Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10788-S10808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
S. 1279. A bill to amend the Indian Employment, Training and Related
Services Demonstration Act of 1992 to provide for the transfer of
services and personnel from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Office
of Self-Governance, to emphasize the need for job creation on Indian
reservations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.

THE INDIAN EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND RELATED SERVICES DEMONSTRATION ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1997

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation which amends the Indian Employment, Training, and Related
Services Demonstration Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-477). The current Act has
proven successful and represents one of the few programs that works for
Indian country. I want to thank Senator Murkowski for his work on his
own ``477'' bill that takes aim at the specific problems experienced by
Alaska natives in administering the 477 program. I am pleased to co-
sponsor his and that he is co-sponsoring my legislation.
It is my hope that together we can develop amendments that will
clarify and strengthen the program for American Indians and Alaska
natives and lead to better training programs and higher job placements.
The main reason for the success of the 477 program is that it relies on
the tribes themselves to make the key decisions involving the design
and implementation of employment training and related matters. This
program puts tribes, not federal bureaucrats, in the driver's seat.
The Act empowers tribal governments to consolidate formula funds they
receive for employment training and education services into one
program--which in turn enables tribes to streamline services provided,
while cutting administrative time and costs. The Act does contain
certain limitations and in practice tribes have faced a few roadblocks.
This bill removes these limitations, expands programs affected by the
Act, and broadens permissible job creation activities. The unemployment
problem in Indian country is well-documented. Tribes currently suffer
from a national unemployment rate of approximately 52%, with some like
the Oglala Sioux Tribe suffer from a rate of 95%. In comparison, the
national unemployment rate is 6%. The lack of employment opportunities
in Indian country has exacerbated an already-poor health situation, and
has lead to grinding social problems such as crime, domestic abuse, and
alcohol and drug abuse. While gaming has aided a few tribal economies
over the past decade, the great majority of tribes continue to struggle
with joblessness and poverty. Gaming is not the long term solution to
the goal of tribal self-determination and economic self-sufficiency.
Diverse job creation is.
The Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration
Act provides tribes with a valuable tool in combating reservation
unemployment. Indian tribes, like many American communities, are
struggling to comply with the work requirements of the new welfare
reform law. By focusing on job creation as a necessary component to any
employment training program, tribes can add a new weapon in their
battle against joblessness and poverty.
One of the more consistent obstacles to greater success with the Act
is the Bureau of Indian Affairs management of the program. To remedy
this problem, the bill transfers lead agency responsibilities from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to the Office of Self-Governance (OSG),
both agencies contained within the Department of the Interior. On May
13, 1997, the Committee on Indian Affairs conducted an oversight
hearing to discuss the progress made by tribes under the Act. Tribe
after tribe testified and revealed that this program is working, and
working well. Tribes participating in the program testified that the
program has reduced the federal paperwork burden associated with
applying for related programs by as much as 96%, reduced administration
time and costs of delivering job training services to tribal customers
while enhancing the quality of services rendered.
Most importantly, witnesses indicated great increases in job
placements for tribal members. One of the reasons for the success of
this program is that it is voluntary. It is not another imposition, by
the federal government, of what we think will work for them. I would
like to highlight the fact that this Demonstration Act has cost the
federal government nothing--- the attraction of the program is in
streamlining paperwork and other administrative burdens and operating
primarily at the local level. The philosophy of the program is similar
to that of the Self-Governance model under which tribes, under contract
with the United States, manage services and programs formerly provided
by the federal government.
The witnesses at the May hearing discussed problems that they have
had with the lead agency, the BIA. Of the four tribal participants
testifying, all expressed dissatisfaction with the BIA. One testified
that ``the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been the biggest obstacle to
the implementation of P.L. 102-477.'' 20 tribal applicants representing
more than 175 tribes currently participate in this demonstration, yet
the BIA states that it has only two full-time employees committed to
working on this program, and that number is in dispute. Additionally,
all tribal witnesses reported significant delays in receiving programs
funds consolidated under their approved plans.
Reasons for the delays ranged from deliberate withholding to poor
accounting procedures on the part of the BIA. The May hearing, as well
as subsequent meetings held with the Tribal Working Group for the
Demonstration Act, have made clear that there is a consensus among
participating tribes that the OSG should undertake this program. The
bill proposes to transfer authority to the OSG because that office has
a proven track record in working with tribes to consolidate programs
and services and to achieve more effective delivery to tribal members.
If this Congress is serious about encouraging self-determination and
self-sufficiency, we must provide tribes with the tools they need to
further these goals. Reservation economic development and job creation
go hand-in-hand and we cannot ignore this basic fact.
The current Act has gone far in permitting tribes to do more with
less, as the quality of training and education services has risen with
increased job placements. These amendments take the next logical step,
which is to encourage job creation and make the promise of the program
a reality for those that want to work and want to be productive and
want to improve their lives and the lives of their families.
With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional
material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1279

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

[[Page S10789]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Employment, Training
and Related Services Demonstration Act Amendments of 1997''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) Indian tribes and Alaska Native organizations that have
participated in carrying out programs under the Indian
Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act
of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.) have--
(A) improved the effectiveness of services provided by
those tribes and organizations;
(B) enabled more Indian people to secure employment;
(C) assisted welfare recipients; and
(D) otherwise demonstrated the value of integrating
education, employment, and training services.
(2) The initiative under the Indian Employment, Training
and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 should be
strengthened by ensuring that all programs that emphasize the
value of work may be included within a demonstration program
of an Indian tribe or Alaska Native organization.
(3) The initiative under the Indian Employment, Training
and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 shares goals
and innovative approaches of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.).
(4) The programs referred to in paragraph (2) should be
implemented by the unit within the Department of the Interior
responsible for carrying out the Indian Employment, Training
and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992.
(5) The initiative under the Indian Employment, Training
and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 should have
the benefit of the support and attention of the officials
of--
(A) the Department of the Interior; and
(B) other Federal agencies involved with policymaking
authority with respect to programs that emphasize the value
of work for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND
RELATED SERVICES DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 1992.

(a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Indian Employment,
Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 (25
U.S.C. 3402) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively; and
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) the following:
``(1) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' has the
same meaning given the term `agency' in section 551(1) of
title 5, United States Code.''.
(b) Programs Affected.--Section 5 of the Indian Employment,
Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 (25
U.S.C. 3404) is amended by striking ``employment
opportunities, or skill development'' and all that follows
through the end of the section, and inserting ``securing
employment, retaining employment, or creating employment
opportunities. The programs referred to in the preceding
sentence may include the program commonly referred to as the
general assistance program established under the Act of
November 2, 1921 (commonly known as the `Snyder Act') (42
Stat. 208, chapter 115; 25 U.S.C. 13) and the program known
as the Johnson-O'Malley Program established under the
Johnson-O'Malley Act (25 U.S.C. 452 through 457).''.
(c) Plan Review.--Section 7 of the Indian Employment,
Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 (25
U.S.C. 3406) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Federal department'' both places it
appears and inserting ``Federal agency'';
(2) by striking ``Federal departmental'' and inserting
``Federal agency'';
(3) by striking ``department'' each place it appears and
inserting ``agency''; and
(4) in the third sentence, by inserting ``statutory
requirement,'' after ``to waive any''.
(d) Plan Approval.--The second sentence of section 8 of the
Indian Employment, Training and Related Services
Demonstration Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3407) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
including reconsidering the disapproval of any waiver
requested by the Indian tribe''.
(e) Job Creation Activities.--Section 9 of the Indian
Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act
of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3408) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The plan
submitted'';
(2) by striking ``if such expenditures'' and all that
follows through the end of subsection (a) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this subsection); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Limitation.--The funds used for an expenditure
described in subsection (a) may only include funds made
available to the Indian tribe by a Federal agency under a
statutory or administrative formula.''.
(f) Private Sector Training Placements.--Section 11(a) of
the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services
Demonstration Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3410(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``Bureau of Indian Affairs'' and inserting ``Office of Self-
Governance of the Department of the Interior'';
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``delivered under an arrangement subject
to the approval of the Indian tribe participating in the
project,'' after ``appropriate to the project,''; and
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the convening by an appropriate official of the lead
agency (whose appointment is subject to the confirmation of
the Senate) and a representative of the Indian tribes that
carry out demonstration projects under this Act, in
consultation with each such Indian tribe, of a meeting not
less than 2 times during each fiscal year for the purpose of
providing an opportunity for all Indian tribes that carry out
demonstration projects under this Act to discuss issues
relating to the implementation of this Act with officials of
each department specified in subsection (a).''.
(g) Personnel.--In carrying out the amendment made by
subsection (f)(1), the Secretary of the Interior shall
transfer from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Office of
Self-Governance of the Department of the Interior such
personnel and resources as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 1280. A bill to provide technical corrections to the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, to
improve the delivery of housing assistance to Indian tribes in a manner
that recognizes the right of tribal self-governance, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1997

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, in 1996 the Congress enacted historic
legislation involving the financing, construction, and maintenance of
housing for Indian people. With the enactment of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA), Indian
housing is no longer solely in the province of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
With NAHASDA tribes have the opportunity to develop and implement
housing plans that meet their needs and values, and can do so in a way
that is more efficient. I am hopeful that the success achieved by
tribes participating in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act
and the Self- Governance Act programs can be duplicated in the housing
arena with the implementation of NAHASDA.
The Act requires that funds for Indian housing be provided to Indian
tribes in block grants with monitoring and oversight appropriately
provided by HUD. By empowering the tribes themselves and decreasing
tribal reliance on the federal bureaucracy, this Act is consistent with
principles of tribal self-determination and self-sufficiency that have
been the hallmark of federal Indian policy for nearly thirty years.
By the terms of the Act, NAHASDA becomes effective October 1, 1997.
This will mean sweeping changes in the way housing is built and
financed in Indian country. It is my hope that we can build on the
NAHASDA model and encourage related initiatives such as banking,
business development, and infrastructure construction.
Even though NAHASDA has yet to be implemented, both HUD and the
tribes agree that there are sections in the Act that need
clarification. The bill I am introducing, the ``Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1997'', provides
the required clarification and changes that will help tribes and HUD in
achieving a smoother transition from the old housing regime to the new
framework of NAHASDA.
The proposed amendments contained in this bill are partly the result
of a hearing held by the Committee on Indian Affairs in March, 1997,
which focused on the management of Indian housing under the old HUD-
dominated regime.
Tribal leaders, Indian housing experts, and federal officials
testified about funding problems and other matters, including the
proper level of oversight and monitoring. The focus of the hearing was
constructive and with an eye toward encouraging a better managed and
more efficient Indian housing system.
After auditing Indian housing programs from around the nation, and
after reviewing HUD's monitoring and enforcement provisions, HUD's
Inspector General testified as to perceived problems in the old housing
regime and the NAHASDA framework. The IG's testimony included her
opinion that clarifications were needed in the

[[Page S10790]]

NAHASDA including minor changes to the Act's enforcement provisions.
My goal as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs is to ensure
that housing funds are used properly and within the bounds permitted by
law. I also want to ensure that, consistent with federal obligations to
Indian tribes, tribal members are properly housed and living in decent
conditions.
I am confident that with the implementation of NAHASDA, tribes will
be able to better design and implement their own housing plans and in
the process will be able to provide better housing to their members. In
making the transition from dominating the housing realm to monitoring
the activities of the tribes, HUD needs guidance from the Committee as
to its proper role and responsibilities under the Act.
The Act, and the amendments I am proposing today, will go a long way
in making sure that the management problems that were associated with
the old, HUD-dominated housing system will not be part of NAHASDA.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in enacting these reasonable
amendments.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1280

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
Amendments of 1997''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Restriction on waiver authority.
Sec. 3. Organizational capacity; assistance to families that are not
low-income.
Sec. 4. Elimination of waiver authority for small tribes.
Sec. 5. Expanded authority to review Indian housing plans.
Sec. 6. Oversight.
Sec. 7. Allocation formula.
Sec. 8. Hearing requirement.
Sec. 9. Performance agreement time limit.
Sec. 10. Block grants and guarantees not Federal subsidies for low-
income housing credit.
Sec. 11. Technical and conforming amendments.

SEC 2. RESTRICTION ON WAIVER AUTHORITY.

Section 101(b)(2) of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4111(b)(2)) is
amended by striking ``if the Secretary'' and all that follows
before the period at the end and inserting the following:
``for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary
determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is
unable to comply with, those requirements due to extreme
circumstances beyond the control of the Indian tribe''.

SEC. 3. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY; ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES THAT
ARE NOT LOW-INCOME.

(a) Organizational Capacity.--Section 102(c)(4) of the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
(25 U.S.C. 4112(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (K) as
subparagraphs (B) through (L), respectively; and
(2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated
by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following:
``(A) a description of the entity that is responsible for
carrying out the activities under the plan, including a
description of--
``(i) the relevant personnel of the entity; and
``(ii) the organizational capacity of the entity,
including--
``(I) the management structure of the entity; and
``(II) the financial control mechanisms of the entity;''.
(b) Assistance to Families That Are Not Low-Income.--
Section 102(c) of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4112) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(6) Certain families.--With respect to assistance
provided by a recipient to Indian families that are not low-
income families under section 201(b)(2), evidence that there
is a need for housing for each such family during that period
that cannot reasonably be met without such assistance.''.

SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR SMALL TRIBES.

Section 102 of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4112) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (f); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).

SEC. 5. EXPANDED AUTHORITY TO REVIEW INDIAN HOUSING PLANS.

Section 103(a)(1) of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4113(a)(1)) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``limited''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence.

SEC. 6. OVERSIGHT.

(a) Repayment.--Section 209 of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C.
4139) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 209. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENT.

``If a recipient uses grant amounts to provide affordable
housing under this title, and at any time during the useful
life of the housing the recipient does not comply with the
requirement under section 205(a)(2), the Secretary shall take
appropriate action under section 401(a).''.
(b) Audits and Reviews.--Section 405 of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25
U.S.C. 1465) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 405. REVIEW AND AUDIT BY SECRETARY.

``(a) Requirements Under Chapter 75 of Title 31, United
States Code.--
``(1) In general.--An entity designated by an Indian tribe
as a housing entity shall be treated, for purposes of chapter
75 of title 31, United States Code, as a non-Federal entity
that is subject to the audit requirements that apply to non-
Federal entities under that chapter.
``(2) Payment of costs.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may arrange for, and pay
the cost of, any audit required under paragraph (1).
``(B) Withholding of amounts.--If the Secretary pays for
the cost of an audit under subparagraph (A), the Secretary
may withhold, from the assistance otherwise payable under
this Act, an amount sufficient to pay for the reasonable
costs of conducting an audit that meets the applicable
requirements of chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code,
including, if appropriate, the reasonable costs of accounting
services necessary to ensure that the books and records of
the entity referred to in paragraph (1) are in such condition
as is necessary to carry out the audit.
``(b) Additional Reviews and Audits.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to any audit under
subsection (a)(1), to the extent the Secretary determines
such action to be appropriate, the Secretary may conduct an
audit of a recipient in order to--
``(A) determine whether the recipient--
``(i) has carried out--

``(I) eligible activities in a timely manner; and
``(II) eligible activities and certification in accordance
with this Act and other applicable law;

``(ii) has a continuing capacity to carry out eligible
activities in a timely manner; and
``(iii) is in compliance with the Indian housing plan of
the recipient; and
``(B) verify the accuracy of information contained in any
performance report submitted by the recipient under section
404.
``(2) Onsite visits.--To the extent practicable, the
reviews and audits conducted under this subsection shall
include onsite visits by the appropriate official of the
Department of Housing and Human Development.
``(c) Review of Reports.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide each
recipient that is the subject of a report made by the
Secretary under this section notice that the recipient may
review and comment on the report during a period of not less
than 30 days after the date on which notice is issued under
this paragraph.
``(2) Public availability.--After taking into consideration
any comments of the recipient under paragraph (1), the
Secretary--
``(A) may revise the report; and
``(B) not later than 30 days after the date on which those
comments are received, shall make the comments and the report
(with any revisions made under subparagraph (A)) readily
available to the public.
``(d) Effect of Reviews.--Subject to section 401(a), after
reviewing the reports and audits relating to a recipient that
are submitted to the Secretary under this section, the
Secretary may adjust the amount of a grant made to a
recipient under this Act in accordance with the findings of
the Secretary with respect to those reports and audits.''.

