[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8571-S8582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE RONALD H. BROWN FEDERAL BUILDING DESIGNATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to honor and 
remember a truly exceptional American, Ronald H. Brown. The bill would 
designate the newly constructed Federal

[[Page S8572]]

building located at 290 Broadway in the heart of lower Manhattan as the 
``Ronald H. Brown Federal Building.''
  It is a fitting gesture to recognize the passing of this remarkable 
American, and I would ask for my colleagues' support for this 
legislation to place one more marker in history on Ron Brown's behalf.
  Ron Brown had a great love for enterprise and industry as reflected 
in his achievements as the first African-American to hold the office of 
U.S. Secretary of Commerce. His was also a life of outstanding 
achievement and public service: Army captain; vice president of the 
National Urban League; partner in a prestigious law firm; chairman of 
the National Democratic Committee; husband and father. And these are 
but a few of the achievements that demonstrated Ron Brown's spirited 
and sweeping pursuit of life.
  To have held any one of these posts in the government, and in the 
private sector, is extraordinary. To have held all of the positions he 
did and prevail as he did, is unique. Ron Brown was tragically taken 
from us too soon; we are diminished by his loss. I cannot think of a 
more fitting tribute to this uncommon man.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ronald H. Brown Federal 
Building Designation Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1108

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

       The Federal building located at 290 Broadway in New York, 
     New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Ronald H. 
     Brown Federal Building''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in any law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the ``Ronald H. Brown Federal Building.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1110. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to place a 
limitation on habeas corpus relief that prevents retrial of an accused; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   THE VICTIM PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the 
Victim Protection Act of 1997.
  I commend my colleague, Representative Joseph Pitts, for his 
leadership in preparing this legislation which he is introducing today 
in the House of Representatives.
  This legislation arises from the case of Commonwealth versus Lisa 
Michelle Lambert where the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 
of Pennsylvania found a violation of the defendant's constitutional 
rights and issued an order barring the defendant from a retrial.
  The Congress has the authority to legislate under Article V of the 
14th amendment which provides:

       The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate 
     legislation, the provisions of this article.

  This legislation is designed to prevent the U.S. District Courts from 
ordering a remedy to bar a new trial.
  This legislation respects the authority of the Federal courts to 
uphold a defendant's constitutional rights in State court criminal 
proceedings. It may well be that the Court of Appeals for the Third 
Circuit will act to reverse the order barring a retrial.
  Whatever action is taken in the case of Commonwealth versus Lisa 
Michelle Lambert, the Federal habeas corpus law should be clear that 
U.S. District Courts do not have the authority to bar a retrial.
  Under our Federal system, it should be--and this bill will establish 
the statutory authority--for the district attorney in Lancaster County 
to make the judgment whether the unsuppressed evidence is sufficient 
for a retrial. It would then be up to the court of Common Pleas of 
Lancaster County to make the first judicial judgment on the retrial 
issues with appropriate appellate procedures in the Superior and 
Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania.
  This principled approach respects judicial independence.
  When the District Court issued its opinion, there was an immediate 
public outcry for impeachment. At that time, I said and I repeat today, 
impeachment is not an appropriate response.
  The appropropriate response is an appeal to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Third Circuit which will review the matter. A 
further appropriate response is legislation to make the statute 
explicit that the district court may not impose a remedy to bar a new 
trial.
  This bill would not affect the otherwise extensive authority of the 
U.S. District Courts to protect rights where constitutional issues are 
raised. Obviously, a statute could not deal with the defendant's 
constitutional rights. That would require a constitutional amendment.
  However, this bill on the issue of retrial is within the purview of 
appropriate legislation pursuant to Article V of the 14th amendment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 1111. A bill to establish a youth mentoring program; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                         JUMP AHEAD ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, millions of young people in America 
live in areas where drug use, violent and property crimes are a way of 
life. Unfortunately, many of these same young people come from one-
parent homes, or from environments where there is no responsible, 
caring adult supervision. These at-risk children are on the brink--
their lives could go in either a positive or destructive direction. 
There is indisputable evidence, however, that at-risk children who have 
responsible adult mentors choose the right path.
  Mr. President, that is why today I am introducing legislation, the 
JUMP Ahead Act of 1997, that will take mentoring in this country to the 
next level to meet the needs of millions of at-risk youths and their 
families.
  All children and adolescents need caring adults in their lives, and 
mentoring is one effective way to fill this special need for at-risk 
children. The special bond of commitment fostered by the mutual respect 
inherent in effective mentoring can be the tie that binds a young 
person to a better future. Through a mentoring experience, adult 
volunteers and participating youth make a significant commitment of 
time and energy to develop relationships devoted to personal, academic, 
or career development and social, artistic, or athletic growth.
  Although in recent years there has been an increasing understanding 
of the importance and benefits of mentoring, too few at-risk children 
are being reached. It is reported that between 5 and 15 million 
children in the U.S. could benefit from being matched with a mentor. 
The status quo cannot meet this need.
  As I rise today to talk about the value and importance of mentoring 
to at-risk youth, we are in the midst of a crisis in the form of a 
growing tide of juvenile crime. While overall crime rates have been 
stabilizing and even decreasing in some areas, crime among our youth 
has been on the rise. If trends continue, juvenile arrests for violent 
crime will double by the year 2010.
  In addition to juvenile crime, today's youth faces other serious 
problems. Every day in America 2,795 teens get pregnant, 1,512 
teenagers drop out of school, and 211 children are arrested for drug 
use.
  If we don't act quickly and decisively, we risk losing a whole 
generation of young people. We need to save our kids.
  Mr. President, that is why in 1992 I authored the Juvenile Mentoring 
Program (JUMP). JUMP is administered by the Department of Justice's 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). JUMP is 
targeted specifically at reducing juvenile delinquency and gang 
participation, improving academic performance, and reducing the dropout 
rate by introducing adult mentors as role models, counselors, and 
friends for at-risk youth. Both local education agencies and public/
private non-profit organizations receive JUMP grants.
  Since its enactment, JUMP has funded 93 separate mentoring programs 
in over half the States in the Union. The competition for these JUMP 
awards is great: Over 479 communities submitted applications for the 
recent round of grants. JUMP grantees use a variety of program designs. 
Mentors are law enforcement and fire department personnel, college 
students, senior citizens, Federal employees, businessmen, and other 
private citizens. The mentees are

[[Page S8573]]

of all races they come from urban, suburban, and rural communities, and 
range in age from 5 to 20. Some are incarcerated or on probation, some 
are in school, and some are dropouts. In its first year, JUMP helped to 
keep thousands of at-risk young people in 25 States in school and off 
the streets through one-to-one mentoring.
  Mr. President, now is the time to take mentoring to the next level. 
The JUMP Ahead Act enhances the basic successful structure of JUMP, and 
increases awards to up to $200,000. It also increases authorized 
funding to $50 million per year for 4 years, for a total of $200 
million. This initiative will not only vastly increase the number of 
mentoring programs able to receive grants, but it also creates a new 
category of grants that will enable experienced national organizations 
to provide needed technical assistance to emerging mentoring programs 
nationwide. Also, the legislation mandates the Justice Department to 
rigorously evaluate the program to document what is effective, and what 
does not produce results. The increased funding allows the DOJ to award 
grants to a wider group of applicants, allowing for greater diversity 
and creativity. However, the high standards set by the JUMP program 
still must be met by all grantees.
  Mr. President, mentoring works. Not only is this confirmed by common 
sense and life experience, but also by scientific study. Perhaps the 
most well-known mentoring program is the world-renowned Big Brothers/
Big Sisters of America, a federation of more than 500 agencies that 
serve children and adolescents. About one quarter of all JUMP grantees 
are Big Brothers/Big Sisters affiliates. They have been providing 
mentors to young people for over 90 years with wonderful results. And 
now those results have been scientifically validated.
  A carefully designed independent evaluation of mentoring programs 
found tremendously positive results and that mentoring programs offer 
great promise. Most noteworthy among those findings was that mentored 
youth were 46 percent less likely to initiate drug use. An even 
stronger effect was found for minority Little Brothers and Little 
Sisters, who were 70 percent less likely to initiate drug use than 
similar minority youth.
  Additionally, Mr. President, mentored youth were 27 percent less 
likely to initiate alcohol use, and minority Little Sisters were only 
about one-half as likely to initiate alcohol use. The study also found 
that mentored youth skipped half as many days of school, felt more 
competent about doing schoolwork, skipped fewer classes, and showed 
modest gains in their grade point averages. These gains were strongest 
among Little Sisters, particularly minority Little Sisters.
  Mr. President, effective mentoring programs require agencies that 
take substantial care in recruiting, screening, matching, and 
supporting volunteers. These are critical functions for an effective 
mentoring program. The investment in comparison to the benefits to 
individual kids and society as a whole is minimal; approximately $1,000 
per child. Such a small price for such an enormous payoff.
  Mr. President, experience and now research tells us that there is a 
desperate need for a new, more positive approach to developing youth 
policy and discouraging juvenile crime and violence. Mentoring has 
proven to be one of the best way to get to kids before they get into 
trouble. We have been talking for years about the need to provide our 
children with a better future, to give our kids something to say 
``yes'' to. JUMP was a great, but small, first step in the right 
direction. Now it is time to take a giant leap--a JUMP Ahead.
  In Washington, we talk easily about investing in our kids' future. 
Whenever we want to build a highway or a bridge, we call it an 
investment for the future. If we want to ratify trade treaties, we call 
it an investment in our future. The same goes for everything from 
cutting the deficit to building sophisticated defense systems to 
sending probes to Mars.
  Mr. President, there cannot be a more important investment in the 
future of our country and our people than directly investing in saving 
our kids. And that is what mentoring is all about. Mentoring works. 
Effective mentoring programs can significantly reduce and prevent the 
use of alcohol and drugs by young people, improve school attendance and 
performance, improve peer and family relationships, and curb violent 
behavior.
  Mr. President, what greater investment can we make?
  I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent 
that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1111

