Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11449-S11464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Lugar,
Mr. Hagel, Mr. McCain, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Byrd):
S. 1344. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to target
assistance to support the economic and political independence of the
countries of South Caucasus and Central Asia; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.

The Silk Road Strategy Act of 1997

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am introducing the Silk Road Strategy
Act of 1977. This is an overarching policy between the countries of the
South Caucasus and Central Asia, which includes the countries of
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Those are not common names to most
Americans, but the area of the world that they are around, the Caspian
Sea, I think, is going to become far more common knowledge to many
Americans, as there is 4 trillion dollars worth of known oil and gas in
the region.
The region is reaching out to us. They are seeking to put off the
Russian imperialism that has been in the region for years and seeking
to get away from Iranian influence in the area.
Thus, we are putting forward this Silk Road strategy as an active and
positive role in reviving the economies of this region of the world and
to building them as major forces.
I think the United States has a vital political, social and economic
interest in the region, and we need to act now rather than later. I
don't think our window of opportunity in working with these countries
as they seek freedom and yearn to be free and build opportunity for
their people is long. Probably within the next 3 years, they are going
to be making courses and decisions that will decide the long-term fate
of the people of this region.
They seek to be united with the United States. I ask, overall, that
my colleagues look at this potential opportunity, at this bill and
support the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1997. It is a key interest area
for us and our future.
This bill is aimed at focusing the attention of U.S. policy on the
need to play an active and positive role in reviving the economies of
these parts of the ancient Silk Road which was once the economic
lifeline of Central Asia and the South Caucasus and the main
transportation corridor to Europe and the West.
The United States has vital political, social, and economic interests
there and they need to be acted on now, before it is too late. These
countries are at an historic crossroad: They are independent for the
first time in almost a century, located at the juncture of many of
today's major world forces and they are all rich in natural resources.
They are emerging from almost a century of plunder by a Communist
regime which, while it actively drained their resources, put little
back. They now find themselves free to govern themselves, and they are
looking west.
The very fact that they have little experience of independence and
that their economies are essentially starting from scratch, leaves them
in a precarious situation, which is all the more precarious because of
their geographic location: consider this: They are placed between the
Empire from which they recently declared independence and an extremist
Islamic regime to the south--both of which have a strong interest in
exerting economic and political pressure upon them.
These countries are very important to us:
They are a major force in containing the spread northward of anti-
western Iranian extremism. Though Iranian activity in the region has
been less blatant than elsewhere in the world, they are working very
hard to bring the region into their sphere of influence and economic
control.
The Caspian Sea basin contains proven oil and gas reserves which,
potentially, could rank third in the world after the Middle East and
Russia and exceed $4 trillion in value. Investment in this region could
ultimately reduce United States dependence on oil imports from the
volatile Persian Gulf and could provide regional supplies as an
alternative to Iranian sources.
Strong market economies near Russia and China can only help to
positively influence these two countries on their rocky path toward
freedom.
Finally, this region offers us a historic opportunity to spread
freedom and democratic ideals. After years of fighting communism in
this region, the doors are open to promote institutions of democratic
government and to create the conditions for the growth of pluralistic
societies, including religious tolerance.
The single best way to consolidate our goals in the region is to
promote regional cooperation and policies which will strengthen the
sovereignty of each nation. Each of these countries has its own
individual needs; however, many of the problems in the region overlap
and are shared, and a number of common solutions and approaches can
apply. This bill encourages this goal.
All of the Silk Road countries are currently seeking U.S. investment
and encouragement, and they are looking to us to assist them in working
out regional political, economic and strategic cooperation. This bill
authorizes assistance in all these areas.
Given the correct infrastructure development, this region is and will
continue to become, a key transit point that will ultimately link
Central Asia with the West--as it did in the time when caravans
traveled along these same routes in the Middle Ages.

Opportunities to assist this infrastructure development abound--
taking advantage of these opportunities could not only cement political
ties, but commercial and economic ones as well.
The United States should do everything possible to promote this
sovereignty and independence, as well as encourage solid diplomatic and
economic cooperation between these nations.
In order to do this we need to take a number of positive steps: We
should be strong and active in helping to resolve local conflicts; we
should be providing economic assistance to provide positive incentives
for international private investments and increased trade; we should be
assisting in the development of infrastructure necessary for
communities, transportation, and energy and trade on an East-West axis;
we should be providing security assistance to help fight the scourge of
narcotics trafficking, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and
the spread or organized crime; and--perhaps the most important of all--
we should be supplying all the assistance possible to strengthen
democracy, tolerance and the development of civil society. These are
the best ways to insure these countries remain independent and strong
and that they move toward open and free government.
Mr. President, the time to focus and act in this region is now. We
have the opportunity to help these countries rebuild from the ground up
and to encourage them to continue their strong independent stances,
especially in relation to Iran and the spread of extremist, anti-
Western fundamentalism, which is one of the most clear and present
dangers facing the United States today. I hope my colleagues will join
me and support his bill.
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. 1344

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 ``Silk Road Strategy Act of
1997''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

[[Page S11450]]

(1) The ancient Silk Road, once the economic lifeline of
Central Asia and the South Caucasus, traversed much of the
territory now within the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan.
(2) Economic interdependence spurred mutual cooperation
among the peoples along the Silk Road and restoration of the
historic relationships and economic ties between those
peoples is an important element of ensuring their sovereignty
as well as the success of democratic and market reforms.
(3) The development of strong political and economic ties
between countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia and
the West will foster stability in the region.
(4) The development of open market economies and open
democratic systems in the countries of the South Caucasus and
Central Asia will provide positive incentives for
international private investment, increased trade, and other
forms of commercial interactions with the rest of the world.
(5) The Caspian Sea Basin, overlapping the territory of the
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, contains
proven oil and gas reserves that may exceed
$4,000,000,000,000 in value.
(6) The region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia will
produce oil and gas in sufficient quantities to reduce the
dependence of the United States on energy from the volatile
Persian Gulf region.
(7) United States foreign policy and international
assistance should be narrowly targeted to support the
economic and political independence of the countries of the
South Caucasus and Central Asia.

SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

It shall be the policy of the United States in the
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia--
(1) to promote and strengthen independence, sovereignty,
and democratic government;
(2) to assist actively in the resolution of regional
conflicts;
(3) to promote friendly relations and economic cooperation;
(4) to help promote market-oriented principles and
practices;
(5) to assist in the development of the infrastructure
necessary for communications, transportation, and energy and
trade on an East-West axis in order to build strong
international relations and commerce between those countries
and the stable, democratic, and market-oriented countries of
the Euro-Atlantic Community; and
(6) to support United States business interests and
investments in the region.

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES EFFORTS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN
GEORGIA, AZERBAIJAN, AND TAJIKISTAN.

It is the sense of Congress that the President should use
all diplomatic means practicable, including the engagement of
senior United States Government officials, to press for an
equitable, fair, and permanent resolution to the conflicts in
Georgia and Azerbaijan and the civil war in Tajikistan.

SEC. 5. AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new chapter:

``Chapter 12--Support for the Economic and Political Independence of
the Countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia

``SEC. 499. UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO PROMOTE
RECONCILIATION AND RECOVERY FROM REGIONAL
CONFLICTS.

``(a) Purpose of Assistance.--The purposes of assistance
under this section are--
``(1) to create the basis for reconciliation between
belligerents;
``(2) to promote economic development in areas of the
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia impacted by
civil conflict and war; and
``(3) to encourage broad regional cooperation among
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia that have
been destabilized by internal conflicts.
``(b) Authorization for Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--To carry out the purposes of subsection
(a), the President is authorized to provide humanitarian
assistance and economic reconstruction assistance under this
Act, and assistance under the Migration and Refugee
Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), to the
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia to support
the activities described in subsection (c).
``(2) Definition of humanitarian assistance.--In this
subsection, the term `humanitarian assistance' means
assistance to meet urgent humanitarian needs, in particular
meeting needs for food, medicine, medical supplies and
equipment, and clothing.
``(c) Activities Supported.--Activities that may be
supported by assistance under subsection (b) are limited to--
``(1) providing for the essential needs of victims of the
conflicts;
``(2) facilitating the return of refugees and internally
displaced persons to their homes; and
``(3) assisting in the reconstruction of residential and
economic infrastructure destroyed by war.
``(d) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that the United
States should, where appropriate, support the establishment
of neutral, multinational peacekeeping forces to implement
peace agreements reached between belligerents in the
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia.

``SEC. 499A. ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Purpose of Assistance.--The purpose of assistance
under this section is to foster the conditions necessary for
regional economic cooperation in the South Caucasus and
Central Asia.
``(b) Authorization for Assistance.--To carry out the
purpose of subsection (a), the President is authorized to
provide technical assistance to the countries of the South
Caucasus and Central Asia to support the activities described
in subsection (c).
``(c) Activities Supported.--Activities that may be
supported by assistance under subsection (b) are limited to
the development of the structures and means necessary for the
growth of private sector economies based upon market
principles.
``(d) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that the United
States should--
``(1) assist the countries of the South Caucasus and
Central Asia to develop laws and regulations that would
facilitate the ability of those countries to join the World
Trade Organization;
``(2) provide permanent nondiscriminatory trade treatment
(MFN status) to the countries of the South Caucasus and
Central Asia; and
``(3) consider the establishment of zero-to-zero tariffs
between the United States and the countries of the South
Caucasus and Central Asia.

``SEC. 499B. DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

``(a) Purpose of Assistance.--The purposes of assistance
under this section are--
``(1) to develop the physical infrastructure necessary for
regional cooperation among the countries of the South
Caucasus and Central Asia; and
``(2) to encourage closer economic relations between those
countries and the United States and other developed nations.
``(b) Authorization for Assistance.--To carry out the
purposes of subsection (a), the following types of assistance
to the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia are
authorized to support the activities described in subsection
(c):
``(1) Activities by the Export-Import Bank to complete the
review process for eligibility for financing under the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.
``(2) The provision of insurance, reinsurance, financing,
or other assistance by the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation.
``(3) Assistance under section 661 of this Act (relating to
the Trade and Development Agency).
``(c) Activities Supported.--Activities that may be
supported by assistance under subsection (b) are limited to
promoting actively the participation of United States
companies and investors in the planning, financing, and
construction of infrastructure for communications,
transportation, and energy and trade including highways,
railroads, port facilities, shipping, banking, insurance,
telecommunications networks, and gas and oil pipelines.
``(d) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that the United
States representatives at the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance
Corporation, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development should encourage lending to the countries of the
South Caucasus and Central Asia to assist the development of
the physical infrastructure necessary for regional economic
cooperation.

``SEC. 499C. SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Purpose of Assistance.--The purpose of assistance
under this section is to assist countries of the South
Caucasus and Central Asia to secure their borders and
implement effective controls necessary to prevent the
trafficking of illegal narcotics and the proliferation of
technology and materials related to weapons of mass
destruction (as defined in section 2332a(c)(2) of title 18,
United States Code), and to contain and inhibit transnational
organized criminal activities.
``(b) Authorization for Assistance.--To carry out the
purpose of subsection (a), the President is authorized to
provide the following types of assistance to the countries of
the South Caucasus and Central Asia to support the activities
described in subsection (c):
``(1) Assistance under chapter 5 of part II of this Act
(relating to international military education and training).
``(2) Assistance under chapter 8 of this part of this Act
(relating to international narcotics control assistance).
``(3) The transfer of excess defense articles under section
516 of this Act (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
``(c) Activities Supported.--Activities that may be
supported by assistance under subsection (b) are limited to
assisting those countries of the South Caucasus and Central
Asia in developing capabilities to maintain national border
guards, coast guard, and customs controls.
``(d) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that the United
States should encourage and assist the development of
regional military cooperation among the countries of the
South Caucasus and Central Asia through programs such as the
Central Asian Battalion and the Partnership for Peace of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

``SEC. 499D. STRENGTHENING DEMOCRACY, TOLERANCE, AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL SOCIETY.

``(a) Purpose of Assistance.--The purpose of assistance
under this section is to promote institutions of democratic
government and to create the conditions for the growth of
pluralistic societies, including religious tolerance.
``(b) Authorization for Assistance.--To carry out the
purpose of subsection (a), the

[[Page S11451]]

President is authorized to provide the following types of
assistance to the countries of the South Caucasus and Central
Asia.
``(1) Technical assistance for democracy building.
``(2) Technical assistance for the development of
nongovernmental organizations.
``(3) Technical assistance for development of independent
media.
``(4) Technical assistance for the development of the rule
of law.
``(5) International exchanges and advanced professional
training programs in skill areas central to the development
of civil society.
``(c) Activities Supported.--Activities that may be
supported by assistance under subsection (b) are limited to
activities that directly and specifically are designed to
advance progress toward the development of democracy.
``(d) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that the Voice
of America and RFE/RL, Incorporated, should maintain high
quality broadcasting for the maximum duration possible in the
native languages of the countries of the South Caucasus and
Central Asia.