SEC. 7. ALLOCATION FORMULA.

Section 302(d)(1) of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4152(d)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``The formula,'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Except with respect to an Indian tribe
described in subparagraph (B), the formula''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Certain indian tribes.--With respect to fiscal year
1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, with respect to any
Indian tribe having an Indian housing authority that owns or
operates fewer than 250 public housing units, the formula
under subparagraph (A) shall provide that the amount provided
for a fiscal year in which the total amount made available
for assistance under this Act is equal to or greater than the
amount made available for fiscal year 1996 for assistance for
the operation and modernization of the public housing
referred to in subparagraph (A), the amount provided to that
Indian tribe as modernization assistance shall be equal to
the average annual amount of funds provided to the Indian
tribe (other than funds provided as emergency assistance)
under the assistance program under section 14 of the

[[Page S10791]]

United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437l) for the
period beginning with fiscal year 1992 and ending with fiscal
year 1997.''.

SEC. 8. HEARING REQUIREMENT.

Section 401(a) of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4161(a)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as
subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively, and indenting
each such subparagraph 2 ems to the right;
(2) by striking ``Except as provided'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided'';
(3) by striking ``If the Secretary takes an action under
paragraph (1), (2), or (3)'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Continuance of actions.--If the Secretary takes an
action under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph
(1)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Exception for certain actions.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, if the Secretary makes a determination that
the failure of a recipient of assistance under this Act to
comply substantially with any material provision (as that
term is defined by the Secretary) of this Act is resulting,
and would continue to result, in a continuing expenditure of
Federal funds in a manner that is not authorized by law, the
Secretary may take an action described in paragraph (1)(C)
before conducting a hearing.
``(B) Procedural requirement.--If the Secretary takes an
action described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
``(i) provide notice to the recipient at the time that the
Secretary takes that action; and
``(ii) conduct a hearing not later than 60 days after the
date on which the Secretary provides notice under clause (i).
``(C) Determination.--Upon completion of a hearing under
this paragraph, the Secretary shall make a determination
regarding whether to continue taking the action that is the
subject of the hearing, or take another action under this
subsection.''.

SEC. 9. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT TIME LIMIT.

Section 401(b) of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4161(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``If the Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary'';
(2) by striking ``(1) is not'' and inserting the following:
``(A) is not'';
(3) by striking ``(2) is a result'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) is a result:
(4) in the flush material following paragraph (1)(B), as
redesignated by paragraph (3) of this section--
(A) by adjusting the margin 2 ems to the right; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, if the recipient enters into a performance
agreement with the Secretary that specifies the compliance
objectives that the recipient will be required to achieve by
the termination date of the performance agreement''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Performance agreement.--The period of a performance
agreement described in paragraph (1) shall be for 1 year.
``(3) Review.--Upon the termination of a performance
agreement entered into under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall review the performance of the recipient that is a party
to the agreement.
``(4) Effect of review.--If, on the basis of a review under
paragraph (3), the Secretary determines that the recipient--
``(A) has made a good faith effort to meet the compliance
objectives specified in the agreement, the Secretary may
enter into an additional performance agreement for the period
specified in paragraph (2); and
``(B) has failed to make a good faith effort to meet
applicable compliance objectives, the Secretary shall
determine the recipient to have failed to comply
substantially with this Act, and the recipient shall be
subject to an action under subsection (a).''.

SEC. 10. BLOCK GRANTS AND GUARANTEES NOT FEDERAL SUBSIDIES
FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 42(i)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to determination
of whether building is federally subsidized) is amended to
read as follows:
``(E) Buildings receiving home assistance or native
american housing assistance.--
``(i) In general.--

``(I) Inapplicability.--Assistance provided under the HOME
Investment Partnerships Act or the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 as in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act Amendments of
1997 with respect to any building shall not be taken into
account under subparagraph (D) if 40 percent or more of the
residential units in the building are occupied by individuals
whose income is 50 percent or less of the area median gross
income.
``(II) Applicability of other law.--Subsection (d)(5)(C)
does not apply to any building to which subclause (I)
applies.

``(ii) Special rule for certain high-cost housing areas.--
In the case of a building located in a city described in
section 142(d)(6), clause (i) shall be applied by
substituting `25 percent' for `40 percent'.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to determinations made under section 42(i)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code after the date of enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 11. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Table of Contents.--Section 1(b) of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25
U.S.C. 4101 note) is amended in the table of contents--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 206; and
(2) by striking the item relating to section 209 and
inserting the following:

``209. Noncompliance with affordable housing requirement.''.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 108 of the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4117) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2001--
``(1) to provide assistance under this title for
emergencies and disasters, as determined by the Secretary,
$10,000,000; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary to otherwise provide
grants under this title.''.
(c) Certification of Compliance With Subsidy Layering
Requirements.--Section 206 of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C.
4136) is repealed.
(d) Terminations.--Section 502(a) of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25
U.S.C. 4181(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Any housing that is the subject of a contract
for tenant-based assistance between the Secretary and an
Indian housing authority that is terminated under this
section shall, for the following fiscal year and each fiscal
year thereafter be considered to be a dwelling unit under
section 302(b)(1).''.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Campbell):
S. 1281. A bill to amend the Indian Employment, Training and Related
Services Demonstration Act of 1992 to provide for the transfer of
services and personnel from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Office
of Self-Governance, to facilitate the creation of employment
opportunities for American Indians and Alaska Natives, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

the indian employment and training improvements act of 1997

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Indian
Employment and Training Improvements Act of 1997, making technical
amendments to the Indian Job Training and Consolidation Act of 1992. I
was an original cosponsor of this law because I saw a need to reduce
unnecessary, repetitive administrative costs in job development
programs geared toward American Indians and Alaska Natives.
I am glad to say that after only a few years, it is clear that this
program is working. Alaska tribal groups tell me that they have
reported great savings in administering employment and training
programs through consolidation of application and reporting
requirements. The Cook inlet Tribal Corporation in Alaska alone reports
a near tripling of jobs in the Anchorage area since the passage of this
act, from 500 to nearly 1,500 jobs. The Aleutian Pribiloffs Island
Association, the Bristol Bay Native Association, Tlingit-Haida Indian
Tibes in southeast Alaska, and Kawerak corporation in Norton Sound all
report satisfaction with this program. I thank these Alaska Native
groups for working with my staff to complete these amendments.
I would also like to thank Senator Campbell for his work on this
issue and for introducing his fine bill. I look forward to combining
the best aspects of our bills at a mark-up to be held later this year.
I appreciate his sensitivity to Alaska-specific concerns on this and
other Indian Affairs issues.
Mr. President, my bill would make several technical corrections that
would encourage more tribes to take advantage of this demonstration.
Let me highlight a few of these changes. First, it would establish the
Office of Self Governance as the lead agency, replacing the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. This change is needed because the BIA has shown
resistance to allowing two of its programs to be included in the
program: the Johnson O'Malley education program and general assistance
dollars. The Office of Self governance, in contrast, has shown itself
to be an effective administration in working with tribes to meet their
needs.
Second, it would allow the regional non-profit corporations in Alaska
to act on behalf of the tribes, without having specific authorizing
resolutions on the exact subject at hand, though the tribes could
always object and opt out of the regional's actions. Third, it

[[Page S10792]]

would enable tribes to establish one consolidated advisory committee to
encompass all the advisory councils currently required by the programs
that are included in the demonstration.
All these changes will allow the participating tribes to get more out
of the Indian Job Training and consolidation Act by enabling them to
better tailor their programs for their individual needs and by reducing
regulatory barriers to efficient consolidation of Indian job training
programs.
Mr. President, the drop-out rate from college of Alaska Native kids
in the Anchorage area is usually between 80-90 percent. We need to
provide these young Alaskans with both educational and job skills so
they can fully participate in Alaska's economy. The technical
amendments I am introducing today will lead to further economic growth
and more efficient use of Indian job training dollars. I urge my
colleagues to support these amendments.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 1282. A bill to provide for the establishment of the National
Museum for the Peopling of America within the Smithsonian Institution,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

the peopling of america museum act

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last year marked the 150th anniversary of
the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment dedicated to the
``increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.'' Since its founding,
the Smithsonian has promoted excellence in research and public
education in all fields of human and scientific interest. To continue
this great tradition of excellence, and to ensure its relevance to its
patrons and beneficiaries, the American people, today I am introducing
legislation, cosponsored by Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and Senator
Patty Murray, to establish a new Smithsonian entity, the National
Museum for the Peopling of America.
The Peopling of America Museum would be dedicated to presenting one
of the most significant experiences in American history, the complex
movement of people, ideas, and cultures across boundaries--both
internal or external--that resulted in the peopling of the Nation and
the development of our unique, pluralist society. This movement
transformed us from strangers from different shores into neighbors
unified in our inimitable diversity--Americans all.
Under our bill, the Museum would have a number of different
functions. These include serving as: A location for exhibits and
programs depicting the history of America's diverse peoples and their
interactions with each other. The exhibits would collectively form a
unified narrative of the historical processes by which the United
States was developed; A center for research and scholarship to ensure
that future generations of scholars will have access to resources
necessary for telling the story of American pluralism; A repository for
the collection of relevant artifacts, artworks, and documents to be
preserved, studied, and interpreted; A venue for integrated public
education programs, including lectures, films, and seminars, based on
the Center's collections and research; and A location for a
standardized index of resources within the Smithsonian dealing with the
heritages of all Americans. The Smithsonian's holdings contain millions
of artifacts which have not been identified or classified for this
purpose.
A clearinghouse for information on ethnic documents, artifacts, and
artworks that may be available through non-Smithsonian sources, such as
other federal agencies, museums, academic institutions, individuals, or
foreign entities.
A folklife center highlighting the cultural expressions of the
peoples of the United States. The existing Smithsonian Center for
Folklife Programs and Cultural Studies, which already performs this
function, could be integrated with the museum.
A center to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. The Museum
would facilitate programs designed to encourage greater understanding
of, and respect for, each of America's diverse ethnic and cultural
heritages. The Museum would also disseminate techniques of conflict
resolution currently being developed by social scientists.
An oral history center developed through interviews with volunteers
and visitors. The museum would also serve as an oral history repository
and a clearinghouse for oral histories held by other institutions.
A visitor center providing individually tailored orientation guides
to Smithsonian visitors. Visitors could use the museum as an initial
orientation phase for ethnically or culturally related artifacts,
artworks, or information that can be found in each of the Smithsonian's
many facilities.
A location for training museum professionals in museum practices
relating to the life, history, art, and culture of the peoples of the
United States. The museum would sponsor training programs for
professionals or students involved in teaching, researching, and
interpreting the heritage of America's peoples.
A location for testing and evaluating new museum-related technologies
that could facilitate the operation of the museum. The facility could
serve as a test bed for cutting-edge technologies that could later be
used by other private or public museums.
Our legislation also stipulates that the museum would be located in
new or existing Smithsonian facilities on or near the National Mall.
Additionally, the measure establishes an Advisory Committee on American
Cultural Heritage to provide guidance on the operation and direction of
the proposed museum.
Mr. President, aside from the first Americans, whose precedence must
be acknowledged, we Americans were travelers from other lands. From the
first Europeans who came as explorers and conquerors to the African
slaves who endured the middle passage and labored in the fields of our
early plantations, from the people of Nuevo Mexico to the French of the
Louisiana Territory who became Americans through annexation, from the
Irish who fled poverty and famine at home to the Chinese who came in
search of Gold Mountain--all were once visitors to this great country.
America is defined by the grand, entangled progress of its individual
peoples to and across the American landscape--through exploration, the
slave trade, immigration, or internal migration--that gave rise to the
rich interactions that make the American experience unique. We embody
the cultures and traditions that our forebears brought from other
shores, as well as the new traditions and cultures that we adopted on
arrival.
Whether we settled in the agrarian West, the industrialized North,
the small towns of the Midwest, or the genteel cities of the South, our
forebears inevitably formed relationships with peoples of other
backgrounds and cultures. Our rich heritage as Americans is
comprehensible only through the histories of our various constituent
cultures, carried with us from other lands and transformed by
encounters with other cultures. As one eminent cultural scholar has
noted:

How can one learn about slavery, holocausts, immigration,
ecological adaptation or ways of seeing the world without
some type of comparative perspective, without some type of
relationship between cultures and peoples. How can we
understand the history of any one cultural group--for
example, the Irish--without reference to other groups--for
example, the British. How can we understand African American
culture without placing it in some relationship to its
diverse African cultural roots, the creolized cultures of the
Caribbean, the Native American bases of Maroon and Black
Seminole cultures, the religious, economic and linguistic
cultures of the colonial Spanish in Columbia, the French in
Haiti, the Dutch in Suriname, and the English in the United
States?

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Smithsonian, perhaps our most
prestigious educational institution, has never attempted to explore
this comparative perspective of how our Nation came to be peopled. For
whatever reason, the institution has failed to examine the college of
relationships that shaped the values, attitudes, and behaviors of our
various constituencies. Aside from occasional, temporary exhibits on a
specific immigration or migration topic, such as the Museum of American
History's recent exhibit on the northern migration of African-
Americans, none of the Smithsonian's many museums and facilities has
tasked itself to examine any aspect of

[[Page S10793]]

this phenomenon, the peopling of America experience, much less offered
a global review of the subject.
This shortcoming derives, in part, from the fact that the
Smithsonian, for all its reputation as a world-class research and
educational organization, remains an institution rooted in 19th century
intellectual taxonomy. For example, during the early years of the
Smithsonian, the cultures of Northern and Western European Americans
were originally represented at the Museum of Science and Industry,
which eventually became the Museum of American History. However,
African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and others were
treated ethnographically as part of the Museum of Natural History. This
artificial bifurcation of our cultural patrimonies is still in place
today. Consequently, the collections of various ethnic and cultural
groups have been fragmented among various Smithsonian entities, making
it difficult to view these groups in relation to each other or as part
of a larger whole.

The establishment of the Peopling of America Museum would address
this glaring deficiency. The museum would instantly create a national
venue where all Americans, regardless of ethnic origin, could visit in
order to discover and celebrate their diverse historical roots. More
important, the museum would facilitate an exploration of our
commonalities, the historical and cultural experiences that created the
unique American identity and sensibility.
Mr. President, in May 1995, the Commission on the Future of the
Smithsonian Institution, a blue ribbon panel charged with pondering the
future of the 150-year-old institution, issued its final report. In its
preface, the Commission noted:

The Smithsonian Institution is the principal repository of
the nation's collective memory and the nation's largest
public cultural space. It is dedicated to preserving,
understanding, and displaying the land we inhabit and the
diversity and depth of American civilization in all its
timbres and color. It holds in common for all Americans that
set of beliefs--in the form of artifacts--about our past
that, taken together, comprise our collective history and
symbolize the ideals to which we aspire as a polity. The
Smithsonian--with its 140 million objects, 16 museums and
galleries, the national Zoo, and 29 million annual visits--
has been, for a century and a half, a place of wonder, a
magical place where Americans are reminded of how much we
have in common.
The story of America is the story of a plural nation. As
epitomized by our nation's motto, America is a composite of
peoples. Our vast country was inhabited by various cultures
long before the Pilgrims arrived. Slaves and immigrants built
a new nation from ``sea to shining sea,'' across mountains,
plains, deserts and great rivers, all rich in diverse
climates, animals, and plants. One of the Smithsonian's
essential tasks is to make the history of our country come
alive for each new generation of American children.
We cannot even imagine an ``American'' culture that is not
multiple in its roots and in its branches. In a world
fissured by differences of ethnicity and religion, we must
all learn to live without the age-old dream of purity--
whether of bloodlines or cultural inheritance--and learn to
find comfort, solace, and even fulfillment in the rough magic
of the cultural mix. And it is the challenge to preserve and
embody that marvelous mix--the multi-various mosaic that is
our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it--
that the Smithsonian Institution, on the eve of the twenty-
first century, must rededicate itself.