       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 ``JUMP Ahead Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) millions of young people in America live in areas in 
     which drug use and violent and property crimes are pervasive;
       (2) unfortunately, many of these same young people come 
     from single parent homes, or from environments in which there 
     is no responsible, caring adult supervision;
       (3) all children and adolescents need caring adults in 
     their lives, and mentoring is an effective way to fill this 
     special need for at-risk children. The special bond of 
     commitment fostered by the mutual respect inherent in 
     effective mentoring can be the tie that binds a young person 
     to a better future;
       (4) through a mentoring relationship, adult volunteers and 
     participating youth make a significant commitment of time and 
     energy to develop relationships devoted to personal, 
     academic, or career development and social, artistic, or 
     athletic growth;
       (5) rigorous independent studies have confirmed that 
     effective mentoring programs can significantly reduce and 
     prevent the use of alcohol and drugs by young people, improve 
     school attendance and performance, improve peer and family 
     and peer relationships, and reduce violent behavior;
       (6) since the inception of the Federal JUMP program, dozens 
     of innovative, effective mentoring programs have received 
     funding grants;
       (7) unfortunately, despite the recent growth in public and 
     private mentoring initiatives, it is reported that between 
     5,000,000 and 15,000,000 additional children in the United 
     States could benefit from being matched with a mentor; and
       (8) although great strides have been made in reaching at-
     risk youth since the inception of the JUMP program, millions 
     of vulnerable American children are not being reached, and 
     without an increased commitment to connect these young people 
     to responsible adult role models, our country risks losing an 
     entire generation to drugs, crime, and unproductive lives.

     SEC. 3. JUVENILE MENTORING GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 288B of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Administrator shall'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) are intended to achieve 1 or more of the following 
     goals:
       ``(A) Discourage at-risk youth from--
       ``(i) using illegal drugs and alcohol;
       ``(ii) engaging in violence;
       ``(iii) using guns and other dangerous weapons;
       ``(iv) engaging in other criminal and antisocial behavior; 
     and
       ``(v) becoming involved in gangs.
       ``(B) Promote personal and social responsibility among at-
     risk youth.
       ``(C) Increase at-risk youth's participation in, and 
     enhance the ability of those youth to benefit from, 
     elementary and secondary education.
       ``(D) Encourage at-risk youth participation in community 
     service and community activities.
       ``(E) Provide general guidance to at-risk youth.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Amount and Duration.--Each grant under this part 
     shall be awarded in an amount not to exceed a total of 
     $200,000 over a period of not more than 3 years.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out this part.''.

     SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department 
     of Justice may make grants to national organizations or 
     agencies serving youth, in order to enable those 
     organizations or agencies--
       (1) to conduct a multisite demonstration project, involving 
     between 5 and 10 project sites, that--
       (A) provides an opportunity to compare various mentoring 
     models for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness and 
     efficiency of those models;
       (B) allows for innovative programs designed under the 
     oversight of a national organization or agency serving youth, 
     which programs may include--
       (i) technical assistance;
       (ii) training; and
       (iii) research and evaluation; and

[[Page S8574]]

       (C) disseminates the results of such demonstration project 
     to allow for the determination of the best practices for 
     various mentoring programs;
       (2) to develop and evaluate screening standards for 
     mentoring programs; and
       (3) to develop and evaluate volunteer recruitment 
     techniques and activities for mentoring programs.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5. EVALUATIONS; REPORTS.

       (a) Evaluations.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall enter into a 
     contract with an evaluating organization that has 
     demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, for the 
     conduct of an ongoing rigorous evaluation of the programs and 
     activities assisted under this Act or under section 228B of 
     the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as amended by this Act).
       (2) Criteria.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     minimum criteria for evaluating the programs and activities 
     assisted under this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5667e-2) (as amended by this Act), which shall provide for a 
     description of the implementation of the program or activity, 
     and the effect of the program or activity on participants, 
     schools, communities, and youth served by the program or 
     activity.
       (3) Mentoring program of the year.--The Attorney General 
     shall, on an annual basis, based on the most recent 
     evaluation under this subsection and such other criteria as 
     the Attorney General shall establish by regulation--
       (A) designate 1 program or activity assisted under this Act 
     as the ``Juvenile Mentoring Program of the Year''; and
       (B) publish notice of such designation in the Federal 
     Register.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Grant recipients.--Each entity receiving a grant under 
     this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as 
     amended by this Act) shall submit to the evaluating 
     organization entering into the contract under subsection 
     (a)(1), an annual report regarding any program or activity 
     assisted under this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5667e-2) (as amended by this Act). Each report under this 
     paragraph shall be submitted at such time, in such a manner, 
     and shall be accompanied by such information, as the 
     evaluating organization may reasonably require.
       (2) Comptroller general.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to Congress a report evaluating the effectiveness of 
     grants awarded under this Act and under section 228B of the 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as amended by this Act), in--
       (A) reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation;
       (B) reducing the school dropout rate; and
       (C) improving academic performance of juveniles.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. 
        Wellstone):
  S. 1112. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
coins in commemoration of native American history and culture; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


           THE BUFFALO NICKEL COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT OF 1997

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, it gives me great personal pleasure to 
introduce the Buffalo Nickel Commemorative Coin Act of 1997. I am also 
pleased to add Senators Inouye, Conrad, and Wellstone as cosponsors of 
this legislation.
  For those of us old enough to remember or for those who have seen 
one, the buffalo nickel holds a special place in history. This coin was 
in general circulation from 1913 to 1938, and it featured an Indian 
head design on one side with a buffalo design on the reverse.
  The coin's history is an interesting one, and I would like to share 
it with my colleagues. The artist who designed this coin, James Earle 
Fraser, wanted to produce a coin which was truly unique and American. I 
believe Mr. Fraser put it best himself when he said,

       In designing the buffalo nickel, my first object was to 
     produce a coin which was truly American, and that could not 
     be confused with the currency of any other country. I made 
     sure, therefore, to use none of the attributes that other 
     nations had used in the past. And, in my search for symbols, 
     I found no motif within the boundaries of the United States 
     so distinctive as the American buffalo or bison.

  According to historical sources, the Indian head on the nickel was 
created by Mr. Fraser based upon three models: Iron Tail, an Oglala 
Sioux; Two Moons, a Northern Cheyenne; and Big Tree, a Seneca Iroquois. 
Supposedly all three Indians were performers appearing in wild-west 
shows in New York City at the time they posed for Mr. Fraser.
  As for the buffalo, historians generally agree that the model was 
Black Diamond, a bull bison residing in the Central Park Zoo. 
Unfortunately, after being immortalized on the buffalo nickel, Black 
Diamond was slaughtered.
  The end result was a coin which was, indeed, truly unique. It has 
been roughly 60 years since the U.S. Bureau of the Mint ended 
production of the buffalo nickel. The bill I am offering today would 
direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a limited-edition 
commemorative buffalo nickel coin to begin in the year 2000. I believe 
it is fitting to reintroduce this beloved coin to new generations of 
Americans.
  These coins will also serve another important purpose appropriate to 
its heritage. Profits from the sale of the coins will go to the 
endowment and educational funds of the National Museum of the American 
Indian. Authorized in 1989 by the National Museum of the American 
Indian Act, Public Law 101-185, the museum is set to begin construction 
in order to meet its scheduled opening date in the year 2002. The 
facility, to be located on the Mall here in Washington, DC, will house 
over 1 million artifacts and is expected to draw millions of visitors 
each year. By contributing funds to the endowment and educational 
programs of the museum, the buffalo nickel will be assisting with the 
preservation of native artifacts and offer visitors to the museum the 
opportunity to appreciate and learn more about native cultures.
  The origins of this bill actually began some time ago when an 
individual contacted my office with this idea. Following that, my 
friend and former colleague, Tim Wirth, sent me a note saying he 
thought it was a great idea, and since then I have received hundreds of 
postcards from people across the country expressing their desire to see 
the return of the buffalo nickel. With that, I am pleased to be able to 
introduce this legislation, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues, the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, and the 
U.S. Treasury in order to make the buffalo nickel a success.
  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. 1112

       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 ``United States Buffalo Nickel 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

       (a) Denominations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, during the 3-year period beginning on January 1, 2000, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury (hereafter in this Act referred 
     to as the ``Secretary'') shall mint and issue each year not 
     more than 1,000,000 5-cent coins, which shall--
       (1) weigh 5 grams;
       (2) have a diameter of 0.835 inches; and
       (3) contain an alloy of 90 percent silver and 10 percent 
     copper.
       (b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be 
     legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of 
     title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act 
     shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.