``SEC. 499E. INELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.

``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
assistance may not be provided under this chapter for a
country of the South Caucasus or Central Asia if the
President determines and certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that the country--
``(1) is engaged in a consistent pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights;
``(2) has, on or after the date of enactment of this
chapter, knowingly transferred to another country--
``(A) missiles or missile technology inconsistent with the
guidelines and parameters of the Missile Technology Control
Regime (as defined in section 11B(c) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 950 U.S.C. App. 2410b(c); or
``(B) any material, equipment, or technology that would
contribute significantly to the ability of such country to
manufacture any weapon of mass destruction (including
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons) if the President
determines that the material, equipment, or technology was to
be used by such country in the manufacture of such weapons;
``(3) has supported acts of international terrorism;
``(4) is prohibited from receiving such assistance by
chapter 10 of the Arms Export Control Act or section
306(a)(1) and 307 of the Chemical and Biological Weapons
Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C.
5604(a)(1), 5605); or
``(5) has initiated an act of aggression against another
state in the region after the date of enactment of the Silk
Road Strategy Act of 1997.
``(b) Exception to Ineligibility.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), assistance may be provided under this chapter
if the President determines and certifies in advance to the
appropriate congressional committees that the provision of
such assistance is important to the national interest of the
United States.

``SEC. 499F. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES.

``(a) Assistance Through Governments and Nongovernmental
Organizations.--Assistance under this chapter may be provided
to governments or through nongovernmental organizations.
``(b) Use of Economic Support Funds.--Except as otherwise
provided, any funds that have been allocated under chapter 4
of part II for assistance for the independent states of the
former Soviet Union may be used in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter.
``(c) Terms and Conditions.--Assistance under this chapter
shall be provided on such terms and conditions as the
President may determine.
``(d) Superseding Existing Law.--The authority to provide
assistance under this chapter supersedes any other provision
of law, except for--
``(1) this chapter;
``(2) section 634A of this Act and comparable notification
requirements contained in sections of the annual foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs Act; and
``(3) section 1341 of title 31, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the ``Anti-Deficiency Act''), the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

``SEC. 499G. DEFINITIONS.

``In this chapter:
``(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
``(2) Countries of the south caucasus and central asia.--
The term `countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia'
means Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.''.

SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORT.

Beginning one year after the date of enactment of this Act,
and annually thereafter, the President shall submit a report
to the appropriate congressional committees--
(1) identifying the progress of United States foreign
policy to accomplish the policy identified in section 3;
(2) evaluating the degree to which the assistance
authorized by chapter 12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, as added by section 5 of this Act, was able to
accomplish the purposes identified in those sections; and
(3) recommending any additional initiatives that should be
undertaken by the United States to implement the policy and
purposes contained in this Act.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(2) Countries of the south caucasus and central asia.--The
term ``countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia''
means Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 1345. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to expand and clarify the requirements regarding advance directives
in order to ensure that an individual's health care decisions are
complied with, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

the advance planning and compassionate care act of 1997

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to be
introducing the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 1997
with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins. I have already had the
great pleasure of working with Senator Collins on legislation earlier
this year to improve the portability of Medigap insurance policies. We
were successful in getting a good portion of that legislation enacted
this year, so I am very pleased to have another opportunity to work
with Senator Collins on another set of issues that are so important to
millions of Medicare beneficiaries and the rest of America.

We introduce this legislation to ask Congress to take action that
responds directly and humanely to the needs of elderly and others
during some of their most difficult and often traumatic time of their
lives. The United States deserves to be extremely proud of the medical
advances and efforts that have extended our people's life expectancy
and our ability to overcome disease and medical setbacks. But we need
to take some additional, tangible steps to also make progress in the
practices and care that affect our citizens when they ultimately face
death or the real possibility of death. Our bill provides some of those
steps.
While this is a difficult area to discuss, it is a very real area for
Americans year in and year out. This is legislation designed to respond
to pressing needs of patients, their family members, and their health
care providers, and I hope that Congress will adopt these steps in the
next year.
In view of the debate this year on physician assisted suicide and
from my own personal experiences, I have spent considerable time
delving into the concerns and dilemmas that face patients, their family
members, and their physicians when confronted with death or the
possibility of dying. In almost all such difficult situations, people
are not thinking about physician-assisted suicide. The needs and
dilemmas that confront them have much more to do with the kind of care
and information that they need, often desperately.
The legislation we are introducing today builds on bipartisan
legislation enacted in 1990, called the Patient Self-Determination Act.
That legislation was championed by my former colleague from Missouri,
Senator Danforth. I held a subcommittee hearing on Senator Danforth's
legislation and it became very clear that the lack of a national policy
on advance directives was not acceptable. As a result of that bill,
hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, hospice
programs, and HMO's participating in the Medicaid and Medicare programs
must provide every adult receiving medical care with written
information concerning patient involvement in their own treatment
decisions. The health care institutions must also document in the
medical record whether the patient has an advance directive. In
addition, States were required to write description of their State laws
concerning advance directives.
Mr. President, at the time of that bill's enactment, we realized that
it was only the first step toward increasing public awareness and
addressing

[[Page S11452]]

some very difficult issues related to end-of-life care. As a result of
that legislation, a growing number of Americans do have advance
directives. But recent studies have found that the majority of
Americans have not discussed end-of-life issues with their families or
their physicians and have not relayed their treatment preferences
either verbally or in writing.
There is also an increasing awareness that physicians and many other
health care providers are uncomfortable addressing end-of-life issues
and are even apparently unwilling to respect their patient's
preferences in some cases. Another complicating factor is the great
variation that exists among State laws, and the lack of a legal
requirement that an advance directive written in one State be respected
in another State.
Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today focuses on
the need to improve end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries. It
addresses the need to develop models of compassionate care and quality
measures for end-of-life care in the Medicare Program, and it will
encourage individuals to have more open communication with family
members and health care providers concerning their preferences for end-
of-life care.
The first section of the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act
strengthens the previously enacted Patient Self Determination Act in
the following ways.
First, it requires that every Medicare beneficiary have the
opportunity to discuss health care decisionmaking issues with an
appropriately trained professional, when he or she makes a request.
This measure would help make sure that patients and their families have
the ability to discuss and address concerns and issues relating to
their care, including end-of-life care, with a trained professional.
Many health care institutions already have teams of providers to
address difficult health care decisions and some even mediate among
patients, families, and providers. In smaller institutions, social
workers, chaplains, nurses, or other trained professional could be made
available for consultation.
Second, our bill requires that a person's advance directive be placed
in a prominent part of the medical record. Often advance directives can
not even be found in the medical record, making it more difficult for
providers to respect patients' wishes. It is essential that an
individual's advance directive be readily available and visible to
anyone involved in their health care.
Third, it will assure that an advance directive valid in one State
will be valid in another State. At present, portability of advance
directives from State to State is not assured. Such portability can
only be guaranteed through Federal legislation.

The second part of our bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to advise Congress on an approach to adopting the provisions
of the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act for Medicare beneficiaries.
The Uniform Health Care Decisions Act was developed by the Uniform Law
Commissioners, a group with representation from all States that has
been in existence for over 100 years. The Uniform Health Care Decisions
Act includes all the important components of model advance directive
legislation. A great deal of legal effort went into its development,
with input by all the States and approval by the American Bar
Association. Medicare beneficiaries deserve a uniform approach to
advance directives, especially since many move from one State to
another while in the Medicare Program. The tremendous variation in
State laws that currently exists only adds to the confusion of health
care professionals and their patients.
Just this month, a study done by Dr. Jack Wennberg at Dartmouth
University documented the tremendous variation that exists in the
medical care that Medicare beneficiaries receive in the last few months
of their lives. This sort of analysis highlights that patient
preferences have little to do with the sort of care patients receive in
their final months of life. Where you live determines the sort of
medical care you will receive more so than what you might prefer.
The third part of this legislation would encourage the development of
models for end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries who do not
qualify for the Medicare hospice benefit but still have chronic,
debilitating and ultimately fatal illnesses. The tremendous advances in
medicine and medical technology over the past 30 to 50 years have
resulted in a greatly lengthened life expectancy for Americans, as well
as vastly improved functioning and quality of life for the elderly and
those with chronic disease. Many of these advances have been made
possible by federally financed health care programs, such as the
Medicare Program that assures access to high quality health care for
all elderly Americans. Medicare has also funded much of the development
of technology and a highly skilled physician workforce through support
of medical education and academic medical centers. These advances have
also created major dilemmas in addressing terminal or potentially
terminal disease, as well as a sense of loss of control by many with
terminal illness.
I believe it is time for Medicare to help seniors have access to
compassionate, supportive, and pain free care during prolonged
illnesses and at the end of life. As we begin to discuss restructuring
the Medicare Program for the long term, this will be one of my primary
goals. Our legislation instructs the Department of Health and Human
Services to develop appropriate quality measures and models of care for
persons with chronic, debilitating disease, including the very frail
elderly who will comprise an increasing number of Medicare
beneficiaries. Our bill also sets up a consumer hotline that can
provide the American public with information on the legal, medical, and
ethical issues related to advance directives and medical
decisionmaking.
Mr. President, I am learning more and more about the importance of
educating health care providers and the public that chronic,
debilitating, terminal disease need not be associated with pain, major
discomfort, and loss of control. We can control pain and treat
depression, as well as the other causes of suffering during the dying
process. We must now apply this knowledge to assure all Americans
appropriate end-of-life care. And to make sure that Medicare
beneficiaries are able to receive the most effective medicine to
control their pain, Medicare's coverage rules would be expanded under
our bill to include coverage for self-administered pain medications.
Under current law, Medicare generally does not pay for any outpatient
prescription drugs. The only pain medication paid for by the Medicare
Program are those drugs that are administered by a portable pump. The
pump is covered by Medicare as durable medical equipment and the drugs
used with that pump are also covered. Our bill would expand coverage to
include self-administered pain medications, for example oral drugs or
transdermal patches. These alternatives are as effective in pain relief
and, most obviously, a much more comfortable way for patients to
receive their pain medication.
Mr. President, much also needs to be done to assure that all health
care providers have the appropriate training to use what is already
known about supportive care. The public must be educated and empowered
to discuss these issues with family members as well as their own
physicians so that each individual's wishes can be respected. More
research is needed to develop appropriate measures of quality end-of-
life care and incorporate these measures into medical practice in all
health care settings. And finally, appropriate financial incentives
must be present within Medicare, especially, to allow the elderly and
disabled their choice of appropriate care at the end of life.
Medicare's coverage policy should not be the sole determinate of the
route that pain medication is administered.
To conclude, I am proud to offer this legislation with Senator
Collins. We hope consideration of this bill will be an opportunity to
take notice of the many constructive steps that can be taken to address
the needs of patients and family members grappling with great pain and
medical difficulties. During this time when physician assisted suicide
obtains so many headlines, we are eager to call on Congress to turn to
the alternative ways of providing help and relief to seniors and other
Americans who only are interested in such alternatives.

[[Page S11453]]

I ask unanimous consent that a summary and a copy of the bill be
printed in its entirety in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1345

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 ``Advance Planning and
Compassionate Care Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVES.