Mr. President, what more compelling argument in favor of the Peopling
of America Museum can be found than in these words? What initiative
other than the Peopling of America Museum would more directly address
the Smithsonian's role in presenting the diversity and depth of
American civilization in all its timbres and color, or making the
history of our country come alive for each new generation of American
children, or preserving the multivarious mosaic that is our history,
culture, land, and the people who have made it?
In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that this initiative will
foster a much-needed understanding of our diversity, of the rich
cultural and historical differences that constitute our uniqueness as
individuals. Conversely, and more important, I believe that the
Peopling of America Museum will promote an appreciation of the common
values, relationships, and experiences that bind our citizens together.
A museum dedicated to the celebration of our unity in diversity will
sustain and invigorate our sense of national purpose; surely this is a
mission worthy of the Smithsonian to undertake.
Thank you, Mr. President. I hope that this legislation will initiate
a national dialog about the central role that the Smithsonian should
play in preserving, researching, and exhibiting America's cultural and
historical patrimony. I look forward to beginning this conversation
with my colleagues, the academic community, and the interested public.
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. 1282

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 ``Peopling of America Museum
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The history of the United States is in large measure
the history of how the United States was populated.
(2) The evolution of the American population is broadly
termed the ``peopling of America'' and is characterized by
the movement of groups of people across external and internal
boundaries of the United States as well as by the
interactions of the groups with each other.
(3) Each of the groups has made unique, important
contributions to American history, culture, art, and life.
(4) The spiritual, intellectual, cultural, political, and
economic vitality of the United States is a result of the
pluralism and diversity of the population.
(5) The Smithsonian Institution operates 16 museums and
galleries, a zoological park, and 5 major research
facilities. None of these public entities is a national
institution dedicated to presenting the history of the
peopling of the United States, as described in paragraph (2).
(6) The respective missions of the National Museum of
American History of the Smithsonian Institution and the Ellis
Island Immigration Museum of the National Park Service limit
the ability of those museums to present fully and adequately
the history of the diverse population and rich cultures of
the United States.
(7) The absence of a national facility dedicated solely to
presenting the history of the peopling of the United States
restricts the ability of the citizens of the United States to
fully understand the rich and varied heritage of the United
States derived from the unique histories of many peoples from
many lands.
(8) The establishment of a Peopling of America Museum to
conduct educational and interpretive programs on the
multiethnic and multiracial character of the history of the
United States will assist in inspiring and better informing
the citizens of the United States concerning the rich and
diverse cultural heritage of the citizens.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Chairperson.--The term ``Chairperson'' means the
Chairperson of the Committee.
(2) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the Advisory
Committee on American Cultural Heritage established under
section 7(a).
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Museum.
(4) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the National Museum
for the Peopling of America established under section 4(a).

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM FOR THE PEOPLING
OF AMERICA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Smithsonian Institution a facility that shall be known as the
``National Museum for the Peopling of America''.
(b) Purposes of the Museum.--The purposes of the Museum
are--
(1) to promote knowledge of the life, art, culture, and
history of the many groups of people who comprise the
citizens of the United States;
(2) to illustrate how such groups cooperated, competed, or
otherwise interacted with each other; and
(3) to explain how the diverse, individual experiences of
each group collectively helped forge a unified national
experience.
(c) Components of the Museum.--The Museum shall include--
(1) a location for permanent and temporary exhibits
depicting the historical process by which the United States
was populated;
(2) a center for research and scholarship relating to the
life, art, culture, and history of the groups of people of
the United States;
(3) a repository for the collection, study, and
preservation of artifacts, artworks, and documents relating
to the diverse population of the United States;
(4) a venue for public education programs designed to
explicate the multicultural past and present of the United
States;
(5) a location for the development of a standardized index
of documents, artifacts, and artworks in collections that are
held by the Smithsonian Institution, classified in a manner
consistent with the purposes of the Museum;

[[Page S10794]]

(6) a clearinghouse for information on documents,
artifacts, and artworks relating to the groups of people of
the United States that may be available to researchers,
scholars, or the general public through non-Smithsonian
collections, such as documents, artifacts, and artworks
relating to the groups that are held by--
(A) other Federal agencies;
(B) other museums;
(C) universities;
(D) individuals; and
(E) foreign institutions;
(7) a folklife center committed to highlighting the
cultural expressions of various groups of people within the
United States;
(8) a center to promote mutual understanding and tolerance
among the groups of people of the United States through
exhibits, films, brochures, and other appropriate means;
(9) an oral history library developed through interviews
with volunteers, including visitors;
(10) a location for a visitor center that shall provide
individually tailored orientation guides for visitors to all
Smithsonian Institution facilities;
(11) a location for the training of museum professionals
and others in the arts, humanities, and sciences with respect
to museum practices relating to the life, art, history, and
culture of the various groups of people of the United States;
and
(12) a location for developing, testing, demonstrating,
evaluating, and implementing new museum-related technologies
that assist in fulfilling the purposes of the Museum, enhance
the operation of the Museum, and improve the accessibility of
the Museum.

SEC. 5. LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Location.--The Museum shall be located--
(1) in a facility of the Smithsonian Institution that is,
or is not, in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(2) on or near the National Mall located in the District of
Columbia.
(b) Construction.--The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian
Institution may plan, design, reconstruct, or construct
appropriate facilities to house the Museum.

SEC. 6. DIRECTOR AND STAFF.

(a) In General.--
(1) Appointments.--The Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution shall appoint and fix the compensation and duties
of--
(A) a Director, Assistant Director, Secretary, and Chief
Curator of the Museum; and
(B) any other officers and employees that are necessary for
the operation of the Museum.
(2) Qualifications.--Each individual appointed under
paragraph (1) shall be an individual who is qualified through
experience and training to perform the duties of the office
to which that individual is appointed.
(b) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution may--
(1) appoint the Director and 5 employees under subsection
(a), without regard to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service; and
(2) fix the pay of the Director and the 5 employees,
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of such title, relating to classification
of positions and General Schedule pay rates.

SEC. 7. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN CULTURAL HERITAGE.

(a) Establishment of Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established an advisory
committee to be known as the ``Advisory Committee on American
Cultural Heritage''.
(2) Membership.--
(A) Composition.--The Committee shall be composed of 15
members, who shall--
(i) be appointed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution;
(ii) have expertise in immigration history, ethnic studies,
museum science, or any other academic or professional field
that involves matters relating to the cultural heritage of
the citizens of the United States; and
(iii) reflect the diversity of the citizens of the United
States.
(B) Initial appointments.--The initial appointments of the
members of the Committee shall be made not later than 6
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Period of appointment; vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Committee. Any vacancy in the
Committee shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in
the same manner as the original appointment.
(4) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which all members of the Committee have been
appointed, the Committee shall hold its first meeting.
(5) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson, but shall meet not less frequently than 2 times
each fiscal year.
(6) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Committee
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.
(7) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The Committee shall
select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its
members.
(b) Duties of the Committee.--The Committee shall advise
the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and the Director
concerning policies and programs affecting the Museum.
(c) Committee Personnel Matters.--
(1) Compensation of members.--
(A) Non-federal members.--Each member of the Committee who
is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall
be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Committee.
(B) Federal members.--Members of the Committee who are
officers or employees of the United States shall serve
without compensation in addition to that received for their
services as officers or employees of the United States.
(2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Committee shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Committee.
(3) Staff.--
(A) In general.--The Chairperson may, without regard to the
civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate an
executive director and such other additional personnel as may
be necessary to enable the Committee to perform its duties.
The employment of an executive director shall be subject to
confirmation by the Committee.
(B) Compensation.--The Chairperson may fix the compensation
of the executive director and other personnel without regard
to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification
of positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the
rate of pay for the executive director and other personnel
may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive
Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
(4) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Committee without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(5) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
The Chairperson may procure temporary and intermittent
services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States
Code, at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such
title.
______

By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr.
Hutchinson):
S. 1283. A bill to award Congressional gold medals to Jean Brown
Trickey, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Melba Patillo Beals, Terrence Roberts,
Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Ernest Green, Elizabeth
Eckford, and Jefferson Thomas, commonly referred collectively as the
``Little Rock Nine'' on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the
integration of the Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

congresSIONAL GOld MeDaLs LeGIslaTIon

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on
behalf of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and myself authorizing the award
of the Congressional Gold Medal to the extraordinary group of Americans
known as the Little Rock Nine. We speak often of heroes in this body.
Sometimes we worry that there are no heroes in our country today, no
one for our children to look up to, no one to inspire us to be our best
selves. But a couple of weeks ago, we had a vivid reminder that there
are still heroes among us. The Little Rock Nine returned to Little Rock
Central High School to stride through the doors again. This time those
doors were held open by the Governor of Arkansas and the President of
the United States.

Jean Brown Trickey, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Melba Patillo Beals,
Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Ernest
Green, Elizabeth Eckford, and Jefferson Thomas. Their names are not so
familiar to the American public, but they ought to be.
On a fall day in 1957, these nine Americans were teenagers, children
really, and they marched up the steps of Little Rock Central High
School, young black teenagers through a huge crowd--actually a mob--of
angry white people who despised them just for being there and presuming
to attend a public school in their own home town. They marched up the
steps with a cool courage that remains awesome today, no matter how
many times we see the grainy newsreels.
In 1957, Little Rock was not a very big city, but for a few days, it
became the center of the world. Arkansas was not the most staunchly
segregationist State in the South, but politics, history and fear
conspired to make it the

[[Page S10795]]

crucible for the authority of Brown v. Board of Education. And through
that storm of controversy marched these nine young people, frightened
but dignified, barely comprehending what was happening but sensing that
they were helping to move aside a profound obstacle.
Now, even the people who jeered at them will admit that they were
impressed and moved by the courage of those nine kids. The images of
those days in Little Rock, and the extraordinary lives these nine sons
and daughters of Arkansas have led are proud symbols of the progress we
have made in America and a solemn reminder of the progress we have yet
to make.
Any ordinary teenager is sensitive to the tiniest insult, the most
innocent slight. It is hard to imagine what these nine felt as they
were cursed and spat upon, peppered with every slur and threat the
crowd could muster. They were opposed by the Governor, by most every
local leader, by their peers and by a fully armed unit of the National
Guard. They were able to enter the school when President Eisenhower
ordered in units of the airborne division to escort them and enforce
the order of the Supreme Court. But it was not the power of the
soldiers or the authority of the law that won the day. It was the grace
and courage of those nine young people.
Their grace and courage prevailed that day and has inspired us for 40
years. They deserve our thanks and admiration. They deserve a medal. We
should present those nine heroes of Little Rock with the Congressional
Gold Medal as a permanent remembrance of their unforgettable moment of
courage. I hope all of my colleagues will cosponsor this bill and see
that it quickly becomes law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1283

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

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

The Congress hereby finds the following:
(1) Jean Brown Trickey, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Melba
Patillo Beals, Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma
Mothershed Wair, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, and
Jefferson Thomas, hereafter in this section referred to as
the ``Little Rock Nine'', voluntarily subjected themselves to
the bitter stinging pains of racial bigotry.
(2) The Little Rock Nine are civil rights pioneers whose
selfless acts considerably advanced the civil rights debate
in this country.
(3) The Little Rock Nine risked their lives to integrate
Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and
subsequently the Nation.
(4) The Little Rock Nine sacrificed their innocence to
protect the American principle that we are all ``one nation,
under God, indivisible''.
(5) The Little Rock Nine have indelibly left their mark on
the history of this Nation.
(6) the Little Rock Nine have continued to work towards
equality for all Americans.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDALS.

(a) Presentation Authorized.--The President is authorized
to present, on behalf of Congress, to Jean Brown Trickey,
Carlotta Walls LaNier, Malba Patillo Beals, Terrence Roberts,
Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Ernest Green,
Elizabeth Eckford, and Jefferson Thomas, commonly referred to
the ``Little Rock Nine'', gold medals of appropriate design,
in recognition of the selfless heroism such individuals
exhibited and the pain they suffered in the cause of civil
rights by integrating Central High School in Little Rock,
Arkansas.
(b) Design and Striking.--For purposed of the presentation
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and
inscriptions to be determined by the Secretary for each
recipient.
(c) Authorization of Appropriation.--Effective October 1,
1997, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary, to carry out this section.

SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

(a) Striking and Sale.--The Secretary of the Treasury may
strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medals
struck pursuant to section 2 under such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe, at a price sufficient to cover the
cost thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of
machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold
medal.
(b) Reimbursement of Appropriation.--The appropriation used
to carry out section 2 shall be reimbursed out of the
proceeds of sales under subsection (a).

SEC. 4. NATIONAL MEDALS.

The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals
for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.
______

By Mr. ROBERTS:

S. 1284. A bill to prohibit construction of any monument, memorial,
or other structure at the site of the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington,
VA, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITION LEGISLATION

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
really should not have to be introduced to address a controversy that
should not be taking place. The legislation is intended to prevent
further construction of any memorial on the parcel of Federal land
surrounding the U.S. Marine Corps memorial commonly known as the Iwo
Jima memorial located in Arlington, VA.
Mr. President, the reason I am introducing this legislation is that,
unfortunately, this site has been selected for a 50-foot high Air Force
memorial approximately 500 feet from the Iwo Jima statue.
Mr. President, I realize full well that this legislation and this
issue will and has caused considerable emotional debate and difference
of opinion within our Marine and Air Force communities. I stress that
in my opinion it does not have to be that way.
First, the points that I will raise should not be construed as any
denigration or challenge to the worthiness of a memorial to the proud
men and women of the U.S. Air Force who have served our Nation so very
well. In fact, one of my points is that our U.S. Air Force deserves its
own special place that will not compete with any other memorial.
In discussing this legislation, I am going to leave the legal issues
to those with better expertise in the nuance of law. The point I would
like to stress is very basic. It supersedes reports and hearings and
commission recommendations and whether or not the proponents of
construction of another memorial have successfully--and apparently they
have--traversed the procedural obstacle course and the tripwires
necessary to gain approval for construction.
Simply put, the Iwo Jima memorial represents and memorializes an
absolutely unique and special time in our Nation's history. Just as
Bunker Hill and Saratoga and Yorktown and Gettysburg, Belleau Wood and
Bataan, Normandy, Chosin Reservoir, and other battles have been etched
in our national psyche as touchstones and reminders of courage, valor
and bravery in defense of freedom, and have special meaning for this
Nation and the valiant members of our Armed Forces that fought bravely
in each of those campaigns, Iwo Jima became a rallying point for this
country and the U.S. Marine Corps during the dark days of the war in
the Pacific.
Mr. President, on a personal note, for me, the Iwo Jima memorial has
special meaning. My dad, then a Marine major, Wes Roberts, took part in
the battle of Iwo Jima. His accounts of the bravery and sacrifice are
part of our family's history and inspiration. Fifteen years later, then
Marine Lt. Pat Roberts, stationed in Okinawa with the 3d Marine
Division, revisited Iwo Jima, along with the first official Marine
party to pay a personal tribute and visit to that island. My assignment
was to cover the visit and dedication for the Stars and Stripes
newspaper.
I shall never forget the experience. Iwo Jima veterans, enlisted and
officers, stood on Mt. Suribachi in the quiet of the gentle wind
overlooking a now lush green island in the blue of the Pacific, and
there was not a sound. Then, in hushed tones, mixed with emotion and
tears, the Iwo Jima veterans relived, recounted that battle and said
many a prayer for their fallen comrades.
Lt. General Thomas A. Wornham placed a 5th Marine Division insignia
on the flagpole atop famous Suribachi. Former members of his old unit,
the 27th Marines, stood with visiting dignitaries. They listened
quietly. The general said, ``We landed over there by those two rocks.
The terraces were much higher then. I crawled on my hands and knees
right by that small hill.''
In a low whisper, Col. John W. Antonelli, former 2d battalion
Commander in the 27th, said, ``I cannot look at this scene, this
island, without thinking of my Marines who died in