       The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting coins under 
     this Act only from stockpiles established under the Strategic 
     and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act.

     SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.

       (a) Design Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be based on the original 5-cent coin designed by 
     James Earle Fraser and minted from 1913 to 1938. Each coin 
     shall have on the obverse side a profile representation of a 
     Native American, and on the reverse side a representation of 
     a buffalo.
       (2) Designations and inscriptions.--On each coin minted 
     under this Act there shall be--
       (A) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (B) an inscription of the year; and
       (C) inscriptions of the words ``United States of America'', 
     ``Liberty'', and ``E Pluribus Unum''.
       (b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be--
       (1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the 
     Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Commission 
     of Fine Arts; and
       (2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory 
     Committee.

[[Page S8575]]

     SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

       (a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be 
     issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
       (b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States 
     Mint may be used to strike any particular combination of 
     denomination and quality of the coins minted under this Act.
       (c) Termination of Minting Authority.--No coins may be 
     minted under this Act after December 31, 2000.

     SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.

       (a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be 
     sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coins;
       (2) the surcharge provided in subsection (d) with respect 
     to such coins; and
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping).
       (b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the 
     coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
       (c) Prepaid Orders.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders 
     for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of 
     such coins.
       (2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders 
     under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
       (d) Surcharges.--All sales shall include a surcharge of 
     $1.00 per coin.

     SEC. 7. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     provision of law governing procurement or public contracts 
     shall be applicable to the procurement of goods and services 
     necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
       (b) Equal Employment Opportunity.--Subsection (a) does not 
     relieve any person entering into a contract under the 
     authority of this Act from complying with any law relating to 
     equal employment opportunity.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

       (a) Permissible Purposes.--All surcharges received by the 
     Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall 
     be paid promptly by the Secretary to the National Museum of 
     the American Indian for the purposes of--
       (1) commemorating the tenth anniversary of the 
     establishment of the Museum; and
       (2) supplementing the endowment and educational outreach 
     funds of the Museum.
       (b) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall have the right to examine such books, records, 
     documents, and other data of the National Museum of the 
     American Indian as may be related to the expenditures of 
     amounts paid under subsection (a).

     SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

       (a) No Net Cost to the Government.--The Secretary shall 
     take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that minting 
     and issuing coins under this Act will not result in any net 
     cost to the United States Government.
       (b) Payment for Coins.--A coin shall not be issued under 
     this Act unless the Secretary has received--
       (1) full payment for the coin;
       (2) security satisfactory to the Secretary to indemnify the 
     United States for full payment; or
       (3) a guarantee of full payment satisfactory to the 
     Secretary from a depository institution whose deposits are 
     insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the 
     National Credit Union Administration Board.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. DeWine, 
        Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 1113. A bill to extend certain temporary judgeships in the Federal 
judiciary; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP LEGISLATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, I have studied 
the recommendations of the Judicial Conference regarding the extension 
of a number of temporary article III judgeships. I am offering this 
bill along with Senators Durbin, Hatch, DeWine, Warner, and Hagel in 
response to the Judicial Conference's recommendations.
  Much anecdotal evidence and rhetorical commentary have been given, in 
both the press and from this body, regarding the burdened and 
overworked state of the Federal judiciary. My experiences do not bear 
this out. I have been a member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Administrative Oversight and the Courts for a number of years. In past 
years, this committee was likely to take the Judicial Conference's 
recommendations as given. Recently, in my role as chairman, I have 
taken a more hands on approach to the appointment and extension of 
judgeships in the Federal system. As part of this approach, I have held 
hearings on this subject and I have made suggestions to the Judicial 
Conference on ways to improve their surveys. In part, as a result of my 
input, the Judicial Conference added a question to its Biennial 
Judicial Survey that asks not only if the circuit or district has need 
of additional judgeships, but also whether the circuit or district 
might have too many judgeships for its current caseload. Because 
caseloads in some districts will inevitably decline, this question 
addresses a problem not previously considered. The purpose of the 
question is to help the Judicial Conference decide, when faced with a 
district that has a declining caseload, whether to reallocate resources 
to another district or eliminate an unnecessary judgeship.
  As I noted, I have studied various judiciary issues and have worked 
with the judiciary to address some of these issues. From my studies and 
from conversations I've had with those on the bench, it is obvious that 
there is no judicial crisis looming on the horizon. However, changing 
circumstances in some judicial districts do need to be addressed. That 
is why I am proposing this bill. It addresses the needs of some of 
these districts in a substantive, rational manner.
  Biennially, the Judicial Conference makes judgeship recommendations 
to Congress regarding the needs of the Federal courts. The Conference 
sends the chief judge of each district a Biennial Judicial Survey that 
they are to submit with the caseloads and weighted caseloads of the 
district and report on the status of the district. This survey includes 
information on how the district makes use of its senior and magistrate 
judges and any recommendations that the chief judge may have regarding 
additional judgeships or extension of judgeships in their district. The 
Judicial Conference reviews this information and passes its 
recommendations on to Congress for review.
  For the 1996 survey, the Judicial Conference recommended that 12 
districts with current or expired temporary judgeships either make or 
add permanent positions or extend the temporary judgeships for an 
additional 5 years. The Judicial Conference only made recommendations 
for those districts which would have weighted caseloads in excess of 
the 430 maximum recommended caseload per article III judge, should the 
temporary position expire.
  Weighted caseloads are the actual caseloads per district, weighted or 
altered to reflect the difference in time and attention needed for 
certain types of cases. For example, criminal cases, in general, are 
more time consuming and thus are more heavily weighted. However, 
prisoner petitions are generally easier to resolve because the petition 
usually addresses issues previously addressed and resolved by the 
court.
  Based on this survey, the Judicial Conference recommended a permanent 
judgeship position be added to the northern district of Alabama to 
replace the temporary judgeship Congress allowed to expire last year. 
In addition, the Conference would like to make the temporary judgeships 
in the eastern district of California, northern district of New York, 
eastern district of Virginia, and the southern district of Illinois 
permanent. The survey indicated that the weighted caseload per article 
III judge exceeded the recommended 430 maximum caseload per judge. The 
Judicial Conference also recommended, based on this survey, that the 
temporary judgeships in the districts of Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska, 
eastern Missouri, central Illinois, and southern Ohio be extended for 
another 5 years. The Biennial Judicial Survey indicated that these 
districts would be above the recommended 430 weighted cases per article 
III judge if the temporary judgeships were eliminated.
  Based on my studies, most of the districts that currently have 
temporary judgeships are able to show the need for the extension of 
these judgeships. I used additional factors, not used in the Biennial 
Judicial Survey, to arrive at my recommendations for the districts. My 
investigation takes into consideration the cases handled by magistrate 
and senior judges. These studies show that when these cases are 
factored out, some districts fall below the recommended maximum 
caseload of 430 cases per article III judge, even after expiration of 
the temporary judgeships. In deference to the Judicial Conference, I 
have given those districts the

[[Page S8576]]

benefit of the doubt on their need for an extension and have 
recommended an extension of their temporary judgeships. My willingness 
to accommodate the Judicial Conference recommendations underlines my 
willingness to work with the judiciary to reach a reasonable compromise 
when possible.
  The Judicial Conference's recommendation for permanent status in the 
districts of eastern California, northern New York, eastern Virginia, 
and southern Illinois differs from my recommendation. After my review, 
I do not believe the Conference's recommendation can be justified. 
Among the factors I considered for extending permanent status for these 
districts is whether the district showed a consistent increase in its 
per judge caseload over the past several years. When plotted, caseloads 
from most of these districts, show a roller coaster ride regarding the 
number of cases filed per article III judge. Over the period tracked, 
caseload increases were inconsistent and filings frequently decreased 
compared to previous years. Additionally, the Judicial Conference does 
not take into consideration, in the caseload statistics of each article 
III judge, how many cases are performed or could be performed by 
magistrate judges or senior judges. Cases, such as prisoner petitions 
and Social Security cases could, in most instances, be performed by 
magistrate judges. When prisoner petitions and Social Security cases 
are weighted and removed from the weighted caseload total per article 
III judge, the districts have a lower and much more representative 
calculation of the actual caseload per article III judge. And these 
figures don't even adjust for the consent cases the magistrate's 
handle.