(a) Medicare.--Section 1866(f) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)) (as amended by section 4641 of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat.
487)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and if presented by
the individual, to include the content of such advance
directive in a prominent part of such record'' before the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to
discuss issues relating to the information provided to that
individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately
trained professional.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) An advance directive validly executed outside of
the State in which such advance directive is presented by an
adult individual to a provider of services or a prepaid or
eligible organization shall be given the same effect by that
provider or organization as an advance directive validly
executed under the law of the State in which it is presented
would be given effect.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
authorize the administration, withholding, or withdrawal of
health care unless it is consistent with the laws of the
State in which an advance directive is presented.
``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any
State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such
provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not
preempt any State law that provides for greater portability,
more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in
determining a patient's wishes.''.
(b) Medicaid.--Section 1902(w) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a(w)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``in the individual's medical record'' and
inserting ``in a prominent part of the individual's current
medical record''; and
(ii) by inserting ``and if presented by the individual, to
include the content of such advance directive in a prominent
part of such record'' before the semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to
discuss issues relating to the information provided to that
individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately
trained professional.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5)(A) An advance directive validly executed outside of
the State in which such advance directive is presented by an
adult individual to a provider or organization shall be given
the same effect by that provider or organization as an
advance directive validly executed under the law of the State
in which it is presented would be given effect.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
authorize the administration, withholding, or withdrawal of
health care otherwise prohibited by the laws of the State in
which an advance directive is presented.
``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any
State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such
provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not
preempt any State law that provides for greater portability,
more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in
determining a patient's wishes.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to provider
agreements entered into, renewed, or extended under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act, and to State plans under
title XIX of such Act, on or after such date (not later than
1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act) as the
Secretary of Health and Human Services specifies.
(2) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social
Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services
determines requires State legislation in order for the plan
to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments
made by subsection (b), the State plan shall not be regarded
as failing to comply with the requirements of such title
solely on the basis of its failure to meet these additional
requirements before the first day of the first calendar
quarter beginning after the close of the first regular
session of the State legislature that begins after the date
of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous
sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year
legislative session, each year of the session is considered
to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.

SEC. 3. STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS ON ISSUES
RELATING TO ADVANCE DIRECTIVE EXPANSION.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a thorough study regarding the implementation
of the amendments made by section 2 of this Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit a report to Congress that contains a
detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the
Secretary regarding the study conducted pursuant to
subsection (a), together with the Secretary's recommendations
for such legislation and administrative actions as the
Secretary considers appropriate.

SEC. 4. STUDY AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO CONGRESS.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to the
creation of a national, uniform policy on advance directives
for individuals receiving items and services under titles
XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq., 1396 et seq.).
(2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall include issues
concerning--
(A) the election or refusal of life-sustaining treatment;
(B) the provision of adequate palliative care including
pain management;
(C) the portability of advance directives, including the
cases involving the transfer of an individual from one health
care setting to another;
(D) immunity for health care providers that follow the
instructions in an individual's advance directive;
(E) exemptions for health care providers from following the
instructions in an individual's advance directive;
(F) conditions under which an advance directive is
operative;
(G) revocation of an advance directive by an individual;
(H) the criteria for determining that an individual is in
terminal status; and
(I) surrogate decision making regarding end of life care.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall submit a report to Congress that
contains a detailed description of the results of the study
conducted pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study and developing
the report under this section, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall consult with physicians and other health
care provider groups, consumer groups, the Uniform Law
Commissioners, and other interested parties.

SEC. 5. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS TO ASSESS END-OF-LIFE CARE.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the
Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration,
the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the
Administrator of the Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research, shall develop outcome standards and measures to
evaluate the performance of health care programs and projects
that provide end-of-life care to individuals and the quality
of such care.

SEC. 6. NATIONAL INFORMATION HOTLINE FOR END-OF-LIFE
DECISIONMAKING.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the
Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration,
shall establish and operate directly, or by grant, contract,
or interagency agreement, out of funds otherwise appropriated
to the Secretary, a clearinghouse and 24-hour toll-free
telephone hotline, to provide consumer information about
advance directives, as defined in section 1866(f)(3) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)(3)), and end-of-life
decisionmaking.

SEC. 7. EVALUATION OF AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR
INNOVATIVE AND NEW APPROACHES TO END-OF-LIFE
CARE FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Medicare beneficiaries.--The term ``medicare
beneficiaries'' means individuals who are entitled to
benefits under part A or eligible for benefits under part B
of the medicare program.
(2) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means
the health care program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(b) Evaluation of Existing Programs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, through the Administrator
of the Health Care Financing Administration, shall conduct
ongoing evaluations of innovative health care programs that
provide end-of-life care to medicare beneficiaries who are
seriously ill or who suffer from a medical condition that is
likely to be fatal.
(2) Requirements.--Evaluations conducted under this
subsection shall include the following:

[[Page S11454]]

(A) Evidence that the evaluated program implements
practices or procedures that result in improved patient
outcomes, resource utilization, or both.
(B) A definition of the population served by the program
and a determination as to how accurately that population
reflects the total medicare beneficiaries in the area who are
in need of services offered by the program.
(C) A description of the eligibility requirements and
enrollment procedures for the program.
(D) A detailed description of the services provided to
medicare beneficiaries served by the program and the
utilization rates for such services.
(E) A description of the structure for the provision of
specific services.
(F) A detailed accounting of the costs of providing
specific services under the program.
(G) A description of any procedures for offering medicare
beneficiaries a choice of services and how the program
responds to the preferences of the medicare beneficiaries
served by the program.
(H) An assessment of the quality of care and of the
outcomes for medicare beneficiaries and the families of such
beneficiaries served by the program.
(I) An assessment of any ethical, cultural, or legal
concerns regarding the evaluated program and with the
replication of such program in other settings.
(J) Identification of any changes to regulations, or of any
additional funding, that would result in more efficient
procedures or improved outcomes, for the program.
(3) External evaluators.--The Secretary shall contract with
1 or more external evaluators to coordinate and conduct the
evaluations required under this subsection and under
subsection (c)(4).
(4) Use of outcome measures and standards.--An evaluation
conducted under this subsection and subsection (c)(4) shall
use the outcome standards and measures required to be
developed under section 5 as soon as those standards and
measures are available.
(c) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) Authority.--The Secretary, through the Administrator of
the Health Care Financing Administration, shall conduct
demonstration projects to develop new and innovative
approaches to providing end-of-life care to medicare
beneficiaries who are seriously ill or who suffer from a
medical condition that is likely to be fatal.
(2) Application.--Any entity seeking to conduct a
demonstration project under this subsection shall submit to
the Secretary an application in such form and manner as the
Secretary may require.
(3) Selection criteria.--
(A) In general.--In selecting entities to conduct
demonstration projects under this subsection, the Secretary
shall select entities that will allow for demonstration
projects to be conducted in a variety of States, in an array
of care settings, and that reflect--
(i) a balance between urban and rural settings;
(ii) cultural diversity; and
(iii) various modes of medical care and insurance, such as
fee-for-service, preferred provider organizations, health
maintenance organizations, hospice care, home care services,
long-term care, and integrated delivery systems.
(B) Preferences.--The Secretary shall give preference to
applications for demonstration projects that--
(i) will serve medicare beneficiaries who are dying of
illnesses that are most prevalent under the medicare program,
including cancer, heart failure, chronic obstructive
respiratory disease, dementia, stroke, and progressive
multifactorial frailty associated with advanced age; and
(ii) appear capable of sustained service and broad
replication at a reasonable cost within commonly available
organizational structures.
(4) Evaluations.--Each demonstration project conducted
under this subsection shall be evaluated at such regular
intervals as the Secretary determines are appropriate. An
evaluation of a project conducted under this subsection shall
include the items described in subsection (b)(2) and the
following:
(A) A comparison of the quality of care and of the outcomes
for medicare beneficiaries and the families of such
beneficiaries served by the demonstration project to the
quality of care and outcomes for such individuals that would
have resulted if care had been provided under existing
delivery systems.
(B) An analysis of how ongoing measures of quality and
accountability for improvement and excellence could be
incorporated into the demonstration project.
(C) A comparison of the costs of the care provided to
medicare beneficiaries under the demonstration project to the
costs of that care if it had been provided under the medicare
program.
(5) Waiver authority.--The Secretary may waive compliance
with any requirement of titles XI, XVIII, and XIX of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq., 1395 et seq.,
1396 et seq.) which, if applied, would prevent a
demonstration project carried out under this subsection from
effectively achieving the purpose of such a project.
(d) Annual Reports to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Beginning 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the quality of end-of-
life care under the medicare program, together with any
suggestions for legislation to improve the quality of such
care under that program.
(2) Summary of recent studies.--A report submitted under
this subsection shall include a summary of any recent studies
and advice from experts in the health care field regarding
the ethical, cultural, and legal issues that may arise when
attempting to improve the health care system to meet the
needs of individuals with serious and eventually fatal
illnesses.
(3) Continuation or replication of demonstration
projects.--Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the report required under this subsection shall
include recommendations regarding whether the demonstration
projects conducted under subsection (c) should be continued
and whether broad replication of any of those projects should
be initiated.
(e) Funding.--The Secretary shall provide for the transfer
from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund established
under section 1817 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395i) of such sums as are necessary for the costs of
conducting evaluations under subsection (b), conducting
demonstration projects under subsection (c), and preparing
and submitting the annual reports required under subsection
(d). Amounts may be transferred under the preceding sentence
without regard to amounts appropriated in advance in
appropriations Acts.

SEC. 8. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF SELF-ADMINISTERED MEDICATION FOR
CERTAIN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PAIN.

(a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) (as amended by section 4557 of
the Balanced Budget Act (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 463))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (S);
(2) in subparagraph (T), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (T) the following:
``(U) self-administered drugs which may be dispensed only
upon prescription and which are prescribed for the relief of
chronic pain in patients with a life-threatening disease or
condition;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to items and services furnished on or after June
1, 1998.
____

Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 1997--Summary

More than 70 percent of the 2 million Americans expected to
die this year will be over the age of 65. The Medicare and
Medicaid programs pay for the majority of care at the end of
life. Dr. Jack Wennberg, health researcher at Dartmouth
University, recently documented the tremendous geographic
variation that exists in end of life care provided to
Medicare beneficiaries. The type of medical care a patient
received in their last month of life was driven more by where
a person lived than by personal preferences.

(1) Better Information and Counseling

Current law: This bill builds on federal legislation
(Patient Self-Determination Act) enacted in 1990 that
requires health care facilities to distribute information on
advance directives to their patients. Since passage of that
legislation, there has been an increase in the number of
individuals who have an advance directive but a recent Robert
Wood Johnson study found that while 20 percent of
hospitalized patients had an advance directive less than half
had ever talked with any of their doctors about having a
directive and only about one-third had their wishes
documented in their medical record. Many people do not
understand the importance of discussing their advance
directives with family members and their health care
provider. In addition, a 1994 survey found that only 5 out of
126 medical schools offered a separate, required course in
end of life care. Other surveys of doctors and medical
residents found little or no experience in discussing care
for dying patients.
Proposal: Improves the type and amount of information
available to consumers by making sure that when a person
enters a hospital, nursing home, or other health care
facility, there is a knowledgeable person available to
discuss end of life care planning if requested, so that good
decisions--decisions based on the patient's own needs and
values--can be made. Requires that if a person has an advance
directive it must be placed in a prominent part of the
medical record where all the doctors and nurses can clearly
see it. Establishes a 24-hour hotline and information
clearinghouse to provide consumers with information on end of
life decision making.

(2) Portability of Advance Directives

Current law: The specifics of advance directive legislation
vary greatly from state to state. Portability from state to
state can only be assured through federal legislation.
Proposal: Ensures that an advance directive valid in one
state will be honored in another state, as long as the
contents of the advance directive do not conflict with the
laws of the state. In addition, requires the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to gather information and consult
with experts on the possibility of an uniform advance
directive for all Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of where
they live. An uniform advance directive would enable people
to document the kind of care they wish to get at the end of
their lives in a way that is easily recognizable and
understood by everyone.

[[Page S11455]]

(3) Measures to Improve the Quality of End of Life Care

Current Law: There are few quality measures or standards
available to assess the quality of care provided to Medicare
beneficiaries at the end of their life. The tremendous
geographic variation in medical care that currently exists on
end of life care reinforces the notion that most people do
not receive care driven by quality concerns but rather by the
availability of medical resources in the community and other
factors not related to quality care.
Proposal: Requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in conjunction with the Health Care Financing
Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the Agency
for Health Care Policy and Research, to develop outcome
standards and other measures to evaluate the quality care
provided to dying patients.

(4) Pilot Project Funding to Improve End of Life Care Services

Current Law: The only Medicare benefit aimed at improving
end of life care for Medicare beneficiaries is hospice care
which only serves a small minority of beneficiaries. In 1994,
the Medicare hospice benefit was provided to 340,000 dying
patients for the last few weeks of their lives. The hospice
benefit is limited to beneficiaries who have a terminal
illness with a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Cancer
and AIDS are virtually the only diseases that follow a
predictable course of decline near death. Cancer patients are
usually referred to hospice care when the individual's
functioning declines, usually 3-6 weeks before death.
Medicare beneficiaries with other diseases generally do not
have access to hospice care because the 6 month life
expectancy requirement is often difficult to determine.
A review of studies done by an Institute of Medicine study
panel found that 40 to 80 percent of patients with a terminal
illness were inadequately treated for pain ``despite the
availability of effective pharmacological and other options
for relieving pain.''
Proposal: Provides funding for demonstration projects to
develop new and innovative approaches to improving end of
life care provided to Medicare beneficiaries, in particular
those individuals who do not qualify for, or select, hospice
care. Also, includes funding to evaluate existing pilot
programs that are providing innovative approaches to end of
life care.