[[Page S10796]]

order to capture it. From the top of Suribachi, I can see where they
fell. One of my best friends was killed in that ravine. Every time the
Marines would take cover there, they invited the incoming artillery.''
Then Col. Donn J. Robertson, former 3d battalion commander in the
famous regiment, told listeners how the island had changed. ``This new
lush vegetation would have given our boys much needed cover then. As I
stand here looking down from Suribachi, I realize how the enemy had us
covered in interlocking fire. We landed on a beautiful day just like
this, sun shining, blue sky, blue ocean. I am thankful to be alive.''
Standing on Suribachi, it was difficult for any of us to imagine how
anyone could have survived the landing and day-after-day assault. The
day after the island was declared secure more marines suffered
casualties than they had in the last 10.
But survive they did, and Old Glory was raised over Iwo Jima on the
23d of February, 1945, and captured on film to become a pictorial
moment in history unequaled in portraying uncommon valor. Almost 10
years later, that special event in our Nation's history was recreated
and consecrated forever in the dedication of the Iwo Jima memorial here
in our Nation's Capital and now attracts over 1 million visitors every
year.
Let me stress, Mr. President, that Iwo Jima is not purely a Marine
Corps memorial. It does, of course, represent an extremely important
event in the proud history of our corps, but it is, in a larger sense,
a memorial for the American people. Many consider the Iwo Jima site as
hallowed ground and certainly not a site where there should be a
competing memorial.
I also wish to acknowledge that the Air Force Association has been
forthright and aboveboard in the process to find a suitable site for
their proposed memorial. I applaud and support their efforts to
properly recognize the superb contribution the men and women of the
U.S. Air Force have made to this country. The point is that I do not
believe it serves any purpose for either memorial to compete with or
stand in the shadow of the other.
I also realize the proponents of the Air Force memorial will say it
will not interfere with Iwo Jima, and it will be located behind a line
of trees so that it cannot be seen from the Iwo site.
Now, the sense I get from those statements is that the Air Force
memorial will figuratively be in the shadow of Iwo Jima. If so, that,
quite frankly, is not fair to the Air Force and to those the memorial
is intended to honor. A location should be found where the memorial can
stand clearly, proudly, and in its own place without competition from
any other structure.
In addition, the National Planning Commission report recognizes that
the site for the proposed Air Force memorial is, ``fragile and
delicate.'' The report further recognizes that the area encompassing
the Iwo Jima memorial and the Netherlands Carillon and the Arlington
National Cemetery is ``reverent space whose beautiful nature is already
heavily disrupted by heavy automobile and bus traffic on the periphery
and by tour bus traffic within the area itself. The planned
construction of 40 additional parking spaces adjacent to the memorial,
which is currently a wooded area, would further diminish the natural
beauty of the memorial and the park surroundings.''
I realize in the passage of time, even the most memorable acts of
courage and valor and bravery tend to fade into yesterday's history
books. Succeeding generations tend to forget the lessons of the past,
and the world, indeed, is a different place. Today, great historical
events, and even the lives and lessons of our Founding Fathers are many
times mere footnotes in a fast-paced society, or worse, subject to
revision depending on what is politically correct at the moment.
But, let us not add to or hasten this erosion by unnecessarily
competing or infringing upon what has been accurately called ``sacred
and reverent space.''
This so-called controversy about the location of the proposed Air
Force memorial in conjunction with the Iwo Jima memorial is, in fact, a
paradox of enormous irony. The battle of Iwo Jima was fought to secure
a safe haven and staging area for bomber aircraft flown by the
forerunners of the U.S. Air Force. Marines fought and died to help save
the lives of the fliers of the Army Air Corps. For 43 years, ever since
the memorial was dedicated on the Marine Corps birthday in 1954, the
Iwo Jima memorial has been in fact a memorial to both brave marines and
fliers of World War II.
Why, why then, why indeed, should any memorial so inspired, so true
to the memory and sacrifice of both marines and Army Air Corps fliers,
why should such hallowed ground be subject to encroachment and
duplication of yet another memorial for the same purpose, a memorial
that should stand in its own right and on its own site?
We should preserve the sanctity of a memorial that has come to be
viewed by all Americans as a de facto memorial to World War II. Nothing
should detract from the serene and hallowed setting of the Iwo Jima
memorial.
In a letter I have received from the Commandant of the U.S. Marine
Corps, Gen. C.C. Krulak, the Commandant eloquently sums up what all
marines feel in their hearts and what I have tried to explain in my
remarks. I quote from his letter:

Although I was just a young boy, I remember watching as the
Iwo Jima memorial was erected on the edge of Arlington
Cemetery. I remember that November day in 1954 when my
godfather, Gen. Holland ``Howlin Mad'' Smith, stood before
that magnificent statue and, with tears slowly streaming down
his cheeks, softly said, ``My marines, my marines. . . .''
Truly, this is a sacred place.

Mr. President, the commandant went on to say that, as the last marine
on active duty to have witnessed the Iwo dedication, he truly believes
that this Nation must preserve its sanctity. For, as General Krulak
said, the Iwo Jima memorial is more than a monument; it is a place for
reflection, a place to pay respect, and a place to gain inner strength.
Over 23,000 marines were killed or injured on Iwo Jima, and each year,
over 1 million Americans pay tribute to those marines.
General Krulak closed his letter by saying:

In speaking for them, for their survivors, and for all
marines past, present and future, the sanctity of the Iwo
Jima memorial must be preserved.

Semper fidelis, general, semper fidelis.
I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.
______

By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Lott, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coverdell,
Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Bennett, Mr. McCain, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith
of Oregon, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Warner and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1285. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that married couples may file a combined return under which each spouse
is taxed using the rates applicable to unmarried individuals; to the
Committee on Finance.

THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY ELIMINATION ACT OF 1997

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that will eliminate the marriage penalty tax. This is
similar to legislation in the House, H.R. 2456, which has 218
cosponsors, including the Speaker of the House.
According to the Joint Economic Committee, in 1996, more than 23
million married couples paid a marriage penalty, totaling an extra $28
billion in taxes. This would mean the average couple is paying $1,200
more in income taxes simply because they are married. I think it is
time to change the tax code so that we do not punish people simply for
being married.
From 1913 to 1969, the federal income tax treated married couples
either just as well as or better than if they were single. Since then,
married couples have had to pay a marriage penalty. This is even more
ironic if you consider that the number of married couples where both
work has increased dramatically. Finally, the tax increase in 1993 made
the problem worse by raising the tax rates.

[[Page S10797]]

This legislation is supported by Americans for Tax Reform and the
National Taxpayers Unions. I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Hutchinson and Mack, making a total of 35 Senators that are original
cosponsors.
I would hope that we could end this penalty against marriage.
Marriage should be cherished, not punished by the Federal Government. I
would urge other Senators to cosponsor this bill, and I would hope that
we could take up this legislation as soon as possible.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 1287. A bill to assist in the conservation of Asian elephants by
supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation
programs of nations within the range of Asian elephants and projects of
persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of Asian
elephants; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise today to introduce a bill
to assist in the preservation of Asian elephants. The bill, the ``Asian
Elephant Conservation Act of 1997'', is modeled after the highly
successful African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. It will authorize up to $5 million
per year to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior to fund
various projects to aid in the preservation of the Asian elephant.
Since the challenges of the Asian elephants are so great, resources
to date have not been sufficient to cope with the continued loss of
habitat and the consequent diminution of Asian elephant populations
Among the threats to the Asian elephant in addition to habitat loss
are population fragmentation, human-elephant conflict, poaching for
ivory, meat, hide, bones and teeth, and capture for domestication. To
reduce, remove, or otherwise effectively address these threats to the
long-term viability of populations of Asian elephants in the wild will
require the joint commitment and effort of nations within the range of
Asian elephants, the United States and other countries, and the private
sector.
On April 22, 1997, I introduced the African Elephant Conservation
Reauthorization Act of 1997 (S. 627). By the late 1980's, the
population of African elephants had dramatically declined from
approximately 1.3 million animals in 1979 to less than 700,000 in 1987.
The primary reason for this decline was the poaching and illegal
slaughter of elephants for their tusks, which fueled the international
trade policy. Today, as a result of the bill, the African elephant
population has stabilized, international ivory prices remain low, and
wildlife rangers are better equipped to stop illegal poaching
activities.
I am a strong proponent of the protection and conservation of
endangered species. If we do not act now, the world's future
generations may not be able to enjoy many of the species of wildlife
now in existence. This small, but critical investment of U.S. taxpayer
money will be matched by private funds and will significantly improve
the likelihood that wild Asian elephants will exist in the 21st
Century. It is my hope that the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997
will hopefully see the same successes that the African elephant bill
has seen.
______

By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Campbell):
S. 1289. A bill to temporarily decrease the duty on certain
industrial nylon fabrics; to the Committee on Finance.

tariff reduction legislation

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing this legislation to
lessen a financial burden on American companies. I am pleased that my
colleague from Colorado, Senator Campbell is joining me as an original
cosponsor. For approximately 20 years, various U.S. manufacturers have
been paying substantial tariffs on a product that is not produced in
this country.
Mr. President, my legislation would significantly reduce the tariff
on this particular product from 16 to 6.7 percent. This product is an
industrial nylon fabric used in the manufacture of automotive timing
belts. United States companies that use this product in their
manufacturing processes have no choice but to import it since it has
not been produced domestically since the mid-1970's.
There is no domestic industry to harm by lowering this tariff,
consumers will clearly benefit, and many domestic industries will
benefit by becoming more competitive.
My bill would temporarily reduce the tariff on the nylon fabric
product for 3 years. After that period, if there are still no U.S.
producers, further action would then be in order. Mr. President,
reducing American competitiveness to protect non-existent domestic
industries simply does not make sense. It is my hope that this
situation will be rectified.
______

By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1290. A bill for the relief of Saeed Rezai; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

private relief legislation

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce private relief
legislation on behalf of my constituents, Mr. Saeed Rezai, and his
wife, Mrs. Julie Rezai.
As my colleagues are aware, those immigration cases that warrant
private legislation are extremely rare. In fact, in nearly 8 years, I
have introduced just one bill to grant such relief--a bill for the
relief of Saeed Rezai in the last Congress. As I said before the Senate
when I introduced that bill in 1995, I had hoped that this case would
not require congressional intervention. Unfortunately, it is clear that
private legislation is the only means remaining to ensure that the
equities of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's case are heard and that a number of
unresolved questions are answered without imposing a terrible hardship
on Mr. and Mrs. Rezai and on their marriage.
I wish to take a moment, Mr. President, to provide something by way
of background to this somewhat complicated case and to explain the
urgency of this legislation. Mr. Rezai first came to the United States
in 1986. On June 15, 1991, he married his current wife, Julie, who is a
U.S. citizen. Shortly thereafter, she filed an immigrant visa petition
on his behalf. Approval of this petition has been blocked, however, by
the application of Sec. 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 204(c) precludes the approval of a visa petition for anyone who
entered, or conspired to enter, into a fraudulent marriage. The
Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] applied this provision in
Mr. Rezai's case because his previous marriage ended in divorce before
his 2-year period of conditional residence had expired. In immigration
proceedings following the divorce, the judge heard testimony from
witnesses on behalf of Mr. Rezai and his former wife. After considering
that testimony, he found there was insufficient evidence to warrant
lifting the conditions on Mr. Rezai's permanent residency and, in the
absence of a qualifying marriage, granted Mr. Rezai voluntary departure
from the United States. The judge was very careful to mention, however,
that there was no proof of false testimony by Mr. Rezai, and he granted
voluntary departure rather than ordering deportation because, in his
words, Mr. Rezai ``may be eligible for a visa in the future.''
Despite these comments by the immigration judge, who clearly did not
anticipate the future application of the Sec. 204(c) exclusion to Mr.
Rezai's case, the INS has refused to approve Mrs. Rezai's petition for
permanent residence on behalf of her husband based on that very
exclusion. An appeal of this decision has been pending before the Board
of Immigration Appeals [BIA] for 3 years. In the meantime, Mr. Rezai
appealed the initial termination of his lawful permanent resident
status in 1990. In August 1995, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
denied this appeal and reinstated the voluntary departure order. Under
current law, there is no provision to stay Mr. Rezai's deportation
pending the BIA's consideration of Mrs. Rezai's current immigrant visa
petition.
Mr. President, there is no question that Mr. Rezai deportation will
create extraordinary hardship for both Mr. and Mrs. Rezai. Throughout
all the proceedings of the past 6 years, not a single person that I
know of--including the INS--has questioned the validity of Mr. and Mrs.
Rezai's marriage. In fact, many that I have heard from have
emphatically told me that Mr. and Mrs.

[[Page S10798]]

Rezai's marriage is as strong as any they have seen. Given the
prevailing political and cultural climate in Iran, I would not expect
that Mrs. Rezai will choose to make her home there. Thus, Mrs. Rezai's
deportation will result in either the breakup of a legitimate family or
the forced removal of a U.S. citizen and her husband to a third country
foreign to both of them.

It should also be noted that Mr. Rezai has been present in the United
States for more than a decade. During this time he has assimilated to
American culture and has become a contributing member of his community.
He has been placed in a responsible position of employment as the
security field supervisor at Westminster College where he has gained
the respect and admiration of both his peers and his supervisors. In
fact, I received a letter from the interim president of Westminster
College, signed by close to 150 of Mr. Rezai's associates, attesting to
his many contributions to the college and the community. This is just
one of the many, many letters and phone calls I have received from
members of our community. Mr. Rezai's forced departure in light of
these considerations would both unduly limit his own opportunities and
deprive the community of his continued contributions.
Finally, Mr. Rezai's deportation would create a particular hardship
for his wife, who was diagnosed just a few years ago with Multiple
Sclerosis [MS]. Mrs. Rezai's doctor has recommended that her husband be
designated as her primary caregiver for what is expected to be a
lifelong debilitating illness. It is doubtful that adequate medical
care would be available should she be forced to return with her husband
to Iran or to some other country willing to accept them as immigrants.
Finally, her doctor has suggested that severe symptoms and rapid
deterioration of Mrs. Rezai's condition are possible as a result of the
stress being placed upon her by her husband's protracted immigration
proceedings and the uncertainty of their future.
Mr. President, I firmly believe that we must think before enforcing
an action that will result in such severe consequences as the
destruction of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage and the endangering of
Mrs. Rezai's already fragile health. The legislation I am introducing
today, if enacted, will put an end to what has been a long and drawn-
out ordeal for the Rezais by granting Mr. Rezai full permanent resident
status. At a minimum, the outstanding questions regarding the propriety
of the denial of Mr. Rezai's current immigrant visa petition need to be
addressed. With the introduction of this legislation today and its
consideration by the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration,
we can ensure that Mr. Rezai's deportation will be stayed pending the
thorough review of these questions by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
I urge each of my colleagues to support this immigration bill.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Burns):
S. 1291. A bill to permit the interstate distribution of State-
inspected meat under certain circumstances; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

THE INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION OF STATE-INSPECTED MEAT ACT OF 1997

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Interstate
Distribution of State-inspected Meat Act of 1997. This legislation will
lift the ban on interstate distribution of State-inspected meat and
poultry, providing some long-term relief to our livestock producers and
finally ending a long-standing inequity in meat inspection laws that
affects about 3,000 meat processors in 26 States.

In the 1960's, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act allowed States to implement their own
inspection programs. At the time, there remained some uncertainty as to
how well the State inspection programs would function, so a provision
was included banning meat inspected by States from interstate
distribution. There was also a provision included requiring the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to periodically recertify that the State
programs are ``at least equal to'' the Federal standards. In the 30
years since this program was instituted, a State program has never
failed to achieve recertification.
Mr. President, today the ban on interstate distribution has clearly
outlived its purpose. Instead of protecting the health of our citizens,
it only stifles competition in the meat packing industry and impounds
the available market to State-inspected plants. Right now, State-
inspected ostrich, venison, buffalo, and pheasant are freely
distributed across State lines; yet, a perfectly good steak is banned.
Furthermore, foreign competitors are allowed to send their meat
products throughout the United States without regard for State
boundaries. These foreign companies do not face a higher standard than
our State-inspected processing plants. The only difference is that the
State-inspected plants have much tighter oversight by the USDA. There
is no reason that U.S. plants should be restricted from competing with
foreign countries.
Monte Lucherini runs a State-inspected plant in Logan, UT. He runs a
good business and makes an excellent product, but is still not allowed
to do business outside of Utah. He writes:

I believe that my gross sales would increase 30 to 40
percent. . . . Employment would be increased also. I would
need two to three more butchers, and probably five to six
more part-time workers. . . . It has always been a thorn in
our side that we couldn't service the customers that want our
products.

David H. Yadron runs a state-inspected plant in Orem, Utah. He says:

By scrimping and saving, this ``mom and pop'' operation was
built to federal standards two years ago. Nevertheless, large
companies and foreign competitors enjoy the privilege of
shipping their meat products interstate even though our
facility and products are equal or superior to theirs. This
injustice limits our profitability while providing an unfair
marketing advantage to foreign companies and large domestic
operations. Unless Congress repeals the unfair prohibition,
we could be forced out of business. Conversely, if Wind River
grows, then our suppliers, including the local, federal meat
inspected packers, would also grow.