  The data I have indicates that prisoner petitions and Social Security 
cases are included in computing the judicial caseload figures used by 
the Judicial Conference to calculate each article III judge's caseload. 
For example, the eastern district of California commenced 1,747 cases 
dealing purely with prisoner petitions in the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996. In that district, magistrate judges resolved 1828 
prisoner petition cases during that period. The difference in the 
number of cases resolved during that period would be those cases 
commenced in the prior year, but resolved in the current year.
  Additionally, my study indicates that some of the district's surveyed 
are not utilizing magistrate judges as effectively or efficiently as 
other districts in the survey. This factor needs to be taken into 
account prior to granting any additional or permanent article III 
judgeships to these districts. It is, in part, such considerations that 
led me not to recommend an additional permanent judgeship in Alabama, 
contrary to the recommendation of the Judicial Conference. In addition, 
Congress chose not to extend the temporary judgeship in that district 
before it expired last year.
  In calculating if districts are overburdened, weight must also be 
given to the effective use of senior judges in those districts. My 
studies took into consideration the district's use of senior judges. 
Several districts surveyed make effective use of their senior judges 
and this was taken into account when drafting this bill. Based on all 
of the factors I have outlined, I believe this bill will keep the 
judges in these districts from being overburdened and makes effective 
use of the taxpayer's money.
  Therefore, I recommend that the temporary judgeships in the eastern 
district of California, the northern district of New York, the eastern 
district of Virginia, the southern and central districts of Illinois, 
the eastern district of Missouri, the northern district of Ohio, and 
the districts of Hawaii, Nebraska, and Kansas be extended for another 
5-year period.
  Mr. President, I ask for 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. 1113

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.

       Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-650; 104 Stat. 5101; 28 U.S.C. 133 note), as 
     amended by Public Law 104-60 (109 Stat. 635; 28 U.S.C. 133 
     note), is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (2) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting ``Except 
     with respect to the western district of Michigan and the 
     eastern district of Pennsylvania, the first vacancy in the 
     office of district judge in each of the judicial districts 
     named in this subsection, occurring 10 years or more after 
     the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the 
     temporary judgeship created by this subsection, shall not be 
     filled. The first vacancy in the office of district judge in 
     the western district of Michigan, occurring after December 1, 
     1995, shall not be filed. The first vacancy in the office of 
     district judge in the eastern district of Pennsylvania, 
     occurring 5 years or more after the confirmation date of the 
     judge named to fill the temporary judgeship created for such 
     district under this subsection, shall not be filled.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 1114. A bill to impose a limitation on lifetime aggregate limits 
imposed by health plans; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


            THE LIFETIME CAPS DISCRIMINATION PREVENTION ACT

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
with Senator Rockefeller that will ensure that health insurance 
policies cover at least $10 million in lifetime benefits. This bill, 
the Lifetime Caps Discrimination Prevention Act, will help fulfill the 
promise of real health security and is an appropriate sequel to last 
year's Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform legislation. Through 
our reform legislation, families can be spared the loss of their health 
insurance when they need it the most.
  All of us are at risk of incurring high-cost injuries or illnesses--
the very kind of situations that most people want covered by their 
health insurance polices. A $1 million cap was adequate when it was 
established by the insurance industry in the early 1970's. Since then, 
however, inflation has sent medical costs skyrocketing, and today, 
thousands of Americans have hit their payment ceiling. A majority of 
those who exceed their lifetime limits must turn to public assistance. 
While waiting for a determination of eligibility, many individuals are 
forced to go without medical treatment. This legislation would keep 
within the private sector those who most need health coverage and would 
keep them off Medicaid.
  Most of us assume that our health insurance will be there when we 
need it most--when we are very sick. Unfortunately, many people do not 
read the fine print in their insurance policies. The average lifetime 
cost of care for a person who has a spinal cord injury and is 
ventilator dependent--just like Christopher Reeve--is over $5 million. 
For someone like Jim Brady, who had a severe head trauma injury, the 
average cost is about $4 million, and that is in 1990 dollars. As 
Christopher Reeve said, ``I didn't think it could happen to Superman.''
  The Lifetime Caps Discrimination Prevention Act fulfills a promise of 
real health security by raising the lifetime cap from the typical limit 
of $1 million--a dollar figure selected in the 1970's--to $5 million in 
1998, and then in 2002 to $10 million, which is the real dollar 
equivalent today. Currently, the vast majority of health maintenance 
organizations and approximately one-quarter of employer-sponsored 
health plans have no aggregate lifetime limit. The Federal Employee 
Health Benefit plans removed lifetime maximums in 1995. According to a 
Price Waterhouse study, employers with a workforce of 250 employees 
would experience a mere 1 percent increase in premiums. This is a small 
price to pay for real health insurance security for people covered in 
the group market. Our legislation excludes employers with fewer than 20 
employees.
  The Lifetime Caps Discrimination Prevention Act was originally 
introduced as an amendment to the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance 
legislation passed during the 104th Congress. The amendment enjoyed 
strong bipartisan support, but it was defeated due to the strategy of 
opposing amendments to that bill. We believe that this legislation is 
worthy of reintroduction in the 105th Congress, and we are hopeful that 
it will attract even broader

[[Page S8577]]

support as another step that can be taken in strengthening Americans' 
health security. Over 150 national health-related groups, including the 
American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the United 
Cerebral Palsy Association, and the National Association of 
Professional Insurance Agents, have expressed their support for our 
efforts to increase lifetime limits on health insurance benefits.
  The insurance industry standard of $1 million, adopted in 1970, was 
right for those times but today is financially unrealistic. Today, the 
time has come to protect thousands of individuals from suffering the 
emotional, medical, and financial consequences of exceeding their caps 
by adopting a new lifetime limit for health insurance coverage.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend, Senator 
Jim Jeffords, of Vermont to introduce a bill that will help families 
avoid an additional tragedy in their already traumatized lives. We are 
introducing a bill to raise lifetime limits on insurance policies to 
$10 million. But, first, I want to recognize and applaud Chairman 
Jeffords' extraordinary leadership on this issue--last Congress and 
this year. With his leadership, we will succeed in raising the lifetime 
cap on health benefits to $10 million.
  People buy health insurance to protect themselves and their families 
when they get sick. They spend their lives paying for it. They count on 
it. But each year, 1,500 people have their insurance taken away, just 
when they need it most and for the very reason why they bought the 
insurance in the first place, because they are gravely ill or in need 
to extensive medical care or some other extraordinary reason.
  These 1,500 people run into the lifetime limit on their health 
insurance policy. When that happens, the insurance company won't spend 
a single cent to help that person cope with his or her health care 
costs. But the need for medical care continues. And the bills keep 
coming.
  The $1 million limit, first used by insurance companies to give their 
customers peace of mind and security in the 1970's, is widely out-of-
date and hugely insufficient. According to Price Waterhouse, had the 
limit kept pace with medical inflation, it would be more than $10 
million today. In fact, a $1 million health insurance policy in 1970 
would buy you about $100,000 in health benefits in 1997.
  When a family runs into the lifetime limit, they have no choice but 
to spend themselves into poverty in order to qualify for Medicaid. This 
drains families of their assets, their self-esteem and costs Medicaid 
several billion dollars in additional health care costs. Many people 
have to give up everything--their house, their savings, and their kids' 
education in order to get the medical care they need through Medicaid.
  In my home State of West Virginia, Mike Davis hit his $1 million 
lifetime cap in 1994. That was 14 years after his son Todd was hit by a 
drunk driver, causing severe brain injury. Before Todd qualified for 
Medicaid, his father received a $90,000 bill for his son's care--a bill 
he's still struggling to pay.
  This can happen to anyone. Catastrophic injury, chronic illness or 
significant disability are arbitrary. They hit young and old, rich and 
poor. You plan for routine illness, but no one plans for this kind of 
illness or injury. At least if you have a health insurance policy 
without a $1 million cap, you can get the medical treatment you need.
  Most people don't even know if their insurance policy has a lifetime 
cap. The insurance companies don't talk about them. The caps are stuck 
in the fine print. People assume that if you buy insurance, you're 
covered. Unfortunately, that's not the case. About 60 percent of 
employer-sponsored health plans have lifetime caps.
  Several modifications were made to this year's bill. We include an 
exemption for small businesses. We give all businesses 2 years to 
comply. We phase the cap in--first raising it to $5 million and then 
lifting it to $10 million by the year 2002. We're talking about a 
roughly 1 percent increase in premiums, according to Price-Waterhouse. 
That's it.
  The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program doesn't allow 
participating insurers to set lifetime limits on their basic health 
insurance polices for Federal employees. Members of Congress don't have 
lifetime caps. We know our health insurance will be there when we need 
it. All Americans should have that same security.
  Raising the cap is something we can and should do. It's the right 
thing to do. It's good policy and it can save Medicaid up to $7 billion 
over the next 7 years. Mr. President, the idea behind insurance is 
simple: no matter how sick you are, you're covered. It's about basic 
decency and fairness.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Cochran, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1115. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve 
one-call notification process, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                COMPREHENSIVE ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION ACT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I stand here today with my friend and 
colleague Senator Daschle, the minority leader, to introduce an 
important public safety bill. I am also joined by initial cosponsors 
Senators Shelby, Rockefeller, Warner, Robb, Inhofe, Inouye, Cochran, 
and Conrad.
  The Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act is designed to protect a 
very important component of America's infrastructure--our underground 
infrastructure. With roots going back several Congresses, this 
legislation enjoys widespread bipartisan support and is supported by 
several members of the Senate's Committee for Commerce, Science and 
Transportation--the committee of jurisdiction. This legislation 
provides a public policy statement which is long overdue. The 
legislation is still a work in progress and I look forward to working 
with my colleagues across the aisle and on the Commerce Committee to 
further fine-tune this bill as the process moves forward.
  America's underground infrastructures contain many buried 
communication and fiber optic cables, water and sewer pipes, electric 
lines, and oil and gas pipelines. All too often people inadvertently 
damage these facilities causing harmful consequences. Often a nick or a 
bump which goes unreported can, over time, become a problem and have a 
delayed harmful effect.
  Mr. President, this bill is important because it will prevent some of 
the damage to underground facilities that causes accidents across 
America. These accidents often are caused by excavation without notice 
or by inaccurate markings of our underground facilities. This damage to 
the infrastructure may cause environmental harm and disrupt essential 
services and even cause injuries and fatalities.
  I am not here today to condemn those who excavate. I am here today to 
say that one-call safety legislation is necessary because many 
excavation accidents are preventable.
  Mr. President, America needs a single, nationwide system to forward 
excavators' toll free calls to the appropriate State or local one-call 
center. To delay further is to unnecessarily jeopardize America's 
underground infrastructure.
  Let me make it clear this is not a new idea. It is a concept that has 
been embraced by many States. Already 49 States have some form of a 
one-call system on the State level. I am proud to say my State of 
Mississippi has a one-call system; however, many of these systems can 
be improved with Federal assistance. Our bill does that.
  This bill uses an approach that will create uniform national 
standards and provide grants to establish or improve State one-call 
systems. This bill does not dictate how a one-call system should 
operate or how a State's law should be written. On the contrary, it 
requires input from States and stakeholders before developing 
operational best practices and gives States the latitude to continue to 
determine the details of its one-call statute. This analysis will serve 
as the catalyst for a national effort to improve State one-call 
programs.
  Mr. President, the administration also recognizes the necessity for a 
one-call safety statute. When the President introduced his method for 
the reauthorization of America's Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, he included a one-call provision. Our bill is 
different, but it is compatible. In addition to working with my initial 
cosponsors during the drafting phase, I