(5) Improved Coverage of Pain Medications

Current Law: With a few exceptions, Medicare does not
generally pay the cost of self-administered drugs prescribed
for outpatient use. The only outpatient pain medications
currently covered by Medicare are those that are administered
by a portable pump. The pump is covered by Medicare as
durable medical equipment, and the drugs associated with that
pump are also covered. It is widely recognized among
physicians treating patients with cancer and other life-
threatening diseases that self-administered pain medications,
including oral drug and transdermal patches, offer
alternatives that are equally effective at controlling pain,
more comfortable for the patient, and much less costly than
the pump.
Proposal: Requires Medicare coverage for self-administered
pain medications prescribed for outpatient use for patients
with life-threatening disease and chronic pain.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague
from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Advance
Planning and Compassionate Care Act which is intended to improve the
way we care for people at the end of their lives.
Noted health economist Uwe Reinhardt once observed that ``Americans
are the only people on earth who believe that death is negotiable.''
Advancements in medicine, public health, and technology have enabled
more and more of us to live longer and healthier lives. However, when
medical treatment can no longer promise a continuation of life,
patients and their families should not have to fear that the process of
dying will be marked by preventable pain, avoidable distress, or care
that is inconsistent with their values or wishes.
The fact is, dying is a universal experience, and it is time to
reexamine how we approach death and dying and how we care for people at
the end of their lives. Clearly there is more that we can do to relieve
suffering, respect personal choice and dignity, and provide
opportunities for people to find meaning and comfort at life's
conclusion.
Unfortunately, most Medicare patients and their physicians do not
currently discuss death or routinely make advance plans for end-of-life
care. As a result, about one-fourth of Medicare funds are now spent on
care at the end of life that is geared toward expensive, high-
technology interventions and rescue care. While four out of five
Americans say they would prefer to die at home, studies show that
almost 80 percent die in institutions where they may be in pain, and
where they are subjected to high-technology treatments that merely
prolong suffering.
Moreover, according to a Dartmouth study released earlier this month,
where a patient lives has a direct impact on how that patient dies. The
study found that the amount of medical treatment Americans receive in
their final months varies tremendously in the different parts of the
country, and it concluded that the determination of whether or not an
older patient dies in the hospital probably has more to do with the
supply of hospital beds than the patient's needs or preference.
The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act is intended to help
us improve the way our health care system serves patients at the end of
their lives. Among other provisions, the bill makes a number of changes
to the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 to facilitate appropriate
discussions and individual autonomy in making difficult discussions
about end-of-life care. For instance, the legislation requires that
every Medicare beneficiary receiving care in a hospital or nursing
facility be given the opportunity to discuss end-of-life care and the
preparation of an advanced directive with an appropriately trained
professional within the institution. The legislation also requires that
if a patient has an advanced directive, it must be displayed in a
prominent place in the medical record so that all the doctors and
nurses can clearly see it.
The legislation will expand access to effective and appropriate pain
medications for Medicare beneficiaries at the end of their lives.
Severe pain, including breakthrough pain that defies usual methods of
pain control, is one of the most debilitating aspects of terminal
illness. However, the only pain medication currently covered by
Medicare in an outpatient setting is that which is administered by a
portable pump.
It is widely recognized among physicians treating patients with
cancer and other life-threatening diseases that self-administered pain
medications, including oral drugs and transdermal patches, offer
alternatives that are equally effective in controlling pain, more
comfortable for the patient, and much less costly than the pump.
Therefore, the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act would expand
Medicare to cover self-administered pain medications prescribed for the
relief of chronic pain in life-threatening diseases or conditions.
In addition, the legislation authorizes the Department of Health and
Human Services to study end-of-life issues for Medicare and Medicaid
patients and also to develop demonstration projects to develop models
for end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries who do not qualify for
the hospice benefit, but who still have chronic debilitating and
ultimately fatal illnesses. Currently, in order for a Medicare
beneficiary to qualify for the hospice benefit, a physician must
document that the person has a life expectancy of 6 months or less.
With some conditions--like congestive heart failure--it is difficult to
project life expectancy with any certainty. However, these patients
still need hospice-like services, including advance planning, support
services, symptom management, and other services that are not currently
available.
Finally, the legislation establishes a telephone hotline to provide
consumer information and advice concerning advance directives, end-of-
life issues and medical decisionmaking and directs the Agency for
Health Care Policy and Research to develop a research agenda for the
development of quality measures for end-of-life care.
The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important in
light of the current debate on physician-assisted suicide. As the
Bangor Daily News pointed out in an editorial published earlier this
year, the desire for assisted suicide is generally driven by concerns
about the quality of care for the terminally ill; by the fear of
prolonged pain, loss of dignity, and emotional strain on family
members. Such worries would recede and support for assisted suicide
would evaporate if better palliative care and more effective pain
management were widely available, and I ask unanimous consent that this
editorial be included in the Record.
Mr. President, patients and their families should be able to trust
that the care they receive at the end of their lives is not only of
high quality,

[[Page S11456]]

but also that it respects their desires for peace, autonomy, and
dignity. The Advanced Planning and Compassionate Care Act that Senator
Rockefeller and I are introducing today will give us some of the tools
that we need to improve care of the dying in this country, and I urge
all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Life and Death With Dignity

When Maine legislators consider a bill this session on
physician-assisted suicide, they will face a question that
the nation's medical community has been unable to settle
after long debate. Legislators should respect the enormity of
what they are being asked to consider, recognizing that there
are many steps between the current state of caring for the
terminally ill and hastening their deaths.
Even as the Supreme Court last week was considering
constitutional questions surrounding doctor-assisted suicide,
a coalition of 40 health care, religious and retiree groups
gathered in Washington to find a middle ground to this
debate. The coalition--including the American Medical
Association, the American Association of Retired Persons,
B'nai B'rith and the American Cancer Society--argues that the
desire for assisted suicide often is driven by concerns about
the quality of care for the terminally ill. Thoughts of
doctor-assisted suicide, these groups maintain, are brought
about by the fear of prolonged pain, loss of dignity and the
emotional strain on family members, among other reasons.
The coalition suggests that the nation's medical system has
failed to meet the physical and emotional needs of dying
patients. One study from Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York
estimated that 1.6 million terminally ill people a year would
be good candidates for hospice care but only about 350,000
receive it. Why not try to solve these problems before
codifying doctor-assisted suicide?
The Maine legislation, called the Death With Dignity Act,
is narrowly drawn, based on legislative work on a similar
bill from last session. It would allow physicians to assist
in the suicide of a terminally ill person who makes three
oral and one written request to die and has satisfied a
counselor that he or she is capable of making the decision.
The act goes to some lengths to prevent coercion and to allow
the person to back out of the suicide. It is well-crafted and
sensitive legislation. But absent advances in the quality of
care for the terminally ill, it also may be premature.
And despite the safeguards, doubts about who will be
allowed to pursue this process remain. In a friend-of-the-
court brief addressed to the cases being considered by the
Supreme Court, the America Geriatric Society explains the
source of some of these doubts: ``The image of an
independent, capable person thoughtfully evaluating his or
her options, unaffected by biased third parties or other
circumstances . . . is so far from the experience of dying as
to be fanciful. Dying persons are often very weak, prone to
strong emotions and vulnerable to the suggestions,
expectations and guidance of others.''
The medical community has developed wondrous means for
keeping bodies functioning long beyond what could have been
expected even a few years ago, perhaps even longer than is
desirable. The debate over assisted suicide in state after
state demands that physicians go beyond that now in
respecting the humanity and mortality that resides within
those bodies by providing the terminally ill with the
opportunity for less painful, more dignified deaths.
______

By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1346. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to increase
the penalties for certain offenses in which the victim is a child; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

JOAN'S LAW ACT OF 1997

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today,
along with my colleague from New Jersey Senator Lautenberg, on behalf
of Rosemarie D'Alessandro, the mother of a young girl murdered some 24
years ago in New Jersey.
Mrs. D'Alessandro's 7-year-old daughter Joan was delivering Girl
Scout cookies down the street from her Hillsdale home one day when
Joseph McGowan, a high school chemistry teacher, destroyed her life and
changed the lives of her family members forever. McGowan raped Joan,
killed her, and dumped her broken, battered body in a ravine some 15
miles away--she was not found for 3 full days.
For Joan's mom, Rosemarie, that shattering event was only the
beginning of what would become a literal lifetime of trauma, pain and
distress. Although the man who murdered Joan was put away for life, he
has already had two parole hearings and is scheduled for another in
2003.
And Rosemarie D'Alessandro cannot rest while these hearings go on. To
make sure this murderer remains behind bars, Rosemarie must fight each
and every day against the system that might free him, and must sit
through appeal after appeal when he is denied release.
But rather than becoming consumed with the tragedy that stole her
daughter from her, Rosemarie D'Alessandro has used her grief and her
anger to accomplish an astonishing goal--Joan's Law is now in the books
in New Jersey, and now any child molester who murders a child under 14
in my State must receive life in prison without the possibility of
parole. Rosemarie D'Alessandro stood up and told the world ``enough is
enough.'' No other family should have to bear the double tragedy of
suffering the loss of a child and then being forced to relive it over
and over again through parole hearings and appeals. And no other family
in New Jersey will ever have to again.
Well, we do not have parole in the Federal system, but we can make
sure that anyone who molests or commits a serious, violent crime
against a child 14 or under will serve the rest of his life behind bars
if that child dies. My bill states that any person who is convicted of
a Federal offense defined as a serious violent felony should be
sentenced either to death or imprisonment for life when the victim of
the crime is under 14 years of age and dies as a result of the offense.
Mr. President, with this bill, we intend to send the strongest
possible message to anyone who would dare molest or attack a vulnerable
child--do so at your own risk, because we will find you and we will put
you behind bars for the rest of your life if that child dies. I hope my
colleagues will quickly join me and Senator Lautenberg in passing this
legislation, so that the inevitable tragedies that happen to children
throughout America every day will no longer be compounded upon the
families of those victims.
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. 1346

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 ``Joan's Law Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. DEATH OR LIFE IN PRISON FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES WHOSE
VICTIMS ARE CHILDREN.

Section 3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Death or Life Imprisonment for Crimes Against
Children.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
person who is convicted of a Federal offense that is a
serious violent felony (as defined in subsection (c)) or a
violation of section 2251 shall, unless a sentence of death
is imposed, be sentenced to imprisonment for life, if the
victim of the offense--
``(1) is less than 14 years of age at the time of the
offense; and
``(2) dies as a result of the offense.''.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, when a child is murdered, families are
devastated and communities are rocked to their very core. When a
murderer is prosecuted, grieving parents and siblings are forced to
relive the often brutal details of the most profound tragedy
imaginable. And, if a conviction is obtained, in too many instances,
the families of a young victim must repeatedly relieve the crime every
time the murderer goes before a parole board.
The families of murder victims, especially murdered children, need
closure. They need to know that they can put the horror and a tragedy
behind them. They need to know that they can begin rebuilding their
lives. But most importantly, they need to know that the person
responsible for the crime will never bring harm and grief to another
family.
This is why, Mr. President, I am today joining my colleague from New
Jersey, Senator Torricelli, in introducing legislation that will
significantly increase the penalties on criminals convicted of a
Federal crime where a child under the age of 14 is killed during the
commission of that crime. I also want to commend and acknowledge
Congressman Bob Franks, also from New Jersey, who introduced similar
legislation in the House.
Mr. President, this legislation is a Federal companion for an
important New Jersey law called Joan's Law.