Mr. President, there are restaurants and food retailers in many
States that would love to purchase meat products from Utah's State-
inspected plants. Utah's State inspection program receives the highest
marks possible by the USDA, and many of our plants produce unique and
hard-to-find products. Instead of purchasing from Utah, these
restaurants and retailers are forced to purchase from foreign
competitors, even though the quality of the foreign product is often
inferior.
There is no sense to this, Mr. President; it cuts into the profits of
our retailers, raises the prices for our consumers, stifles business
for our processors, and limits the market for our livestock and poultry
producers.
Mr. President, the time has come to lift the ban in State-inspected
meat and poultry. There is no reason whatever to believe that
permitting interstate distribution for State-inspected meat would
compromise safety in any way. In fact, I believe we would have even
greater assurances about the safety of meat than we do now. The USDA
would continue to set and ensure inspection standards.
I am aware that the USDA has recently begun looking into the merits
of lifting the prohibition on interstate distribution, and I am eager
to work with the USDA on a workable plan for bringing this law up-to-
date. I call on my colleagues to support this effort to introduce
equity into the meat packing industry.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor
of the Interstate Distribution of State-inspected Meat Act of 1997
introduced today by my colleague from Utah [Mr. Hatch] and I thank him
for his leadership on this issue.
This is a very important bill for my State of Wisconsin which has
nearly 300 State-inspected meat plants which provide jobs and income
for rural communities. The quality meat products processed by these
plants such as the Lodi Sausage Co. in Lodi, WI, Gunderson Food Service
in Mondovi, WI, Goodfella's Pizza Corp. in Medford, WI, The Ham Store
in Brookfield, WI, Country Fresh Meats in Hatley, WI, and Louie's Finer
Meats, Inc. in Cumberland, WI are prohibited from being sold across
State lines. These small businesses face the interstate marketing
prohibition not because their products haven't been inspected--in fact
all these businesses are inspected by the

[[Page S10799]]

State of Wisconsin--but because of an archaic provision of Federal law
which prohibits interstate shipment of State-inspected meats even
though the State inspection program is certified as equal to Federal
meat inspection programs.
These plants, and hundreds like them in Wisconsin, produce quality
specialty meat products which are demanded by consumers in other
States. But the owners of these facilities are unable to capitalize on
their specialties and meet that market demand. By limiting these plants
to markets within their home-State borders, Federal law effectively
prevents them from expanding their markets, increasing the number of
people they employ, and generating additional economic activity in
rural areas.
These small plants pose no competitive threat to larger processors
who are federally inspected. In most cases, State-inspected plants are
small family owned businesses, employing between 1 and 20 people,
producing specialty products to fill a small market niche. These plant
owners and operators pay special attention to the quality of their
products and because of this they cannot grow very large. Wisconsin's
small-scale meat processors take great pride in their products which
reflect the ethnic diversity in my State. In fact, it is my
understanding that Wisconsin specialty meat products win nearly 25
percent of the awards at the American Association of Meat Processors'
nationwide product show.
Furthermore, these small State-inspected plants play a critical role
in sustaining rural communities and helping to ensure diversity of size
in the livestock industry. Most of these plants buy livestock locally
which helps maintain the viability of nearby small family livestock
operations. By buying locally they know exactly where their inputs bar
coming from and how they are produced, which allows them to control the
quality of their products. These local buying practices help counteract
trends toward concentration in the livestock and poultry production and
processing industries providing small livestock and dairy producers
with marketing alternatives in any industry dominated by a few large
meat packers.
The owners of these small businesses in Wisconsin correctly point out
that they face even more meat shipment restrictions than their
competitors from foreign countries. Under our trade agreements, meat
products from foreign countries are allowed into the United States and
across State borders as long as the country has an inspection program
that is ``equivalent'' to U.S. programs. Meanwhile, even if State
inspection programs are ``equal to'' Federal inspection programs, meats
inspected under State programs are still precluded from interstate
shipment Mr. President, it simply isn't fair and it is time to
eliminate this inequity.
The bill we are introducing today makes a simple but important change
to Federal law to allow State-inspected meats to be sold across State
lines after the State inspection program is favorably reviewed and
certified by the Secretary of Agriculture as at least ``equal to''
Federal meat inspection programs. If State programs are not equal to
the Federal inspection program, they will not be certified by USDA and
State-inspected meats will not cross State lines. The Secretary is also
required by this bill to certify that the State inspection program is
on schedule in implementing USDA's new Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Points [HAACP] regulations. The bill also requires the
Secretary to annually recertify the State program. To provide further
safeguards, Federal meat inspectors may also randomly inspect State
plants to ensure that they continue to meet Federal standards. The
Secretary will have the authority to reinstate the interstate shipment
ban on plants that fail to meet Federal standards. This bill is
responsible to consumers while providing equity to small State-
inspected plants.
Mr. President, I think the best arguments in favor of this
legislation are made by those small business owners who are directly
affected by the interstate shipment prohibition imposed on their meat
products. I want to share with my colleagues some comments made by
owners of some State-inspected processing businesses in Wisconsin.:
Louis Muench, owner of Louie's Finer Meats, Inc. In Cumberland, WI
writes:

We are the operators of a small meat processing and sausage
making operation in a small town in northern Wisconsin . . .
Our plant is 30 miles from the Minnesota border and we cannot
even provide sausage for a pancake supper in Minnesota, let
alone any wholesaling to supermarkets and convenience stores.
We have received over 100 State and National awards for our
sausage products. We cannot even market these products on a
regional basis, let alone a national basis. This past May
[1996], we were honored to receive two international gold
medals for our sausage in Frankfurt, Germany. We are not
allowed to market these products anywhere but Wisconsin.
These kinds of restrictions make it difficult to maintain a
profitable business.

Dan Kubly, one of the owners of LazyBones Ham Store, in Brookfield,
WI writes:

We work very closely with our state inspectors and consider
them an ally in our overall business. We constantly consult
with them on equipment conditions, labeling and handling
procedures in our plant. It makes no sense that we are
permitted to ship our products anywhere as long as the retail
customer buys the product at our stores, but are not allowed
to ship the same product across state lines through a
distributor . . . Our volume is increasing rapidly and we are
interested in contracting with a multi-state distributor,
however we are unable to do this because we do not have USDA
inspection. We feel our business will suffer significantly
and job creation will end if we are not permitted to expand
due to this unnecessary prohibition.

James Weber, owner of Gunderson Food Service, in Modovi, WI writes:

We are operating a small meat plant in northwest Wisconsin
and employ 9 people. We slaughter and and custom process for
the local farm community, smoke ham and bacon, manufacture
sausage and sell retail and wholesale. We are under Wisconsin
meat inspection and are required to be equal to or better
than Federal inspection. In the last 4 years we have taken 18
Wisconsin, national and international awards for our ham,
jerky, beef sticks and sausage; but because I am in Wisconsin
I am discriminated against by the Federal government. We are
30 miles from the Minnesota border but cannot sell our
product there. If my products are of high enough quality to
be sent 250 miles to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, then why is there
a problem with me selling it 25 miles away in Waubaska,
Minnesota?

Bill Ruef, owner of Ruef's Meat Market in New Glarus, WI who
processes a Swiss ready-to-eat snack called ``Landjaeger'' writes:

This [Landjaeger] is our most popular item, and I get asked
on a regular basis by business owners from other states--we
are about 25 miles from the Illinois border--if we can ship
our Landjaegers to them for resale in their establishments.
It really hurts me and my business when I have to tell them
``no'' because we aren't federally inspected. This kind of
unfair prohibition will only continue to drive small
businesses to fold and allow large conglomerates to
monopolize the industry.

Mr. President, these business owners say it best. The current
prohibition on interstate shipment of State-inspected meats is obsolete
and patently unfair to small meat processors. It is time to correct
this inequity and I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I join with the distinguished
Senators from Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in introducing a bill which
addresses an injustice that has developed out of current law.
Under current law, meat and poultry products that are processed in
plants which are inspected by State departments of agriculture are not
allowed to be shipped over State lines. This restriction is an unfair
restraint on competition which is especially discriminatory toward
small processing facilities.
State inspection programs are required to maintain standards are ``at
least equal to'' federal inspection standards. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture periodically recertifies that State programs continue to
meet that standard. meeting an ``equal to'' standard is the same
requirement that foreign meat processors must meet in order to sell
their product within U.S. borders. Not allowing State inspected
facilities the freedom to sell their product throughout the country
after having met the same standard that allows their foreign
competitors to market their product unimpeded is, quite simply, unfair.
This arbitrary restriction has been troublesome to me ever since I
was Secretary of Agriculture for Kansas. I've seen firsthand that this
restriction impedes competition. In fact, I would like to insert in the
Record a letter that I received from a professional in

[[Page S10800]]

the State of Kansas who operates a State inspected plant. My
constituent presents a credible case for why her business is limited
because of the restriction on interstate shipment.
Proprietors of State-inspected plants are not the only advocates of
changing the law. USDA's packer concentration panel recommended an
immediate repeal of this prohibition as a way to slow packer
concentration. The National Association of State Department of
Agriculture, which represents the Secretaries and Commissioners of
Agriculture which have responsibility for overseeing State programs,
strongly endorses the repeal of interstate shipment restrictions. Based
on public comment solicited in the Federal Register and public hearings
that were held throughout the country, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture recently announced its support of lifting the ban on
interstate shipment.
Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of food safety in
relation to my proposal. Food safety is paramount. This measure would
not in any way undermine the consumer's access to a reliable and safe
product. However, this bill is not about food safety. Rather, this bill
addresses an issue of commerce and trade.
In other words, food safety is an issue of enforcing the inspection
standards that are in place, whether under State or Federal oversight.
If State-inspected meat is safe to be distributed in Kansas, it is safe
to be shipped to Missouri, or Oklahoma, or wherever else an
entrepreneur finds a customer. Conversely, if the food is not safe to
be shipped over State lines, it shouldn't be distributed with the State
either.
And, as both State and federally inspected plants implement the
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system, we can be even more
assured that plants throughout the country are conforming to a
uniformly high set of standards. Now, more than ever, a focus on who
does the inspecting has no relevance in determining where the product
can be consumed safely.
I would like to highlight the paper that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture recently released in support of allowing the interstate
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products. In this paper,
the administration states its concept for legislative action and
establishes certain recommendations for what that legislation should
include. I believe that there is much common ground between the
Secretary's guidelines and the bill that my colleagues and I are
introducing today.
I look forward to working with the USDA, as well as my colleagues
here in the Senate, in order to pass and implement this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Home On The Range & Co.,

Scott City, KS, September 11, 1997.
Congressman Sam Brownback,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Brownback: On September 6 of last week I
was asked to attend a meeting called by Secretary of
Agriculture Dan Glickman concerning the interstate shipment
of State inspected meat and poultry products. I was a Kansas
representative of small processors that are affected by this
issue.
This is not a food safety issue. Our plants meet or exceed
the provisions provided by the USDA. In many cases we are
even more careful of our products standards because we live
in the communities where we work. If our customers do not
like the quality of products we produce they tell their
friends and so on. We want to produce the safest and highest
quality of products.
It is an unfair competition issue. With the passage of the
NAFTA and other trade agreements, foreign meat and poultry
products have free access to United States interstate
commerce. These foreign inspection systems must meet
requirements similar to those that the states must meet in
assuring that their systems meet the requirements found in
the federal acts. Why should beef inspected in Mexico have
free access to interstate commerce when beef I process can
not be sold in Colorado?
Expanding the market for state inspected plants will create
jobs and the economy in all our communities. These plants
provide ``value added'' and specialty products to the market
that the larger plants do not want to produce.
Another issue that does not make sense is the fact that the
Buffalo Jerky I produce by the exact process as the Beef
Jerky I produce is able to be sold across the United States
because the USDA does not regulate them as species which
require mandatory federal inspection.
Please give your support to Bill number S. 1862 that is
being introduced concerning this matter. It is very important
this be passed now. Time is running out for the small
processors. In Kansas alone, 6-7 plants are closing a year
because we are not able to access the trade we need to stay
in business.
Kansas Secretary of Agriculture, Allie Devine is in favor
of this bill. She would be happy to answer any questions you
may have on this issue.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Lori Robbins, Owner.
______

By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Burns, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bond, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bennett, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coverdell,
Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Frist, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Santorum,
Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Specter, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Warner):
S. 1292. A resolution disapproving the cancellations transmitted by
the President on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-45; to the
Committee on Appropriations, pursuant to the order of section 1025 of
Public Law 93-344 for seven days of session.

disapproval legislation

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have sought the floor now to introduce
a disapproval bill to reverse the President's use of the line-item veto
in the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill. I
believe at least 37 of my colleagues will join as cosponsors of this
bill.
The Line-Item Veto Act, public law 104-130, provides very specific
fast-track procedures for consideration of a disapproval bill. I want
to discuss those in detail later in these comments.
Congress received the President's special message listing the 38
cancellations in the military construction bill on Monday, October 6.
The bill we introduce today is within the 5 calendar days of session
timeframe provided for fast-track process.
Let me take a minute on the merits of this bill, Mr. President. In
June, the President reached a budget agreement with the bipartisan
leadership of the Congress. That agreement provided an increase of $2.6
billion for national defense over the amount that the President had
requested in the budget for fiscal year 1998. The President's action on
the military construction bill, in my judgment, reneges on the budget
agreement he reached with the Congress. We were given our spending caps
under the agreement and the Appropriations Committee presented the
Senate with 13 appropriations bills consistent with the spirit, terms
and limits of the revised budget.
We upheld our end of the agreement with the President. The President
has not. This afternoon the Appropriations Committee met to evaluate
the President's use of the line-item veto authority.
I called this hearing after consultation with Senator Byrd because of
the manner in which the President had used this new prerogative on this
military construction bill. I asked the committee to consider whether
that tool was used as intended by Congress, and that intention was that
the line-item veto would be used to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary
spending. The committee heard testimony from the Air Force, Navy and
Army regarding the merits of the 38 military construction projects.
Today's hearings afforded our committee the chance to review the status
of these projects in the military's future budget plans and whether or
not they could be executed in 1998. Our military witnesses testified
that in fact these projects were mission-essential and that they could
be commenced in 1998. These military witnesses stated that the military
services were not consulted in deciding which projects should be vetoed
on this bill. These witnesses also informed us that 33 of the 38
projects in the President's message on the line-item veto are in the
Department's future year defense plan. Let me repeat that. Thirty-three
of the 38 projects the President indicated he

[[Page S10801]]

wished to line-item veto were in a plan he had approved himself.
They told us that the President's January budget constraints had
prohibited them from including many of these projects in this year's
budget. If the military services at the beginning of the year had had
the extra $2.6 billion that the President agreed to in July, it is my
judgment that all of the projects listed in the disapproval bill could
and probably would have been included in the President's fiscal year
1998 budget request, if he listened to the military departments.
It's my belief that we will be successful in what we are starting
today, which is an effort to overturn these line-item vetoes because
the projects that the President has attempted to eliminate are
meritorious, are sought by the Department, are within the budget
agreement, and they are not wasteful or excessive spending.
These projects reflect a combination of quality of life, safety,
readiness and infrastructure enhancement initiatives, Mr. President. A
substantial number of them would significantly improve the day-to-day
working conditions for men and women in uniform. Our soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines are the ones that are being shortchanged by the
President's veto, not officials in the Pentagon or in the White House.
I will urge my colleagues to support us in this important endeavor.
We must stand together to require that the President live up to the
bargain he made with the Congress this summer. The Line-Item Veto Act
provides a process to resolve the issue quickly, so I want to take the
time of the Senate to outline that process so that we all know this is
a new process for all of us.
Under this act, the President sent to Congress one special message
for each law in which the President exercises his cancellation
authority under the Line-Item Veto Act. That special message must
contain a numbered list of each item the President seeks to cancel. The
Line-Item Veto Act includes a fast track--a process for the speedy
consideration of one disapproval bill for each message. Our action
today only pertains to the military construction bill.
In order to overturn one or more of the cancellations in a special
message, the Congress must send a bill to the President disapproving
the cancellations. That bill may be vetoed by the President using his
constitutional veto authority. As with any other bill, the President's
veto then may be overturned only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds
of the Members of each House. In order to qualify for this expedited
process, the provisions of the Line-Item Veto Act require that a
disapproval bill must be introduced within five calendar days of
session after the Congress receives a special message from the
President. With respect to the Senate, a calendar day of session is a
day in which both Houses of Congress are in session. This fast-track
procedure applies only in the House for 30 calendar days of session.
There is no time limit on the Senate's consideration of the bill, other
than the time for introduction of the bill and the discharge from the
committee.

