Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)

[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.

____________________