[[Page S11457]]

Joan's Law was named after a 7-year-old New Jersey girl, Joan
D'Alessandro, who was raped and murdered in 1973. Joan's murderer, a
man who lived across State lines and actually had the gall to
participate in the family's desperate search for their missing
daughter, was located, convicted of the crime, and sentenced to 20
years in State prison. He is now eligible for parole, and has twice
sought release since his incarceration.
To their horror, frustration, and understandable anger, Joan's family
has repeatedly had to fight parole for this cruel killer. They have
been forced to relive this tragedy again and again and to beg that
others be protected from the brutal individual who ripped apart their
family.
The bill we are introducing today will impose a similar, equally
severe and necessary penalty--life imprisonment--on anyone convicted of
committing a Federal crime where a child, 14 years of age or younger,
dies as a result of that crime.
The bill sends a strong message that our society will not tolerate
nor forgive the brutal acts of a criminal who takes a young life. This
bill sends the message in no uncertain terms that society will take the
steps necessary to protect itself from cold-blooded killers who
victimize children. This bill will help to protect all of our families
and children from the repeat offenders who, all too often, insinuate
themselves into our communities and prey on defenseless children.
Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to join with Senator
Torricelli and I in support of this bill and to work for its fast
enactment.
______

By Mr. GLENN:

S. 1347. A bill to permit the city of Cleveland, OH, to convey
certain lands that the United States conveyed to the city; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the cleveland airport expansion act of 1997

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to
assist in improving air transportation for the people and businesses of
northeast Ohio and the Nation.
The city of Cleveland has a major capacity improvement program
underway at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. For some time,
Cleveland and the city of Brook Park had been involved in a dispute
regarding property crucial to the development project. To their credit,
both communities were able to resolve their differences through a
comprehensive settlement agreement that will allow the airport's
improvement program to move forward. This important settlement
agreement includes changing municipal boundaries and the
noncontroversial, jurisdictional transfer of property.
Mr. President, Congress has addressed similar restrictions many times
by enacting specific provisions allowing the Secretary of
Transportation to act in similar cases. As part of the comprehensive
settlement agreement this is clearly in the public interest and will
allow Cleveland to meet northeast Ohio's increasing requirements for
better air transportation.
Mr. President, since the closing of the settlement agreement is to
occur before December 31, 1997, this legislation is needed prior to
adjournment. I appreciate the support of the leadership of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr.
Kerrey):

S. 1348. A bill to provide for innovative strategies for achieving
superior environmental performance, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.

the innovative environmental strategies act of 1997

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today The
Innovative Environmental Strategies Act of l997. I'm honored that
Senators Daschle, Moynihan, and Kerrey have joined me as cosponsors,
and that the legislation is being introduced in the House by
Congressman Dooley and Congresswoman Tauscher. I'm also very pleased
that the legislation has been endorsed by the Clinton administration
and has received positive responses from representatives of industry
and environmental groups. I look forward to a process of building
further consensus on this bill from all affected interests.
The legislation allows companies to propose alternatives to
environmental requirements if those alternative proposals will achieve
better environmental performance. The legislation provides EPA with the
authority to waive or modify regulatory requirements for this purpose.
It is designed to encourage more pollution prevention and to promote
better, more cost-effective solutions for environmental protection.
This legislation seeks to build on both the work of President
Clinton's Project XL--standing for excellence and leadership--and the
Aspen Institute which undertook a 3-year effort to reach consensus
among a wide group of divergent interests on an alternative path to
achieving a cleaner, cheaper way to protect and enhance the
environment. The Aspen Institute's work resulted in an excellent
report, ``The Alternative Path, A Cleaner, Cheaper Way to Protect and
Enhance the Environment.''
This bill modifies legislation introduced at the end of last
Congress. At that time, I indicated that I welcomed all proposals and
suggestions on how to alter and improve the bill. I have received a
significant number of comments from industry, governmental and
environmental group representatives. The new bill attempts to reflect
many of those comments, in addition to a new GAO report examining EPA's
reinvention efforts, ``Challenges Facing EPA's Efforts to Reinvent
Environmental Regulation,'' and a recently released report by the
National Academy of Public Administration, ``Resolving the Paradox of
Environmental Protection.'' The National Academy report recommends
statutory authorization for EPA's XL program.
There is clearly a wide consensus in this country that our
environmental laws have performed remarkably well. As the writer Gregg
Easterbrook has pointed out, environmental protection is probably the
single greatest success story of American government in the period
since World War II.
In many cases, however, we need to do more to provide the level of
protection most Americans expect from government. For example, over one
third of our rivers and lakes still do not fully meet water quality
standards. Health advisories for eating fish have increased. The number
of people suffering from asthma has reached epidemic proportions in
some communities, particularly among children.
Pollution prevention--preventing pollution before it occurs--is one
approach that can help us do both better both in terms of protecting
the environment and actually saving companies money. The greater
efficiency resulting from less waste disposal and reduced use of toxic
chemicals can significantly bolster the competitiveness of companies.
Recently, I listened to a presentation indicating that perhaps the
Nation is not doing as well in pollution prevention as we should be. A
l995 report by the research group INFORM, ``Toxics Watch l995,''
reviewed thousands of documents submitted by industry to EPA to show
whether progress was made to further pollution prevention. While 25
percent of the forms indicated some effort in pollution prevention had
been made, the remaining 75 percent gave no such indication. And,
according to INFORM, while some leading companies have taken major
pollution prevention steps, the broader picture is troublesome: total
waste generation is increasing.
While these facts show there is clearly a need to improve protection
of our environment and pollution prevention, there is just as clearly a
need to review our methods of environmental protection in order to find
better, more efficient, more innovative ways to achieve greater
progress toward meeting our environmental goals. In some cases, the
traditional approaches to regulation have hindered companies from doing
a better job at pollution prevention.
There is a growing consensus that innovative environmental strategies
can form the basis for a new approach to environmental protection that
will

[[Page S11458]]

achieve superior environmental results, including greater pollution
prevention, at less cost for regulated industry. This consensus can be
seen, for example, in the work of the President's Council on
Sustainable Development which brought together leaders from government,
environmental, civil rights, labor and native American organizations in
an effort to achieve consensus on national environmental, economic and
social goals, as well as in the work of the Aspen Institute.
This bill establishes an innovative environmental strategies program
at EPA. The Administrator of EPA is authorized to enter into
approximately 50 agreements with regulated entities seeking
modifications or waivers from environmental requirements if certain
criteria are met. The basic premise of the bill is that better
environmental performance can be achieved by allowing environmental
managers at companies, in partnership with an active group of community
stakeholders, to develop their own means of reaching environmental
goals. This approach recognizes that the regulated industry is now in
an excellent position to experiment and decide what approaches will
yield better environmental results than the company is achieving under
existing regulations. Allowing flexibility can substantially reduce
compliance costs and make industries more competitive, provide for much
greater community involvement in the decisions of their neighboring
industrial plants, foster more cooperative partnerships, and encourage
greater innovation and pollution prevention.
Another key element of this program is incorporating the lessons
learned from the innovative environmental strategies into the overall
regulatory structure of the Agency, where appropriate.
While the bill authorizes approximately 50 innovative strategy
agreements, these individual strategies should have widespread benefits
for other companies as the Agency incorporates the lessons learned into
its overall approach to environmental protection.
Let me discuss a few specific provisions of the bill.
First, the bill establishes benchmarks from which to determine
whether better environmental results will be achieved under the
innovative environmental strategy. For existing facilities, the
benchmark generally will be either the level of releases of a pollutant
into the air, land or water actually being achieved by the facility or
the level of releases allowed under the applicable regulatory
requirements and reasonably foreseeable future requirements, whichever
is lower. The Administrator is given some flexibility in determining
the appropriate measurement for the benchmark. For example, measuring
releases per unit of production encourages pollution prevention but may
result in releases of concern to the community; the Administrator
should take both these factors into account in determining whether a
per unit measurement is appropriate. The Administrator shall determine
whether an innovative environmental strategy achieves better
environmental results based on the magnitude of reduction in the level
of releases or improvement in pollution prevention relative to each
benchmark. In addition, the Administrator shall evaluate other benefits
that would result from the strategy. These include whether the strategy
results in environmental performance more protective than the best
performance practice of comparable facilities or improvement in
environmental conditions that are priorities to stakeholders, even if
those conditions are not regulated under EPA statutes.
Different types of innovative environmental strategies are possible
under this legislation. For example, in some cases, a facility may
demonstrate better environmental results by showing a reduction in
releases of pollutants and, in exchange, seek a modification of
reporting or other paperwork requirements. In other cases, a facility
may demonstrate better environmental results by showing a reduction in
releases of pollutants, but seek modification of a rule to allow for
flexibility with respect to emission levels at different sources within
the facility. There may be some cases where the innovative
environmental strategy would result in large decreases in some
pollutants while resulting in a small increase in another pollutant.
But there are a number of specific requirements that must be met under
those circumstances. Among other requirements, the Administrator must
determine, based on a well-established analytic methodology acceptable
both to the Administrator and the stakeholders, that the strategy will
achieve better overall environmental results with an adequate margin of
safety and will not result in an increase in the risk of adverse
effects or shift the risk of adverse effects to the health of an
individual, population, or natural resource affected by the strategy. I
recognize that it is difficult to make such determinations because we
have inadequate information about many chemicals and we often do not
know how properly to evaluate cumulative or synergistic effects. The
Administrator should pay close attention to these factors in evaluating
projects. These examples are only illustrative of a range of potential
projects.

The bill also provides that in appropriate cases, the Administrator
may establish a benchmark for measuring better environmental
performance based on pollution prevention.
The bill requires that the innovative environmental strategy provide
a means and level of accountability, monitoring, enforceability and
public access to information for all enforceable provisions at least
equivalent to that provided by the rule that is being modified or
waived. A related requirement is that adequate information must be made
accessible so that any member of the public can verify environmental
performance. Other requirements that must be met by the petitioner are
set forth in section 7.
Effective stakeholder participation is the second key element of the
legislation. Any company submitting a proposal must undertake a
stakeholder participation process. One of the criteria for approval of
a project by EPA is that the stakeholders have obtained adequate
independent technical support for an effective stakeholder process.
Under the bill, the stakeholder process is open to anyone, except a
business competitor, subject to manageability factors. The stakeholder
group should genuinely represent the full range of interests affected
by projects and the policies to be shaped by projects. Involving
citizens, including workers and members of the local community, in the
development of an innovative environmental strategy is absolutely
critical. Companies that have formulated successful innovative
environmental strategies have told me that without the support of the
local community these strategies simply will not work. Empowerment of
the local community through stakeholder processes will help build trust
and make implementation of the agreement easier. In other words, the
innovative environmental strategy should be a partnership between the
proponent and the stakeholders.
The bill requires the Administrator to give great weight to the views
of the stakeholders. Obtaining broad community support for the
strategy, as shown through stakeholder support, is very important.
Additionally, the stakeholders and the proponent of the strategy may
decide as part of the guidelines setting up the stakeholder process,
that the stakeholders as a group or individual stakeholder participants
should have a veto right with respect to whether the strategy goes
forward. If the proponent still presents a proposal for the strategy
even with such objections, the Administrator is required to reject the
strategy if the objection has a clear and reasonable foundation and
relates to the criteria for approval. The principle here is simple:
stakeholders and the facility owner need to come to agreement on the
guidelines that will govern the project. This agreement on the
guidelines should be reached at the start of the process. It must be
followed; if not, the Administrator will not be able to make the
finding that the requirements of section 6 of the statute have been
met.
The bill also attempts to address the recommendations made in the GAO
report of July 1997, ``Challenges Facing EPA's Efforts to Reinvent
Environmental Regulation'', which examined EPA's XL program. First, the
GAO concludes that EPA will be limited in its ability to truly reinvent
environmental regulation without legislative changes. Second, the GAO
recommends

[[Page S11459]]

that the Agency's reinvention initiatives include an evaluation
component measuring the extent to which the initiative has achieved its
intended effect. Therefore, the bill requires that, within 18 months
after entering into an agreement, the Administrator provide a report
evaluating whether the lessons learned from a particular strategy can
be incorporated into the overall regulatory or statutory structure of
the Agency. The legislation also requires a broader report to Congress
within 3 years.
Finally, the GAO proposes that EPA develop a systematic process that
would help address problems that come up during reinvention projects in
a timely fashion. This process should be set up to identify the kinds
of problems that can be resolved at lower levels within the Agency and
which should be elevated for management's attention. While the bill
does not specifically address this recommendation, I hope that EPA will
seriously examine how it can implement this constructive
recommendation.
As the GAO report notes, the EPA has undertaken a broad range of
reinvention efforts. This legislation in no way affects the ability of
EPA to proceed under its appropriate authorities with those efforts,
including agreements under XL.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be
included in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1348

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 ``Innovative Environmental
Strategies Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) superior environmental performance can be achieved in
some cases by granting regulated entities the flexibility to
develop innovative environmental strategies for achieving
environmental results in partnership with affected
stakeholders;
(2) innovative environmental strategies also have the
potential to--
(A) substantially reduce compliance costs;
(B) foster cooperative partnerships among industry,
government, public interest groups, and local communities;
(C) encourage regulated entities to meet and exceed
environmental obligations through greater innovation and
greater pollution prevention; and
(D) increase the involvement of members of the local
community and other citizens in decisions relating to the
environmental performance goals and priorities of a facility;
and
(3) the lessons learned from successful innovative
environmental strategies should be incorporated into the
broader system of environmental regulation.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means the Environmental
Protection Agency.
(3) Agency rule.--
(A) In general.--The term ``agency rule'' means a rule (as
defined in section 551 of title 5, United States Code)
promulgated by the agency.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``agency rule'' does not
include--
(i) an emissions reduction requirement under title IV of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.); or
(ii) a requirement under subtitle B of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C.
11021 et seq.).
(4) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual,
trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation (including a
government corporation), partnership, association, State,
Indian tribe, municipality, commission, political subdivision
of a State, interstate body, or department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States.