[[Page S8578]]

have worked with the administration to address their concerns. We are 
not done yet, but we are committed to continuing the dialog. The 
introduction of our bill is the Senate's first step.
  By introducing the legislation today, we hope the congressional 
recess will be used by organizations and stakeholders who have an 
interest in this policy to enter into the discussion. It is the desire 
of the initial sponsors to include those with an interest in this 
public safety policy in preparing the legislation for a committee 
hearing.
  This bill sets out broad minimum standards for State one-call 
programs. There is flexibility for States to determine who will 
participate and how enforcement will occur. The legislation is not 
proscriptive. Rather, it identifies the goals. The foundation for our 
approach is the understanding that the level of risk varies with each 
type of excavation activity as well as the type of organization which 
conducts the excavation work. The bill will offer State grants for 
those States who want to participate. A study will also be conducted to 
identify the best practices for one-call centers and to promote 
adoption of the most successful solutions.
  Mr. President, this bill is neither a mandate nor unfunded. I want to 
repeat this. There is no mandate that every State must participate. We 
are simply proposing the authorization of sufficient funds to study 
State activities and to administer assistance to States wanting to 
participate.
  I expect those industries which place a premium on operational 
convenience will recognize that one-call is responsible and a small 
price to pay for ensuring safety of the public and environment. I am 
optimistic that all affected parties will work in genuine partnership 
with us to finalize the legislation rather than sit on the sidelines 
and criticize.
  Mr. President, the information highway offers many opportunities and 
challenges for our society and culture but, it too can be put in a 
peril by simple events. Just 2 weeks ago an article in the Washington 
Post reported that for half a day the Internet and long distance 
communications on one carrier were disrupted by a backhoe cutting 
through a fiber optic cable.
  Let us also not forget the death of an 84-year-old woman in 
Indianapolis, IN last week where a blast leveled seven homes. The 
Indianapolis Star/News said the explosion turned the quiet subdivision 
``into a living Hell. The blast turned trees and utility poles into 
impromptu candles and sent chunks of earth raining down as people ran 
for their lives.'' I believe our legislation will play a part in 
preventing this type of disaster.
  Finally let's not forget the 1994 accident in Edison, NJ where there 
was a much larger explosion. Significant property damage occurred and 
again there was loss of life. This event prompted one of our former 
colleagues and the senior Senator from New Jersey to actively work for 
tougher laws governing America's infrastructure. Former New Jersey 
Senator, Bill Bradley and Senator Frank Lautenberg were actively 
involved in seeking a legislative solution and today's bill is a direct 
result of their efforts.
  I am convinced that this Congress will champion meaningful safety 
reforms and leadership for America's underground infrastructure. It 
will not be a traditional big government approach. It will help provide 
adaptable, convenient, accountable, meaningful and overdue protection 
for citizens.
  I want to thank my colleagues for their attention, and I hope they 
will join us as cosponsors.
  Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text and summary 
of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act be entered into the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill and summary were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1115

       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 ``Comprehensive One-Call 
     Notification Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) unintentional damage to underground facilities during 
     excavation is a significant cause of disruptions in 
     telecommunications, water supply, electric power, and other 
     vital public services, such as hospital and air traffic 
     control operations, and is a leading cause of natural gas and 
     hazardous liquid pipeline accidents;
       (2) excavation that is performed without prior notification 
     to an underground facility operator or with inaccurate 
     marking of such a facility prior to excavation can cause 
     damage that results in fatalities, serious injuries, harm to 
     the environment, and disruption of vital services to the 
     public; and
       (3) protection of the public and the environment from the 
     consequences of underground facility damage caused by 
     excavations will be enhanced by a coordinated national effort 
     to improve one-call notification programs in each State and 
     the effectiveness and efficiency of one-call notification 
     systems that operate under such programs.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE-CALL PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle III of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

              ``CHAPTER 61. ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION PROGRAM

``Sec.
``6101. Purposes.
``6102. Definitions.
``6103. Minimum standards for State one-call notification programs.
``6104. Compliance with minimum standards.
``6105. Review of one-call system best practices.
``6106. Grants to States.
``6107. Authorization of appropriations.

     ``Sec. 6101. Purposes

       ``The purposes of this chapter are--
       ``(1) to enhance public safety;
       ``(2) to protect the environment;
       ``(3) to minimize risks to excavators; and
       ``(4) to prevent disruption of vital public services,

     by reducing the incidence of damage to underground facilities 
     during excavation through the adoption and efficient 
     implementation by all States of State one-call notification 
     programs that meet the minimum standards set forth under 
     section 6103.

     ``Sec. 6102. Definitions

       ``For purposes of this chapter--
       ``(1) One-call notification system.--The term `one-call 
     notification system' means a system operated by an 
     organization that has as one of its purposes to receive 
     notification from excavators of intended excavation in a 
     specified area in order to disseminate such notification to 
     underground facility operators that are members of the system 
     so that such operators can locate and mark their facilities 
     in order to prevent damage to underground facilities in the 
     course of such excavation.
       ``(2) State one-call notification program.--The term `State 
     one-call notification program' means the State statutes, 
     regulations, orders, judicial decisions, and other elements 
     of law and policy in effect in a State that establish the 
     requirements for the operation of one-call notification 
     systems in such State.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' means a State, the District 
     of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
       ``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.

     ``Sec. 6103. Minimum standards for State one-call 
       notification programs

       ``(a) Minimum Standards.--A State one-call notification 
     program shall, at a minimum, provide for--
       ``(1) appropriate participation by all underground 
     operators;
       ``(2) appropriate participation by all excavators; and
       ``(3) flexible and effective enforcement under State law 
     with respect to participation in, and use of, one-call 
     notification systems.
       ``(b) Appropriate Participation.--In determining the 
     appropriate extent of participation required for types of 
     underground facilities or excavators under subsection (a), a 
     State shall assess, rank, and take into consideration the 
     risks to the public safety, the environment, excavators, and 
     vital public services associated with
       ``(1) damage to types of underground facilities; and
       ``(2) activities of types of excavators.
       ``(c) Implementation.--A State one-call notification 
     program also shall, at a minimum, provide for
       ``(1) consideration of the ranking of risks under 
     subsection (b) in the enforcement of its provisions;
       ``(2) a reasonable relationship between the benefits of 
     one-call notification and the cost of implementing and 
     complying with the requirements of the State one-call 
     notification program; and
       ``(3) voluntary participation where the State determines 
     that a type of underground facility or an activity of a type 
     of excavator poses a de minimis risk to public safety or the 
     environment.
       ``(d) Penalties.--To the extent the State determines 
     appropriate and necessary to achieve the purposes of this 
     chapter, a State one-call notification program shall, at a 
     minimum, provide for
       ``(1) administrative or civil penalties commensurate with 
     the seriousness of a violation by an excavator or facility 
     owner of a State one-call notification program;
       ``(2) increased penalties for parties that repeatedly 
     damage underground facilities because they fail to use one-
     call notification systems or for parties that repeatedly fail 
     to provide timely and accurate marking after

[[Page S8579]]

     the required call has been made to a one-call notification 
     system;
       ``(3) reduced or waived penalties for a violation of a 
     requirement of a State one-call notification program that 
     results in, or could result in, damage that is promptly 
     reported by the violator;
       ``(4) equitable relief; and
       ``(5) citation of violations.