A disapproval bill in the House must contain a list of all the items
canceled in the special message. A disapproval bill in the Senate may
contain any or all of the items canceled. I might say, Mr. President,
that the bill I will introduce with my cosponsors will not include all
of the measures, because some Senators have indicated they do not want
to move forward with their items. The format for the disapproval bill
is spelled out in the Line-Item Veto Act, and the fast track process is
available only if that exact format is followed.
The addition of anything other than the numbers from the list of the
items canceled in the special message, whether on the floor or in
conference, results in the loss of the fast track process in both the
House and the Senate. In other words, no amendments to this bill, other
than dealing with the specific items by number as listed in the
President's message, are in order. Once introduced, the disapproval
bill is referred to the committees with jurisdiction over the items
that have been canceled, and it must be reported within 7 calendar days
of session. After 7 calendar days of session, it is in order in either
the House or the Senate to have the committees discharged. Special
rules then apply in the House and the Senate with respect to debate and
amendments on a disapproval bill.
In the Senate, there are no more than 10 hours of debate with one
extension of time for up to 5 additional hours. That is possible at the
request of the leadership. Debate on any amendment is limited to one
hour with up to a limit of 10 hours, at which time all amendments then
pending are voted on.
Special rules are also provided in the act for the conference
committee. The conferees are directed to accept any item in a
disapproval bill that was included in both the House and the Senate and
are limited to accepting or rejecting any item in disagreement. In
other words, there can be nothing added in conference that is not in
one bill or the other.
Debate in the Senate on a conference report is limited to four hours.
This will be an expedited process, Mr. President. We intend to start it
as soon as we return. Let me say again that there is a learning curve
for us on the line-item veto process, and I am also constrained to say
to the Senate what I just said at the conclusion of the hearing on the
subject of the President's special message before the Appropriations
Committee.
It is obvious to me that the use of the line-item veto by the White
House in this instance was very excessive. It is also obvious to me
that the information process in getting the details to the President
concerning the items in the bill that he used the line-item veto on
were very, very badly handled. We are now awaiting the President's
action on the Defense Appropriations bill. As chairman, I have been
notified that the Department of Defense wishes to discuss that bill
with our staff and with Members, and there was an indication that we
might be asked to ``negotiate'' to see what items would be subject to a
veto under the Line-Item Veto Act and what items the President would
yield to that Congress desires to not have vetoed.
I have notified the Department of Defense and the White House that we
are not prepared--Senator Byrd and I have agreed--to negotiate with
regard to any of those items. We will--and our door is open--explain to
the White House or the Department why we put in any of the items, or
why we left them out, but we will not negotiate. Our constitutional
duty is to pass legislation. As a matter of fact, the Congress is given
the specific authority for the legislative process. The President may
recommend to the Congress, but he cannot dictate to the Congress, and
he is not going to dictate to the Congress during the watch of this
Senator. I think I am joined in that regard by the Senator from West
Virginia. We do not intend to negotiate with regard to items that have
already been passed by the Congress. We do discuss it before we pass a
bill with the administration and we listen to them at times about
threats of vetoes. But we are not going to listen to those threats
after a bill is passed.
I urge the Senate to understand this process that we are going
through now because it is obvious that the process will be followed
again and again. I announced at the conclusion of the hearings on this
message on the Military Construction bill that if the same process is
followed on the Department of Defense bill, an arrogant abuse of power,
I intend to introduce a bill to repeal the Line-Item Veto Act. I was a
supporter of the Line-Item Veto Act; as a matter of fact, I was
chairman of the conference on the Senate side of that act. But I
believed it should be used for a stated purpose, only to eliminate
wasteful or unnecessary spending. We make mistakes at times and we make
compromises at times, which perhaps could lead to what a President
could class as being wasteful or unnecessary spending. But a wholesale
condemnation of an act passed by Congress by use of the line-item veto
pen, to me, is arrogance. From my point of view, I will persist in
trying to repeal that statute and take it away from this
administration--it will only be extended to the executive branch for a
short period of time anyway--if it is abused again.
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:

[[Page S10802]]

S. 1292

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
Congress disapproves of cancellations 97-4, 97-5, 97-6, 97-7,
98-8, 97-9, 97-10, 97-11, 97-12, 97-13, 97-14, 97-15, 97-16,
97-17, 97-18, 97-19, 97-20, 97-21, 97-22, 97-23, 97-24, 97-
25, 97-26, 97-27, 97-28, 97-29, 97-30, 97-32, 97-33, 97-34,
97-35, 97-36, 97-37, 97-38, 97-39, and 97-40, as transmitted
by the President in a special message on October 6, 1997,
regarding Public Law 105-45.

Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from West Virginia
is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased and I am proud to join with the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my friend, a
friend in every sense of the word, Ted Stevens, in offering legislation
to put back on the President's desk those projects which were line-item
vetoed, at least those projects that Senators want to put back before
the President for his consideration, and if he wants to veto that bill,
he can do so, and then Congress can override or sustain his veto.
Mr. President, I think that one of the most significant things that
has happened in the history of this country was the passage of the
Line-Item Veto Act. To me, it was one of the most shocking abdications
of duty that Members of the Congress have committed. I am not here
today to say ``I told you so,'' but I am here today to say that this
pernicious act should be repealed.
I hope that the Supreme Court of the United States will strike it
down, but there has to be a case brought. I attempted that with other
colleagues in both Houses, and the Supreme Court, as everybody knows,
said we didn't have standing, even though the act itself anticipated
that such a case would be brought by Members of Congress.
I am not here today to argue that. But I am here today to just take a
few minutes to point out for the record why the Line Item Veto Act is
an unconstitutional act. No matter what the Supreme Court ultimately
says, I will always think it is an unconstitutional act. The
distinguished chairman has already stated the law and what the
instructions were in that law as to what actions Congress may take and
when, and all of that. So I will not attempt to go into that. He has
already indicated what was brought out in the hearings this afternoon.
One thing was that the administration's right hand doesn't know what
the left hand is doing.
I was called by Mr. Raines on Monday as to the one item that I had
that was line-item vetoed. I was told that certain criteria governed
the actions of the President in using the line-item veto pen. I was
told that the one item that is to be located in West Virginia was, in
the face of the governing criteria, to be line-item vetoed. I stated to
Mr. Raines, ``That is an incorrect statement of the case. This item is
in the Defense Department's 5-year plan, and the design has already
been started. It is under way. So your criteria don't fit this
project.'' And he indicated that he would have to take another look,
therefore, and asked me to send down the papers from which I was
reading, which I did, and he indicated that he would get back to me,
which he did not. And I don't fault him for not getting back to me. He
has other things to do, I am sure.
But what I am saying is that this action on the part of the
administration was an abuse even of a bad law; an abuse even of a bad
law.
In the very first section of the very first article of the
Constitution these words are to be found. It is one sentence. Section
1:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives.
That is very plain. It says that only the Congress has the
constitutional authority to make laws. ``All legislative powers'' --not
``some powers''; not a ``few powers''; but ``All legislative powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' It
doesn't say the President may share in that. The President doesn't have
any lawmaking power. He is limited to the veto power insofar as making
the laws are concerned--the veto power as set forth in the Constitution
of the United States.
So he has no lawmaking power. The Constitution states the limits of
his veto authority.
It states in section 7 of article I that, and I read:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a
Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if
he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it,
with his Objections to that House in which it shall have
originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

I will not read the rest of the language dealing with the veto.
But Congress in the passing of the Line-Item Veto Act went far afield
from the Constitution of the United States. Congress in the Line Item
Veto Act said, in essence, that when the President signs an
appropriation bill into law, he has 5 days thereafter during which time
he can cancel out certain portions of that bill which has already
become law.
So that is what he did in this instance. He signed into law a bill,
and then, unilaterally, he came along 5 days later and changed that
law. He amended it. He struck out certain items. If that bill were
before the Senate and if Senator Stevens or Senator Grassley or Senator
Bennett or any other Senator wished to move to strike an item in the
bill, which, in this case, was to be at Camp Dawson in Preston County,
WV--if any one of those Senators moved to strike that item, they could
do it. But before they could succeed in striking that item, they would
have to have a majority of the Senate to support them by a vote.

The vote could be by voice. It could be by division. It could be by
rollcall. But they would have to have a majority of a quorum in the
Senate in order to be successful in striking that item. They would not
yet have fully accomplished their aim, however. A majority of the
Members in a quorum of the other body would likewise have to support
the striking of that item. If all 100 Senators were present, they would
have to have 51 votes. If all 435 Members of the House were present,
they would have to have at least 218 votes in order to successfully
strike that item. A majority of each House would have to support the
conference report. But in any event, in the first instance, a majority
of each body would have to support the amendment in order to strike the
item from the bill.
Striking an item from a bill is amending a bill. After the President
has signed a bill into law, then under this Line-Item Veto Act, a
President--Democrat or Republican, it doesn't make any difference--may
after the first 10 minutes, after the first 5 minutes, after the first
2 days, 3 days, or 4 days, even on the fifth day, he may go back and
singlehandedly, unilaterally cancel out an item in the law; in other
words, strike it out; change the law. He could, if he wished to, line-
item out 90 percent of the law, which in that form, as a bill, would
probably not have passed either body. But one man, or woman, if it
should be, as the President of the United States may unilaterally amend
a bill. That is amending a bill.
The Senator from Iowa if he offers a motion to strike my item from
the bill is moving to amend the bill. He is pursuing the legislative
process. That is the lawmaking process. He is amending a bill. As I
have already said, he can't do it alone. His vote only counts for 1 out
of 100. He has to have a majority.
But not so with the President. The President may amend unilaterally,
after he signs the bill into law. According to the Constitution, if he
approve the bill, he shall sign it. Well, he must have approved it, or
he wouldn't have signed the bill. He approved it. He signed the bill
into law. Up to 5 days later, he may go back and change that law
unilaterally. And that is what he did in this instance. He changed the
law unilaterally. He struck out Camp Dawson.
Did Senators really intend to give one man in the White House that
kind of power, that kind of legislative power? Can they really believe
that the Framers who wrote this Constitution would have ever intended
that that be done? It is mind-boggling--mind-boggling. It is mind-
boggling to me to think that a majority of these two Houses would give
any President--any President, Republican or Democrat--that kind of
power. And with that kind of power the President, be he Republican or
Democrat, holds the sword of Damocles over the head of every Senator
and every House Member.

[[Page S10803]]

Am I going to vote against a certain treaty, or some nomination? The
President may say, ``Look, you have an item in the bill. You have done
a great job. You have done a great job for the State of West Virginia.
I am really proud of you. The people down in your State love you. You
did this, you did that. And I want you to have this item. But can we
bargain a little here? Can we negotiate a little bit? Can you help me
on what I want that is in the bill? Can you help me on this
nomination?'' Or whatever. ``Maybe we can reach an amicable agreement
here where you will get your item, and I will get mine.''
Now, I do not want to say that I am not willing to listen to the
administration. We do that all the time when the subcommittees bring
these bills to the floor. The subcommittees on appropriations work for
weeks in hearings. They listen to witnesses. They talk with their
staffs. They look over the correspondence. They study the needs of the
various agencies and departments. And then they get together and they
mark up the bill in the subcommittee. Then it goes to the full
committee. Then it comes to the Senate. During all of this time, the
administration is telling us what they want and what they don't want.
We understand that. We know all about that. We know what they want and
what they don't want. But it may be the collective judgment of the
subcommittee to do otherwise. So the subcommittee brings this bill to
the full committee, and it is then brought to the Senate. And we act on
it, and it goes to conference. Then what happens?
Well, I have been treated to just a little bit of it lately. This is
no surprise to me. We pass an amendment like this--a bill like this--
and give it to any President. He will hold over your head a hammer. So,
as we go to conference, the administration people come into the
conference, or they come into our offices, or wherever they meet with
the leadership, and they say, ``Look, this item the President will
veto. If that item is in there, the President is going to veto it. This
item we want. This item the President will veto unless you modify it.''
I knew that would be the situation in which we were going to find
ourselves once this Line-Item Veto Act was passed.
So, as far as I am concerned, it impinges upon a Senator's or a House
Member's freedom of speech. They have to be a little bit more careful
about what they say about any administration.
It impinges on a Senator's freedom to act in accordance with the
wishes of the constituents who send him here. And to that extent he is
that much less a free man, less able to exercise his own independence.
The distinguished Senator from Alaska has said we do not intend to
negotiate. We intend to send this down to the White House if the
majority of each body will vote for it.
Let me say here what I said in the committee today. If the President
wants to line-item veto a West Virginia item, I am not going to
negotiate with the administration.
Negotiating is over as far as I am concerned. When the subcommittee
works its will, has its hearings, marks up its legislation, brings it
to the full committee, the full committee acts, amends, modifies,
changes, or whatever, and when the House does the same, when the
collective wisdom and judgment of the subcommittee and the full
committee and both Houses has been reached, if the President wants to
veto it, go to it. Why should we sit down and negotiate in order to
keep him from wielding his line-item veto pen? Let him use his veto pen
only as instructed in the original Constitution. Let him use it. And
then Congress can work its will. It can either sustain his veto or
override it, but there should be no negotiating.
That is what every administration will want us to do. They want us to
get in a position where we will continue to negotiate and they will
continue to ratchet us down, they will continue to get what they want,
but they want you to negotiate for whatever your constituents need.
Whatever your constituents need, how you feel about your constituents,
that is negotiable. Then they throw out that threat: ``Well, the
President will veto that.'' The President will line item that out.
Well, so what! ``Lay on, Macduff; And damn'd be him that first cries
`Hold, enough.' ''
We like to know what the administration is thinking. It is worthwhile
to have their judgment. It helps to guide us in our deliberations. But
once both bodies have acted and get into conference, then for the
administration to come up here and say, ``Well, this is vetoable, if
you don't change that. We don't like it,'' I am not for negotiating
now. Let the President use his line-item veto pen. I hope that Senators
and House Members who voted for the line-item veto will get their
bellies full. I hope they get a bellyful of it and they probably will,
because this is just a start. There are several other appropriations
bills coming along.
Think of the time that this costs. Senator Stevens held a hearing
today, had a good attendance, a lot of Senators were there. They
weren't elsewhere doing other things which were important likewise. It
took a lot of their time. It took the time of the generals and admirals
who were up from the Defense Department, and that is going to be
repeated over and over and over again. Look at the time it is taking
now. We have already taken time. The subcommittee took time. The full
committee took time. And there are Members on those subcommittees and
full committee who have great expertise in legislative areas under the
jurisdiction of those subcommittees. And then all that goes for naught
because a President, Republican or Democrat, wants this or wants that
or does not want to go along with a Member whose constituents feel
there are needs to be met and acts accordingly.
The administration has been given a hammer to use over the heads of
Senators and could threaten anything that a Senator wants as a way to
get the President's way on unrelated matters. It greatly enhances the
President's bargaining position in the legislative process. Go home
tonight, all Senators, and before you close your eyes in slumber, think
of what we have done. We have given one man, who puts his britches on
just as I put mine on--one leg at a time--we have said you may amend a
bill unilaterally. You do not have to worry about a majority in the
other body or a majority here. You may amend a bill all by yourself.
You may strike an item out. That is amending a bill. You are the super
lawmaker.
Not by this Constitution he isn't. I cannot understand how, or
whatever got into the Members' minds when they voted to give any
President the line-item veto. But it is done. It is done. I hope they
will think now and that somebody will bring a case and the Supreme
Court will strike down this infernal, pernicious, illegitimate gimmick.
But in the meantime, I will follow the Senator from Alaska. If he
gets ready to introduce legislation to repeal the Line Item Veto Act, I
am ready. I am ready to join him. Just go home and read once again,
Senators who are listening, section 1 of article I. ``All legislative
powers herein granted''--and if those legislative powers are not herein
granted, they do not exist. ``All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .''
And then go over to section 7 of article I and read the language:
``Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and
the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the
President of the United States; If he approve,'' meaning the bill, the
resolution, ``he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.'' It
does not say he may amend it unilaterally. ``If he approve he shall
sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that
House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections
at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.''
Now, that is the Constitution. And we have no right as Members by
legislation to give any President the right unilaterally to amend a
bill. We do not have that power. I do not think Congress has the power.
I do not think it can give away its constitutional power to make all
laws.
There is only one other thing I would say, and then I am going to sit
down. I have said already there is a strong probability that the Senate
will have to consider items that it has already considered in the
committee process over and over again, amounting to a tremendous waste
of precious time. Senator Inouye cited a number of vital