SEC. 4. INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Proposal.--A person that owns or operates a facility
that is subject to an agency rule, requirement, policy, or
practice may submit to the Administrator a proposal for an
innovative environmental strategy for achieving better
environmental results.
(2) Agreement.--If the Administrator finds that the
requirements of section 7 are met and approves the proposed
strategy, the Administrator may enter into an innovative
environmental strategy agreement with respect to the
facility.
(3) Contents.--An agreement under paragraph (1)--
(A) may--
(i) modify or waive otherwise applicable agency rules,
requirements, policies, or practices;
(ii) establish new environmental standards for a facility;
or
(iii) establish new requirements not contained in existing
agency rules or existing environmental statutes;
(B) may not contravene the specific terms of a statute; and
(C) should further the purposes of applicable environmental
statutes.
(b) Cosponsor.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish
procedures under which a person other than the owner or
operator of a facility may cosponsor a proposal.
(2) Priority.--The Administrator shall give priority to
proposals co-sponsored by a stakeholder group.

SEC. 5. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL.

(a) Contents of Proposal.--A proposal for an innovative
environmental strategy shall be clearly and concisely written
and shall--
(1) identify any agency rule, requirement, policy, or
practice for which a modification or waiver is sought and any
alternative requirement that is proposed;
(2) describe the proposed innovative environmental strategy
and the facility to which the strategy would pertain; and
(3) demonstrate the manner in which the innovative
environmental strategy is expected to meet the requirements
of section 7.
(b) Preliminary Review.--The Administrator shall review the
proposal and determine whether, in the Administrator's sole
discretion, the proposed strategy is sufficiently promising
that the Administrator is prepared to enter into negotiations
toward execution of an innovative environmental strategy
agreement.
(c) Notification.--The Administrator shall notify the
proponent of a determination under subsection (b) not later
than 90 days after submission, unless the proponent agrees to
a longer review.

SEC. 6. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS.

(a) In General.--The proponent of a proposal under section
5 shall--
(1) upon approval of the proposal for negotiation toward an
agreement, undertake a stakeholder participation process in
accordance with this section; and
(2) work to ensure that there is adequate independent
technical support for an effective stakeholder process.
(b) Development of Process.--
(1) In general.--The stakeholder participation process
shall be developed by the stakeholders and the proponent, in
consultation with the Administrator.
(2) Requirements.--The stakeholder participation process
shall--
(A) be balanced and representative of interests that may be
affected by the proposed strategy;
(B) ensure opportunities for public access to the process
and make publicly available in a timely manner the
proceedings of the stakeholder participation process, except
with respect to confidential business information;
(C) establish procedures for conducting the stakeholder
participation process, including open meetings as
appropriate;
(D) if necessary, provide for appropriate agreements to
protect confidential business information; and
(E) establish guidelines for the role of stakeholders,
individually and as a group or subgroup, in the development
of the strategy, including whether the stakeholders have an
advisory, consultative, decisionmaking or veto role with
respect to the strategy.
(c) FACA.--A stakeholder process satisfying the
requirements of this section shall not be subject to the
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.).
(d) Public Notice of Application.--After a proposal is
approved for negotiation toward an agreement, the proponent
shall provide public notice of the proposal in a manner,
approved by the Administrator, that is reasonably calculated
to reach potentially interested parties including--
(1) community groups;
(2) environmental groups;
(3) potentially affected employees;
(4) persons living near or working in or near the affected
facility; and
(5) relevant Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies.
(e) Participation.--
(1) In general.--A person that, not later than 60 days
after the date on which public notice is first given under
subsection (c), notifies the proponent of the person's
intention to participate in the stakeholder participation
process may participate in the process, except that a person
that has a business interest in competition with that of the
proponent may be excluded.
(2) Additional stakeholders.--Additional stakeholders may
be added by the proponent, the Administrator or the
stakeholder group after the stakeholder group is initially
constituted in order to ensure full representation of all
potentially affected interests throughout the process,
including representation with respect to any new issues that
may be raised during the process, and to ensure that
appropriate expert assistance is available for the
stakeholders.
(f) Limitation on Number of Participants.--
(1) In general.--In order to provide for a manageable
stakeholder process, the Administrator may limit the number
of stakeholder participants if the Administrator determines
that the stakeholder participants adequately represent, in a
balanced manner, the full range of interests (excluding
competitive business interests) that may be affected by the
innovative environmental strategy.

[[Page S11460]]

(2) Notice.--Before approving a limit on the number of
stakeholder participants, the Administrator shall ensure that
appropriate notice was provided to each of the groups
identified in subsection (d).
(3) Additional stakeholders.--Notwithstanding any limit on
the number of stakeholders that may be approved, additional
stakeholders may be added to meet the requirements of
subsection (e).
(g) Negotiation.--After the stakeholder group has been
identified, and procedures for the stakeholder process have
been agreed on under subsection (b)(2)(E), the proponent, the
stakeholders, and the Administrator shall initiate the
process of negotiating toward an innovative environmental
strategy agreement.

SEC. 7. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL.

(a) In General.--The Administrator may enter into an
innovative environmental strategy agreement if the
Administrator determines that--
(1) the strategy is expected to achieve better
environmental results (as determined under subsection (c));
(2) the strategy has potential value as a model for future
changes in the broader regulatory structure or as a
demonstration of new technologies or measures with potential
for reducing pollution on a broader scale;
(3) the strategy provides for access to information
adequate to enable verification of environmental performance
by any interested person;
(4) the strategy provides a means and level of
accountability, transparency, monitoring, reporting, and
public and agency access to information relating to
activities being carried out under an innovative
environmental strategy that is at least equivalent to that
provided under the agency rule, requirement, policy, or
practice that the agreement seeks to modify or waive,
including reporting of the benchmarks in the agreement;
(5) no person or populations would be subjected to unjust
or disproportionate adverse environmental impacts as a result
of implementation of the strategy;
(6) the strategy will ensure worker health and safety
protections that are the same or superior to those provided
under existing law;
(7) the strategy is not expected to result in adverse
transport of a pollutant;
(8) any Federal, State, tribal, or local environmental
agencies required to be signatories under section 8(c) are
prepared to sign the agreement and the consultation required
under section 8(c)(3) has occurred;
(9) the stakeholder participation process met the
requirements of section 6, and the stakeholders have obtained
adequate independent technical support for an effective
process;
(10) there is broad community support for the strategy, as
shown by stakeholder support and other relevant factors; and
(11) the strategy is expected to reduce regulatory burdens
or provide other social or economic benefits.
(b) Other Considerations.--In determining whether to enter
into an agreement, or to negotiate toward an agreement, the
Administrator shall consider--
(1) whether the facility has a strong record of compliance
with environmental and public health regulations and whether
the proponent has demonstrated a strong commitment to achieve
pollution prevention with respect to the facility;
(2) the extent to which the strategy involves new
approaches to environmental protection and multimedia
pollution prevention;
(3) the extent to which there is a link between the
modification or waiver sought, the better environmental
results expected, and other benefits; and
(4) the feasibility of the strategy and the ability of the
proponent to carry out the strategy.
(c) Better Environmental Results.--
(1) Evaluation.--The Administrator shall determine whether
a strategy is expected to achieve better environmental
results based on the magnitude of reduction in the level of
releases or improvement in pollution prevention relative to
each benchmark established under paragraphs (4) through (7);
(2) Other considerations.--In addition to making the
determination under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall
evaluate the extent to which the strategy--
(A) results in environmental performance more protective
than the best performance practice of comparable facilities;
(B) relies on pollution prevention;
(C) incorporates continuous improvement toward ambitious
quantitative environmental goals;
(D) produces clear reduction of risk, based on a well-
accepted analytical method acceptable to the Administrator
and the stakeholders;
(E) improves environmental conditions that are priorities
to stakeholders, including conditions not regulated under
statutes administered by the agency;
(F) reflects historic demonstration of leadership in
environmental performance of the facility;
(G) substantially addresses community and public health
priorities of concern to stakeholders, including concerns not
addressed under statutes administered by the agency;
(H) addresses other factors that the Administrator
determines clearly improve environmental performance in the
context of a specific strategy; and
(I) includes reductions in releases or improvement in
pollution prevention in addition to those considered by the
Administrator for purposes of paragraph (1).
(3) Findings.--The Administrator shall provide findings
setting forth the basis for the determination that the
innovative environmental strategy is expected to achieve
better environmental results. If the Administrator determines
that the magnitude of reduction in the level of releases or
improvement in pollution prevention would be a reduction or
improvement, but not a significant reduction or improvement,
the Administrator may approve a proposal only if the
Administrator determines that the strategy is expected to
result in a clear and substantial improvement in
environmental protection, considering the other factors in
this subsection.
(4) Benchmark.--The benchmark for releases of each
pollutant into the air, water, or land shall be as follows:
(A) Existing facilities.--For existing facilities, the
benchmark shall be the lesser of--
(i) the level of releases of each pollutant into the air,
water, or and being achieved before the date of submission of
the proposal; or
(ii) the level of releases of each pollutant into the air,
water, or land allowed under applicable regulatory
requirements and any reasonably anticipated future regulatory
requirements;

except that the Administrator may, based on extraordinary
site-specific circumstances, modify the level under
subparagraph (A)(i) on a case by case basis for a facility
that has reduced releases significantly below applicable
regulatory requirements before the date of submission of the
proposal.
(B) New or modified facilities.--For new or significantly
expanded facilities, the benchmark shall be based on the
lesser of--
(i) the level of releases of each pollutant into the air,
water, or land allowed under applicable regulatory
requirements and any reasonably anticipated future regulatory
requirements; or
(ii) the level of releases of each pollutant into the air,
water, or land based on best industry practices.
(5) Pollution prevention.--
(A) No release of a pollutant.--In appropriate
circumstances not involving release of a pollutant, the
Administrator may establish a pollution prevention benchmark
to evaluate changes in inputs to production of materials or
substances of potential environmental or public health
concern.
(B) Release of a pollutant.--In circumstances involving a
release of a pollutant, the Administrator may establish a
pollution prevention benchmark in addition to the benchmark
under paragraph (4).
(6) Basis of measurement.--A benchmark may be established
on the basis of total emissions, on a per-unit of production
basis, or on a comparable basis of measurement, as determined
by the Administrator.
(7) Other considerations.--The Administrator may determine
that the requirements of this section are met if a benchmark
is not met, if--
(A) with respect to other benchmarks, the strategy achieves
a significant increment of reduced level of releases below
that permitted by the benchmark;
(B) the strategy, based on a well-established analytic
methodology acceptable to the Administrator and the
stakeholders--
(i) is expected to achieve overall better environmental
results with an adequate margin of safety;
(ii) is not expected to result in an increase in the risk
of adverse effects, or shift the risk of adverse effects, to
the health of an individual, population, or natural resource
affected by the strategy; and
(iii) is expected to achieve clear risk reduction; and
(C) the strategy is not expected to result in an exceedance
of an ecological, health, or risk-based environmental
standard.
(d) Views of Stakeholders.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall give great weight
to the views of individual stakeholders and to the
stakeholders as a group in determining whether to approve or
disapprove a strategy.
(2) Stakeholders with decisionmaking role.--The
Administrator shall deny a proposal if--
(A) the stakeholder group and the proponent have determined
under section 6 that the group, any subgroup, or 1 or more
individual stakeholders in the group will have the ability to
veto a decision by the proponent to go forward with the
strategy;
(B) the group or 1 or more stakeholders objects to the
strategy; and
(C) the Administrator determines that the objection relates
to the criteria stated in section 7 and that the objection
has a clear and reasonable foundation.