     ``Sec. 6104. Compliance with minimum standards

       ``(a) Requirement.--In order to qualify for a grant under 
     section 6106, each State shall, within 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification 
     Act of 1997, submit to the Secretary a grant application 
     under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Application.--
       ``(1) Upon application by a State, the Secretary shall 
     review that State's one-call notification program, including 
     the provisions for implementation of the program and the 
     record of compliance and enforcement under the program.
       ``(2) Based on the review under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall determine whether the State's one-call 
     notification program meets the minimum standards for such a 
     program set forth in section 6103 in order to qualify for a 
     grant under section 6106.
       ``(3) In order to expedite compliance under this section, 
     the Secretary may consult with the State as to whether an 
     existing State one-call notification program, a specific 
     modification thereof, or a proposed State program would 
     result in a positive determination under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) The Secretary shall prescribe the form of, and manner 
     of filing, an application under this section that shall 
     provide sufficient information about a State's one-call 
     notification program for the Secretary to evaluate its 
     overall effectiveness. Such information may include the 
     nature and reasons for exceptions from required 
     participation, the types of enforcement available, and such 
     other information as the Secretary deems necessary.
       ``(5) The application of a State under paragraph (1) and 
     the record of actions of the Secretary under this section 
     shall be available to the public.
       ``(c) Alternative Program.--A State may maintain an 
     alternative one-call notification program if that program 
     provides protection for public safety, the environment, or 
     excavators that is equivalent to, or greater than, protection 
     under a program that meets the minimum standards set forth in 
     section 6103.
       ``(d) Report--Within 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Comprehensive One-call Notification Act of 
     1997, the Secretary shall begin to include the following 
     information in reports submitted under section 60124 of this 
     title--
       ``(1) a description of the extent to which each State has 
     adopted and implemented the minimum Federal standards under 
     section 6103 or maintains an alternative program under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(2) an analysis by the Secretary of the overall 
     effectiveness of the State's one-call notification program 
     and the one-call notification systems operating under such 
     program in achieving the purposes of his chapter;
       ``(3) the impact of the State's decisions on the extent of 
     required participation in one-call notification systems on 
     prevention of damage to underground facilities; and
       ``(4) areas where improvements are needed in one-call 
     notification systems in operation in the State.

     The report shall also include any recommendations the 
     Secretary determines appropriate. If the Secretary determines 
     that the purpose of this chapter have been substantially 
     achieved, no further report under this section shall be 
     required.

     ``Sec. 6105. Review of one-call system best practices

       ``(a) Study of Existing One-call Systems.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (d), the Secretary, in consultation 
     with other appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, one-
     call notification system operators, underground facility 
     operators, excavators,and other interested parties, shall 
     undertake a study of damage prevention practices associated 
     with existing one-call notification systems.
       ``(b) Purpose of Study of Damage Prevention Practices.--The 
     purpose of the study is to assemble information in order to 
     determine which existing one-call notification systems 
     practices appear to be the most effective in preventing 
     damage to underground facilities and in protecting the 
     public, the environment, excavators, and public service 
     disruption. As part of the study, the Secretary shall at a 
     minimum consider--
       ``(1) the methods used by one-call notification systems and 
     others to encourage participation by excavators and owners of 
     underground facilities;
       ``(2) the methods by which one-call notification systems 
     promote awareness of their programs, including use of public 
     service announcements and educational materials and programs;
       ``(3) the methods by which one-call notification systems 
     receive and distribute information from excavators and 
     underground facility owners;
       ``(4) the use of any performance and service standards to 
     verify the effectiveness of a one-call notification system;
       ``(5) the effectiveness and accuracy of mapping used by 
     one-call notification systems;
       ``(6) the relationship between one-call notification 
     systems and preventing intentional damage to underground 
     facilities;
       ``(7) how one-call notification systems address the need 
     for rapid response to situations where the need to excavate 
     is urgent;
       ``(8) the extent to which accidents occur due to errors in 
     marking of underground facilities, untimely marketing or 
     errors in the excavation process after a one-call 
     notification system has been notified of an excavation;
       ``(9) the extent to which personnel engaged in marking 
     underground facilities may be endangered;
       ``(10) the characteristics of damage prevention programs 
     the Secretary believes could be relevant to the effectiveness 
     of State one-call notification programs; and
       ``(11) the effectiveness of penalties and enforcement 
     activities under State one-call notification programs in 
     obtaining compliance with program requirements.
       ``(c) Report--Within 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1997, the 
     Secretary shall publish a report identifying those practices 
     of one-call notification systems that are the most and least 
     successful in--
       ``(1) preventing damage to underground facilities; and
       ``(2) providing effective and efficient service to 
     excavators and underground facility operators.

     The Secretary shall encourage States and operators of one-
     call notification programs to adopt and implement the most 
     successful practices identified in the report.
       ``(d) Secretarial Discretion--Prior to undertaking the 
     study described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     determine whether timely information described in subsection 
     (b) is readily available. If the Secretary determines that 
     such information is readily available, the Secretary is not 
     required to carry out the study.

     ``Sec. 6106. Grants to States

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make a grant of 
     financial assistance to a State that qualifies under section 
     6104(b) to assist in improving--
       ``(1) the overall quality and effectiveness of one-call 
     notification systems in the State;
       ``(2) communications systems linking one-call notification 
     systems;
       ``(3) location capabilities, including training personnel 
     and developing and using location technology;
       ``(4) record retention and recording capabilities for one-
     call notification systems;
       ``(5) public information and education;
       ``(6) participation in one-call notification systems; or
       ``(7) compliance and enforcement under the State one-call 
     notification program.
       ``(b) State Action Taken Into Account.--In making grants 
     under this section the Secretary shall take into 
     consideration the commitment of each State to improving its 
     State one-call notification program, including legislative 
     and regulatory actions taken by the State after the date of 
     enactment of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 
     1997.
       ``(c) Funding for One-Call Notification Systems.--A State 
     may provide funds received under this section directly to any 
     one-call notification system in such State that substantially 
     adopts the best practices identified under section 6105.

     ``6107. Authorization of appropriations

       ``(a) For Grants to States.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary in fiscal year 1999 no more 
     than $1,000,000 and in fiscal year 2000 no more than 
     $5,000,000, to be available until expended, to provide grants 
     to States under section 6106.
       ``(b) For Administration.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be necessary 
     during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 to carry out 
     sections 6103, 6104, and 6105.
       ``(c) General Revenue Funding.--Any sums appropriated under 
     this section shall be derived from general revenues and may 
     not be derived from amounts collected under section 60301 of 
     this title.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The analysis of chapters for subtitle III of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:


             ``chapter 61--one-call notification program''.

       (2) Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
       (A) by striking ``sections 60114 and'' in section 60105(a) 
     of that chapter and inserting ``section'';
       (B) by striking section 60114 and the item relating to that 
     section in the table of sections for that chapter;
       (C) by striking ``60114(c), 60118(a),'' in section 
     60122(a)(1) of that chapter and inserting ``60118(a),'';
       (D) by striking ``60114(c) or'' in section 60123(a) of that 
     chapter;
       (E) by striking ``sections 60107 and 60114(b)'' in 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 60125 and inserting 
     ``section 60107'' in each such subsection; and
       (F) by striking subsection (d) of section 60125, and 
     redesignating subsections (e) and (f) of that section as 
     subsections (d) and (e).
                                                                    ____


     Summary of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1997


                          sec. 1. short title

       ``Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1997''.


