performed 
     within the 23 months after a previous screening colonoscopy 
     or screening barium enema.
       ``(4) Payment amounts for certain colorectal cancer 
     screening tests.--The Secretary shall establish payment 
     amounts under section 1848 with respect each colorectal 
     cancer screening tests described in subparagraphs (B), (C), 
     and (D) of section 1861(oo)(1) that are consistent with 
     payment amounts under such section for similar or related 
     services, except that such payment amount shall be 
     established without regard to section 1848(a)(2)(A).
       ``(5) Reductions in payment limit and revision of 
     frequency.--
       ``(A) Reductions in payment limit for screening fecal-
     occult blood tests.--The Secretary shall review from time to 
     time the appropriateness of the amount of the payment limit 
     established for screening fecal-occult blood tests under 
     paragraph (1)(A). The Secretary may, with respect to tests 
     performed in a year after 2000, reduce the amount of such 
     limit as it applies nationally or in any area to the amount 
     that the Secretary estimates is required to assure that such 
     tests of an appropriate quality are readily and conveniently 
     available during the year.
       ``(B) Revision of frequency.--
       ``(i) Review.--The Secretary shall review periodically the 
     appropriate frequency for performing colorectal cancer 
     screening tests based on age and such other factors as the 
     Secretary believes to be pertinent.
       ``(ii) Revision of frequency.--The Secretary, taking into 
     consideration the review made under clause (i), may revise 
     from time to time the frequency with which such tests may be 
     paid for under this subsection, but no such revision shall 
     apply to tests performed before January 1, 2001.
       ``(6) Limiting charges of nonparticipating physicians.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a colorectal cancer 
     screening test consisting of a screening flexible 
     sigmoidoscopy or screening barium enema, or a screening 
     colonoscopy or screening barium enema provided to an 
     individual at high risk for colorectal cancer for which 
     payment may be made under this part, if a nonparticipating 
     physician provides the procedure to an individual enrolled 
     under this part, the physician may not charge the individual 
     more than the limiting charge (as defined in section 
     1848(g)(2)).
       ``(B) Enforcement.--If a physician or supplier knowingly 
     and willfully imposes a charge in violation of subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary may apply sanctions against such physician 
     or supplier in accordance with section 1842(j)(2).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraphs (1)(D) and (2)(D) of section 1833(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)) are each amended by 
     inserting ``or section 1834(d)(1)'' after ``subsection 
     (h)(1)''.
       (2) Section 1833(h)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395l(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``The 
     Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraphs (1) and 
     (5)(A) of section 1834(d), the Secretary''.
       (3) Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 1848(a)(2)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(a)(2)(A)) are each 
     amended by inserting after ``a service'' the following: 
     ``(other than a colorectal cancer screening test consisting 
     of a screening colonoscopy or screening barium enema provided 
     to an individual at high risk for colorectal cancer or a 
     screening flexible sigmoidoscopy or screening barium 
     enema)''.
       (4) Section 1862(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395y(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--

[[Page S3914]]

       (i) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking the semicolon at the 
     end and inserting ``, and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) in the case of colorectal cancer screening tests, 
     which are performed more frequently than is covered under 
     section 1834(d);''; and
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``paragraph (1)(B) or 
     under paragraph (1)(F)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B), 
     (F), or (G) of paragraph (1)''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to items and 
     services furnished on or after January 1, 1998.

                          ____________________