SEC. 8. FINAL DETERMINATION ON AGREEMENT.

(a) Proposal.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which negotiations are initiated under section 6(g) or such
later date as may be agreed to by the proponent and the
stakeholders, the Administrator shall--
(A) provide public notice and opportunity to comment on a
proposed innovative environmental strategy agreement; or
(B) notify the proponent and the stakeholder group that the
Administrator does not intend to enter into an agreement.
(2) Form of notice.--Public notice under paragraph (1)
shall be provided by--
(A) publishing a notice in the Federal Register; and

[[Page S11461]]

(B) providing public notice to persons potentially
interested in the strategy in the manner described in section
6(d).
(3) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be not
less than 30 days, and shall be extended by an additional 30
days if an extension is requested by any person not later
than 15 days after the beginning of the public comment
period.
(b) Final Decision.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of
the public comment period, the Administrator shall determine
whether to enter into an agreement, and shall give notice of
the determination in the same manner as notice was given of
the proposed agreement.
(2) Response.--The Administrator--
(A) shall respond to comments received; and
(B) may modify the agreement in response to the comments.
(c) Signatories.--
(1) In general.--The parties to an innovative environmental
strategy agreement--
(A) shall include the Administrator, the proponent, and any
Federal, State, or local agency or Indian tribe with
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the agreement under
this Act; and
(B) may include a stakeholder.
(2) Joint rules requirements and policies.--If an agreement
waives or modifies a rule, requirement, or policy issued by
the agency jointly with another Federal agency, the other
Federal agency shall be a signatory to the agreement.
(3) Consultation.--The Administrator shall consult with and
consider the views of any Federal agency with management
responsibility or regulatory or enforcement authority over
land or natural resources that may be affected by the
strategy.

SEC. 9. STATE ROLE.

(a) In General.--If a proposed strategy involves waiving or
modifying requirements imposed under State, tribal, or local
law, the Administrator shall not approve an agreement unless
procedures required under those laws for such waiver or
modification are followed in addition to the execution of the
innovative environmental strategy agreement.
(b) Part of Federal Program.--If a proposed strategy
involves waiving or modifying requirements of State, tribal,
or local law that are part of an authorized or delegated
Federal program, execution of an innovative environmental
strategy agreement by the Administrator and by the State,
Indian tribe, or local government shall be deemed to provide
authorization or approval of the program as modified by the
agreement.

SEC. 10. ENFORCEABILITY.

(a) Specification of Enforceable Provisions.--
(1) Definition of voluntary commitment.--In this section,
the term ``voluntary commitment'' means a commitment that the
parties to the agreement consider to be a necessary part of
the strategy but is not enforceable under this section.
(2) Inclusion in agreement.--An innovative environmental
strategy agreement shall include enforceable requirements and
may include voluntary commitments.
(3) Enforceable requirements.--
(A) Identification.--Enforceable requirements shall be
clearly identified and distinguished in the agreement from
voluntary commitments.
(B) Inclusion of all necessary actions.--In all cases,
enforceable requirements shall include, at a minimum, all
actions necessary to achieve better environmental results
relied upon by the Administrator for purposes of section
7(c)(1), and all accountability, monitoring, reporting, and
public and agency access requirements mandated by paragraphs
(3) and (4) of section 7(a).
(4) Voluntary commitments.--Failure to implement a
voluntary commitment may constitute a ground for termination
of the agreement.
(b) Treatment of Agreement as Permit, Condition, or
Requirement.--
(1) Definition of otherwise applicable requirement.--In
this subsection, the term ``otherwise-applicable
requirement'' means a rule, permit, condition, policy,
practice, or other requirement that an innovative
environmental strategy agreement modifies, waives, or
replaces.
(2) Identification of enforceable requirements.--An
innovative environmental strategy agreement shall state in a
separate section designated ``Enforceable Requirements'' all
of the enforceable requirements of the agreement.
(3) Identification of modified, otherwise waived or
relocated requirements.--An innovative environmental strategy
agreement shall identify (including citation to the specific
provision of a statute or rule), with respect to each
enforceable requirement, each otherwise-applicable
requirement that the agreement waives, modifies, or replaces.
(4) Treatment.--Each enforceable requirement shall be
deemed, for purposes of enforcement, to be a permit issued
under, a condition imposed by, or a requirement of the
statute or rule under which the otherwise-applicable
requirement that the agreement modifies, waives, or replaces
was imposed.
(5) Enforceability.--Each enforceable requirement shall be
enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent (by the
United States, by a State or Indian tribe, or by any other
person) as the otherwise-applicable requirement would have
been enforceable but for the agreement.
(6) New enforceable requirement derived from or imposed
under current law.--An enforceable requirement that does not
modify, waive, or replace a requirement shall be enforceable
in the same manner and to the same extent as a permit,
condition, or requirement under the statute or rule from or
under which the enforceable requirement derives or is
imposed.
(7) Enforceable requirement that does not modify, waive, or
replace another requirement.--If an enforceable requirement
does not derive from or is not imposed under any statutory or
regulatory provision, the agreement shall specify the statute
under which the enforceable requirement shall be deemed to be
imposed for purposes of enforcement and shall be enforceable
(by the United States, a State, Indian tribe, and by other
persons) in the same manner and to the same extent as a
permit, condition, or requirement under that statute or
regulation.
(8) Emergency or imminent hazard authority.--Nothing in
this Act limits or affects the Administrator's emergency or
imminent hazard authorities.
(c) Specification of Affected Requirements.--
(1) In general.--When the Administrator approves an
innovative environmental strategy agreement under subsection
(a), the Administrator shall specify in the agreement each
rule, requirement, policy, or practice that is modified or
waived by the innovative agreement.
(2) No modification or waiver.--Each rule, requirement,
policy, or practice not specified pursuant to the preceding
sentence is not modified and waived.
(d) Termination or Modification of Agreement.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator may terminate or modify
an innovative environmental strategy agreement if the
Administrator determines that--
(A) the strategy fails or will fail to achieve the better
environmental results identified pursuant to section 7;
(B) better environmental results are no longer being
achieved by the strategy by reason of the enactment of a new
provision of law or promulgation of a new regulation;
(C) there has been noncompliance with the terms of the
agreement (including a voluntary commitment);
(D) there has been a change or transfer in ownership or
operational control of the facility to which the agreement
relates, or a material change, alteration, or addition to the
facility; or
(E) any other event specified in the agreement as a ground
for termination or modification has occurred.
(2) Effect.--On termination of an innovative environmental
strategy agreement, the owner or operator of the facility to
which the agreement related shall immediately become subject
to each otherwise-applicable requirement (as defined in
subsection (b)).
(e) Term of Agreement.--
(1) In general.--The term of an innovative environmental
strategy agreement shall not exceed 5 years, unless the
Administrator determines, after considering the views of the
stakeholders, that--
(A) a longer period of time is required--
(i) to achieve the better environmental results identified
under section 7; or
(ii) in a case in which a proponent is making a substantial
investment in reliance on the agreement, to ensure a
reasonable degree of confidence that the investment will be
recovered; and
(B) the requirements of section 7 continue to be met.
(2) Extension or renewal.--In consultation with the
stakeholders and with the concurrence of the signatories to
the agreement and after public notice and opportunity for
comment consistent with section 8, the Administrator may
extend or renew an agreement for an additional term or terms,
but the Administrator may not extend or renew an agreement if
the extension or renewal would not further the purposes of
this Act or the strategy would no longer meet the
requirements of section 7.

SEC. 11. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Failure To Perform Nondiscretionary Act or Duty.--
(1) In general.--Any person may commence a civil action in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
against the Administrator for failure to perform an act or
duty under this Act that is not discretionary with the
Administrator.
(2) Timing.--No action may be commenced under subsection
(a) before the date that is 60 days after the date on which
the plaintiff gives notice to the Administrator of the act or
duty that the Administrator has failed to perform and of the
intent of the plaintiff to commence the action.
(b) Decision To Enter Into Agreement.--
(1) In general.--A person other than a signatory to an
innovative environmental strategy agreement may seek judicial
review of a decision by the Administrator to enter into such
an agreement in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Appeal.--A petition on appeal of a judgment in a civil
action under this subsection shall be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
not later than 90 days after the date on which public notice
of the decision to enter into the agreement is published
under section 8(b).
(c) No Judicial Review of or Record Justification for
Decision Not To Enter Into

[[Page S11462]]

Agreement.--A decision not to enter into, modify, renew, or
enter into negotiations toward an innovative environmental
strategy agreement and decisions under section 6 regarding
the stakeholder process shall not be subject to judicial
review and shall not require record justification by the
Administrator.

SEC. 12. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall not enter into
more than 50 innovative environmental strategy agreements
unless, in the Administrator's sole discretion, and taking
into account the full range of the agency's obligations, the
Administrator determines that adequate resources exist to
enter into a greater number of agreements.
(b) Limit.--The Administrator, in the Administrator's sole
discretion, may limit the number of agreements to less than
50.
(c) Priority Consideration Diversity.--The Administrator
shall--
(1) give priority consideration to proposals from small
businesses; and
(2) seek to ensure that the agreements entered into reflect
proposals from a diversity of industrial sectors,
particularly from sectors where there is significant
potential for environmental improvement.

SEC. 13. SMALL BUSINESS PROPOSALS.

The Administrator shall establish a program to facilitate
development of proposals for innovative environmental
strategies from small businesses and groups of small
businesses and to provide for expedited and tailored review
of such proposals.

SEC. 14. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

(a) Effect of Decisions by the Administrator.--A decision
by the Administrator to enter into an agreement under this
Act shall not affect the validity or applicability of any
rule, requirement, policy, or practice, that is modified or
waived in the agreement with respect to any facility other
than the facility that is subject to the agreement.
(b) Other Agreements.--Nothing in this Act affects the
authority of the Administrator in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act to enter into or carry out agreements
providing for innovative environmental strategies or affects
any other existing authority under which the Administrator
may undertake innovative initiatives.
(c) Other Federal Agencies.--Nothing in this Act affects
the regulatory or enforcement authority of any other Federal
agency under the laws implemented by the Federal agency
except to the extent provided in an agreement to which the
other Federal agency is a party.
(d) Limits on Purposes and Uses of Agreements.--An
agreement under this Act--
(1) may not be adopted for the purpose of curing or
addressing past or ongoing violations or noncompliance at a
participating facility;
(2) may not be used as a legal or equitable defense by any
party or facility not party to the agreement, or by a party
to the agreement as a defense in an action unrelated to any
requirement imposed under the agreement;
(3) shall not limit or affect the Administrator's authority
to issue new generally applicable regulations or to apply
regulations to the facility that is the subject of the
agreement;
(4) shall not give rise to any claim for damages or
compensation in the event of a change in statutes or
regulations applicable to such facility; and
(5) shall not be admissible for any purpose in any judicial
proceeding other than a proceeding to challenge, defend, or
enforce the agreement.
(e) Applicable Law.--
(1) Contract law.--An innovative environmental strategy
agreement--
(A) shall not be interpreted or applied according to
contract law principles; and
(B) shall not be subject to contract or other common law
defenses.
(2) OSHA.--For purposes of section 4(b)(1) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
653(b)(1)), the exercise by the Administrator of any
authority under this Act shall not be deemed to constitute or
exercise of authority to prescribe or enforce a standard or
regulation affecting occupational safety or health.

SEC. 15. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

(a) Evaluation.--The Administrator shall establish an
ongoing process with public participation to--
(1) evaluate lessons learned from innovative environmental
strategies; and
(2) determine whether the approaches embodied in an
innovative environmental strategy should be proposed for
incorporation in an agency rule.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Individual strategies.--Not later than 18 months after
entering into an innovative environmental strategy agreement,
the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report
evaluating whether the approaches embodied in an innovative
environmental strategy should be proposed for incorporation
in a statute or a regulation.
(2) Aggregate effect.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit
to Congress a report on the aggregate effect of the
innovative environmental strategy agreements entered into
under this Act, including--
(A) the number and characteristics of the agreements;
(B) estimates of the environmental and public health
benefits, including any reductions in quantities or types of
emissions and wastes generated;
(C) estimates of the effect on compliance costs;
(D) the degree and nature of public participation and
accountability;
(E) estimates of nonenvironmental benefits obtained;
(F) conclusions on the functioning of the stakeholder
participation process; and
(G) a comparison of effectiveness of the program relative
to comparable State programs, using comparable performance
measures.