                            Sec. 2. Findings

       Why the bill is important:
       (1) damage to underground facilities is a leading cause of 
     accidents;
       (2) excavation without notice or inaccurate marking can 
     cause injuries, environmental harm and disruption of 
     services;

[[Page S8580]]

       (3) a national effort to improve state one-call programs 
     can enhance protection of the public and the environment.


                    sec. 3. Establishment of Program

     Subsection (a)
       Adds a new Chapter 61 (sections 6101-6107) to subtitle III 
     of title 49, United States Code:
       6101. Purposes
       (1) enhance public safety;
       (2) protect the environment;
       (3) minimize risks to excavators; and
       (4) prevent disruption of vital services;
     by reducing damage to underground facilities.
       6102. Definitions
       Defines ``state one-call notification program'' and ``one-
     call notification system''.
       6103. Minimum Standards for State One-Call Programs
       (1) appropriate participation by all underground facility 
     operators;
       (2) appropriate participation by all excavators;
       (3) flexible and effective enforcement.
       ``Appropriate'' determined taking into consideration the 
     risk associated with the damage to types of facilities and 
     the type of excavation.
       State must consider risk in provisions for enforcement.
       Reasonable relationship between benefits and costs of 
     implementing and complying with one-call notification program 
     requirements.
       Voluntary participation possible for de minimum risks.
       Penalties:
       (1) liability for administrative or civil penalty;
       (2) increased penalties for repeated damage or repeated 
     inaccurate or untimely marking;
       (3) reduced penalties for prompt reporting;
       (4) equitable relief and mandamus actions;
       (5) citation of violation.
       6104. Compliance with Minimum Standards
       A State may apply for a grant under section 6106 within two 
     years after the date of enactment. The application must 
     contain information specified by the Secretary of 
     Transportation. Secretary reviews each application and 
     determines whether the state one-call notification program 
     meets the minimum standards in order to qualify for the 
     grant. The grant application and the record of the 
     Secretary's actions are available to the public.
       State may provide greater protection than minimum federal 
     standard.
       Within three years the Secretary reports on State 
     compliance with the Act.
       6105. Review of One-Call Systems Best Practices
       If needed, Secretary conducts a study of best practices of 
     one-call notification systems in operation in the States. 
     Secretary reports on best practices and promotes adoption of 
     the most successful practices.
       6106. Grants to States
       The Secretary of Transportation may make a grant to a State 
     if the State qualifies by having a one-call notification 
     program meeting minimum standards. Secretary takes into 
     consideration a State's commitment to improvement in its one-
     call notification program, including actions taken by the 
     State after enactment of this legislation. State may provide 
     funds directly to one-call notification systems that 
     substantially adopt best practices identified under section 
     6105.
       6107. Authorization of Appropriations
       Authorizes $1 million in fiscal year 1999 and $5 million in 
     fiscal year 2000 for grants to States to improve one-call 
     notification systems. Funds available until expended. Such 
     sums as are necessary may be appropriated for studies and 
     administration of the Act.
       All funding must come from general revenues only; no 
     funding may be derived from pipeline user fees.
     Subsection (b)
       Strikes section 60114 of title 49, United States Code and 
     makes resulting conforming changes. Section 60114 relates to 
     one-call notification regulations of the Secretary of 
     Transportation and would be superseded by enactment of this 
     legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH:
  S. 1116. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives for education; to the Committee on Finance.


                         education legislation

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the budget reconciliation package we have 
passed--and again, I congratulate my colleagues on such a tremendous 
bipartisan effort--that reconciliation package contains important 
measures to promote education. A full 80 percent of the tax relief we 
offered goes to a $500 credit for children and provisions that will 
promote education.
  As I mentioned in my statement, I strongly supported those measures 
to help our young people--to help our families--pay for college. These 
youth are our future, and investing in them is fundamental to keeping 
that future bright and prosperous.
  However, as I also mentioned earlier, I had hoped that we could have 
gone further in promoting the educational aspects of the tax relief 
bill.
  There were a number of very innovative and very effective provisions 
that were contained in the Senate Finance Committee bill, but that were 
excluded during the conference.
  For example, there was a provision to offer tax-free treatment for 
State-sponsored prepaid tuition plans. There was a provision for a 
permanent extension of employer provided education assistance. And 
there was also a comprehensive education IRA. Unfortunately, these were 
knocked out of the reconciliation package by the White House.
  What I want to do now, Mr. President, is introduce these measures as 
a bill--a bill that will expand education IRA's to permit families to 
invest up to $2,000 per year toward education. These IRA's would permit 
withdrawals for expenses incurred during elementary and secondary 
school.
  Second, this bill will allow employers to assist their employees' in 
their graduate and undergraduate education without the employees having 
that assistance taxed as income.
  It will expand State-sponsored prepaid tuition and savings programs 
to permit tax-free savings for educational needs. And finally, this 
bill will allow universities to develop prepaid tuition and savings 
programs that will permit tax-free savings for tuition, fees, book, 
school, supplies, room, and board.
  These are much needed tools to promote education. Over the past 15 
years, tuition at a 4-year college has increased by 234 percent. The 
average student loan has increased by 367 percent. In contrast, median 
household income rose only 82 percent during this period, and the 
consumer price index only rose 74 percent.
  Our students--our families--need these resources to help them meet 
the costs and realize the opportunities of quality education. And I 
encourage my colleagues to support this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 1117. A bill to amend Federal elections law to provide for 
campaign finance reform, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Rules and Administration.


                  campaign finance reform legislation

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the American people are suffering a crisis 
of confidence when it comes to the way in which campaigns for Federal 
office are financed. They no longer feel that they are in control of 
who gets elected, or that those who do get elected are fully 
accountable. Today, I am introducing a bill that will restore 
Americans' confidence in their elected officials, and put elections 
back into the hands of average citizens.
  Last year, for the first time since coming to Congress, I had the 
opportunity to watch Federal elections not as a candidate, but as a 
citizen and a voter. And what I saw confirmed all the reasons I have 
been a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform. What I saw was 
vast sums of money and very little accountability. I saw attack ads 
paid for with unlimited funds by out-of-State groups. And I saw 
contributions from PAC's to Federal candidates climb 12 percent higher 
than the record levels reached in the 1993-1994 election cycle.
  And the 1996 elections were barely over when allegations of illegal 
and improper activities began flying, centered around the issues of so-
called soft money and foreign influence peddling through campaign 
contributions. Subpoenas are being issued at a faster pace than Ken 
Griffey, Jr., hits home runs, and while it remains to be seen what the 
results of congressional investigations will yield, it is clear that 
these latest scandals only serve to further undermine public confidence 
and underscore the importance of enacting meaningful and achievable 
campaign finance reform this year.
  It has often been said that perception is nine-tenths of reality, and 
I believe this is the case with campaign financing. I happen to believe 
that most elected officials are good people trying to do the people's 
business with America's interests at heart. At the same time, as in any 
walk of life, there are some people who abuse the system. And if there 
is even the perception that elections are being bought and sold, then 
the problem is serious and real--and the solution must be likewise.

[[Page S8581]]

  And make no mistake, there is a pervasive perception that the system 
is out of hand and in need of fixing. A poll taken last year by a major 
newspaper in my home State, the Maine Sunday Telegram, showed that over 
70 percent of respondents believe politicians listen more to special 
interests than to individual voters. Findings like this are endemic of 
a deep systemic problem, one that we cannot afford to ignore any 
longer.
  I have voted for major changes in the campaign finance system 
throughout my career and introduced measures that I felt would make 
real and positive changes. Today, I am introducing the Restoration of 
America's Confidence in Elections Act, a comprehensive but realistic 
approach to fixing our broken system.
  One of the chief aims of my bill is to increase the impact of the 
small, individual contributor in election campaigns so that we place 
the campaign process in the hands of average Americans--rather than in 
the hands of special interests. My bill will lower the amount of money 
a PAC could contribute from $5,000 to the limit for individual 
contributors, $1,000--a change which 70 percent of respondents to a 
recent New York Times poll say they support. It will also encourage 
small, individual contributors from a candidate's home State to 
participate by providing the incentive of a tax credit in the amount of 
the contribution, up to $100 for an individual or $200 in the case of a 
joint return.
  Soft money has also become a major issue, and for good reason. It is 
money that skirts the intent of the law, and unaccounted for money 
which influences Federal campaigns above and beyond legal limits. My 
bill will close the soft money loophole by prohibiting national parties 
from raising or spending any soft money on behalf of any Federal 
candidates--and State parties could only spend hard money on behalf of 
Federal candidates. In order to keep parties healthy, individuals could 
contribute up to an aggregate amount of $20,000 to State party 
grassroots funds, and the existing limits on aggregate contributions to 
national parties by individuals and PAC's would be raised by $5,000 
each. In that way, money is accounted for, parties can remain viable, 
and the soft money chase is ended.
  My bill also addresses the issue of candidates facing independently 
wealthy opponents. As we all know, the amount of personal funds a 
candidate spends on his or her campaign cannot be constitutionally 
limited, but the playing field can and should be leveled. The 
perception that an individual of means can buy their way to the top of 
the American political arena certainly does nothing to inspire 
confidence in our Government.
  My bill would make it easier for a candidate facing a wealthy 
opponent to compete by allowing that candidate to raise the necessary 
funding through increased contribution limits, depending on the amount 
the wealthy candidate spends of his or her own money. It would also 
require candidates to declare the amount of personal money they intend 
to spend, and encourage them to stick to their pledge by requiring 
disclosure should they violate that pledge.
  Any successful campaign finance reform bill must address the 
realities of elections as we approach the new millennium. One of those 
realities is the so-called issue advocacy or voter education ads. We 
have all seen these ads: threatening music over provocative images 
blatantly designed to influence voters to vote against a candidate. But 
because these ads don't specifically say ``vote against candidate X'' 
there is currently no limit on how much can be spent on them, and no 
accountability.
  It is obvious to anyone the purpose of these ads: to skirt current 
campaign finance laws that require that ads designed to influence 
Federal elections be paid for with hard money, and disclosed to, and 
regulated by, the Federal Election Commission. Under my bill, the law 
would be changed in such a way to include these types of ads under hard 
money limits and disclosure requirements. This would help limit the 
attack ads and give the public the information they need about who is 
paying for these ads and how much they are spending. An informed 
electorate is the key to any democratic system of government, and my 
bill will give people the information they need to make up their own 
minds.
  My bill also includes provisions to protect individuals from having 
their money involuntarily collected and used for politics by a 
corporation or labor organization. These provisions mirror those of 
Senator Nickles' Paycheck Protection Act. This measure will require 
prior authorization from workers before a corporation, national bank, 
or labor union finances political activities with any money from dues 
or from payments made as a condition of employment.
  The legislation I am introducing will also close a conduit for 
campaign money that should have been closed a long time ago. It will 
ban contributions from all individuals not eligible to vote in U.S. 
elections. After all, if a person cannot legally participate in a 
Federal election by voting, why should they be able to participate with 
their wallet?
  And finally, my bill will close the loopholes and ambiguities that 
exist about soliciting Federal soft money from Federal buildings or 
with Federal equipment. Because I think everyone agrees that it is not 
appropriate to raise political funds with taxpayer-financed equipment, 
or from the very office that might have influence over the interests of 
the potential donor.
  These are all commonsense approaches to the problem--measures which I 
believe the majority of Americans feel are sensible and long overdue. 
The Restoration of Americans' Confidence in Elections Act addresses a 
range of issues and does so in a way that does not single out any one 
group, or any particular political affiliation. Because if we are to 
pass meaningful reform, it will require that we all take our hits.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, and making a 
historic statement that the old ways of doing business must be 
relegated to the annals of history. Let's return elections to the 
American people--and let's restore confidence in our Government.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1118. A bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 
purposes of establishing a Community Recreation and Conservation 
Endowment with certain escrowed oil and gas revenues; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


