[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.

                          ____________________