SEC. 16. IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITY.

The Administrator may issue such regulations as are
necessary to carry out the agency's functions under this Act.

SEC. 17. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

The Administrator may establish a program to provide grants
for technical assistance to stakeholder groups.

SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the agency to
carry out this Act $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999
through 2003 (including such sums as are necessary to provide
technical assistance to stakeholder groups).
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 1349. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Prince Nova, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

THE CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICE ACT OF 1997

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator
Lieberman legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, commonly
known as the Jones Act, to allow Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., to
purchase, rebuild, and operate the 1964 Canadian-built vessel Prince
Nova. Faced with an increased demand for its services and a shortage of
suitable U.S.-built ferries, Cross Sound cannot purchase a domestically
built vessel.
Cross Sound Ferry Services, a family owned, nonsubsidized operation,
provides auto, truck, and high speed passenger service between Orient
Point, NY, and New London, CT. According to the proposed waiver, Cross
Sound will purchase the Prince Nova, and spend more than three times
the purchase price, no less than $4.2 million, on the conversion,
restoration, repair, rebuilding, or retrofitting of the ferry in a
shipyard located in New London.
Cross Sound Ferry Service, a vital link between New England and
eastern Long Island, provides an alternative mode of transportation
that saves trucks and autos up to 200 miles in each direction, and
reduces traffic, congestion, and wear on major roadways. From an
environmental standpoint, ferry service reduces fuel consumption and
pollution. Currently, the I-95 corridor throughout the Northeast is
under a tremendous traffic burden. If the waiver is granted, it is
expected that the new and expanded service the Prince Nova will provide
will save 6 million miles and 360,000 travel hours.
Cross Sound's commitment to service the Prince Nova in a United
States shipyard will create high-skilled, high-wage jobs. Additionally,
this waiver will undoubtably better facilitate commerce and encourage
economic development in the region by allowing consumers easier access
to goods and services. Furthermore, it will provide businesses with an
additional mode to transport their products.
An identical waiver was passed last week in the House of
Representatives as part of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1997.
It is our hope that it will receive the same favorable consideration in
the Senate.
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. 1349

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

SECTION 1. DOCUMENTATION OF THE VESSEL PRINCE NOVA.

(a) Documentation Authorized.--Notwithstanding section 27
of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883),
section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, chapter
421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,
United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement
for employment in the coastwise trade

[[Page S11463]]

for the vessel PRINCE NOVA (Canadian registration number
320804).
(b) Expiration of Certificate.--A certificate of
documentation issued for the vessel under subsection (a)
shall expire unless--
(1) the vessel undergoes conversion, reconstruction,
repair, rebuilding, or retrofitting in a shipyard located in
the United States;
(2) the cost of that conversion, reconstruction, repair,
rebuilding, or retrofitting is not less than the greater of--
(A) 3 times the purchase value of the vessel before the
conversion, reconstruction, repair, rebuilding, or
retrofitting; or
(B) $4,200,000; and
(3) not less than an average of $1,000,000 is spent
annually in a shipyard located in the United States for
conversion, reconstruction, repair, rebuilding, or
retrofitting of the vessel until the total amount of the cost
required under paragraph (2) is spent.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 1350. A bill to amend section 332 of the Communications Act of
1934 to preserve State and local authority to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of certain telecommunications
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ACT OF 1997

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my
bill to preserve State and local authority to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of telecommunication facilities be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1350

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress make the following findings:
(1) The placement of commercial telecommunications, radio,
or television towers near homes can greatly reduce the value
of such homes, destroy the views from such homes, and reduce
substantially the desire to live in such homes.
(2) States and localities should be able to exercise
control over the construction and location of such towers
through the use of zoning, planned growth, and other controls
relating to the protection of the environment and public
safety.
(3) There are alternatives to the construction of
additional telecommunications towers to meet
telecommunications needs, including the co-location of
antennae on existing towers and the use of alternative
technologies.
(4) On August 19, 1997, the Federal Communications
Commission issued a proposed rule, MM Docket No. 97-182,
which would preempt the application of State and local zoning
and land use ordinances regarding the placement of
telecommunications towers. It is in the interest of the
Nation that the Commission not adopt this rule.
(5) It is in the interest of the Nation that the second
memorandum opinion and order and notice of proposed rule
making of the Commission with respect to application of such
ordinances to the placement of such towers, WT Docket No. 97-
192, ET Docket No. 93-62, and RM-8577, be modified in order
to permit State and local governments to exercise their
zoning and land use authorities, and their power to protect
public health and safety, to regulate the placement of
telecommunications towers and to place the burden of proof in
civil actions relating to the placement of such towers on the
person or entity that seeks to place, construct, or modify
such towers.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To repeal the limitations on the exercise of State and
local authorities regarding the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities that
arise under section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)).
(2) To permit State and local governments to regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of such facilities
on the basis of the environmental effects of the operation of
such facilities.
(3) To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from
adopting rules which would preempt State and local regulation
of the placement of such facilities.

SEC. 2. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.

(a) Repeal of Limitations.--Section 332(c)(7)(B) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``thereof--'' and all that
follows through the end and inserting ``thereof shall not
unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services.'';
(2) by striking clause (iv);
(3) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv); and
(4) in clause (iv), as so redesignated, by striking the
third sentence and inserting the following: ``In any such
action in which a person seeking to place, construct, or
modify a tower facility is a party, such person shall bear
the burden of proof.''.
(b) Prohibition on Adoption of Rule.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission
may not adopt as a final rule the proposed rule set forth in
``Preemption of State and Local Zoning and Land Use
Restrictions on Siting, Placement and Construction of
Broadcast Station Transmission Facilities'', MM Docket No.
97-182, released August 19, 1997.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to continue a discussion
that my colleague, Senator Leahy, began earlier, with regard to the
Federal Communications Commission proposed rulemaking on regulations
for wireless and digital broadcast facilities.
University of Vermont instructor and landscape designer Jean
Veissering recently stated ``We have a real spiritual connection with
hilltops. They tend to be almost sacred ground. Building something
jarringly out of character upon them seems almost like a sacrilege.''
Mr. President, I share Jean's sentiments completely. In addition, it is
the beautiful views of the majestic mountain ranges that in many ways
defines what Vermont is all about.
Vermonters take great pride in their heritage as a State committed to
the ideals of freedom and unity. That heritage goes hand and hand with
a unique quality of life and the desire to grow and develop while
maintaining Vermont's beauty and character. Ethan Allan and his Green
Mountain Boys and countless other independent minded Vermonters helped
shape the Nation's 14th State while making outstanding contributions to
the independence of this country. Today, that independence still
persists in the hills and valleys of Vermont. Vermonters have worked
hard over the years to maintain local control over issues that impact
them directly.
Throughout my years in Congress, I fought hard to protect the ability
of Vermonters to step out of their kitchen doors and see an
unobstructed view. Thousands of Americans travel to Vermont each year
to take in the splendid nature of the State.
However, Vermont could have looked quite different if it were not for
some foresight on behalf of several Vermonters. In the 1960's, the
State of Vermont was entering into a period of unchecked development.
In response, Governor Dean C. Davis created the Commission on
Environmental Control in May of 1969. The commission drafted a set of
recommendations to help manage the precious resources of the State.
As the attorney general for the State at that time, I was one of the
primary drafters of an environmental land use law which would later
become known as Act 250. Act 250 was specifically written to control
development, not to stop development, and in turn, this act has led
Vermont to economic prosperity through balanced environmental
protection.
After reviewing the Commission on Environmental Control's
recommendation and the proposed legislation, Governor Davis made one
very basic, but important change in the legislation. The proposed
legislation had called for a State agency to administer the act. The
Governor was adamant in his belief that the control should be as close
to the people as possible. It is that control which the FCC's proposed
rulemaking is looking to preempt.
Governor Davis' recommendation led to placing the permitting process
in the hands of local environmental review boards with appeal rights to
the Vermont Environmental Board. Thus, the act is administered by men
and women who are directly involved in their communities and thoroughly
familiar with local concerns.
When reviewing an application for new development, the local
environmental review boards take into account the economic needs of the
State along with regional concerns. The review board's underlying goal
is to direct the impact of development toward the positive. The
positive approach has led to a high priority on preserving the
environment, protecting the natural resources, and maintaining the
quality of life of all Vermonters.
On October 9, 1997, the State of Vermont Environmental Board filed
comments with the Federal Communications Commission that stated: ``Far
from being an impediment to personal wireless service deployment,
Vermont's Act 250 demonstrates that the

[[Page S11464]]

path to economic prosperity is through balanced environmental
protection, not preemption of such protection.'' I share the board's
sentiments and feel that the FCC should take no further steps to
preempt Vermont's Act 250 with respect to personal wireless service
facilities.
Mr. President, the Green Mountain State has unique topography,
dominated by rolling valleys and tall mountains. In turn, the citizens
of the State have taken many steps to help preserve the beautiful views
and pristine environment. The determination of the location of visible
transmission towers should remain within the jurisdiction of local
control. I feel that the Telecommunication Act of 1996 recognizes and
protects the interest of local and State government in the area of land
use regulation.
As the attorney general of the State of Vermont at the time of the
enactment of Act 250, I am proud of the role I and many other
Vermonters played in the subsequent management of the precious natural
resources of the State. I support Act 250 and feel that the placement
of communications towers should be left in the hands of the residents
of Vermont not by a Federal agency.
I have written to the Chairman of the FCC with regard to my concerns
about this proposed rulemaking. In addition, yesterday the Senate
confirmed William Kennard to be the next Chairman of the FCC. Upon his
confirmation, I wrote a letter to Chairman Kennard personally inviting
him to the State of Vermont to see first hand how this proposed
rulemaking would impact the State. I hope that he will join me on a
tour of the State which will demonstrate to him the importance of local
control with respect to the placement of broadcast facilities. Further,
I look forward to explaining how Act 250 has allowed for the
development of wireless communication in the State while protecting the
environment.
Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to commend Mr. Leahy for
introducing this very important legislation for the State of Vermont. I
am pleased to be a cosponsor and I look forward to working with him to
protect Vermont's interests unique landscape.
______

By Mr. BURNS:
S. 1351. A bill to amend the Sikes Act to establish a mechanism by
which outdoor recreation programs on military installations will be
accessible to disabled veterans, military dependents with disabilities,
and other persons with disabilities; to the Committee on Armed
Services.

the disabled sportsmen's access act

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Disabled
Sportsmen's Access Act. This legislation will provide new opportunities
for sportsmen with disabilities to hunt and fish on the numerous
Department of Defense facilities across this Nation. This legislation
will also allow the Department of Defense to work with private sector
groups to build facilities and operate programs for the benefit of
sportsmen with disabilities.
The beginnings of this legislation originate from a program developed
at the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, VA. The program, run by Lt. Col.
Lewis Deal, is a prime example of the work that can be done to provide
new opportunities for people with disabilities. Lieutenant Colonel Deal
has combined private sector volunteers work with donations from other
people to build permanent disabled accessible blinds for deer hunting,
which are used during both gun and bow seasons. These blinds provide
people living with disabilities many of the same opportunities for
outdoor recreation that we all enjoy.
There are plans underway at this time to construct a fishing pier on
the Potomac River for access by people with disabilities. This pier is
to be built with lower railings, and stops to provide access and
security for disabled persons.
This legislation, uses the current program at Quantico, to allow the
Department of the Defense to provide access to it's 30 million acres of
wildlands by disabled individuals, as long as it does not interfere
with the primary mission of the military, that of our Nation's defense.
The military installations around the Nation offer a number of
recreational and outdoor activities for both military and civilian
personnel.
This legislation, will encourage the Department of Defense to give
access to individuals with disabilities and allow the Department to
accept donations or money and materials as well as use volunteers for
the construction of facilities accessible to sportsmen with
disabilities. The bill would allow this voluntary work to be done
without cost to the Federal Government or the taxpayer.
Madam President, this legislation has the support of numerous
organizations, including the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans.
Among sportsmen's groups the bill has the endorsement of the Wheeling
Sportsmen of America, Safari Club International, Wildlife Management
Institute, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. I join today with my
friend Congressman Duke Cunningham to bring this important legislation
to the attention of my colleagues.
I hope that all my colleagues in Congress would join Congressman
Cunningham and myself in supporting this legislation for disabled
sportsmen in our country.

____________________