    THE COMMUNITY RECREATION AND CONSERVATION ENDOWMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community 
Recreation and Conservation Endowment Act of 1997. My bill provides a 
long-term funding source for the State-side matching grant program of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
  Thank you to Senate appropriators for honoring my request to fund the 
LWCF matching grants. The 1998 Interior appropriation bill ensures the 
programs's short-term viability. I wish we could have earmarked more, 
but I understand the challenges members face and thank them for their 
accomplishment. Special thanks to Senators Ted Stevens and Slade 
Gorton.
  I am confident we can win on the Senate floor, in conference and with 
the administration because the program is truly worthy.
  The LWCF matching grants have helped build thousands of miles of 
trails, protect thousands of acres of open space, and develop parks, 
campgrounds, and recreation facilities in every State.
  Every Federal dollar has been matched--we get two for the price of 
one. Unfortunately, Congress and the administration defunded the 
program 2 years ago.
  That's too bad, given what candidate Bill Clinton said: ``I would 
increase funding for several programs * * * and reinvigorate the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund to make more funds available for the 
acquisition of public outdoor open spaces''.
  He also said, ``I would also make funds available from the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund to help address critical infrastructure needs 
in state and local facilities.''
  The millions of Americans who benefit from the matching grants need 
more than promises. Thankfully, the Interior appropriations bill saves 
the program for the short term. I am here today to offer a long-term 
solution.
  At a recent hearing before the Senate parks subcommittee, former Park 
Service Director Roger Kennedy said

[[Page S8582]]

that as long as there is competition between Federal and State programs 
for LWCF appropriations, the State matching grants will lose. He 
suggested a separate source of funds.
  I am taking his advice to heart, and calling upon Congress to 
establish a separate and permanent fund for State matching grants.
  My legislation creates an $800 million permanent endowment to provide 
LWCF matching grants to the States. Interest from that account will 
help provide parks, campgrounds, trails, and recreation facilities for 
millions of Americans. It will also help preserve open spaces for the 
future.
  Where does that money come from? On June 19, 1997, the Supreme Court 
ruled the Federal Government retains title to lands underlying tidal 
waters off Alaska's North Slope. As the result, the government will 
receive $1.6 billion in escrowed oil and gas lease revenues.
  This sum is twice the amount the Congressional Budget Office 
estimated for the concurrent budget resolution. My bill places this 
bonus $800 million in a permanent endowment account.
  This new approach is consistent with the vision of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act and a promise made to the American people 30 
years ago.
  Our Government promised us that a portion of proceeds from offshore 
oil and gas leases would fund outdoor recreation and conservation. My 
bill makes good on that promise--permanently. It makes sure the State 
grants are never forgotten again.
  That sound we hear on the doors to this Chamber is opportunity 
knocking. We must seize the opportunity and use those funds to renew 
and reinvigorate the bipartisan vision of the LWCF.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this endeavor and support the 
Community Recreation and Conservation Endowment Act of 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
  S. 1119. A bill to amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 
1930 to increase the penalty under certain circumstances for commission 
merchants, dealers, or brokers who misrepresent the country of origin 
or other characteristics of perishable agricultural commodities; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                        FOOD SAFETY LEGISLATION

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in March of this year, over 200 
schoolchildren in my State contracted the hepatitis A virus from food 
served by the school lunch program. As news of the outbreak began to 
pour in, the Michigan Department of Community Health and the Centers 
for Disease Control went into action to determine the cause. They soon 
found the culprit: Frozen strawberries sold to the school lunch program 
by a San Diego company named Andrews and Williamson. Investigators also 
discovered that some of the strawberries sold to the school lunch 
program had been illegally certified as domestically grown when, in 
fact, they had been grown in Mexico.
  There does not currently exist a method for testing strawberries for 
the hepatitis A virus. Thus, we may never know whether the strawberries 
brought in from Mexico were the source of this pathogen. Given the 
growing conditions that USDA investigators found at the farm, however, 
the likelihood is strong.
  And one thing we do know, Mr. President, is that these strawberries 
should never have been served in the school lunch program in the first 
place. By law, products sold to the school lunch program must be 
certified as being domestically grown. Unfortunately, because the USDA 
lacks the resources to effectively enforce this requirement, companies 
have typically been trusted to do the right thing. Andrews and 
Williamson chose to do something else. They chose to break the law by 
misrepresenting their product's country-of-origin, and over 200 people 
were poisoned as a result.
  This dangerous incident, the poisoning of Michigan children by their 
own school lunch program, compelled and received my immediate 
involvement. Shortly after the outbreak, I called for, and was granted, 
a hearing on the matter. I arranged to have officials from the CDC come 
to my state to brief the families of those affected. During this 
process I learned of the similar efforts being made by a private 
organization called Safe Tables Our Priority [STOP]. Their assistance 
throughout this process has been invaluable.
  One of the first things I learned while studying this issue was that 
a specific statute exists which states that misrepresenting the 
country-of-origin of a perishable good is a crime. Unfortunately, the 
penalty for such fraud is a $2,000 fine and possible loss of license; a 
rather small price to pay for poisoning over 200 people.
  Of course, this does not mean that A&W will walk away from this 
incident without paying a price. After reviewing the case made by 
investigators from the USDA, the U.S. Attorneys Office filed 47 charges 
against A&W. The first charge is conspiracy to defraud the United 
States. Counts two, three and four are for making false statements, and 
counts five through forty-seven are for making false claims. For each 
of these counts, the maximum penalty is 5 years and/or $250,000 per 
count or $500,000 for a corporation.
  I state these charges because they do not include any mention of the 
specific crime which A&W is accused of violating, namely, 
misrepresenting the country-of-origin for a perishable food. Well, Mr. 
President, I intend to rectify this oversight. Today I am introducing 
legislation which modifies current law such that an intentional 
misrepresentation of the origin, kind or character of any perishable 
commodity, the reckless disregard of the effects on the public safety 
of such action, or violations which result in serious injury, illness 
or death will constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of five years 
imprisonment and/or a fine of $250,000 per count.
  This change in law will ensure that individuals who intentionally 
misrepresent their goods will now suffer the appropriate consequences 
of their actions. The recent outbreaks of hepatitis A, Cyclospora and E 
Coli demonstrate that a new commitment to food safety is sorely needed 
in this country. I will continue working to see that Congress takes the 
appropriate measures to assist the USDA, FDA and Centers for Disease 
Control in their efforts to keep America's food supply the safest in 
the world.
  Mr. President, I ask consent that the full 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. 1119

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

     SECTION 1. MISREPRESENTATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OR OTHER 
                   CHARACTERISTICS OF PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL 
                   COMMODITIES.

       Section 2(5) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities 
     Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499b(5)), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following: ``If a court of competent jurisdiction finds 
     that a person has intentionally, or with reckless disregard, 
     engaged in a misrepresentation described in this paragraph 
     and the misrepresentation resulted in a serious bodily injury 
     (as defined in section 1365(g) of title 18, United States 
     Code) to, or death of, an individual, the person shall be 
     guilty of a Class D felony that is punishable under title 18, 
     United States Code.''

                          ____________________