[[Page S10804]]

systems that have been added by the Congress to the defense bill over
the years such as greatly increasing the purchase of stealth fighters,
the Osprey helicopter, C-130 aircraft, C-17's and other systems which
at the time were opposed by the administration and probably would have
been subject to the line-item veto and killed. Where would we then have
been during Desert Storm?
This is a strong case that the administration does not have a corner
on wisdom, and that if it uses the line-item veto to simply protect its
budget as delivered, we will lose the great benefit of that wisdom and
shortchange the historic contributions that have been made over the
years.
I thank all Senators for indulging me. I have fought this battle over
and over and over again. And I am willing to fight it over and over and
over again. I do not believe that I took an oath to support and defend
the Constitution, then only to turn around and vote, in violation of
that Constitution, to give any President the unilateral right, power or
prerogative to, in essence, amend a law by striking an item.
I hope more than anything else, before God sees fit to call me home,
that the line-item veto will be struck down either by the Supreme Court
or by the Congress itself. That is my prayer.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1293. A bill to improve the performance outcomes of the child
support enforcement program in order to increase the financial
stability and well-being of children and families; to the Committee on
Finance.

the child support performance improvement act of 1997

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague and
friend, Senator Snowe, in introducing the Child Support Performance
Improvement Act of 1997. I have long been impressed with Senator
Snowe's commitment to the health, safety, and well-being of children,
and I believe that this legislation will go far to improve the
financial security of thousands of American children.
As a country, our most fundamental measure of success is how well we
treat our children. We have a responsibility as Members of Congress and
as a community to do our utmost to make sure that American children
live happy, healthy, and stable lives. At the same time, we must
acknowledge that much of the responsibility in ensuring children's
happiness and security falls squarely at the feet of their parents.
Sadly, many parents neglect their emotional and financial
responsibilities, maintaining that because they are no longer living in
the same house as their children, they no longer have to support them.
It is estimated that each year, $15 to $25 billion in child support
go uncollected. One study reported that four out of five parents have
attempted to shirk their court-ordered child support responsibilities
at one time or another. In many of these cases, families, already
fragile from the absence of one parent, are forced to turn to welfare
as the only reliable source of monetary support. In 1975, Congress
created the Child Support Enforcement Program to help stop this
disturbing pattern. The goal of that program was and still remains to
reduce public welfare expenditures by forcing absent parents to provide
child support as a regular and reliable source of income for their
children. As part of this goal, the Federal Government provides
incentive payments to encourage State child support agencies to enforce
child support collections as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Unfortunately, in the past several years, these incentives have become
disincentives; handsomely rewarding even the most poorly performing
States with the most dismal collection rates.
Last year, the welfare reform bill took a positive step by
commissioning a task force composed of child support experts from the
Department of Health and Human Services and State child support
agencies to come up with a new set of incentives that would put State
agencies back on the road to efficient collections. The Child Support
Performance Improvement Act of 1997 incorporates the consensus findings
of this working group. For the first time, the new incentive structure
takes into account, not just a State's cost effectiveness in collecting
child support, but that State's overall success is establishing
paternity and child support orders as well as collecting current and
back child support.
The bill also requires the Secretary of HHS to create and implement a
sixth incentive: a medical support incentive. As we are all aware,
health care is an essential part of any financial package provided for
a child. For the first time, this bill requires the implementation of a
medical incentive which will require States to seek medical and health
coverage as part of the overall child support order. All children
deserve comprehensive health coverage, and there is no reason it should
be a public expenditure when a child's parent is perfectly able to pay
for it.
The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1997 also takes an
important step in requiring States to pay families back first. The bill
ensures that States will not be allowed to count toward incentive
payments the collection of arrearages that are not first returned to
former welfare families who need such payments to remain financially
independent. While the overall incentive structure rewards the States
for good performance, the families first provision keeps the States
from receiving a double bonus--allowing them to keep arrearages to
reimburse themselves and then getting an incentive payment for it.
Finally, the bill adds tough but reasonable data requirements to make
sure child support incentive payments are based on complete and
reliable data from the States. States that do not have accurate data on
their child support collections and on other aspects of child support
enforcement should not be qualified to receive incentives. This
provision will encourage States to make their collection systems even
more efficient and, in turn, this will mean millions of additional
dollars being directed to the children who need it.
The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1997 is the first
vital step in assuring that the States have the most efficient and
effective ways possible of collecting child support from parents who
have the responsibility to care for their children. Increasing child
support collections will not only save Federal and State Governments
and taxpayers billions of dollars each year in public expenditures, it
will accomplish the most important goal of all: improving the financial
stability and general well-being of thousands of American children.
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. 1293

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 ``Child Support Performance
Improvement Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES.

(a) In General.--Part D of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 651-669) is amended by inserting after section
458 the following:

``SEC. 458A. INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES.

``(a) In General.--In addition to any other payment under
this part, the Secretary shall, subject to subsection (f),
make an incentive payment to each State for each fiscal year
in an amount determined under subsection (b).
``(b) Amount of Incentive Payment.--
``(1) In general.--The incentive payment for a State for a
fiscal year is equal to the sum of the applicable percentages
(determined in accordance with paragraph (3)) of the maximum
incentive amount for the State for the fiscal year, with
respect to each of the following measures of State
performance for the fiscal year:
``(A) The paternity establishment performance level.
``(B) The support order performance level.
``(C) The current payment performance level.
``(D) The arrearage payment performance level.
``(E) The cost-effectiveness performance level.
``(F) Subject to section 2(d)(2)(C) of the Child Support
Performance Improvement Act of 1997, the medical support
performance level.
``(2) Maximum incentive amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
maximum incentive amount for a State for a fiscal year is--
``(i) subject to subsection (e)(2), with respect to the
performance measures described

[[Page S10805]]

in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1), 0.49
percent of the State collections base for the fiscal year;
``(ii) subject to subsection (e)(2), with respect to the
performance measures described in subparagraphs (D) and (E)
of paragraph (1), 0.37 percent of the State collections base
for the fiscal year; and
``(iii) with respect to the performance measure described
in subparagraph (F), such percentage of the State collections
base for the fiscal year as the Secretary by regulation may
determine in accordance with subsection (e)(2).
``(B) State collections base.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the State collections base for a fiscal year is equal to
the sum of--
``(i) 2 times the sum of--

``(I) the total amount of support collected during the
fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in
cases in which the support obligation involved is required to
be assigned to the State pursuant to part A or E of this
title or title XIX; and
``(II) the total amount of support collected during the
fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in
cases in which the support obligation involved was so
assigned but, at the time of collection, is not required to
be so assigned; and

``(ii) the total amount of support collected during the
fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in
all other cases.
``(3) Determination of applicable percentages based on
performance levels.--
``(A) Paternity establishment.--
``(i) Determination of paternity establishment performance
level.--The paternity establishment performance level for a
State for a fiscal year is, at the option of the State, the
IV-D paternity establishment percentage determined under
section 452(g)(2)(A) or the statewide paternity establishment
percentage determined under section 452(g)(2)(B).
``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The
applicable percentage with respect to a State's paternity
establishment performance level is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``If the paternity establishment performance level is:
------------------------------------------------------- The applicable
At least: But less than: percentage is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80%.............................. ................... 100
79%.............................. 80%................ 98
78%.............................. 79%................ 96
77%.............................. 78%................ 94
76%.............................. 77%................ 92
75%.............................. 76%................ 90
74%.............................. 75%................ 88
73%.............................. 74%................ 86
72%.............................. 73%................ 84
71%.............................. 72%................ 82
70%.............................. 71%................ 80
69%.............................. 70%................ 79
68%.............................. 69%................ 78
67%.............................. 68%................ 77
66%.............................. 67%................ 76
65%.............................. 66%................ 75
64%.............................. 65%................ 74
63%.............................. 64%................ 73
62%.............................. 63%................ 72
61%.............................. 62%................ 71
60%.............................. 61%................ 70
59%.............................. 60%................ 69
58%.............................. 59%................ 68
57%.............................. 58%................ 67
56%.............................. 57%................ 66
55%.............................. 56%................ 65
54%.............................. 55%................ 64
53%.............................. 54%................ 63
52%.............................. 53%................ 62
51%.............................. 52%................ 61
50%.............................. 51%................ 60
0%............................... 50%................ 0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the paternity
establishment performance level of a State for a fiscal year
is less than 50 percent but exceeds by at least 10 percentage
points the paternity establishment performance level of the
State for the immediately preceding fiscal year, then the
applicable percentage with respect to the State's paternity
establishment performance level is 50 percent.
``(B) Establishment of child support orders.--
``(i) Determination of support order performance level.--
The support order performance level for a State for a fiscal
year is the percentage of the total number of cases under the
State plan approved under this part in which there is a
support order during the fiscal year.
``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The
applicable percentage with respect to a State's support order
performance level is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``If the support order performance level is:
------------------------------------------------------- The applicable
At least: But less than: percentage is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80%.............................. ................... 100
79%.............................. 80%................ 98
78%.............................. 79%................ 96
77%.............................. 78%................ 94
76%.............................. 77%................ 92
75%.............................. 76%................ 90
74%.............................. 75%................ 88
73%.............................. 74%................ 86
72%.............................. 73%................ 84
71%.............................. 72%................ 82
70%.............................. 71%................ 80
69%.............................. 70%................ 79
68%.............................. 69%................ 78
67%.............................. 68%................ 77
66%.............................. 67%................ 76
65%.............................. 66%................ 75
64%.............................. 65%................ 74
63%.............................. 64%................ 73
62%.............................. 63%................ 72
61%.............................. 62%................ 71
60%.............................. 61%................ 70
59%.............................. 60%................ 69
58%.............................. 59%................ 68
57%.............................. 58%................ 67
56%.............................. 57%................ 66
55%.............................. 56%................ 65
54%.............................. 55%................ 64
53%.............................. 54%................ 63
52%.............................. 53%................ 62
51%.............................. 52%................ 61
50%.............................. 51%................ 60
0%............................... 50%................ 0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the support order
performance level of a State for a fiscal year is less than
50 percent but exceeds by at least 5 percentage points the
support order performance level of the State for the
immediately preceding fiscal year, then the applicable
percentage with respect to the State's support order
performance level is 50 percent.
``(C) Collections on current child support due.--
``(i) Determination of current payment performance level.--
The current payment performance level for a State for a
fiscal year is equal to the total amount of current support
collected during the fiscal year under the State plan
approved under this part divided by the total amount of
current support owed during the fiscal year in all cases
under the State plan, expressed as a percentage.
``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The
applicable percentage with respect to a State's current
payment performance level is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``If the current payment performance level is:
------------------------------------------------------- The applicable
At least: But less than: percentage is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80%.............................. ................... 100
79%.............................. 80%................ 98
78%.............................. 79%................ 96
77%.............................. 78%................ 94
76%.............................. 77%................ 92
75%.............................. 76%................ 90
74%.............................. 75%................ 88
73%.............................. 74%................ 86
72%.............................. 73%................ 84
71%.............................. 72%................ 82
70%.............................. 71%................ 80
69%.............................. 70%................ 79
68%.............................. 69%................ 78
67%.............................. 68%................ 77
66%.............................. 67%................ 76
65%.............................. 66%................ 75
64%.............................. 65%................ 74
63%.............................. 64%................ 73
62%.............................. 63%................ 72
61%.............................. 62%................ 71
60%.............................. 61%................ 70
59%.............................. 60%................ 69
58%.............................. 59%................ 68
57%.............................. 58%................ 67
56%.............................. 57%................ 66
55%.............................. 56%................ 65
54%.............................. 55%................ 64
53%.............................. 54%................ 63
52%.............................. 53%................ 62
51%.............................. 52%................ 61
50%.............................. 51%................ 60
49%.............................. 50%................ 59
48%.............................. 49%................ 58
47%.............................. 48%................ 57
46%.............................. 47%................ 56
45%.............................. 46%................ 55
44%.............................. 45%................ 54
43%.............................. 44%................ 53
42%.............................. 43%................ 52
41%.............................. 42%................ 51
40%.............................. 41%................ 50
0%............................... 40%................ 0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the current
payment performance level of a State for a fiscal year is
less than 40 percent but exceeds by at least 5 percentage
points the current payment performance level of the State for
the immediately preceding fiscal year, then the applicable
percentage with respect to the State's current payment
performance level is 50 percent.
``(D) Collections on child support arrearages.--
``(i) Determination of arrearage payment performance
level.--The arrearage payment performance level for a State
for a fiscal year is equal to the total number of cases under
the State plan approved under this part in which payments of
past-due child support were received during the fiscal year
and part or all of the payments were distributed to the
family to whom the past-due child support was owed (or, if
all past-due child support owed to the family was, at the
time of receipt, subject to an assignment to the State, part
or all of the payments were retained by the State) divided by
the total number of cases under the State plan in which there
is past-due child support, expressed as a percentage.
``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The
applicable percentage with respect to a State's arrearage
payment performance level is as follows:

[[Page S10806]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``If the arrearage payment performance level is:
------------------------------------------------------- The applicable
At least: But less than: percentage is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80%.............................. ................... 100
79%.............................. 80%................ 98
78%.............................. 79%................ 96
77%.............................. 78%................ 94
76%.............................. 77%................ 92
75%.............................. 76%................ 90
74%.............................. 75%................ 88
73%.............................. 74%................ 86
72%.............................. 73%................ 84
71%.............................. 72%................ 82
70%.............................. 71%................ 80
69%.............................. 70%................ 79
68%.............................. 69%................ 78
67%.............................. 68%................ 77
66%.............................. 67%................ 76
65%.............................. 66%................ 75
64%.............................. 65%................ 74
63%.............................. 64%................ 73
62%.............................. 63%................ 72
61%.............................. 62%................ 71
60%.............................. 61%................ 70
59%.............................. 60%................ 69
58%.............................. 59%................ 68
57%.............................. 58%................ 67
56%.............................. 57%................ 66
55%.............................. 56%................ 65
54%.............................. 55%................ 64
53%.............................. 54%................ 63
52%.............................. 53%................ 62
51%.............................. 52%................ 61
50%.............................. 51%................ 60
49%.............................. 50%................ 59
48%.............................. 49%................ 58
47%.............................. 48%................ 57
46%.............................. 47%................ 56
45%.............................. 46%................ 55
44%.............................. 45%................ 54
43%.............................. 44%................ 53
42%.............................. 43%................ 52
41%.............................. 42%................ 51
40%.............................. 41%................ 50
0%............................... 40%................ 0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the arrearage
payment performance level of a State for a fiscal year is
less than 40 percent but exceeds by at least 5 percentage
points the arrearage payment performance level of the State
for the immediately preceding fiscal year, then the
applicable percentage with respect to the State's arrearage
payment performance level is 50 percent.
``(E) Cost-effectiveness.--
``(i) Determination of cost-effectiveness performance
level.--The cost-effectiveness performance level for a State
for a fiscal year is equal to the total amount collected
during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under
this part divided by the total amount expended during the
fiscal year under the State plan, expressed as a ratio.
``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The
applicable percentage with respect to a State's cost-
effectiveness performance level is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``If the cost-effectiveness performance level is:
------------------------------------------------------- The applicable
At least: But less than: percentage is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.00............................. ................... 100
4.50............................. 4.99............... 90
4.00............................. 4.50............... 80
3.50............................. 4.00............... 70
3.00............................. 3.50............... 60
2.50............................. 3.00............... 50
2.00............................. 2.50............... 40
0.00............................. 2.00............... 0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(F) Medical support.--Subject to section 2(d)(2)(C) of
the Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1997, the
medical support performance level for a State for a fiscal
year, and the applicable percentage for a State with respect
to such level, shall be determined in accordance with
regulations implementing the recommendations required to be
included in the report submitted under section 2(d)(2)(B) of
such Act.
``(c) Treatment of Interstate Collections.--In computing
incentive payments under this section, support which is
collected by a State at the request of another State shall be
treated as having been collected in full by both States, and
any amounts expended by a State in carrying out a special
project assisted under section 455(e) shall be excluded.
``(d) Administrative Provisions.--The amounts of the
incentive payments to be made to the States under this
section for a fiscal year shall be estimated by the Secretary
at or before the beginning of the fiscal year on the basis of
the best information available, as obtained in accordance
with section 452(a)(12). The Secretary shall make the
payments for the fiscal year, on a quarterly basis (with each
quarterly payment being made not later than the beginning of
the quarter involved), in the amounts so estimated, reduced,
or increased to the extent of any overpayments or
underpayments which the Secretary determines were made under
this section to the States involved for prior periods and
with respect to which adjustment has not already been made
under this subsection. Upon the making of any estimate by the
Secretary under the preceding sentence, any appropriations
available for payments under this section are deemed
obligated.
``(e) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary governing the calculation of
incentive payments under this section, including directions
for excluding from the calculations certain closed cases and
cases over which the States do not have jurisdiction, and
regulations excluding from the calculations of the current
payment performance level and the arrearage payment
performance level any case in which the State used State
funds to make such payments for the primary purpose of
increasing the State's performance levels in such areas.
``(2) Regulations implementing the medical support
performance level.--Subject to section 2(d)(2)(C) of the
Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1997, the
Secretary shall prescribe regulations implementing the
recommendations required to be included in the report
submitted under section 2(d)(2)(B) of such Act. To the extent
necessary to ensure that the implementation of such
recommendations does not result in total Federal expenditures
under this section in excess of the amount of such
expenditures in the absence of such implementation, such
regulations may increase or decrease the percentages
specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of subsection (b)(2)(A).
``(f) Reinvestment.--
``(1) In general.--Until such time as the State qualifies
for the maximum incentive amount possible, as determined
under subsection (b)(2), payments under this section and
section 458 shall supplement, not supplant, State child
support expenditures under the State program under this part
to the extent that such expenditures were funded by the State
in fiscal year 1996.
``(2) Penalty.--Failure to satisfy the requirement of
paragraph (1) shall result in a proportionate reduction,
determined by the Secretary, of future payments to the State
under this section and section 458.''.
(b) Payments During Transition Period.--Notwithstanding
section 458A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 658A), as
added by subsection (a), the amount of an incentive payment
for a State under such section shall not be--
(1) in the case of fiscal year 2000, less than 80 percent
or greater than 120 percent of the incentive payment for the
State determined under section 458 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 658) for fiscal year 1999 (as such section was in
effect for such fiscal year);
(2) in the case of fiscal year 2001, less than 60 percent
or greater than 140 percent of the incentive payment for the
State (as so determined);
(3) in the case of fiscal year 2002, less than 40 percent
or greater than 160 percent of the incentive payment for the
State (as so determined); and
(4) in the case of fiscal year 2003, less than 20 percent
or greater than 180 percent of the incentive payment for the
State (as so determined).
(c) Regulations.--Within 9 months after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall prescribe regulations governing the
implementation of section 458A of the Social Security Act,
when such section takes effect, and the implementation of
subsection (b) of this section.
(d) Studies.--
(1) General review of new incentive payment system.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this subsection referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
conduct a study of the implementation of the incentive
payment system established by section 458A of the Social
Security Act, in order to identify the problems and successes
of the system.
(B) Reports to congress.--
(i) Report on variations in state performance attributable
to demographic variables.--Not later than October 1, 2000,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that
identifies any demographic or economic variables that account
for differences in the performance levels achieved by the
States with respect to the performance measures used in the
system, and contains the recommendations of the Secretary for
such adjustments to the system as may be necessary to ensure
that the relative performance of States is measured from a
baseline that takes account of any such variables.
(ii) Interim report.--Not later than March 1, 2001, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress an interim report that
contains the findings of the study required by subparagraph
(A).
(iii) Final report.--Not later than October 1, 2003, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a final report that
contains the final findings of the study required by
subparagraph (A). The report shall include any
recommendations for changes in the system that the Secretary
determines would improve the operation of the child support
enforcement program.
(2) Development of medical support incentive.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with State
directors of programs operated under part D of title IV of
the Social Security Act and representatives of children
potentially eligible for medical support, such as child
advocacy organizations, shall develop a new medical support
performance measure based on the effectiveness of States in
establishing and enforcing medical support obligations, and
shall make recommendations for the incorporation of the
measure, in a revenue neutral manner, into the incentive
payment system established by section 458A of the Social
Security Act.

[[Page S10807]]

(B) Report.--Not later than October 1, 1998, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate, a report that describes the performance measure and
contains the recommendations required under subparagraph (A).
(C) Congressional disapproval required.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation,
implement the recommendations required to be included in the
report submitted under subparagraph (B) unless a joint
resolution is enacted, in accordance with subparagraph (D),
disapproving such recommendations before the end of the 1-
year period that begins on the date on which the Secretary
submits such report.
(ii) Exclusion of certain days.--For purposes of clause (i)
and subparagraph (D), the days on which either House of
Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more
than 3 days to a day certain shall be excluded from the
computation of the period.
(D) Congressional consideration.--
(i) Terms of the resolution.--For purposes of subparagraph
(C)(i), the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint
resolution that is introduced within the 1-year period
described in such subparagraph and--

(I) that does not have a preamble;
(II) the matter after the resolving clause of which is as
follows: ``That Congress disapproves the recommendations of
the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the
implementation of a medical support performance measure
submitted on __'', the blank space being filled in with the
appropriate date; and
(III) the title of which is as follows: ``Joint resolution
disapproving the recommendations of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services regarding the implementation of a medical
support performance measure.''.

(ii) Referral.--A resolution described in clause (i) that
is introduced--

(I) in the House of Representatives, shall be referred to
the Committee on Ways and Means; and
(II) in the Senate, shall be referred to the Committee on
Finance.

(iii) Discharge.--If a committee to which a resolution
described in clause (i) is referred has not reported such
resolution by the end of the 20-day period beginning on the
date on which the Secretary submits the report required under
subparagraph (B), such committee shall be, at the end of such
period, discharged from further consideration of such
resolution, and such resolution shall be placed on the
appropriate calendar of the House involved.
(iv) Consideration.--On or after the third day after the
date on which the committee to which a resolution described
in clause (i) has reported, or has been discharged from
further consideration of such resolution, such resolution
shall be considered in the same manner as a resolution is
considered under subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section
2908 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
(10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(e) Technical Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Section 341 of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C.
658 note) is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (a) and redesignating
subsections (b), (c), and (d) as subsections (a), (b), and
(c), respectively; and
(B) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated)--
(i) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Conforming amendments to present system.--The
amendments made by subsection (a) of this section shall
become effective with respect to a State as of the date the
amendments made by section 103(a) (without regard to section
116(a)(2)) first apply to the State.''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(c)'' and inserting
``(b)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
341 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996.
(f) Elimination of Predecessor Incentive Payment System.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 458 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 658) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 458A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
658a) is redesignated as section 458.
(B) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 458(f) (as so
redesignated) are each amended by striking ``and section
458''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on October 1, 2003.
(g) General Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided
in this section, the amendments made by this section shall
take effect on October 1, 1999.

SEC. 3. DATA INTEGRITY.

(a) Duty of the Secretary To Ensure Reliable Data.--Section
452(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 652(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) ensure that data required for the operation of State
programs is complete and reliable by providing Federal
guidance, technical assistance, and monitoring.''.
(b) Denying Incentive Payments When Federal Audits Find
That Claims Are Based on Incomplete or Unreliable Data.--
Section 409(a)(8)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(8)(A)) is amended by striking the period and inserting
the following: ``, and, in addition to the reductions
specified in subparagraph (B), no State shall be eligible for
incentive payments pursuant to section 458 or 458A for any
fiscal year in which its claim is based on data found to be
incomplete or unreliable pursuant to an audit or audits
conducted under section 452(a)(4)(C).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 1294. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow
the consolidation of student loans the Federal Family Loan Program and
the Direct Loan Program; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

THE EMERGENCY STUDENT LOAN CONSOLIDATION ACT OF 1997

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Emergency
Student Loan Consolidation Act of 1997. This bill will provide
emergency relief to the nearly 70,000 students nationwide whose efforts
to consolidate their student loans have been thwarted by the collapse
of the Department of Education's Direct Loan Consolidation Program. In
addition this bill makes conforming changes in the Higher Education Act
to ensure that students who receive the Hope Tax Credit are able to
receive all of the financial aid to which they are entitled. The
Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 1997 is the companion bill
to H.R. 2535 which was favorably reported by the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce on September 24, 1997, by a bipartisan vote
of 43-0.
The rapidly rising cost of attending college is producing students
with overwhelming student loan debt loads. The College Board reports
that tuition at 4-year private institutions has risen by 89 percent
over the past 15 years while median family income has risen by only 5
percent. Students are responding by borrowing at record levels--in
fact, student borrowing under Title IV since 1990 exceeds student
borrowing in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's combined. Between 1993 and
1995, graduate and professional student borrowing increased by over 74
percent.
In order to ease the burden of repaying these debts, Congress created
the student loan consolidation program. This program allows students to
consolidate their student loans into a single loan that has a variety
of repayment options. Current law allows students to consolidate all of
their Direct Student Loans and their Federal Family Education Loan
Program [FFELP] loans into a Direct Lending Consolidation loan
administered by the Department of Education. A student may consolidate
his or her FFELP loans into a FFELP Consolidation Loan but may not
consolidate his or her Direct Loans into the FFELP Program. As a
result, borrowers who wish to consolidate both Direct Student Loans and
FFELP loans into a single loan must go to the Department of Education.
Last August, the Department of Education announced that it had
accumulated a backlog of 85,000 applications for consolidated loans and
would cease accepting new applications until this backlog was
eliminated. This decision places more than 70,000 students in limbo
with no place to turn for help. This bill will provide temporary
authority to allow them to consolidate all of their loans, both FFELP
and Direct through the FFELP program.
In addition, this legislation makes technical corrections to the need
analysis provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to conform with
changes made to the Tax Code earlier this year which provide students
and parents with higher education tax credits. The bill addresses an
oversight in the tax legislation which will result in some students
receiving reduced student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education
Act simply because they qualify for and receive the new tax credits. By
adopting this change to the need analysis formula now, the Department
can begin the process of revising the student aid application forms
well in advance of the 1999 academic year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post article
detailing the problems with the loan consolidation program be included
in the Record.
I urge my colleagues to support this legisation.

[[Page S10808]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Education Department Suspends Program for Restructuring Student Loans

(By Rene Sanchez)

The Education Department, long maligned by congressional
Republicans who say its management is a mess, has just give
its critics new reason to howl.
The department announced last week that it will not accept
any more applications from recent college graduates trying to
consolidate or refinance their tuition loans until the
contractor it hired for the job clears up an enormous backlog
of those requests.
There are more than 70,000 college students nationwide
whose loan payments may soon be in limbo because of the
lengthy processing delays, and the waiting list has been
growing longer each month. The department said that it had no
choice but to suspend the popular program indefinitely in
order to begin fixing the problem.
``It's a terrible embarrassment,'' said David Longanecker,
the assistant secretary for postsecondary education. ``We
were falling farther and farther behind, but by doing this we
are confident that we'll get on top of the problem soon.''
The department faced a similar predicament last year when
more than 900,000 student aid applications handled by private
contractors it hired were delayed because of serious
management problems. The incidents are raising new questions
about the department's ability to manage its direct lending
program, which allows students to get tuition loans straight
from the federal government and offers them a range of
repayment options.
Direct lending, one of President Clinton's most important
education initiatives, has been under fire from Republicans
and many private lenders--who no longer have a monopoly on
the nations' massive student loan industry--ever since it was
created five years ago. There have been several campaigns in
Congress to abolish or severely limit the program, but it is
still largely intact, serving more than 1,200 universities.
Many college officials say they have been quite pleased with
the program so far.
But to some Republican leaders, the latest trouble is proof
that the department is not up to the task of handling the
complexities of managing college loans at a time when a
record number of students--at last count, more than 7
million--depend on them.
``From the very start of the program, I doubted the
department's ability to become one of the largest banks in
this country,'' Rep. William F. Goodline (R-Pa), chairman of
the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said last
week. He called the department's inability to consolidate
student loans quickly and efficiently ``irresponsible.''
With tuition costs at most campuses continuing to exceed
inflation, and college loan debt soaring, more and more
students are taking advantage of new opportunities to
restructure their loans over longer periods of time or in
ways that are based on what they earn after graduation.
Education department officials said that often in the last
year they have received nearly 150,000 applications a month
from students to consolidate loans, a rate that is nearly
twice what they said they had expected when the program
began.
But they adamantly reject criticism that direct lending is
in shambles.
``I can understand the frustration, but I think we have to
keep it in perspective,'' Longanecker. ``One reason we have
this problem is because of the great popularity of the
program.''
Longanecker said that the department is disappointed with
the work of the contractor that it hired last year for the
job. Electronic Data Systems, which was founded by
billionaire Ross Perot. Longanecker said there were start-up
problems in processing student requests, and that ever since
the volume of applications has overwhelmed the system.
Some officials said that it had been taking more than seven
months in same cases--an unpaid student loan falls into
default after six months--to process applications. Because
recent steps to improve performance had only put a small dent
in the backlog of applications, Longanecker said the
department decided instead to stop taking them for a while.
``It was like we were trying to fix a 747 while it was
still in their air,'' he said.
The department has no estimates yet as to when the loan-
consolidation program will be re-opened. But Longanecker said
that he expects it certainly will be before December, which
is a peak time for applications from students because that is
when the most recent class of college graduates are supposed
to start repaying their tuition loans.
That is hardly satisfying some critics, however. And some
lawmakers say they are also losing confidence in how the
department chooses its contractors, suggesting that the
process does not seem as rigorous as it should be.
Education Department leaders scoff at much of the criticism
coming from Republicans about direct lending, saying that
many of them have never wanted the program to succeed anyway.
But alarm over the latest management problem extends well
beyond Capitol Hill.
``Up to now, they've done a pretty good job on this,'' said
Terry Hartle, a vice president for the American Council on
Education, a Washington group that represents more than 1,500
universities. ``But what we have here is a huge embarrassment
in one of the president's signature education programs.''
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Americans should not have to choose
between love and money. In a country that values families, the Federal
Tax Code shouldn't punish people for being married. The number of
unmarried-couple households increased 80 percent from 1980 to 1990,
according to census figures. The percentage of people who never marry
has doubled, from 5 percent in the 1950's to 10 percent today.
Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation with Senators Faircloth
and Mack that will abolish the Federal income tax marriage penalty.
Under this legislation, families will have the choice of filing as
single or married, depending on which method works best for them.
There is something wrong with a law that imposes higher taxes on
married people with two incomes than on single people. The hallmark of
a fair tax system is even-handedness, and the current law flunks this
test. From 1913 through 1969, the Federal income tax treated married
couples either better or as well as if single. Since then, progressive
tax rates have meant that married couples with two incomes have to pay
more in Federal taxes than they would as individuals. The Congressional
Budget Office reports that in 1996, more than 21 million married
couples paid the marriage penalty. The average couple now pays $1,400
in additional income tax simply because they're married. One thousand
four hundred dollars could mean six or seven car payments, a family
vacation, or a computer for the family.
For example, a single person earning $24,000 a year is taxed at the
rate of 15 percent. But, by taxing them on their combined income, the
IRS collects 28 percent in tax from a working couple in which each
spouse earns $24,000. It is wrong for two people living together to pay
less taxes than if they were married.
Because American families increasingly have had two breadwinners,
instead of one, more Americans are impacted by the marriage penalty. In
1969, 52 percent of American families had only one bread winner. Today
that figure is 28 percent.
Mr. President, under current law, the only way to avoid the marriage
penalty is not to marry or to leave your spouse if already married.
This is wrong. We need a Tax Code to encourage marriage, not penalize
it. This legislation is supported by Americans for Tax Reform and the
National Taxpayers Union. We are introducing this bill with 34 co-
sponsors, including every Member of the Republican leadership. I am
very pleased to be working with Senators Faircloth and Mack and I hope
Members from both sides of the aisle will join us in rectifying this
unfair tax treatment of married couples.

____________________